Your Call

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq73ht5432dcak964&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d2d(hearts%20and%20clubs)2h(good%20raise)4spp5dpp]133|200[/hv]

I tried to put a poll with the choices of Pass, Double, 5S and Other, but somehow I failed!

[wanoff]

I can't decide between 5♠ and a lead directing 6♣.

But if pass and double are possibilities, maybe I'm losing it.

[mich-b]

5♠

 

I have a feeling this is actually a ruling quesion ....

[Trinidad]

5♠

 

I have a feeling this is actually a ruling quesion ....

I am very suspicious too.

 

I am tempted to bid 6♠. If partner jumps to 4♠ all on his own, this might well make.

 

But I will bid 5♠. (But let's say that I am seriously considering 6♠. ;))

 

Rik

[helene_t]

Can't bid less than 5♠. A slam try on the previous round is an LA but since I apparently didn't do that I am not doing it now.

[billw55]

Obviously not passing or doubling. 5♠ is the easiest choice. I could live with 6♠ or 6♣ as mentioned by others.

 

I have a feeling this is actually a ruling quesion ....

 

My nickel says 4♠ is a psyche and this is a question of fielding via pass http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

[ahydra]

Are we sure partner's remembered the system? :)

 

I'm envisaging points roughly evenly split between all four players, partner with at least AKJ6th of spades, probably two or three small diamonds. If he has more than one heart as well then 5S doesn't stand much of a chance - he'd bid the same with AKJxxxx Qxx xx x as AKJxxxx x xx Qxx, right?

 

I'll plump for 5S and be more hoping it makes, not that I've missed slam. If it doesn't make, it might well be cheap anyway. But certainly not pass, nor double.

 

ahydra

[lamford]

Obviously not passing or doubling. 5♠ is the easiest choice. I could live with 6♠ or 6♣ as mentioned by others.

 

 

 

My nickel says 4♠ is a psyche and this is a question of fielding via pass http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

There are other possibilities. I am getting opinions without whatever irregularity there might have been.

[lamford]

he'd bid the same with AKJxxxx Qxx xx x as AKJxxxx x xx Qxx, right?

Indeed he would. And why do you think they are about to lead Ax or Kx of hearts on the first of these? Surely they will try to cash a top diamond. Anyway, thanks for your opinions, which accorded with mine. Two diamonds was a misbid, showing the majors, alerted and correctly explained as such. The player, who now had UI, doubled 5D, and I thought that 5S was the normal choice, with higher bids also possible on both this and the previous round. The TD is still to rule, as the league in question handles rulings by referral to an eminent panel, a sort of ruling and appeal all in one, which I think is quite a good system.

[kenrexford]

Passing 4♠ was dubious, IMO. There is a really good argument for bidding 5♣ immediately. Although that sounds like a wild 6-6 or so, at some point you have to give up on looking for strains. 4♠ seems like a declaration of strain. So, 5♣ should probably show this hand.

 

Doubling 5♦ is not remotely acceptable, IMO. 5♥ as last train might make sense. 5♠ is the no-brainer. 6♣ is reasonable. 6♠ is plausible. Double is sick.

 

 

 

[MrAce]

5 or 6 ♠ but as Helene said and for the same reasons i would settle with 5♠

[jallerton]

Two diamonds was a misbid, showing the majors, alerted and correctly explained as such. The player, who now had UI, doubled 5D, and I thought that 5S was the normal choice, with higher bids also possible on both this and the previous round. The TD is still to rule, as the league in question handles rulings by referral to an eminent panel, a sort of ruling and appeal all in one, which I think is quite a good system.

 

It seems to me that 5♦ is a logical alternative on the previous round and that the UI demonstrably suggested passing 4♠ over bidding on. Let's hope that the eminent panel has not been reading too many of your arguments about logical alternatives having to be determined "using the methods of the partnership"!

[Cyberyeti]

It seems to me that 5♦ is a logical alternative on the previous round and that the UI demonstrably suggested passing 4♠ over bidding on. Let's hope that the eminent panel has not been reading too many of your arguments about logical alternatives having to be determined "using the methods of the partnership"!

 

Agreed, there's no way I'd have passed 4♠ last time, at least 5♠ this time.

[lamford]

It seems to me that 5♦ is a logical alternative on the previous round and that the UI demonstrably suggested passing 4♠ over bidding on. Let's hope that the eminent panel has not been reading too many of your arguments about logical alternatives having to be determined "using the methods of the partnership"!

At least I hope that they have also read my volte-face, on a thread on here, where I quoted Richard Hills who pointed out that Law 75 contradicts Law 16B, and there is also a WBFLC minute often mentioned, for example "Referring again to the principle that a specific law overrides a general law" in the Sao Paulo minutes. So, while 16B still wrongly states as you quote, and needs to be corrected, we apply the more specific Law 75 and decide LAs based on what the player believed were the methods of the partnership at the time, reinforced by Law 73C if necessary. The board was at my team-mates' table, and they were the non-offenders, and I think that 5♠x-4 is a probable outcome. Unless you think the hand opposite, which was ♠ xxxxx ♥ AQx ♦ xxx ♣ Qx, will bid more. Perhaps we should get some percentage of 6♠x-5.