Pict

If East is about to play for partner holding at least AK,A in the minors, and want's A♠ for seven, then I'd repeat jdonn's question, why doesn't he just ask, instead of this incomprehensible transfer of control stuff. Without a little more explanation this doesn't seem to add up.

No, I don't believe him.

If passing 2♦ works out and I explain ... sign off etc. I am in the clear and on the moral high ground. If I don't pass 2♦ I am not a cheat (may be a Bridge Aesthete), but I am a foolish and misguided person, in my pinion.

I obviously live in a different space, and would immediately bid 3♥.

If we consider vacant spaces when West has eight red cards, and possibly nine, it looks like 60% or so to finesse against East. This seems like a big plus to me.

Despite some lengthy dissertations, and shorter ones with upper case ANY shouting at us, I still don't actually agree with the perverse reading of 73C that claims it is stronger than 16B, to the extent of making thinking (hesitation) effectively illegal.

I like doubling this for penalties. If you can't, you can't.

I don't like 3♦. My hand is so bad that the opportunity to just agree partner's suit feels good. Sure I have an 'alternative' but no desire to introduce this hand into my bidding system.

Pass, I am a bit religious about my local rule of 19.

Of course not. It affects whether partner can take a later trick with the queen. People in this thread are merely considering restoring equity. What you say is evidently factually incorrect from the OP and OP comments (IMO of course) - unless I misread or something has been deleted. The OP appeared to consider not taking the Ace as did at least one other poster. If this was all a pointless 'amuse'.. I apologise for expressing an opinion. I suspect, though, that dburn is posing the problem of the rules for a more or less self-regulating game played by ethical players. If that is it, I strongly sympathise with that project. I hope he isn't just whinging about poor English in the rules.

Another unemotional contribution I guess. My potted history is that people started to make weak jump overcalls, and then it was realised that penalty doubles were inefficient, and then people 'protected' in some fashion with full strength openers (including opposite Aquahombre's slow pass partner because the protect was deemed obvious). I am open to the rationale that negative doubles from 4th hand (values no shape) were the next stage of efficiency, and changed the equation on protecting. But then maybe that is not the rationale, since no-one could be bothered to offer it. Instead we got a load of garbage of about ..ssssss, (100, 10) ... no (60, 0) blah. Anyway, if that is it - partner has eliminated all hands better than n+ points by passing ( and will punt 3NT mostly when 3♦ doubled is best result), that is trivially easy to understand. Then we are just left with whether this particular hand is worth bidding, with such constraints. Seems to be room for judgment liberally laced with vituperation

Sitting with the Ace and what you know, nothing partner does can possibly affect you taking the trick. All the rest of this thread (IMO) is fantasy, masochism, hostility.

More than a bit strange that people applying judgement, seem to feel so astonishingly emotional about it.

Expect 2♠ was 5 and 0+ points, and 3♠ was 6 and 5 + points.

I don't understand this comment at all. I hope there are some things in the world worse than a bad bridge bid. It used to be quite common (even among normalish people) to cater for partner having a penalty double. In part I posted to provoke a bit of reasoning on why that idea has died.

I'd double 3♦ and bid 3♠ over 3♥. Looks like it will be a lonely and unprofitable choice.

No, I wasn't responding to you.

I believe that dburn has said that bids were considered "reasonable" because he was quoting or paraphrasing people. The term, in any case, strengthens his arguments, because "logical alternatives" would include any bids that can be described as "reasonable", as well as others. Yet in this case we were discussing whether there was any logical alternative to 3NT - in the sense of a bid that would be made by some peers... It is not clear there is an alternative in that sense, but it is clear pass is reasonable. So I don't see how dburn's argument is strengthened in the context of this thread.

If we consider examples such as pulling a hesitant double, or bidding game after a try and hesitant sign off from partner, then I would say we know that the intention is not to allow those actions because no-one else would bid that way without UI - quite the contrary. It is perfectly reasonable to challenge poor drafting of the rules, and especially if you have a strong professional concern for those rules. That is not the same as harbouring any real doubt about the intention and the way that consultation and logical alternatives are used in practice. So I would argue that it is beyond sense to damage my team/partnership interests by an interpretation of the rules that is so extreme, almost no opponent and perhaps no Director would agree with that interpretation.

You may have argued this, but I am surprised that you gained agreement to your proposition that 16B let's you choose a bid no-one else would choose, where your actions are being queried after a justified suggestion by opponents that you used UI. I don't believe that view is standard, and personally would be dismayed to find it was. I am not absolutely sure why 73C has survived, but I am convinced that it is not solely to prevent you from using UI to punt 3NT.

I believe (or suffer the delusion) that I understand dburn's argument, even if I don't agree with it. There is one point that I think needs clarification. dburn seems to have abandoned the defined meaning of 'logical alternative' and replaced it by 'reasonable alternative', or perhaps a bid that has some logic. Ignoring the meaning of logical alternative in the Laws seems to cut Laws 73 and 16 adrift from each other, creating the possibility of adopting more extreme criteria for complying with 73C. Reintroducing the meaning of logical alternative appears (to me) to remove the supposed overall incoherence.

I would suppose 4NT showed interest in slam in diamonds or hearts and hoping to hear a club cue bid.

I'd take K♦, A♣, A♥ and I think I'm OK so long as clubs are 42 - I can handle hearts 30 either way. Edit: handling trumps 31 is arithmetically more correct.

Can't see any reason why partner has K♠ (convinced he has A,K...,A,x singleton). Crapshoot?

So in this case, let's say I follow the logic that leads to passing. The TD is called, and asks me why I passed. I am to reply that I passed partner's double because he hesitated and I decided he didn't have a normal takeout double. So far I am just not convinced by the arguments from vague interpretations of partner's tempo, and I am certainly not putting myself in the position of explaining myself to the Director as above or anything like it.