Leaderboard

I have to disagree with your approach here. You should answer your LHO's question and worry about whether or not the question transmitted UI later. By coming up with this, "you may want to wait until your partner makes her lead face down" stuff you are making your rulings at the table and crossing over into the TD's domain. If it turns out to be a lead-directing question you will be fully protected, so why would you want to start an argument with someone - especialy at the Christmas Party?

IMO just answer and then if they lead a spade and it was a non-automatic spade lead call the director. The precedent is that you will win because the spade leader had UI and leading something else is a logical alternative. IMO don't get involved with giving them unsolicited advice about anything including the laws or how to play. Most of the time in this situation they are both clueless and the opening leader will just make their normal lead, and there is no problem.

As the manager of a club that has quite a lot of American visitors, probably more than any other, in practice it doesn't seem to cause many difficulties. Two minutes of explanation before the game, and a bit of goodwill on both sides during it, suffices.

That's a good suggestion. Would you mind passing that on to the WBFLC?

This is an exercise in tactics and bidding strategy. There is no point in raising ♠ immediately, unless you are prepared to sell out to 4♥, which I am not prepared to do in spite of the risks at these colors. Raising ♠s now and bidding ♦s thereafter makes no sense, but will land you in the right contract with many average players, because it is more likely you belong in ♦s than ♠s. If you bid 3♦ non forcing, how big are the chances that this will get passed out while you can make game? My guess is close to zero, no matter how good the opponents are. The bidding is likely to get competitive now and if you bid ♦ first, partner is much more likely to take the right decision later. So bid 3♦ now, prepared to raise ♠ next when a ♥ raise comes back to you, if necessary at the 4 level. I would overrule partner if he doubles 4♥ before I had a chance to show my ♠ support. A good partner will now understand, that your hand is based on a ♦ suit and limited ♠ support and that he should give serious consideration of correcting to ♦s, in particular if he does not have supporting ♦ honors. Unfortunately on many players this last point tends to get lost. Rainer Herrmann

In the ACBL Alert Procedures document on their site we find this: "3) ACE ASKING BIDS 4NT Blackwood (any variety over suits) and 4 Gerber (any variety over notrump) and expected responses thereto do not require an Alert of any kind. All other ace-asking bids and responses require an Alert..." This seems clear to me. We have no idea in what context E/W were told Gerber was not alertable; but unless it is over NoTrump, or is a delay alert it is alertable at the time the bid is made. Delay alerts above 3NT start with opener's second call, and that hasn't happened yet in the given case. For the second issue, if there is damage it is not relevant whether the OS has been given bad information previously. It is not a matter of intent, but rather result. NOS states there was no damage; the director gets to decide that. The players can only state whether they believe there was damage, and why.

Seems to me there are at least 3 uses for this 3♣ call, assuming the double showed clubs and the pass showed values: 1. cuebid in support of hearts. Sets trump early, and allows for maximal slam exploration 2. natural, tho very hard indeed to think of a hand on which we want to suggest clubs as trump, given how unlikely it is that doubler would/could psyche clubs 3. an unbiddable hand...no long suit, no fit and no club stop: say Jxxx x KQxx xxxx. I doubt that partner would ever take it as (3) without discussion. I like the meta-rule that, in an undiscussed auction, if a bid can be natural, it is natural. So I take it as natural, but it would be my third choice if I ever discussed the sequence with partner. My choices would be 'unbiddable' as first, cue as second and natural as third. I would raise with hearts, and bid notrump with clubs and throw up with the unbiddable hand, absent agreements.

Should I ever play against someone who neither finds out what our methods are before we start, nor asks about the alert of 1NT, I'll remember that. I've not yet played anyone who has not asked why 1NT was alerted.

Why do we think RHO will even continue diamonds? His partner led the 8 third and fifth, he might very well have a heart shift. If the opps are at all reasonable this is not likely to work. The 8 of hearts gives us something legit to play for if we don't like how the spade finesse looks later, like the 9 of hearts being third and us driving the diamond eventually. I would start by running 4 rounds of clubs and going from there, we might also get a heart pitch from a 4 card suit pretty easily.

