Pict

This brings us back more or less to previous long thread. I would just suggest that the TD - faced with defective claim statement (of however many sentences) may judge that declarer's intention was clear, when certain things follow, or he may judge that declarer's intention was not clear, when issues around finesses come into play. We can argue about a TD's judgement in a given case, but I can't see that we can eliminate the judgement step.

This is a comment on something that does not resemble anything in any of my posts. The AC have their role, but the first step is that I believe I have a case (and of course I could say honestly believe I have a case, just as a precaution here). What leads to the conclusion that I would suppress facts is a complete mystery to me.

If I prepared my statement (singular) for an appeal and I believed it did not support my case, I would save everyone's time and withdraw the appeal. Doubtless there may be sentences in my statement that contain facts that lend support to the other side. I would not feel the need to congratulate myself on that. Can't quite see anything 'sad' in any of this.

It would be very surprising in the context of an appeal if the statements prepared were not designed to support the interest of the person appealing. I think your point would have significance while a TD was asking questions to make a ruling.

Mycroft, very few people would make a bridge appeal in order to tell the committee, for example, that 'everyone knows I'm as honest as the day is long'. The problem is not that their statements inherently lack evidential quality, but that there is no corroboration including no corroboration from standard or local practice. This renders their statement implausible rather than self serving. So I will disregard your advice and not personally use the term self serving where I think it inappropriate and unhelpful.

Self serving generally implies a lack of evidence, and IMO it is the lack of evidence (or as in this case the existence of a large amount of contrary evidence) that is normally important in Bridge appeals. For that reason I've never felt it helpful to involve the 'self serving' part of the concept or to have a refined definition of what it means.

Ideally you would like to complete this claim statement once you know who (if anyone) is objecting. 3N-1...I don't know. The Director must have thought equity demanded that East didn't recover from his delusions about the spades.

If I were on an appeal committee in this case, I would agree with all the arguments that Lamford has given and quite quickly decide to support the TD and recommend retaining the deposit. I am quite comfortable with players having agreements about named conventions that are extremely unusual and seem to me unworkable, but I would expect the agreement to be on their card.

I would have adjusted to two diamonds doubled -2 for both sides. I don't see that the fact that EW attempt was unsucccessful equates to wild/gambling or anything similar.

I agree with Karlson and would be embarassed to be given a contract in these circumstances. I think I'd also be surprised to see PPs given. Everyone seems amazingly overwrought in this scenario.

I'd pass 4H.

If partner had not passed initially, I would agree that it is not clear whether he was deciding between 2NT and pass or between 2NT and 3NT, and that nothing is demonstrably suggested. As it is though, I don't see how he could have been considering 3NT. (anyway, agree that I would not be adjusting here as there is no damage) I am not sure how I overlooked both the initial pass and the discussion thereof in this thread. One of those days, I suppose... :) Don't worry. You are a passed hand, but not debarred from a 12-count you didn't like, good 11-count , or the 10 count you have.

I understand the logic of encouraging opener to make his normal bid - and I would also advise him to do that here. However we all know that making your normal bid in possession of UI is not a reliable approach. I am not suggesting that East thought this through successfully, just that I very much suspect that he may have tried to do the right thing. Otherwise what is the point of partner inviting slowly at all if you will not accept with an absolute max.

If the hesitation said 'only accept with an absolute max' then East did his best to avoid use of UI by not accepting. If we adjust, then we are likely headed for punishing East whatever he does, if it happens to work.

I am quite open to the view that 2D reverse is the solution to this common situation. But I couldn't assume that playing in the UK, so I definitely wouldn't bid 2D. In practice this hand is so strong that it shouldn't matter if I bid 2S or 3D, but I would bid 3D, maybe just because I want to do the same without the heart queen.

I voted pass and now four more passes - are they off, making seven, don't know.

Why? Looking at it again in the light of day I take the point. A lot of effort reading discards to never quite match the success of running the Jack of diamonds.

By the way (kust noticed the hand ref) I haven't looked at the hand and my line may not work at all.

Just because it is flexible, might win immediately and will certainly allow a large variety of end positions. At the table that would be enough for me.

I'd win in South and play a diamond to the Jack.

4♥ I have a good hand and can think about it later.

There is no fundamental problem about claims. If (hypothetically) claims were not part of the Laws, Fred and everyone strong or not, could get on with their game with pleasure and impunity. But the Laws talk about claims for better or worse. So they have to be dealt with sensibly. There is room for disagreement but Lamford seems extreme and JAllerton seems a bit offensive.

I am genuinely puzzled that I should routinely (in tempo presumably) find a false card that relies on: - declarer misplaying a card combination - immediately distinguishing AT8x from ATxx - reliably knowing what is in the unseen hand - reliably knowing how many tricks declarer needs from the suit It is a very interesting false card that will reinforce my inclination to take the double finesse, but routine, in my face, I don't think so.

I guess we all know that the reason for the official guidance on high level competitive auctions is that we can often assume a player is thinking through the auction rather than considering different actions and therefore giving UI. So the player has unusual latitude to take time. The opponents and the TD in this case judged that this was not such a typical situation. I'm not sure, but on an AC I would have backed the TD, because -East had an earlier chance to bid seven, -and (possibly) a hesitation double to subconsciously influence his evaluation of poor cards but heart void, -and the players thought there was a BIT (not conclusive in itself)

There is a view that thinking for a few seconds in difficult high-level competitive auctions should not be treated as a BIT conveying UI. So I think that there was a decision for the AC to make about whether there was a BIT. However, East's statements seem to lend weight to his having drawn conclusions from partners actions. While I might be worried that partner was relying on me for cards I didn't have when he doubled, I would not be thinking we were making seven. So on balance I would support the TD's position but it is an interesting problem. If West can't think about his decision in this auction, it raises the question, when can he.