WellSpyder

I think I would have treated the redouble as natural, too.....

Like others using this approach, when I use Turbo it is on the basis that 4N shows an even number of keycards and bypassing 4N shows an odd number. I did once read something about certain auctions in which the Italians appeared to reverse the meaning, but I quickly decided that any possible gain would be outweighed by the chances of confusion or forgetting, so I never really got to grips with what the criteria would be for deciding that you were in an auction where reversing the meaning was more efficient.

Wow! Have you actually played much with screens, Pran? In my experience it is pretty unusual for the auction to be completed with three closing passes in the first place, let alone for both sides to see this. (The main exception to this, I guess, is if the players anticipate that explanations are likely to be wanted that have not yet been made.) Most of the time, the player due to make the third pass will pick up his bidding cards or wave his hand to indicate a pass, just as people do without screens (and yes, of course I know this isn't what the rules say, either.) Then his or her screenmate will pick up their own bidding cards. Whether the tray is now pushed far enough under the screen for the players on the other side to see the lack of bidding cards, or whether they deduce this from the fact that the tray is only pushed a little way under the screen is largely a matter of chance. I'm not sure what I should deduce from this experience about how to rule in this case. But I don't see that pretending this sort of behaviour is exceptional gets us very far.

It feels OK to me. Of course you bid the same hand differently in different situations since the possibilities are different, but if partner doesn't know any more from your two attempts to bid your hand as they do from the one that is legal, then there is no problem.

Well, I think I disagree with him about the interpretation of "release", too, but I like his ruling! Maybe I can't find a law to justify it, but it seems to me that North should not be entitled to profit from a bid that he prevented two of the players at the from being aware of!

I'm not aware of anyone having difficulties with an arrangement of boards as you suggest. People don't necessarily expect to start playing each match from the lowest-numbered board.

(1♠) X (4♠) 4NT is clearly two places to play. Is the same true of (1♠) X (2♠) 4NT?

I think so, yes. I think it is very far from GBK since different partnerships have very different approaches. (Having said that, I have played in partnerships where there is by agreement a choice over what to open here but where nevertheless I couldn't really tell you anything about how partner might make the choice.)

The same way that he does for any other UI, of course. They can always get the TD involved at the stage when the explanation is given. If the person making the badly-explained bid thinks that the bid has a specific meaning as a result of explicit or implicit agreement then they can give this explanation while their partner is not at the table.

On the contrary. Partner gains nothing from this since it is, of course, UI that you don't know what the agreement is. And opponents gain because they aren't deceived into thinking that the bid is natural.

Partner isn't pre-empting - oppo did that, and you don't pre-empt against a pre-empt. So he is bidding 5♣ with the hope of making it. That makes pass a non-starter in my mind. But the chances of getting to a grand knowing it will be a good contract seems small, and I wonder whether a simple raise to 6♣ will work out best in practice.

You could be right. ATB(1): (4♠) P (P) P ATB(2): (4♠) X (P) 6♥ AP When things are going well, one member of a partnership takes an optimistic view and the other takes a pessimistic view. When things are going badly, either both take a pessimistic view or both take an optimistic view on the same hand.

Hi Kaitlyn. You don't say whether this is imps or matchpoints, which could easily make a difference.

I wish I had seen this before the weekend since the author obviously knows things the rest of us don't! I was on lead yesterday against 4♠ with a similar choice between an unsupported A or QJxx in different side suits. I thought my choice of the Q might have worked out well when dummy went down with Kx. But no, declarer had the A, while partner had KQJ in the suit in which I had the unsupported A, and declarer was able to discard a loser in this suit. Perhaps I should be relieved that no-one else seemed to have read the book either, since the board was close to average in a largish field (100 pairs) in a national final. Or perhaps the A really is the wrong lead unless you have seen the full hand.....

Exactly. Maybe I just haven't read enough about, but I have no idea how any Lib Dems think this is supposed to work. (And incidentally, if we do have a referendum in which the majority vote against the deal, does that mean the alternative is no deal, or the pre-article 50 deal? Do we actually know whether the latter would even be available? Having said we will leave, what is to stop the rest of the EU saying we will only have you back on different terms from before?)

Darned computers seem to be taking over everything! In my day it was Electric Light Orchestra.....

I agree that these are the two choices that come to mind. But I went for X then NT.

I don't think VixTD is querying the appropriateness of "sympathetic weighting". Rather, I read the OP as worrying about its legality under the new laws.

Yes, that's what I was trying to suggest. As is implicit in Vampyr's comment, I think, this may be clearer with regard to asking questions than committing irregularities. But it still feels right that you cannot, for instance, solve the problem of wanting both take-out and penalty doubles available by agreeing that you use one after an irregularity and the other the rest of the time since that gives you an incentive to commit an irregularity at times.

I think this was covered in my first bridge lesson, but I couldn't really follow the quantum mechanics so I've never been able to apply it properly.....

I don't think it suggests that a pair can vary its agreements following questions or its own irregulgarity. My understanding is that these things have always been illegal, and hopefully always will be. To me, it suggests that some smartass was using the old law to argue that unless the RA explictly disallowed this then it must be allowed, even though common sense would argue that it isn't allowed anyway. So they changed the wording to focus just on the one area where varying agreements is reasonable, ie following an opponent's irregularity.

Wouldn't that strategy give UI?

I agree. I wasn't trying to argue that we should be looking for slam on this hand! But I was taking issue with the general argument (which I think does make an appearance in this thread) that once oppo open and respond, partner's maximum point count is 24 less whatever we hold, and therefore we should just be looking to compete the part score.

I'm surprised at how many people always seem content with the idea that oppo opened and responded, so we won't have game available. In my experience it is quite possible that you still belong in slam, let alone game, when oppo make the first two bids in the auction.

Whichever way round you do it, it only applies instead of the more normal "two places to play" (eg the 7-5 distribution suggested by wank) if you follow up the 4N by bidding 5♥ on the next round, which West didn't do.....