Pict

3343 was my decision. (or inverse if you mean the other opponent - diagrams and who opponed are good for people like me)

Because he doesn't have a stopper in Opener's suit. Ah - of course I hadn't noticed. So 1NT overcall promises at least one solid stopper. I play in a different country.

I pass. My reasoning is that this is not MP.

This is Interest rather than A&E. So excuse my question, why should North double rather than bid 1NT?

This whole thread has been, probably, as educational as I deserve. However One of my opponents (lols if you like) says: 'I prefer if you do not make claims. I find they confuse me, and I've been told I ought to call the Director if I am uncertain.' This doesn't deserve a thread on it's own, and I have no doubt at all about how I would react in the real world. But what is the legal position and does it change if the oppo is one of Meckwell.

I would be interested in the recommended ruling on this, albeit hypothetical, position. Personally I would expect to find that declarer imagined he was playing in seven of a minor, and planned to 'draw trumps' and play A♠ and Q♠ 'ruffing'. If that were so I would give the contract where there is a singleton King and some appropriate number off when there isn't. This seems equitable to me. Some appear to interpret the rules in a different way, that involves looking at the cards and finding a losing line where possible. I find this a strange reading (though it may be established as correct) because to say 'do not accept an unstated line of play etc' seems not relevant when the claimer is not attempting to add an unstated line of play. It seems to me that control passes to the TD to resolve the situation in an equitable fashion, whatever that might be in the given case.

I am not trying to get declarer 13 tricks on this hand. But my problem with the bridge version of quantum mechanics (whoever has the cat, gets to keep it) is where do you draw the line. AKQT - xxx AKJxx - xxxx AKT9 - xxxx Given some constraints on entries there are very few interesting setups where I could not cause declarer to fail on the basis of an alternative line or lines at points in the play - especially if no plan is allowed. So what's the point of the reference to equity in the Law?

It's very odd, but his partner did take it out.

Looks like a winner's hand. Who is the winner... MikeH says it's the bidders, so I'll go for 7.

I fully understand Cascade's flight of fancy here. But I'm not sure that playing for 3-3 (in advance), if that it is what happened, predicts the position of any card among the six. Let's keep it simple. If the Law says that I cannot make an unstated finesse. How can the TD have me make that finesse in order to lose a trick.

In this case I would call the TD rather than giving declarer a trick. After that, I don't mind what the TD decides, though I suspect a majority would rule twelve tricks. I am interested in the idea that declarer could be made to take the spade finesse. I have seen this before but it has an odd feel - making a play as TD the claimer isn't allowed to make.

Finish trumps in hand and play a diamond. East wins and has to play a heart - to honour, Ace then King and another. (Added prior to seeing Gnasher's post)

Win or lose I'm always doubling as East. You just can't lie down to it in the game these days IMHO.

Fun hand. By no stretch of anyone's imagination is East's hand an upgrade. Beyond that, result stands for me. No damage, because I don't believe the bids were related to the explanation/absence thereof: I think EW were determined to get a score on this board.

Then peace reigns. Of course I assume that comments about terrorising old ladies, showing off and making incorrect claims are not aimed at me, since you guys no nothing at all about me.

Is it true, do you think, that no-one asks people to claim? If it is, then I would accept the rest of your argument. If someone chooses to claim, they just better get it right. But I believe there is pressure on people to claim, and if that is accompanied by quite extreme rulings against claims, it will inevitably be self-defeating. I claim more than almost anyone in the competitions I play in. If I chose to play in some larger events, I would definitely reconsider that policy in the face of interpretations I've seen on this forum, and delay claiming until the claim was foolproof.

I'll try: A♦, Q♥, A♥, K♥, club ruff, finesse 9♠, planning to use K♦ as an entry to finesse spades again and draw the last trump if there is one. If both spades are wrong, or one spade is wrong and hearts were 4-1 and diamonds 5-1 I'm down. I think discarding spades on clubs to ruff spades in North may work but is probably not as good.

I don't see that anything can be automatic here at MP. We don't know whether 4♠ is the normal contract at this point in the auction, so we don't know whether outscoring or matching a game is relevant. I would bid 5♥ but without much confidence, and I suspect successful judgement in these high level decisions is one of the things that defines an expert.

Players don't always show their whole hand when they are claiming on top cards - and oppos don't always pay attention - hence my reluctance to jump to conclusions about North. In real life if I saw declarer's hand and was paying attention I would give him the trick as North, because I would rather erase the claim rules from my brain altogether than try to wangle a trick in this sort of position.

I'm not sure about criticising North. Does he have to wonder who has J♠?

Double - (and the pass vote hasn't registered). As well as shape I've got my share of points.

You are right that I misunderstood the OP. There is a good reason for that. It is outside my frame of reference to decide unilaterally that partner has seriously breached the Laws by misleading declarer and that it is my duty to give up a trick to rectify this. It is an interesting theoretical proposition and I should have spotted it as such. But in reality though we play as partners we are autonomous human beings. Of course that would not be true if I was partnering a software program - though at the current capability of the technology I would strongly advise anyone against reading anything particular into a program's hesitation.

I also like a club lead. But I guess I'm assuming partner would be able to bid 4♣ or something if we have slam on, rather than a takeout double.

'There is choice' is directly equivalent to 'there is more than one option' and directly equivalent to 'there is more than one alternative'. The expressions 'how much choice did you have' and 'how many choices did you have can be equivalent (though of course they may not be depending on context. I would not regard it as American to think that choices, options and alternatives could be used as equivalents in Bridge.

But consider meaning 3 in your list where, for example, 'is there a choice' or even 'is there choice' is defined as more than one option or alternative.