Leaderboard

3. 7ntXX is reached.

Of course not and I stated this in the first sentence of my post. However you are expected to disclose your partnership understandings and once this has come up or been discussed it is an understanding. The question of how to explain asking bids is one that comes up regularly in the law forums. What you should do in theory is to explain what your partner might hold for their call, hence "asks for exact shape, usually showing 5 spades or slam interest" or whatever. In practise most just give the first part. Most of the time that is fine but when the lack of full disclosure damages the opponents then you may be opening yourself up to an unfavourable ruling. It is also my opinion, but not within the rules, that those who play unusual systems should go out of their way to explain secondary aspects of that system rather than seeking to obtain an advantage from the unfamiliarity. I further believe that if that were both done and enforced it would go some way to making such systems more acceptable to certain regulators and to players.

This actually biases the pool of hands that actually do get played. My partner and I open some 8-point hands and most 10-pointers, and we've chosen our system with some care. If we aren't at the first table to play that deal you're throwing out, we won't get to play it at all, and we won't get to enjoy the advantages (and drawbacks) of the work we've put into our partnership. Unless everyone at your club plays the same system, there's no such thing as a deal that will be passed out at every table. Your method favors the standard systems against the nonstandard ones, not on their merits but capriciously. That's not bridge.

I think that's backwards: over weaker bids your bids should be more constructive.

Today, our table was Passed Out. The director was called over, and he came around and looked at everyone's hand..... Yep...you guessed it....I was in 3rd seat...with only 10 points....and figured I would pass and let the 4th seat make a bid and go from there. I had 2 red kings and 2 black queens....a good support hand. and then the 4th seat passed! Yikes.... I was told by a very experienced player that in duplicate... the 4th seat must bid. That is why I thought I was ok. Can anyone enlighten me?

For the benefit of those who have never attended an EBL event, I should point out two general principles: 1.EBL directors and officials have the power to make retrospective changes to the CoC after an event has already started. 2.EBL directors and officials cannot envisage the possibility of an EBL director or official making a mistake. Following on from the second principle, the CoC do not mention the scenario in this thread.

Come on, folks! Law 46A uses the verb "should" in describing how to play a card from dummy, and the introduction says: 'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized) Law 46B clearly and unambiguously states the precise consequences when declarer plays a card from dummy in a manner different from what is prescribed in Law 46A, and there is no room here for any rectification or other penalty when declarer uses a word like "low". Specifically the word "small" does not imply that the card should rank below any particular value, only that is is a call for the "smallest" card available. In fact using words like "top", "high", "low" or "small" when following suit from dummy is common and so much simpler than having to spell out the complete designation that I would seriously consider using Law 74A2 against any player acting like West in this case. I would certainly not make any adjustment unless a deliberate attempt to mislead opponents is shown.

For me, 4♦ would be a slam try in spades and 4♠ shows a minimum. That is also the generic default for the fourth suit at the 4 level in auctions where there is no alternative way of raising partner's last suit below game and slam is possible.

I guess it depends on who might be saying that. However, let's assume the AI is different from the UI in some respects. It doesn't matter whether AI is fully contained in the UI or visa versa. It doesn't matter whether the only difference in the two is specificity. The only thing that matters if we are trying to direct, rather than "director", is whether the player is using only the information contained in the AI. If the AI leads to more than one logical alternative, AND the UI provides something else which demonstrably could suggest one alternative over another, we consider adjusting. If not, we shouldn't.

Hi Ronald, welcome to the forum! Yes, this is played as a game force by most (although I think Cascade on this forum prefers to play it as nonforcing - probably it makes more sense to play it as nonforcing if you play weak NT than if you play strong). It means that a weak hand with long spades will have to either pass or double. Double, of course, is an option only if you have a bit of defense as partner will sometimes pass it. It is probably better to play 3♥ as a transfer to spades so that you can bid with both weak and strong hands, but standard is natural and forcing.

