Pict

I'd play QH early on and if it's not covered, take the Ace and hope for 33 clubs, with some extra chance in hearts. If it's covered I've more of an extra chance in hearts.

Excellent summary from JAllerton. I happen to regard the supposed severe extra constraints of Law 73 as unneccesary, and otherwise misguided. However, I have seen both dburn and jallerton toy with Law 73 more than once - more than toying for dburn. I'd still like to understand where they stand on not taking advantage of UI in this case.

Interesting and different from the German position. You say 'expected' RMB Why is it expected? The German interpretation seems more logical. I don't mention the USA, because they say (as I happen to agree should be the rule) that the stop card is an optional decoration.

Was this a real competition, or were the guys a bit relaxed?

I take the plunge and bid 1D.

I imagined that this was a post about fielding. We are in the EBU (?) where fielding 'misbids' (whatever they are) is a transgression. I am amazed to not see any discussion of this topic. Maybe I have misunderstood, but I will await the DBurn and JAll summaries with a lot of interest.

2H? Pass looks like an LA since East appears to have a basic inverted raise. If I am reading it correctly I am not accepting this EW auction.

I think anyone inclined to call the TD (as advised here) should be told to ignore the entirety of this post, following the OP.

I am aware that some people believe in the existence of such a principle. I also believe them to be wrong; the principle is nowhere stated in the Laws. Of course, in order to resolve many of the problems created by self-contradiction and redundancy in the Laws, it may be helpful to resort to such a principle in certain cases, but in other cases it may not. In case you don't know: This is a principle published by WBFLC (And as far as i know a generally accepted principle in all legal theory) I must admit to the occasional moment of doubt that pran actually exists. Meanwhile I think a normal person would post the WBFLC material referred to. Could you do that 'pran'.

Where did the OP element 6232 from contention? When did the OP guarantee two spades.

Dull evening so: Do the UI Laws apply to play of the cards as well as bidding?. Of course they do. Why should you? You know what you have done, but you are forbidden later in the play to base your play on the UI you have received from your partner. You may for instance not complete a card signal differently from what you started because this UI alerted you that you were about to give partner a wrong signal. Pran, this is a bit of a boring post because it's all about obvious errors. But what on earth did you mean by your reply? I intend to lead (H)onour v the opponents contract. In fact I lead x. Partner's explanation of our lead style alerts me to look and see I lead x. At trick 2 I get the lead. Can make my original lead ((H)onour). Am I allowed to know I have (H)onour any more than I am allowed to know my bid card says 1NT and not 1S. It's probably a good thing that we limit the obsessive arguments to bidding rather than play, but the Laws, so far as I know, don't approve this convenient TD job creation scheme.

I've sometimes posted where I thought a double at game level was penalty. I was corrected! Doubles are pretty much takeout/values to game level +. With a penalty you pass. So this is very different? That's handy.

Double. Unless I'm misreading the post, penalty double looks right, and I can't imagine why that would not be my agreement.

Dull evening so: Do the UI Laws apply to play of the cards as well as bidding? I lead an unintended card at trick 1 and I'm alerted by partner's explanation of our lead style to the fact that I played the wrong card. Do I spend the rest of the play assuming that a card in my hand is not really there? I'm aware I could more easily get away this in the play, but let's assume active ethics.

KK IMO he is thinking (case 2) about the impossibility of beating it. Case 1 he is a bit quicker thinking.

I'm not a fantastic MP player and I'm playing this in Hearts. If the NT players a have great record at MP, I will seriously reconsider. If they are theorising, I may wait for more evidence.

Well, Blackshoe The Internet is notoriously not the place for a meaningful debate. I felt I was 'paying attention'. I was disappointed slightly by you and more so by dburn. I didn't think either paid any attention to anything not already firmly fixed in your minds. I persist with my view that probably 97.5%+ of players will not sympathise with your injunctions on ignoring their bidding cards and dreaming a weird auction.

If you don't mind I'll respond to your post since it is so much shorter! I like not just to do a deconstruction of the words of the Laws, but to understand them in the context of their purpose. For me the the point of the UI Laws is to stop me deducing things about partners hand, about our bidding agreements, and about opponents hands by means other than bids and plays (with some more latitude in relation to opponents actions). I don't find it credible that I should treat my own cards or my own bidding cards in the same way. I know about them in an entirely different sense than the sense in which I 'know' anything at all about partner's hand. Denying the evidence of my own eyes is not something that excites my inclination to active ethics. If I discover that it has become official policy to treat my bidding cards as a repository of UI, so be it. I will probably regard it as foolish, but not necessarily the only consequence of the Laws that is foolish. I don't think we are quite there yet, though. I don't get the sense that this is an area of established interpretation.

What makes you write that? I never do (unless extremely far more convincing evidence to such fact exists, and that is certainly not the case here). I was referring to your surprise that anyone would fail to take advantage of L25 to change their bid. Apologies, it was an unnecessary side reference.

dburn, I believe I understand but without yet agreeing. Let's say: I wake up ,you say it's 8:00. I look at my clock and it is 8:00. Later GortonTD says 'how did you know it was 8:00'. There is a difference between knowing something solely because of extraneous information (partner says 'I have the King..' versus knowing something in addition to having extraneous information.

Poorly expressed, two clubs ending in North and review your options with diamond finesse if nothing particular in clubs- why not?

dburn, I hate this one minute it's ethics, next minute screw the oppos, next minute just call the TD, next minute he's laughing at you over coffee. I'll take your bait, partner has transgressed and I call the TD. I have an inkling of difficulties ahead, but let's start there.

I'd assume LHO has spades by default - I can't find out. Why not cash 2/3 clubs seeing what happens and finesse RHO for diamonds. Edited L and R.

L16B1. (a) includes "a reply to a question" in its list of sources of extraneous information partner might make available. Interesting, but I am sure that I will have looked at my bidding cards before partner replies to opponents question, Gordon. I remain convinced that this a 'change the Laws' topic. I personally would not try to change my bid as a result of my failure to look at the cards from the bidding box. Pran may think me an idiot. Bluejak may think me a target. I'm not breaking any rules, and I feel comfortable with my ethics. And I know that I look at the bidding on the table many times in the auction. For the logicians, are the statements: 'I may know I bid 1NT because partner says it is true.' 'I do know I bid 1NT because I looked at the table and my bid was there.' of equal evidential validity?

It's a surprise (almost) that I might have been posturing by questioning an impossible score at the club. My partner said, leave it to the TD and scorers. So maybe I was posturing. I have, I must say, much respect for Bluejak's knowledge and reasoning powers, and zero belief in his honest expression of his true opinion when posting.