No problem. I apologise for being grumpy!

1) i was playing with a client in the quarter final of a knock-out teams event with the tournament winners representing England in a European championship and we're winning by 6 going into the last 8 boards. i put dummy after partner's 1NT opener. dummy includes kx of the suit led. partner has jxx. partner puts the king up, loses to the ace, and the opps cash 5 rounds of the suit when RHO continues them to LHO's original QTxxx. -1. i'm not feeling very good. partner says 'there was nothing i could do there was there?'. dutifully with my mind on the remaining boards of the set i said 'no, you couldn't make it'. in the end we won by 4, with a 6 imp pick up on the final board. 2) when i was about 15 i played against some bunnies in a north london bridge club. our bidding went pass, pass, pass, 2nt, pass, 3nt, double, all pass. +550. i was busy smirking to myself about the muppet who Xed with a flat 7-count and the £50 prize (about $100 at the time and very nice for a 15 year old) which we were on course to win. My partner was too rich to care so asked why the old buffer had Xed it. The old buffer said he doubled because his partner had made his original pass slowly which they played as showing a maximum and that perforce with his 7 points he knew we didn't have the 25 required to make 3NT.

X - what else? 5C - what else? -? - next bord With kind regards Marlowe

Partner held this trump suit on Saturday: 98xx AQTxx LHO plays three rounds of spades, ruffed in dummy with the 9 whereas RHO discards. He cannot work out that LHO has the K and J. Unfortunately for us, they were doubleton. He says, how can I possibly guess this? :ph34r:

Nice xmas parties don't normally include directors ;)

Creating unauthorised information is not an infraction: sometimes it is unavoidable (answering questions), sometimes it is avoidable (gratuitous remarks), and sometimes it just happens (you just do have to think or ask questions).

In the example in your original post, your opponent hadn't committed any infraction. He's entitled to ask questions at his turn, regardless of whether he is considering bidding, as long as he's not using the question to communciate with his partner or decieve his opponents. You might think that the only reason to ask at this point is in order to communicate, but you can't be sure - maybe he always asks his questions at this point, or maybe he asks questions at random. By the way, refusing to answer a legitimate question (if that's what you did) is an infraction.

Once the question has been asked, you answer the question. Had I been the director it is you, not your LHO, who would have gotten the first lecture from me. If you feel the need to give advice too, well, so be it - but your immediate obligation is to answer the legally asked question. Yes, there may be an ethical issue, but if there is, the act of asking the question has already caused it and it can't be undone, and withholding the answer doesn't make things any better. As for LHO's lecture, I would prefer to see it saved until after the hand/round, rather than given in the middle of the auction. It too is better given by the director than by you.

[hv=pc=n&s=s8hat7daq8ckt9754&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=3sdp]133|200[/hv]

Another aspect of jillybean's approach that I don't like is telegraphing a presumption to the table that 4♥ is going to be the final contract which could put the the 1♥ opener in an awkward position if, for example, they were considering further action (given the possible earlier slam-try with 3♠) but now Pass is strongly suggested by East's comment. The Laws are quite clear that at a player's turn to act they can ask anything they like, but they do at the risk of transmitting UI. If a question is asked by the player whose turn it is to act, you should answer it. If at the end of the hand you feel that the question was inappropriate and/or transmitted UI that was acted upon, that is the time call the director. Have you got the full hand?

If you think your opponents is doing something improper, you can always call the director. You should not try to teach them ethics etc at the bridge table.

Issues like people leaving the table are a reason that online "bridge" needs its own set of laws.

+1

What was partner's hand exactly?