I think that the passers are being too lazy: they are not trying to construct hands consistent with the auction. In particular, the auction strongly suggests serious diamond shortness in partner's hand, along with only (at most) 3 spades. LHO might be 4=4=3=2, but all other shapes that he might hold will give us a diamond void in partner's hand. Now, start thinking about what kind of hand partner should have to double and then bid. I'd suggest that a very likely shape is 3=4=0=6, yet he didn't start with 2♣, intending to double next time (if appropriate) so he won't be weak...he'll have a good hand. Start playing around with good hands that are 3=4=0=6 and you'll soon see that game is a heavy favourite on most of them, yet partner won't be able to bid over 3♠ by LHO and will almost never be able to raise our presumed balancing 4♣ to game (assuming the opps don't bid 4♠ ahead of us. I think it is mandatory to bid here, and I am torn between 5♣, the contract I want to be in opposite my posited 3=4=0=6, and 4♣, which is probably where we want to be should partner be, for example, 3=3=1=6. On that last note: what is our style with that shape? Most opening hands, including some with extras, would (in my partnerships and I think this is standard) overcall then double, rather than double then bid. If I were playing opposite a clone of me, I'd bid game. If I were playing opposite an expert who was more aggressive than I am, in the N seat, I would bid 4♣,but be really worried I was underbidding again. Pass, to me, suggests that we didn't look at any part of our hand or, if we did, that we didn't pay any attention to the auction. Btw, if I am right about this, I will be very grateful to RHO for telling me about partner's diamond shortness, tho I wouldn't say anything (a good opp will know what damage his call did when dummy comes down).

It's a mixture of things. The well known explanations include: 1. Cherry picking examples 2. The ACA transfers money from healthy young people to people with pre-existing conditions 3. Many red states refused the Medicaid expansions subsidies that the ACA provides 4. "Apples and oranges" type comparisons. Many of the the cheap plans that people liked didn't provide any kind of coverage 5. There are well documented cases where insurance company's cancelled people's cheap plans and tried to steer customers towards more expensive plans without making them aware that better alternatives exist One last point that is much less well known but has a lot of explanatory power: There was a statistically significant change in the cost of health care plans that happened when the ACA was passed. Few of the cost savings provisions had been put into effect, and yet the rate of increase in plan costs decreased significantly. Many of the cheap plans that were discontinued were deliberately designed to sunset at the end of 2013. Insurance companies can craft some very attractive policies so long as they are only covering people for a short time window.

You are having a laugh, right? How many players "fairly new to the game" do you know who spend any time at all thinking about forcing passes?

Q1 - Since you play 2/1, if the opponent had passed instead of bidding ♠, what would you have bid with hand 1? If you're not playing any special major raises, you probably would have bid a forcing NT and then jumped to 3 ♥ over partner's rebid - the invitational 2 1/2 ♥ raise. 4-3-3-3 isn't ideal, but as JLOGIC pointed out, your ♠ K gained some value positioned behind the ♠ overcaller. You'd like to have 4 ♠s for a limit raise, but you do have the right values to make one. So, 2 ♠ showing invitational values would seem right to me. Q2 - I'd start out with 2 ♠ on this hand for a couple reasons. First, if the points are evenly distributed around the table, 2 ♠ makes it more difficult for the opponents to find their red suit fit -- they've got to do it at the 3 level. (And for this reason, I don't have any problem with those who might want to preempt it a bit more aggressively.) Second, partner is unlikely to make a competitive decision that expects more from my hand than I have (i.e. 1 1/2 QTs). Q3 - Given the auction to this point, you have a clear pass. You've already aggressively bid your values and have no idea what partner's RDBL was based on. So give partner a chance to decide what to do and make a further call. Partner might support ♠s, or double to try to find a better place to play (after which you can bid ♣s), or might just sit for 3 ♥ with the right hand to defeat it.

Yes you can design a 3-level jump as an Ace-ask. Jannersten Precision had an asking bid that could be used even when the bidding did not start with 1♣. The asking bid is initiated by a jump in either suit after a game force is in effect (works best in a 1♣ auction after a positive response). Replies: Cheapest NT = No Ace and No honor in suit asked. Raise = No Ace but an honor in the asked suit (Q, K, or A). Other suit = Ace of suit and no honor in asked suit. Jump in a suit = Ace of suit and a trump honor. Jump in NT = No honor in trumps, but 2 Side Aces. Jump in Asked suit = 2 Aces and one trump honor. I don't use it anymore as we play Beta Asking Bids (Asks for Controls, A = 2 and K = 1). Beta or Jannersten's Asking Bid can also be used after 1♣ - 1♦ - 3M.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa93hda84c&w=s86h7djtct&n=skqthdc975&e=shdc]399|300[/hv] South (reasonably competent) on lead in 3NT has lost 2 tricks. She claims 11 saying "the clubs are high" Can the defenders/director hold her to 8 tricks by requiring ♦A, ♠AK, ♣9?

Yes...wondering how the director got there...and even more curious as to why he is looking at the hands. :P

I am not sure what partner has, but I would bid 5♣. Looking at my hand I think its unlikely that partner has exceptional diamonds and a slam try, so it may be as well a splinter for hearts. We are surely playing slam so it doesnt hurt to show my 1st round control. Over anything I would try 5N and see if partner can bid 7.

