Pict

The difficulty I would have with reading 25A1 as Pran suggests, is the phrase 'without pause for thought'. If I mentally walk through partner alerting, my wondering what he is talking about, looking at the table, thinking whoops, I'd struggle to persuade myself on a basis of unaided logic that I had not paused for thought. So I think that despite what Pran argues, we should have a written statement of guidance, so that issues of Law 73 and pause for thought can be set aside and Law 25 can be applied as the authorities intend (if indeed this is what they intend).

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, everyone would have a merry Christmas. Sort of a good point - but then I didn't disagree with your initial post. I analysing for myself the likelihood of taking penalties against two suited openers (and overcalls - edit) . I eventually concluded that whenever the penalty got good enough, I had a slam. So I lost interest in defences attempting to penalise the 2-suited opener. This is the other way around, of course. It seems ridiculous to bid this hand (and may well be) but opponents are put in a difficult position. As I said, I'm not convinced, and respect your judgement - but I'm not sure.

As NS I would appeal. The reported TD statement 'since there has been no infraction etc' is startling to say the least. He is being asked to determine if there has been an infraction after creation of UI and a suspect bid. You can't start your analysis with a particular result and work back. It's worth remembering (as many of us have have had to grasp) that a TD is not there to judge whether we aim to be ethical, but whether we conformed with Law 16. I see few responses to this post. But I think we should respond whether or not strong players may be involved. My inclination would be to conclude that EW had failed in relation to Law 16, and to adjust.

Interesting question. I would not, I think, have seriously considered 5D before looking at this post. But if if I give partner diamond Ace and heart Queen, I make a profit w/r. They probably won't bid a slam when it's making. Still not sure I'll remember to bid this, but I am still thinking about it.

I think it is a good suggestion and that people (including me) would be more careful and look at the bidding card about to be placed. An unnecessary complexity would be removed from the rules.

Double (1) and 3H (2). Bidder's game they say.

Well expressed. Lamford points out a poor wording in the extraneous information portion of L16. Noone (I think other than me attempted to relate it to the rest of L16 about partner). I still wonder how (as dburn sort of intimates) you can apply the notion of UI(U-information) to something that contains no real world information at all. Seems like we play a gambling card game, but with a police force empowered to apply the ethics of child-rearing. Sorry Blackshoe, I've no problem with TD judgments, just the constant ground shifting in argument.

Let me help you Campboy - OB whatsit. 'A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.' There is no suggestion that East intended to treat his partner's call as if it showed a raise. Of course even if he did intend to do that, how does he avoid a TD call. Either I have no idea of the rules on alerting (quite possible) or I've being playing for years with one hand tied behind my back.

Double. I think I have to go for the vul penalty with my defensive values.

Pity you didn't post in A&E. IC -4H ... to 6H looks inevitable to me.

I seem to remember other threads where it was agreed, "no agreement" was woefully inadequate when the side being asked has firm agreements in related situations. I see nothing wrong with the attempt at as full disclosure as possible; and see nothing unusual about advancer taking his time to absorb the information and arrive at a choice of call. But if doubler passed 3S with that hand (AXXXX KX AXX AXX), and it worked --he must have more knowledge about partner's slow bids than he should; or he decided 3S must be a weak advance because their side has agreements over a known Jordon 2NT (double and 3H available). TD needs to investigate that. Agua The slight problem (that people are too polite to mention) is that East's alert is already an infraction, because they have no alertable agreement. In effect East is trying to mastermind the auction for everyone at the table. That includes his partner who has (probably) forgotten he passed. Looking at this post, I very much doubt that EW/NS are involved in any sophisticated bidding of the kind you suggest, I imagine that's the reason for Lamford's last pointless post.

To tell the truth I don't much care about the EW bidding system. I just wanted to make a point about East's explanation, that seemed to have been overlooked or ignored in the initial rush to pillory North (not on Bluejak's part). No doubt East was trying to be ethical and provide full disclosure, but he made such a mess of it that he casts doubt on whether there has really been a BIT by North.

The meaning that it would have been without the double is the most likely. So here a good raise. I would assume this with a pick-up partner. Bad luck. OP says 'no double and unpassed hand'.

Indeed, some play transfers here, or have other meanings for redouble. However: There are few players (good bad and indifferent) who use 2NT to show a balanced 11 count. The few might include those who don't have a meaning for 2NT as East explains this pair don't. If you don't have a conventional meaning for a NT bid, what would a TD suppose it is?

I'd expect a West who had got past the beginner stage to redouble with a balanced 11 count and a stop in spades, so that would not be my thinking about the West hand. I had a partner once who wanted to interchange the meanings of 3H and 2NT, because only the latter required alerting, and the opponents did not want to seem silly by asking. This was the only merit of the convention, and I refused to play it - or with him. There are a lot of players (good bad and indifferent) who don't use a redouble in that way.

Good stop in what? Thanks for rewording my thoughts. I'd expect that if West was a balanced 11 count it would include a stop in spades after the double - would you not?

Can't say I like the alert and explanation from East. 'Without the double and an unpassed hand' indeed: might as well tell us it would be 20/21 points if it was an opening bid. Why has West not just got 11 points and a good stop? And in that case, of course, South would have to be an optimist in his 17 point spade game.

I don't find this argument convincing at all. If I ask West why he led a small club and he says it was because he overhead a comment that suggested the small club was the only winning lead, I'd say case closed: there really is no need to discover West was right in the outcome, but wrong in his choice of extraneous information. If partner breaks tempo, for no good reason, and I act (successfully) on my inference from the BIT, it will not help us if partner explains he drifted into thinking about the previous board.

It is a pass. I don't mind overcalling with 10 HCP, still, this hand looks like only 7 HCP. Change the hand to xx x Axxxxx Axxx, it is probably closer to a 2D overcall. It's 11 actually.

This is better than my partner's overcalls, and just about ok for mine - I'm not slam going to overcall, not even game going.

My opponents aren't programmed by a computer. They just make life difficult. So 3NT is clear for me.

It seems to me quite common to rule use of UI from partner when his hand is completely at variance with the imputed UI. Why should the situation be so different for extraneous information.

True that 16C1 mentions the board you are playing etc, but it also says the TD is to be notified forthwith. Since this would have solved the problem, I would rule against West.

I wouldn't make a case for a simple Acol as a system of choice for serious players. However, the supposed problem of opening a major is not as great as it seems with a weak NT since the hand will be a 5M or 15+ points. I'm not personally convinced about major before minor in the simple weak NT system, just from my experience of playing both. Anyway I think people who play like this tend to do it for simplicity in club games.

'Other' was 6C for me - obvious reasons, right or wrong.