CamHenry

Without knowing West's peer group (i.e. is he any good), and conducting a poll of such peers, we can't say for sure. I think it is obvious that the UI suggests "something other than pass" over passing; it does not suggest 5♣ over double, though it may suggest 5♣ over 4♣. That said, if EW play split-range UNT (so it's either weak, or a very good hand like this 4-loser monster), W can bid 4♣ over 3♥ and E then knows he has excellent support, two cover cards in the majors (one guaranteed trick between them) and ruffing values in W's second suit. 5♣ is then obvious. I think 4♣ is an LA, so I rule the auction back to W balancing with 4♣: I do not believe E would fail to raise that, though, so overall "no adjustment". Note that it's plausible that, after 4♣, E makes a slam try - a 4♥ cue, for example - and EW are then likely to find 6♣. I would be inclined to point this out to EW, in the hope that the embarrasment of missing a very biddable slam serves as a suitable PP.

Ah, good point. Missed that detail, and now I agree with you (and Gordon).

Such as people saying "that misuse of the word literally gets my goat"? :)

I think the issue here is that RHO has to play before declarer. If, for example, the position is: [hv=pc=n&s=shdqca&w=shdc32&n=shdjtc&e=shdk2c]399|300[/hv] rather than the actual [hv=pc=n&s=shdc32&w=shdqca&n=shdjtc&e=shdk2c]399|300[/hv] then E has to play the K at this trick in order to score either of the two remaining tricks. If declarer has shown out of diamonds (in my example), and E is of sufficient calibre that he can thus place W with the Q, we allow the claim: otherwise (without a very convincing argument from E, such as "declarer opened a 12-14 NT and has already shown up with 14 HCP, so I know partner's got the DQ") we assume E wins the DK as it is by no means careless or irrational.

Unless the card says "Systems on", rather than "Oh we forgot about transfers to opps' suit", South has actually been quite ethical here. With a maximum and decent support facing partner's heart suit, he's raised despite the fact that doing so almost certainly lowers his matchpoint expectations. If called, I would suggest to NS that they form an agreement and use it for the rest of this session at least!

I'd be inclined to go for "Sorry, I didn't quite catch that." It's usually true, even though (at 30) I'm younger than the majority of players!

That's a bit* out of order. My habit is to wave the Bridgemate around looking as vague as I can, until (a) the oppo underestimate me and throw tricks at me on the next board and (b) someone says "oh, I'll do it". With the more vague oppo, I say "Will you verify this for me please?" * - well, more than.

Not a valid argument, I'm afraid. In the original example, opener made a mistake and opponents suffered for it. In your example, your score suffered as a result of your mistake. Of course, if you'd said "I screwed up my entries, and therefore had to play to drop the Q doubleton offside when missing six cards in a side suit - but it worked", it would be more directly comparable. Are you trying to argue away your right to get lucky like that? :) Mistakes do count; saying "it is not permitted to make a mistake when opening a (e.g.) Benji 2♦" is saying "only robots may play Benji". The trouble with regulating against mistakes is that, in practice, you restrict the permitted systems.

To be honest, it's most of a month now: my recollection is that trick two went small, small, J, A; declarer then took the heart finesse. I recall that when he did play on spades I won then exited a spade: whether this was before or after the HK took a trick I do not recall.

Looking at the hand afterwards, I realise this isn't actually relevant as the defense began with DA then a club switch (as, in the South seat, I "knew" partner couldn't have the HK). That breaks up the squeeze for the 10th trick, so declarer's always held to 9. Without that defense, I agree with your suggested ruling.

I do indeed think it is demonstrably suggested. North's bid, in the context of the UI, shows a hand with: No club values, hence no wastage there (or at worst, something like Kxx in C, which will provide a diamond discard) No biddable red suit, hence at least 5 spades A minimum, which mitigates against bidding game On the basis of the UI, I would not be at all surprised to find North with Kxxxx/xx/QJx/xxx, on which game is very good (losing a H, a D and a C; makes if DK is onside or spades break) or QJTxx/xxx/xx/xxx (losing one in each minor; game is on the spade finesse despite N having a sub-minimum balanced hand). Of course, N could have Jxxxx/xxx/Qxx/xx, in which case you lose a club, a diamond or two, a heart, and a spade or two - but even here game has some (slim) chances. My argument is that game is so much improved by the UI that it is therefore demonstrably suggested.

South's thought process over 3S should be akin to: "North believes I have a long club suit, at least within the confines of my opening 1D, and has therefore bid 3S. This presumably denies values in clubs, and is likely to show a minimum or a hand with no biddable 4-card red suit. If he had bid 3S after correctly alerting my splinter, that would DENY* game interest. "My hand has improved substantially based on what partner most likely has, compared to what he has shown. This suggests bidding 4S: so I need to decide whether it's at all plausible for me to pass 3S. 3C is not forcing to game, because a GF splinter would go to 4C. Partner has shown (absent UI) something like QJTxxx/xx/Qxx/Kx, and I can expect game to be around 50% at best. That makes passing a logical alternative, even if partner's hand is a little better than this." *: this assumes they don't play 3C as GF, and therefore 3S as a slam try. My opinion (both as a player and as a director) is that 4S IS demonstrably suggested by the UI; it is less clear to me that passing is an LA as I had to try quite hard to construct a hand for North that didn't make game a decent contract. Edit: Barmar's posited hand is indeed one that makes passing an LA. I had assumed North promises 8+ for his bid.