Win the first trick. If it appears that rho has the clubs you still have the chance that he has another heart honour and that you can guess which one.

It doesn't matter. Say you duck...win the continuation (if a club, win in hand). Cash the spade winners, pitching a low club. Cash the diamonds. You need LHO to hold 3+ clubs and you're playing him for the heart K, so at the point of cashing your last diamond, winning in hand, you've played 4 spades, 4 diamonds and one heart, and maybe a second heart or a club, depending on what RHO played at trick 2. In any event, LHO can't hold onto the club guard and the heart K. But say you win trick one. Run the spades, pitching a club, then the diamonds ending in hand. You have played 9 cards, so have J9 in hearts in hand along with Ax in clubs and dummy has Kxxx in clubs. LHO has to have stiffed the heart K to keep 3 clubs, so you exit a heart, establishing the J. You will probably even be able to read the position, since LHO may have had to pitch the heart 10 in the end position. In fact, you can't really go wrong. It ought to have been entirely foreseeable that diamonds would be better, and surely it ought to have been possible to find the fit? 7♦ is better than 6N, which ought to tell you something about the bidding.

The problem with the position articulated by Peter above can be summed up with a simple example. I open 1NT and partner responds 2♦, which I announce as a transfer. Unfortunately partner gets confused and also starts to announce transfer immediately afterwards. Now I have UI that partner remembered the system. Clearly the UI suggests bidding 2♥ over passing now, especially if we have ever played weak takeouts or if partner forgot once (20 years ago). So we should pass, right? Here's a better one. We recently switched from playing normal Stayman to Puppet. So I alert (or not according to regs) partner's club response and give the appropriate response when an opponent asks. Is partner now constrained by this UI to continue the auction as per normal Stayman even when they had not forgotten? I think everyone here would agree not and yet that is the logical conclusion from the idea that is being suggested. The argument against is simple. If the UI is exactly the same as the AI then it cannot suggest one alternative over another. Can you give a counter-example where this is not the case without it also resulting in a logical loop back the the (silly) examples earlier in this post?

Thanks for all the votes and opinions. On the 1st hand I was South and held ♠XX ♥ AJTXX ♦AJ ♣KQXX Game was fairly good, my partner invited and we reached the game smoothly. However I thought I would struggle between 2♥ and 2♠ and might have missed this game had we only bid 1♥-(1♠)-2♥ On the 2nd hand I thought about 1♠, 2♠, 3♠ and opened 1♠ at last, thinking that I might be able to show ♣ later. Retrospectively thinking 3♠ looked a lot better.

I agree expert opponents might duck, but I doubt that advanced players are likely to duck with ♥ATx. Anyway if you play LHO for the ♠A there is no need for any artistery. Just continue with another top heart from dummy. (Or have I overlooked something?) Rainer Herrmann

yeah, my p had 3 hearts, pre-emptor had singleton club lead to the Ace and trumps split 3-3 :angry: :lol:

The problem is a practical one rather than a theoretical one. Should players routinely protect themselves by asking about responses when told something is asking a specific question? (Do you do this?) Or should they be able to assume that the person asking the question wants to know the answer? If you think the answer to a question about the meaning of an asking bid should in principle also include the responses, then you will fall foul of all the people who argue that the person answering the question should not be saying what their own bid in response to it will mean....

Whether or not one should double 2♥, doubling 4♠ is a complete nonsequitur. "Partner wants a heart lead? He must have a huge hand!" It's like one player opening a 15-17 1nt with 14, and their partner bidding game on a 3 count and asking who's to blame. While either player could have technically avoided it, one player used judgment, rightly or wrongly, the other left their judgment in their car.

3♥ would be my choice, but at matchpoints a raise to 2NT has some merit to it. The spade situation is risky, but you'll only get blown away in the suit if partner has nothing there, RHO leads a spade and LHO has the ♠A. And even then, partner has the option to go back to hearts with a strong doubleton. I'd want to be in 3NT if partner had ♠J10x ♥x ♦KQxx ♣QJxxx.

Not necessarily if you don't want to, logically it seems like partner can bid 3S with a min 2551 (declining our invite and realizing spades is an equal or better fit than hearts) and 4C with a max 2551 (accepting our invite and offering a choice of games, cannot be any kind of slam move since we made a NF 3H bid). Of course I just made that up but I think it makes sense. I agree with you that 15 is the most likely major suit holding, and in those cases spades will probably play better (but not always or anything, esp since we know nothing of suit quality from pard), but I do not think that makes up for the times he has 6 hearts where hearts will almost definitely be better, and the times when he has 0553 in which case hearts will usually play better, even though those are less frequent. It seems complicated and I think someone could write a book about it. I have no doubt the 2M constructive auctions are difficult since they start so high. Until such a book is written maybe gwnn should just bid a ton of hands in partnership bidding and see what he thinks works best/what his partnership is comfortable with.