I just joined and used to be a fairly good player. Have not played in 30 years. So I will begin playing at a relaxed table. Questions: 1. When you sit in at an available spot, what is the etiquette of leaving and how do you do it? Just log off? I don't want to be rude! 2. When you sit in with an unknown partner, is there any convention people usually go by or do you just have to find out as you go? :) Thanks, Russ

I think using 2♠ as a transfer to 3♣/3♦ is a perfectly fine method. If you are in a long term, serious, advanced, partnership you will likely be playing another method but to call it poor is misleading.

sorry about late response (dont know why i didnt see this one) 3n 3s deserves around a 1 because it is right ONLY when we make 3s and practically nothing else. 3s also gives p the impression we are probably unbalanced (not very true) or dont have the values and/or stoppers needed to bid 3n (completely untrue). A huge downside of 3s is that it can be bid on significantly less power than we have making further bidding difficult. Even worse p might make the assumption we actually have something resembling a decent spade suit. follow up 4c both majors 4d transfer (h) 4h transfer (s) 4s transfer (to other minor) 4n quantitative assuming we have 20 hcp for our 3n bid

I held this hand and bid 6♣, reasoning that if partner had a classical shape we were likely to have lots of tricks and that if she was off-shape she may have a stronger hand. I also thought that if she had spade length she may be more inclined to bid 3nt rather than double if she held soft spade values and a good hand and pass rather than double if she held soft spade values and a slightly less strong hand, hoping to take a penalty, so if she had some spade length it was hopefully without wastage. Unfortunately oppo kicked off their defence by cashing two bullets, so we did not gain on the board!

4♣ after 2♥ sets ♣ as trumps and demands cue bids from prd, really? Ok if u say so, im no expert in 2/1 bidding, but i fail to see the point in that; if 2♣ is forcing to game why wouldnt i bid just 3♣ over 2♥ if i have ♣ and no support for ♥ and rebid them after what ever prd bids on his/hers next round. Without knowledge of where prds key cards r i have no other way to decide which slam we play than just guess.

It's very close so whether I bid 5♣ or 6♣ it will be very reluctant. If you force me to choose, I'll go for 5♣. There will be a trump loser more often than people think. Like Fluffy, I am curious about the lack of spade bidding. Partner may even have made an off-shape double holding 3 spades in which case he presumably has 4 hearts and that does not leave so much room for the minor suit cards we need.

You go through Stayman to make sure that club contracts are played by Responder but diamond contracts played by Opener? That's deep!

I am less enthusiastic about 6♣ than everybody else. Whilst 6♣ is virtualy cold opposite: ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQx, partner could have: ♠xx ♥Kxx ♦Kxxx ♣AQJx which requires a 3-3 diamond break or a red suit squeeze. Partner could also have any of: ♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQJx ♠Kx ♥KQxx ♦Kxxx ♣QJx ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦KJ10xx ♣Ax when 6♣ is virtually no play.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt6hakq6dkj72c&n=sh742dqt8643caj82&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d]266|200[/hv]

6♣ 100%. Very hard to explore whether we have grand or not, so I just bid 6. I expect that this will make 80% of the time. And hope that I am playing Leaping Michaels so that p cant have big two-suiter in the reds.

I think that this approach is wrong. An opponent may be familiar with the forcing 1NT, but may think that 1NT was alerted because, for example, it shows 4 or 5 spades. If Forcing 1NT were announceable, this would be different; but because it is alerted, I think that it is too much to ask that an opponent be aware that you happen to be playing Forcing 1NT on this occasion.

I don't know why folks are contemplating the Grand when off 1 key card ! ( not knowing which key card is missing ). I was talking in general terms here, as 6♣ in the OP's system would have been a grand try asking for ♣Q. I can recall occasions where having a method to discover whether a specific queen is held would have allowed us to find a grand. Interesting question. I can't recall ever offering (or being offered) a choice of suit slams after an uninterrupted bidding sequence, but them I'm more likely to notice when our methods don't work so well...

Not if you use void exclusion!

4C-jump now over 2H sets good, long ♣ as trump.... demanding cuebids.

