[lamford]

jallerton, on Oct 7 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

2.  Although West is still in possession of UI once the hypothetical auction reaches 7♥, it is just possible that there may be no logical alternative to removing the contract out of a 4-1 fit?

I have already owned up to my error of not getting West to correct 7Hx to 7NTx-4,

Quote

so I erred earlier in suggesting an adjustment to 7Hx-7

which I think to be a potential adjusted score. And the putative 7H is -7 whoever it is played by, or whoever leads, but there is little point in analysing the play in this contract! Interestingly, [boringly - Ed.] after the opening lead of the queen of diamonds out of turn, I think declarer can get out for six off in 7H doubled only by barring a diamond lead.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Oct 7 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

Hence we should believe her doubt about the meaning of 3♥ and assume that she will be continuing to try to hedge her bets during the subsequent auction.

Here we agree, and I commented in another post that East is entitled to know (s)he is not on safe ground. She does not have UI and I accept that she may well bid 5C over 4S as a two-way shot. But West does have UI, and will (is obliged to?) take that as encouraging (the stated methods, stronger than 4NT) and will surely press on, possessing a diamond control. Yes, East did pass 5C in the actual sequence, because she guessed that she was mistaken about 3H. The 5C bid by West, denying a spade control ostensibly, was designed to slow down the auction, and in my opinion illegally used the UI. We need not concern ourselves with auctions starting with that if we disallow it. We need to poll, say, 10 Easts with the authorised auction, including the uncertainty as to whether 3H is natural or a splinter, to decide what action would be taken when it varies from the actual one. And ten Wests without the UI. Who said the AC's job was an easy one!

[jallerton]

lamford, on Oct 8 2010, 12:45 AM, said:

jallerton, on Oct 7 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

Hence we should believe her doubt about the meaning of 3♥ and assume that she will be continuing to try to hedge her bets during the subsequent auction.

Here we agree, and I commented in another post that East is entitled to know (s)he is not on safe ground. She does not have UI and I accept that she may well bid 5C over 4S as a two-way shot. But West does have UI, and will (is obliged to?) take that as encouraging (the stated methods, stronger than 4NT) and will surely press on, possessing a diamond control.

West would indeed take 5♣ as "encouraging" showing a medium strength hand in context (weaker hands bid a "discouraging" 4NT whilst stronger hands bid slam or make a grand slam try).

My understanding of the E/W cue bidding style is that (assuming clubs agreed) West would have already shown her ♦ control with her 4♠ cue bid after East had apparently denied a ♦ control when she bypassed 4♦.

You are quite right to point out that West still has to have regard to the UI at this turn to call (1♣-1♠-2♣-3♥-4♥-4♠-5♣-?). As Robin pointed out in his initial reply, the UI suggests bidding more, not less (as the UI suggests that East may controls in spades and/or diamonds after all) so if passing 5♣ is a logical alternative (I suspect that it is) West is obliged to do so.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Oct 9 2010, 04:53 AM, said:

As Robin pointed out in his initial reply, the UI suggests bidding more, not less (as the UI suggests that East may controls in spades and/or diamonds after all) so if passing 5♣ is a logical alternative (I suspect that it is) West is obliged to do so.

The UI also tells you that partner has interpreted 3H as natural, so his raise to four hearts gives you the conflicting UI that he did not cue 4D over it. So you have the UI that he seems to be minimum. The unauthorised hand could be as bad as Jx Kxxx Qx KQJxx. The authorised hand could be something like x AKxx Qx KQ10xxx, or even x AKQx xx KQ10xxx. Partner has bid an encouraging 5C. You know (from the UI) that a wheel has come off, and you have, let us say, a marginal accept (which seems to be your opinion too). I actually think you have a trivial accept - I cannot construct an authorised hand where slam is not good. But let us say that Pass and 6C are both LAs. The latter is unlikely to be successful if partner just has a minimum with four hearts. What is the minimum authorised hand partner can have for his encouraging 5C now? One of the two above, I suggest, probably the first, as he knows that you have some diamond control, so that is more likely to co-operate.

I think the argument that partner might or might not have controls in the pointed suits is a bit of a red herring. If he does, then he does not have a good hand for slam as he merely raised 3H to game.

[Pict]

I'd say West is bidding 6C on this auction except for the lack of alert.

So I'd make a small attempt to change 80-20 to 100-0.