I'm sure I'd start with 1C 1H 2N The hand is way too good for a 1N opener, but I still think showing it as a balanced hand is better than showing it as a reverse. After that who the hell knows lol, depends on methods etc.

What do you think it means for the UI to suggest alternative A over alternative B? I think it means that the difference between having the UI and not makes alternative A more attractive relative to alternative B. But if you have the same information from an authorised source, the difference between having the UI and not is nil. The information content of the AI given the UI and that of the UI given the AI are both zero, as you say (provided the AI tells us no more than the UI, which is not always the case). But only one of these matters. In applying the law we consider the hypothetical situation in which the player only has AI. It does not make sense to consider the situation in which he only has UI. This is exactly why we are not normally constrained by partner's answers to questions. Provided the answer is what we expect, they give no extra information and so cannot suggest anything.

I appreciate it's all very easy to criticise after the fact but the first hand imo is a 100% blatant 4♥ bid in response to 2♥. There are loads of complete minimums where you are just cold for game; e.g. xx KQJTxx xx xxx. As for the second the 1♠ overcall is just ugly. And presumably it isn't just a style thing for you or you wouldn't have chosen 3NT. I would seriously consider 2♠ overcall [EDIT: though have just noticed that this is not available for you] and probably make it (rightly or wrongly) but 1♠ is a zero and completely anti-partnership. There are aggressive overcalls and then there's that. There must be some element of "constructiveness" or it will damage you more than opps. Your 2♥ and 3NT (though I prefer 2) are totally reasonable imo.

3♥ 2♣ --> 2NT, borderline for me though

No it is a matter of hand evaluation. I consider 2♥ quite aggressive, but that would be my choice too. 2NT on the next round is enough. This should show this HCP range. With 13-14 HCP I would bid 2NT immediately. Rainer Herrmann

1. Pass 2. 2♣ and pass 2♠, make a move towards 3NT over any other rebid

It was only played in 3NT= at one table I think, spade was probably led by west. Every other table played in 3♣=, don't know the auction. Anyway, I'm guessing most west players passed or opened 2♠, so the diamond situation isn't impossible to guess right

Double = 10 Pass = 0 This is a common enough scenario, your preempt forced them to guess a bit and they punted game with a fit and they were wrong and we are 95 % sure that they are wrong, let's just double. Even if declarer has KQ of spades and the DK they are unlikely to have the entries to dummy to pick up everything. We are probbably going to get a tap going also. Even if dummy has the short clubs if they only have 3 spades they cannot ruff 2 clubs in dummy while picking up our trumps. It's just terrible to not X.

He said the clubs were high because he thought that was the only suit worth mentioning. It was presumably obvious that the spades and the ace of diamonds were winners. Do you think the ruling should be any different if declarer had said something like: "I have a surfeit of winners: three each in spades and clubs and the ace of diamonds"?

Actually, he stated a clear enough line of play for me. He said the clubs are high, and he was wrong; but, he focussed on the Clubs. He said nothing about the ace of Diamonds. From that, I would allow an immediate cross to dummy with a spade and then an immediate club play. That would give the opponents a club and a heart for making 3. Ordering a pitch of the Diamond Ace would be arbitrary and punitive; that is not how I see my job or wish it to be seen.

What makes you think they don't have a transfer agreement? If the box for "Systems on" on their CC is ticked, they have a transfer agreement. If it isn't ticked, they have an agreement to play natural. Look at the CC. It says: That settles it. The box is ticked, South used UI, you adjust to a heart contract and give a PP. (You should -obviously- still check whether they also use Jacoby transfers after a 2NT opening, but I assume that they do.) Rik

Well I hope that I don't get this ruling after I pause for 10 seconds (which, I will admit, I would be using all of trying to work out if double = lead spades if I don't have that agreement). Because one thing I don't do is look at the stop card, and pass after 1 second. Even after 1NT-7NT. This one drives me nuts, because everybody does in fact do the "token look and one-second display of the stop card" (if at all), and there are times - rare, but this is the second time I've seen this one - where I do have to think over 1NT-3NT. So I always do, because I always do - and the reason I always do is that sometimes I have to. Odd, that.

Did South pause for longer than the stop period? If so that suggests he was thinking of doubling to get a particular lead. The one suit we can be sure he wasn't after is a heart; anything else is suggested over hearts IMO.