Pict

The 1♥ bid doesn't show more than 4 hearts in a natural system? And three small clubs against partner's 4 is a very lousy support, isn't it? I'll leave it to Phil to say whether his team mate playing transfers would make this error with 4 hearts. I think it is much more likely with longer hearts and short spades. Otherwise we seem to be getting out of this remarkably easily.

In the circumstances I would bid 2C. I showed 5+ hearts and have a poor 6. I have club support.

I would definitely bid this way with xx Kx AKx AKJxxx, but feel free to make the hand slightly stronger if you would not. And after 4C?

OK All you guys are right. The OP is at the very least deceiving himself. Sherlock/Mycroft/Jdonn has spotted the deception and solved the problem to the applause and adulation of his fans. Well done all. Or facts are hard things etc.

As I understand the Laws (possibly incorrectly) if I show ,say the Queen of spades, it is played. If another card falls from my hand and hits the table before I lay down the Queen, the Queen is still the card played. So I don't see that the constant emphasis on the 6 spades reaching the table first has any significance.

You post on the Laws forums sometimes from the viewpoint of a player. Apologies that was not your intention here. Personally I never post on the basis that the OP has the facts wrong: I don't see that it leads anywhere. I have no problem imagining a situation where both cards are exposed and one hits the table first. If the OP actually just dropped a card out of his hand accidentally, then there is nothing to discuss. I do find it harder to imagine that when he is holding two cards - hence the relevance of the title?

Your argument would imply that your partner is rarely able to consider a non-obvious double of their contract in these auctions, because he can't ask questions. And if you think it is OK for him to ask before making the final pass, then half the time he is not able to consider doubling. I simply think we reach an absurd position if a player can't ask unless he is fairly confident of bidding immediately after the answer. Others, including you, clearly differ. So be it.

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other? I think it is just you. How does one card hit first if they are stuck to each other? And what does it mean to switch them, you stick them to each other in the other order? In fact the followup post makes it seem to me like they were not stuck and the 6 was accidentally played first then quickly replaced. Like he thought he was pulling the queen, pulled the 6, saw it just as the 6 was being played, then corrected it as the 6 hit the table. The 6 sounds like a played card to me. Are you seriously saying you are looking for a trick out of this?

Is it just me or do the two bolded parts contradict each other? I think it is just you.

Nigel The software didn't seem to let me use your last complex quote, so I quote: 'I don't think we should make an exception for the first round of bidding. IMO, however, if you rarely ask about alerted first-round bids, then, when you do ask, you may convey unauthorised information to partner. It is hard to understand why probable use of such unauthorised information doesn't occasion adverse rulings in America.' You refrained from answering my points, which is perhaps normal on forums. Anyway this is (for me) a bit like the long discussion we had on claims. I have been able to satisfy myself that in relation to alerts and UI in the UK at least, irrational and immaterial considerations are likely to be deployed. In your case that may reflect an admirable desire for simplification. In the case of other contributors I don't know what it reflects. In any case, as for claims, I forewarned.

Nigel We are talking her about the first round of the auction. Opponents are playing Precision (let's keep it simple, not some other more complex variant). Does your partner ask when they open 1C. Do you know when he might or might not when they open 2C. Do you know when he might or might not when they open 2D. I don't believe you are getting UI from questions about the opponents opening bid any more often than your partner is Law 25 changing his bids, because I don't believe your partner is asking much about their openers. And I don't believe anybody always or even often asks on the first round of bidding about alerted bids.

You need to be allergic because the numbers start at -760 and the next one is -1160.

No thoughts of a warning to the bidder? I have occasionally made a wrong bid - thinking about the last hand, thinking about my next bid after partner's response. I just bite my tongue and hope I haven't given any UI. Seems like I am too naive. I should blurt out 'I've made the wrong bid'.

If I was polled with a choice of numbers, I would estimate much lower than 12 or 20 (rightly or wrongly). On the other hand, I think that Bluejak has posed a good problem, and I would be interested to hear the views of experienced Directors/Appeal committee members. IMO on the face of it the bidder has taken advantage of the opponent's good nature and desire to get on with the game in an actively ethical way. To say 'tough luck call the TD next time' doesn't feel right to me in this commonplace situation.

Of course he can! You guessed, of course, that 'with impunity' was implied. Partnership game. Then I doubt that you would say 'of course he can'. Then I would say that's a pity and we would be full circle.

I have played against internationals who are very annoyed by people who do not follow the stop procedure. I agree with them and Bluejak and various others. Correct procedure creates an expected rhythm for the game, and it is not up to individual players to disrupt that rhythm for their opponents and partner at their own whim.

I've being looking at appeal cases for a long time. I have not noticed a case about people asking about carding methods. As a player I don't recall anyone telling me about such a case from either side - director decision or appeal. This has always seemed slightly odd to me, but that is my impression. If this represents a new battlefield opening, I await with interest.

Reality is that nobody (to my knowledge) analyses a position about which they have no simplistic agreement and then alerts a double. Pragmatically you can argue that the current regulations sort of work at a simple level. That in itself is an achievment and not to be disparaged. Personally I'd go for the 'doubles are self alerting' approach. But most of the time it doesn't matter, and if it might matter most players just let it ride anyway.

I'd be content with the game. Many things can go wrong.

Just think of all the wrong turns this avoids.

I think that in the EBU zone Jdonn's point is the real reason most people rarely ask in the auction. It is not fear of arbitrary Direction, but the much more likely prompt to the opponents. It is certainly the reason that I don't ask. Occasionally you see opponents slightly miffed and surprised that their alerts go unnoticed. Nonetheless, I think it wrong that a player can't ask after an alert, and if quesioned say: 'He alerted and I wanted to know.' Rather than any improbable and at least unverifiable statements such as 'I always ask'.

Thanks blackshoe. Just hadn't realised the @ was a marker for an unstated quote.

No. He's replying to earlier posts in this thread by those people. If you can't remember what's been said previously (I often forget myself) it's a good idea to go back and review at least the last couple of pages. That generally avoids "loss of continuity". blackshoe Could you quote the @.. statements. I didn't recall seeing them, and still dont find them.

Thanks Cardsharp. Those @.. things were emails to You? I do start to get confused on the BBO forums when (like 1970's films) continuity is lost and it seems there is a shadow world of private forums/emails. Back to the 'issue'. It seems that in the ACBL, someone waves their arms and says 'ask me' and you are recommended to ask. Good, but maybe a bit simplistic for a forum. Not much to discuss. The EBU is much better. You can ask but not just because you want to know (that would be very simple). You can ask in order (as dburn says) to tell partner you have values for a bid. Or (as bluejak suggests) that you are just short of values for a bid, in order to convey UI.

This strikes me as a very difficult problem. How much of 5C doubled do we allow. How much of 4S going off do we allow. I'd be inclined to go for 20% of 5C bid and always making, and 30% of 4S going off. Interested to see other views.