WellSpyder

I would also pass, though perhaps with a few worries.... But the sounder West's pre-empt, the fewer points I can expect to see in dummy, and therefore perhaps the fewer entries to allow my hand to be finessed.

I agree with you about 10 tricks looking straightforward in clubs. I think I would only find 10 tricks mundane in spades if someone told me which defender had DA and which DQ...

I think the first two replies have nailed this one. 5S seems crazy to me (though no doubt worth a token "Guthrie" point since Nigel is always generous to doubtful actions). I also agree that 2N is a bit of an underbid, and I can't help suspecting that south might have tried to rectify this by hesitating on the next round.... Pass=10, X=5, 5S=1.

I don't think the remark was particularly out of line, and in the right context I think it might have been seen as amusing. The difficulty, of course, as Trinidad points out, is knowing whether or not this was the right context. I can think of at least one partner I play with with whom such banter would be regarded as entirely normal and appropriate - indeed I would be rather surprised not to get a retort along these lines! But you have no way of knowing whether people will see things the same way in an online context. One solution is obviously Trinidad's solution of having fun but not trying to be funny. I'm not sure that will always be necessary. But if you do want to risk a joke along these lines, then I think you should be ready to apologise quickly if you realise that others do not have the same attitude to banter as you do.

It is my understanding that if declarer tells dummy to ruff when dummy has no trumps (including when the hand is being played at no trumps!) then dummy should do nothing at all. In my view, the same should apply if dummy is asked to "win" the trick but is not the last hand to play. In other words, the interpretation of "win" meaning the lowest card that takes the trick applies if and only if dummy is the last hand to play to the trick. Otherwise it has no meaning. [Disclaimer: the last (and possibly only) time I told dummy to "win" the trick was when it held a singleton K in the suit led and an opponent had already played the A. Dummy did his best to comply with my instruction, but failed to do so.....]

I wasn't thinking that the appeal consultant's view on whether or not the appeal had merit was relevant. I was thinking specifically about the question asked which hypothesised that the TD had not made clear the legal basis for his ruling. (Obviously a hypothetical question since this would never happen with EBU TDs, right?) I would expect the appeal consultant at least to be able to explain to the potential appellants what the basis of the ruling was and what issues would be relevant to an appeal.

I think the answer has to be yes in principle, but I would expect the AC to be relatively lenient if it became clear that the appealing side were unaware of the legal basis of the ruling and that the TD hadn't tried to explain this. The leniency might be reduced somewhat if the English system of appeals advisers (sometimes know as "cuddlies") was followed, whereby an experienced player was available to give the pair advice before they appealed about whether there was any reason to appeal and what such an appeal would be looking at.

Not from an ethical POV, no. Even if the agreement about 5S isn't that clear, it is clearly a slam try, and East has no way of telling whether W nearly passed or nearly forced to slam rather than inviting. If the agreement is clearly as explained, then there might be much more of a problem if East had passed, given the strength of his trumps.

OK, you feel that it is wrong to feel "entitled" to an explanation. Do you have any worries about the president spouting absolute nonsense in the first place, or do you think that is entirely for him to worry about and it is not for us lesser mortals to question the ways and means of the great and the good?

There are two sides to most questions, and I can understand why Trump supporters might get fed up with facing the sheer weight of opinion here and in the media. But when the only way to defend a President who spouts complete nonsense is to start an irrelevant semantic argument about the words others use in reacting to it, then anyone who takes that course of action really doesn't give the impression of being interested in reality.

You beat me to it! I was just thinking that defending is tough enough when I am allowed to see dummy, let alone when I'm not....

Thanks, Gordon. That is what I do, but Robin's post seemed to suggest something different. If I had to do this, I wonder how many opponents would resist pointing out that it wouldn't be entirely unexpected for a hand on which I bid a 2-card suit to include a longer suit somewhere else. :)

I play a 1♦ opening that could be canape with longer clubs (Precision style). But the 1♦ bid also shows 3+ diamonds. So how would I announce it? "Could be 3"?? (Maybe announcing will be extended in due course to cover canape: "could have a longer major" or "could have longer clubs" or whatever. "Could have longer diamonds" in a Walshe position.)

I think they would allow a team captain to impose this policy on his team (a policy I sometimes think I should try to impose more often!), but the only sanction would be dropping a player from the team, not getting a ruling from a TD......

Yes, i think that might help clarify the meaning a bit. But I'm not sure it clarifies what is actually intended by the current regulation. Taking the example of the Italian signal with which I started this thread. An odd card has the single meaning "I like this suit", a high even card has the single meaning "I like the higher of the other two suits" and a low even card has the single meaning "I like the lower of the other two suits". Isn't the issue more about attributing meaning to two different attributes of the card played (its rank, parity, suit, colour or whatever)?

I agree I haven't seen this with IBs. But the idea of lack of punishment seems quite prevalent with revokes these days - defenders seem aggrieved more often than not that there is still a penalty for a revoke even if it doesn't hinder declarer. In other words, they seem to feel equity should be restored for the OS as well as the NOS....

Thanks, Phil - all makes sense now.

Phil, it's not clear to me whether this difficulty is why you play 3rd and lowest, or because you play 3rd and lowest. If you play 5th from 6 then presumably opening leader might have a 6th card if there is still a lower spot card missing. But if you play 3rd and lowest, then presumably opening leader might have a 6th card if there is still a higher spot card missing....

I think we just see the likely occurrence of these mistakes differently. I certainly don't maintain that I don't make such mistakes. Why, the very last time I played I forgot that the opposing trumps weren't breaking 3-2 when I was playing in a 7-card fit. This doesn't encourage me to claim, though. Equally, it doesn't discourage me from claiming, even though on this occasion my claim cost me an extra trick when a defender was able to ruff with his extra trump after I had set up his winner in a side suit. I happen to think I am more likely to lose tricks by claiming than by not claiming, You apparently think the opposite applies for you. But I suspect I still claim as often as you do, since it simply makes bridge a more enjoyable game.

I find this pretty stunning, TBH. I claim to avoid wasting time, so that we can spend the allotted time thinking about interesting bridge issues rather than going through the motions. I have never suspected anybody of claiming to improve their success rate in making tricks.

I agree. I suspect defenders would be well-advised generally not to take advantage of this additional option. But Vampyr's objection to the new law was specifically to the position she would be put in as a claimant (and, I assume - perhaps wrongly? - a declarer) being asked to play on.

I haven't really formed a view on whether I think this change is good or bad, but why wouldn't you feel like playing on after making a claim, if the opponents asked you to? Assuming you have made a valid claim, isn't playing on just a way of helping your opponents to understand the claim you have made?

I wonder whether those currently living in the US would be safer if US citizens currently living elsewhere were subject to additional vetting before being allowed back in? If this vetting doesn't happen, who will indemnify US residents against possible harm that might be done to them by returning non-residents?

Jeremy - feel free to get in touch next time you need a volunteer for the L&E. My posts on this thread have not been intended to criticise the wording of the regulation, let alone the people who wrote it, merely to get guidance on how to interpret it. But if change is being considered, I wonder whether a more direct reference to how the signal is made rather than what it means might be helpful, eg: signals must be based on one characteristic of the card played rather than two, for example its size or its parity, but not both.

FYP