Pict

I think here we reach the vanishing point of this line of argument. UI and MI/disclosure are (IMO) the only general issues of importance in the regulation of the game.

But the opponents can call the TD. The TD can consult and confound your personal conclusion. Why is there a problem about people acting ethically/reasonably, but being judged by their peers to have been wrong? Do we always have to be able to know we are right?

Naive optimist/realist - I believe the AK of clubs stand up.

Yes but jallerton was correct about 73C. It says take advantage, not that advantage might have been derived from an innocent action. If Lamford's interpretation? was correct, we would not need much of the apparatus of 16B. And the game would, perhaps, be unplayable unless we were all the Darwinian survivors of Lamford's search for new partners.

I have to agree, but this proposition is a bit different from my original argument. If I have not formulated a view about partner's hesitation, then I don't see that I am constrained by 73C. However, a TD canvassing my peers might be forced to a different conclusion if I have taken an unusual action. But that is a matter of self protection in relation to 16B, rather than the personal ethical demand of 73C. To that extent I think there is something in dburn's argument. I wouldn't like to push the point myself, without having an idea of how to improve these two areas of the Laws - which I don't.

If you think about successful outcomes (with a reasonable probability) then 3♠ doubled, 3NT, 4H, 5C and 5D are all reasonable. Partner was clearly thinking about something, but I can't tell what it was - maybe there are other peer groups who can, I don't know. So in practice I don't feel inhibited by UI, because I don't have any that I can clearly express. I would bid 3NT, because it seems normal, if this is the normal auction and I've no basis for thinking it isn't. If my partner bid 4♣ in the same situation with the intention of raising 4♦, and passing 4♥ and 5♣ I'd think it was a bit dubious but not terrible. If he passed my hand, I'd be more surprised.

4NT Ace asking. If not allowed to play that, flip a coin - heads 4, tails 6.

I look forward to broadening my mind! Meanwhile I just pass.

Looks like slam to me. We play in diamonds and not hearts, I reckon on principle. Win the spade lead, heart queen, ruff a spade, Ace of hearts etc

An interesting hand. No-one has mentioned 5♣ or 5♣ doubled as the best contract you are likely to be allowed to play. Not at all impossible, but maybe not available on slow arrival (opponents second round diamond fit). The vulnerabilty cuts all ways. Anyway the majority view is to go slow, and I take on board, that may well be right.

Well, I haven't shown my hearts. I'm a simple soul, so I'll bid 3♥.

In my experience the weak/strong idea was an early attempt at science, long before the present age of extreme competition. It always seemed artificial to me so I don't regret the passing. In a way it was similar to multi-2s. Either could be fashionable next week.

5♣ immediately. I think it is more probable we have to try to grab the contract now, than that we can reach slam.

I would never have opened J as an Acol 2, because for me it lacks the right quality in diamonds and has too much in Hearts. K is a good Acol 2, because although it is a minor, it looks good for getting to 3NT when partner is negative.

Couldn't bring myself to double with AKJx in opener's suit. 5D looks very promising.

Transfer and pass. I would compete to 3H, but not volunteer. Standard policy is to play for plus scores.

Pass - this is partner's play not mine.

Don't completely understand this hand. Does West's partner never open 1H with an opening hand?

I voted club. I would often want to lead a spade on established principles with this holding, but the 2NT swings me against it. Interesting to see that there is still a very strong vote for the spade.

Yours is an interesting argument in general, but I'm not sure that the King of clubs lead gives away that much information here. It looks to me that playing as declarer did gains when diamonds are 6-3 and may break even or slightly better when diamonds are 5-4 (versus playing for the drop).

I think you were very unlucky. But of course you missed the opportunity for glory with the first round trump finesse. I think you should have done it.

Surprised so few posts. It's an interesting situation where it's not clear who should be driving the auction. Maybe it is all too obvious (?). We are not really waiting for ... are we.

4D - slam interest with club support, diamond position unspecified. 4H - cue in hearts, with losers in diamonds. Now from responder, 4S is a place to play, five clubs sign off, 4NT RKC - right siding a potential 6NT.

Odds on finding partner with a diamond honour was given as a reason to lead one. I am puzzled that thoughts about different leads need to be described as 'making things up'.

I think the point is not that nearly 60% of the time partner has one or diamond honours. The point is that nearly 40% of the relevant times a diamond lead gives the contract at trick one. On this auction and at this vulnerability I expect declarer to have an 'optimistic' eight plus tricks (eg AK to seven and A(Q) outside. That's why people play Ace of clubs to look at dummy and see a signal, and I would rather play a spade or a heart than a diamond if I wasn't allowed to play Ace of clubs.