WellSpyder

But this isn't necessarily true at all! There might be a split ruling.....

It isn't very clear from the OP, but I think in any case that the Q&A were almost certainly exchanged at the end of the auction rather than at the critical point of the defence.

I don't think anyone is disputing that the misinformation supports a diamond return. What is less clear is whether the correct information would make a spade return likely or just possible.

I was consulted by VixTD on the day as captain of one of the teams involved, and we ended up agreeing with the first sentence here and the majority of the second, but we found it trickier to agree on the percentages for the weighting.

In my experience many players manage to find a bid with offensive values. It is hands with values but without obvious offense that I find are a common cause of hesitation - though this is somewhat dependent on the level of the players. I'm not sure I know what I think would be suggested, but certainly a worthwhile thought experiment.

I think the important question is the one actually asked in the OP - what is actually suggested by the BIT? It is possible to argue over whether pass is an LA, but I am happy to accept the implied TD's view that it is, whether or not it might be sensible bridge. Nevertheless, I don't think the BIT tells you much that you don't already know. I guess partner has some values (not hard to deduce from the auction), and probably too many spades to have an easy take-out double - not that hard to guess from your hand. So I don't think I have learnt much from the BIT, and certainly nothing clear that helps me choose between pass and any other bid.

If you never get this explanation, but it is also true that no-one has such an agreement, have your hopes been met or not?

I was a bit surprised after voting to see how much of a minority we appear to be. Perhaps I play too much Precision, where 3♠ is more attractive since (a) the opening bid is potentially a bit more shaded and (b) the upper end of the opening bid is much more limited.

When did you last see a trick made up of 5, 4, 3 and 2 of the same suit in that order? (I imagine 2, 3, 4, then 5 might be quite a bit more common.) This was a hand from Division 2 of England's Premier League yesterday:[hv=pc=n&s=saq98ht98765dj3c8&w=sjt6543haq4dcq654&n=sk2hkj3dakt9652ca&e=s7h2dq874ckjt9732&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2sdp4hp4np5dp6dppd6hdppp&p=sjs2s7sqh5h4h3]399|300|[/hv] 2♠ was a constructive weak 2 (about 8-11 HCP). 4N = RKCB(?), 5♦ = 1 or 4 key cards. 6♦ was not completely obvious, but intended as choice of slams and south eventually passed. Now west came up with a Lightner double requesting a ♥ lead - a particularly dubious choice given that he would actually have been on lead against 6♦! North decided 6♥ might be safer, and east doubled for his own reasons (perhaps he was confident ♦Q would be a trick). West led ♠J, and south led a "low" ♥. When west carelessly played low himself, he found ♥5 wasn't so low after all when it won the trick! Note that ♥5 wasn't just led for effect. If declarer leads ♥10 west might realise that he ought to go up with ♥A! Now he can return a ♣. Declarer's only way back to hand to repeat the ♥ finesse is by overtaking ♠K. But now there is no way back to dummy to cash the winning ♦s after establishing the suit with the marked ruffing finesse...

This is much closer in my mind than in that of most people replying. If you play 3♥ as a simply invitational bid (which seems quite playable to me, even if there are better follow-up agreements possible) then I have to admit I would be tempted to accept on this hand. I accept it is ace-less, but it also only has 6 losers where I would expect a minimum hand to have 7.

Is anyone else concerned about how long East might have thought for over the 1NT overcall? I guess we cannot assume anything not in evidence, and NS have made no suggestion of UI, but I must admit to a feeling that a hesitation from East here is by far the most likely explanation of that rather odd double of 1NT by West.

I agree that with ♦J and ♦7 interchanged then I would expect to rule one down. You now require 5 ♣ tricks, and will only get them if you unblock the suit in time. Without mentioning this in the claim statement, declarer cannot be expected to be given the benefit of the doubt.

I went for 12^12 + 6*12 = 144 + 0.5*144. Not trying to come up with something different, just the easiest way that came to mind to tackle the problem. (I'm really not sure why I did 6*12 by division rather than multiplication! Nor why I used something that looks like base 12 arithmetic rather than the base 10 approaches you mention....)