Well since 2♣ was forcing to game is see no reason why i could not bid 4♣ after 2♥, since i dont have to jump to introduce long ♣ suit, it must ( or shld :rolleyes: ) be cue bid for ♥ as trumps. Now wheter or prd bids cue in ♦, i will be better placed to judge wheter we shld play small slam in ♥ or in no-trumps. Yes i have give up the possibility to play 6 ♣.

I don't know why folks are contemplating the Grand when off 1 key card ! ( not knowing which key card is missing ).

A natural weakish 2♠ is certainly more appealing after a support double than after a takeout double. However, South would need to persaude me that this is what 2♠ actually means in their style. Most people would, I think, play 2♠ as a more constructive bid. I hope the appeals committee wasn't swayed by this nonsense. Why should South ask about an unalerted call on the off-chance that the opponents have broken the rules? If you ask because you would bid over a support double, then pass when you're told it's takeout, you create UI for your partner and give the opponents information to which they're not entitled. The relevant EBU rule begins "It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up) .." In this case the misinformation isn't obvious, the explanation is plausible, and South can't protect himself without giving UI.

Understood, Admin. If you wish to delete or move the thread, please do so. Thanks. Russ

Most helpful, my friend. Thank you. I too want bridge to be fun and am too old to fight! So your advice is well taken. Once, back when I suppose I would call myself an intermediate, I had a fiery partner who was in the special forces of another country, training with our military. He was an expert and once, when I missed bidding a grand slam, he looked across the table and said: "You idiot! I ought to break your &%$#@ing neck!" We went out for drinks afterward. When you said you ask permission to join an unlocked hand--did you mean it the other way around? Thanks, Russ

Nice hand! As they say in poker. Well, for a start, I'm really not a fan of that 2♦ bid. People are too quick to preempt when they see a 6 card suit and fewer than 10 HCP. I would open 1♦ or a controversial pass. Anyway, if we did start from 2♦ I'd hope my partnership would bid: 2♦ - 2♠ 3♣1 - 3♦2 3♠3 - 5♣4 5♥5 - 7♦ 1) Game forcing. All weak hands rebid ♦ 2) Sets trump 3) Shortness cue 4) Void exclusion RKCB for ♦ 5) One keycard

Is 4♦ available as a fit bid ? My overcalls are sounder than most people's, so it's not silly to do this, sure I'd like to have a club/diamond less and a spade more, but I wasn't dealt them. If I decide I'm not selling to 4♥, then I think it's reasonable to bid this way.

Thanks VERY much. Nope--not a life master. Ended up with about 50 MP, playing in local clubs back in the late sixties into the seventies. Never heard of SAYC--so there will be some studying before wading in. I was past Goren, but... :) I just encountered one pair who wanted to do a "do-over" and the other side wouldn't let them, so one guy quit. Seems to be table talk too. Appreciate the guidelines. Off to study SAYC! Russ

Result stands. When RHO makes a takeout double LHO is very likely to have a club stack. When RHO makes a support double they will often be guessing when to pass. This seems much more significant to me than any implications about spade length with RHO.

I think that second-seat overcalls have been so debased that there's no difference between a second-seat overcall and a fourth-seat overcall, certainly at the one-level. Hence I've stopped lending and borrowing kings.

The EBU rules don't include the concept of a pre-alert, but I think you should (in the non-legal sense) tell them about it when you arrive at the table. That's mainly in the interest of having a good game of bridge.

One of the purposes of these forums, perhaps the main purpose, is to allow inexperienced directors to learn from more experienced ones. That purpose may be foiled if inexperienced directors are reluctant to post here because of the tone of some responses. I recommend everyone read or hopefully re-read the first two posts in the "forum rules" thread periodically, particularly the second one, and try to remember that people do make mistakes, and derision is not a good teaching tool.

I'd bid 3NT, and cross my fingers. Having no regular partner, I have no regular system over 3NT. Can you make a recommendation?