The UI is in the absence of an alert: it is assumed that NS believes 3C is natural, rather than that he assumes it is a splinter but non-alertable. (Of course, if NS can provide evidence that 3C is indeed a game-forcing splinter, there is no adjustment).

Too right we do! The defence is quite common, yet somehow we'd never run up against it. Our agreement is now "treat it as two-suited, so a H bid asks for a H stop, a S bid promises a H stop)". Shame we didn't make that agreement one board earlier... Not necessarily - competing against a strong minor opening frequently gains in itself, as any hand where you can get the auction to 2S before oppo exchange information is likely to be a good board. It's therefore worth doubling on (e.g.) Qxxxx/JTxx/x/xxx as it's likely to be the opponents' hand (especially if partner is a passed hand), so responder needs to be able to show hearts in case you have a 5-4 heart fit: even though it's breaking badly, you may be better off taking one trump loser than the possible H ruff - DA and ruff - H ruff in another suit.

The "analogous situations" I had in mind (I was S, and did not disagree with the ruling given) were our agreements about defending against known-two-suit openings (e.g. 2NT showing both minors). My agreement with the ruling comes from the fact that (a) we hadn't discussed defending against double=majors after a 1D opening, despite having played this system for a few years now and (b) the whole "in the absence of evidence..." clause. The part I'm not sure about, though this may be my level of play, is the squeeze possibilities Jeffrey mentions: NS clearly take their two aces, and the remaining possible defensive tricks are the HK and a club honour. N needs 3 discards on the trumps; if declarer plays a dummy reversal and ruffs two trumps then N still needs 3 discards. If he pitches one club and two small hearts, does he not save a trick? (My recollection is that the defence started off with the DA, then a club - the risk is that N is endplayed in the round suits, rather than squeezed, but the club at trick 2 breaks this up.)

Frances - this was actually the first-round triple; EW were very definitely a top class pair. I was South; I think it's fair to say that we're "decent intermediates" or similar.

I'm with Blackshoe on this one: a player is entitled to a description of the methods, not what E has in his hand. Unless W has a very strange hand for his bid (e.g. xxx/x/AKxxx/AKQx) and should have looked at a diamond game/slam, EW are fine here.

campboy, I'm not convinced many players - ECL or otherwise - will want to multiply by 0.7, as it looks far too much like "take away the number you first thought of". But yes, ECL scoring is illogical and absurd - the UBC sometimes even pulls off a win! ;)

Many thanks, all. This board was the subject of a ruling when W, holding the hand given, bid 4♠ - after partner's incredibly long tank. Despite missing 4 cashing tricks, this was allowed to make by NS, who confessed that they were more disgruntled about defending so badly than about the 4♠ bid. As director, I needed a poll to decide whether pass was an LA to 4♠. In the EBU, the rules are that pass must be considered by a significant proportion of players, of whom some might select it: so this one's pretty clear-cut! I'll get everything sorted.

You deal, and hold ♠AKJxxx ♥Qxx ♦Qx ♣xx Playing a 4-card major natural system, you open 1♠. Auction proceeds: 1♠ - (2♣) - X - (3♣) 3♠ - (4♣) - P - P ? What do you call here, and why? What other options are there? (Partner's X promises 4 hearts and 8+ points.)

I'm passing, but I have some sympathy for double. Anything else seems rather unilateral.

Put me down for 6. Actually, I play that sort of method already. Absent that, I am tempted by 3NT. It's a bit of an overbid but I'm a bit of an overbidder. (Also, BigTrain's suggestion of putting (e.g.) 20-22 balanced through a different opening has a lot of merit. If you're allowed multi-way openings, try that (e.g. 2C either precision or 20-22 bal))

The slow signoff suggests that partner is considering some stronger action. That demonstrably suggests bidding on, so we've established the first condition for adjustment. Whether passing is an LA is interesting: the W hand is far above a minimum, but surely E has shown "not enough to go to slam opposite 1/4 keycards" (according to the AI). Let's look at how good the W hand could be, while still being something E wouldn't want to go slamming opposite: AKxx KQJx Ax Axx and E still doesn't want to play in slam? Maybe E suspects W has just one keycard: Axxx KQJx KT KQx The actual hand is sufficiently more control-rich than this that I don't think passing is an LA; I'd have to make a poll to see what people think (phrasing it carefully, so it wasn't obvious that they'd shown 0 or 3 aces). My guess is that I'd rule no adjustment, but I'd be particularly careful to explain about the right to appeal.

The consensus seems to be that E's uncertain explanation doesn't help matters, and that North could well have been dithering about what his bids meant. After the dust settled, it turned out that W had indeed intended his 2NT to be a constructive raise: he held ♠Qxx♥AJTx♦Kxxx♣xx. North had three spades to the K, four small hearts, and a balanced 8-count; while 3♠ was makeable double-dummy it didn't make at the table. Those paying extra attention here will note that E did not, in fact, have anything like his opening bid: he had three small hearts and balanced dross, and was playing silly games. After taking +50 on a partscore board, when the result might have been conceding a partscore or defending a game for +100, EW decided not to make a fuss, so the ruling never happened and it's of academic interest.

I've got enough values to force to game; if 2♦ showed hearts and a minor, I'm going for 3NT. If it shows both majors, I'm bidding 2♠, which should be(!) "do you have spades guarded?". (Of course, I'm going through whatever Lebensohl sequence we've discussed).