Well done - some excellent points, and it looks like you would have made hand 2, which none of the 4 declarers managed on the night. The count does indeed reveal that East is likely to be longer in clubs, and in practice he had all 3 honours, so you wouldn't face the dilemma of what to do if 2nd hand plays a minor honour. (Of course the two declarers in 6N didn't have the luxury of getting a count quite so easily.) On the first hand, any count inferences you might get are a bit misleading since you don't get a count of the club suit, which on the actual hand offsets the imbalances in the other suits. If I tell you that diamonds are 3-3, what is the best way to play the suit? Can one of our game theory experts explain what 2nd hand should play with KJx, K10x, J10x, Jxx or 10xx?

Declarer did well here and counted his tricks! Realising that he needed 4 club tricks, he didn't claim until both opponents followed to the first round of clubs. Why should we assume that he thought he needed 5 club tricks?

Good point - and one of the key advantages of playing in 6♠ rather than 6NT since you are not risking setting up additional winners for the defence. On the first hand you will find West has 3♠, 5♥ and at least 2♣. On the second hand you will find West has 2♠, 5♦ and at least 3♥. Fair point. The first hand was played 12 times (some in 6NT, the majority in 6♠ and once in 6♥!), and not surprisingly the lead varied. No-one got a diamond lead, though! I think the most common lead was ♠J. The second hand was played 4 times, half in spades and half in NT, and again I think ♠J was the most common lead.

The alternative I was thinking of was not leading the Q, but leading towards it and inserting the 9 if 2nd hand plays low. Now 4th hand will be endplayed to lead away from the K if he has it.

This hand came up 2 weeks ago in a county match. You are playing imps, and despite the large number of points, slam is far from guaranteed. Despite the lack of ruffing values, the 4-4 fit looks to give you more options than NT, so let's assume you are in 6♠. Fortunately trumps break 3-2. How will you play the diamond suit?[hv=pc=n&s=sakq8hat8dq962cak&n=s9754hkqj2da54cq4]133|200[/hv] Fast forward to last night, and another imp match: [hv=pc=n&s=sak76hk43dkq7ca52&n=sq853haq2daj5cq93]133|200[/hv] 34 points again. The same choice between 6♠ and 6N. And what looks like exactly the same choice in the play! How will you play the club suit this time? Once again it looks like playing the suit contract is more flexible than NT, despite the lack of ruffing values - certainly food for thought there. But surely the odds are against me seeing a similar hand again in my lifetime.

That's a good point, Fluffy. I've never forgotten a hand where I had something like KJx in dummy and led the suit from hand quite early on. Up went the ace in second seat. My attempt to take the "marked" finesse against the Q much later in the play was rather less successful than I expected, and I have learnt to be careful about the assumptions I make....

Is this a common agreement in ACBL-land, then? TBH it would never occur to me that an unalerted 2NT might show hearts, and it is not something I have even seen suggested before, so perhaps it is just as well I play in EBU-land rather than ACBL-land! :)

Didn't I read not so long ago exactly the same opinions about how he could never last through the primaries to become the republican nominee? There seemed to be a lot of confidence in this point of view from people I would regard as reasonably sane.

I found another way to deal with these forgets - I eventually abandoned the attempt to play Ghestem at all.... :)

A whole new vision for the so-called "special relationship"..... :)

I'm confused. (No doubt SB's intention!) I thought if a player has a legitimate bridge reason to think then declarer draws any inferences from a BIT at his own risk - he can't decide he knows what the legitimate bridge reason is and then get an adjustment if he has decided wrongly. (I still remember a county A-team defender hesitating for ages over a discard with only worthless cards in his hand at trick 10 or 11, causing my partner as declarer to play to have squeezed him rather than taking the finesse he had planned to take. The defender successfully claimed that he was trying to remember whether he needed to keep his last heart to avoid setting up one for declarer, even though all twelve of the other hearts had already been played.)

I think you have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I have no problems with the idea that capitalism needs consumers, and that workers typically create the bulk of demand. But does that also mean that you should give the same money to those who don't work as to those who do, so that they also generate additional demand?