affe82

Just a quick check if I am sane. (sorry if this is too an easy problem - wanted a second opinion) Mostly the complaint seem to be concentrated on the fact that non-offenders bidding bad. When strange bidding coincides with BIT and success there is however often a need to investigate. S AKxxx Qx Jxxx AJ N xx AJxxx - Qxxxxx West deals and the bidding goes: W N E S 2S* p p 2N** p 4C p 4H***(BIT) p 5C X p p p Result: 5CXN 11 550 * 5spades and a 4+minor, weak **"Natural" ***explained as Q-bid No questions are asked during the bidding from EW. Tabling the dummy explanation of 2N and 4H are given upon inquiries. TD questions: - was there a BIT? - Yes. S tanked over 4C. - What is system over a nat 2N? - 3level bids nat here. All Nat. -On opening 2N puppet stayman and transfers. No SouthAfricanTexas/Namyats. -NS do not play 4minor as a TRF to corresponding Major -NT bidding over 1N is stayman and 2level TRF, 2S showing weak/strong minor one-/twosuiter. Souths 4H looks like a bid designed to cover up if North has intended 4C as a H-trf. North claims this was cue. This is a statement delivered after seeing dummy. 4minor as a TRF to corresponding Major is common in the area although NS claim not to use the convention. EW claims damage and want a rollback to 4H - why no pass? Or at least a removal of the X. My ruling: result stands. No evidence of UI affecting result. I do not like the motivation for seeking a ruling which further strenghtens my inclination not to adjust (first statement fromEW "How can he not pass 4H with 5c sup?"). Do you adjust? And: Did I miss anything in my investigation? Thankful for thoughts and comments. /fredrik

East is playing with West as dummy and you are South. Should be correct although might be an unorthodox presentation, no?

Up against a world class partnership (recent champions in Lille) in the local league you face the following problem: [hv=pc=n&s=s7632h52d853ckj53&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1d(precision%201d%3A%20nat%2C%20may%20have%20longer%20C%3B%20any%204441%3B%20exactly%204405%3B11-13nt)1n(15-18)p2d(4+H)p2h(2-3sup)p2n(inv%20showing%204S%20and%204+H)p3h(accept%20and%20not%204S%2C%203H)p3nppp]133|200[/hv] 1♦= precision style: 1)Nat, may have longer ♣ 2)any 4441 3)4-4-0-5 4)11-13 balanced What is your lead? And your reasoning therefore? If you as me chose an attacking ♣5, you will be faced with the following: [hv=pc=n&s=s7632h52d853ckj53&w=sj984haj84dj762c9]266|200[/hv] Partner plays Queen headed by ace and declarer returns ♣7. Now what?

MPs.[hv=pc=n&s=sa65hjt962d86ck93&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp2cp2dp2np3dp3hp3np4dp]133|200|2♣=GF or 20-21 balanced 2♦=not one suited positive (at least HHxxx) 2N=20-21 3♦=5+♥ 3♥=at least Hxx support 3N=5♥, cog 4♦=cue bid[/hv] So we denied a good suit and a positive response asking pd with 20-21 balanced to choose game, he is still slamming How close is our decision and what do we do?

You open a 15-17nt and partner is nice enough to raise you to game. All non-vulnerable, you dealt, Imps. So: S W N E 1nt pass 3nt pass pass pass lead is 2nd/3rd/5th, this the layout: A9 J9 A543 JT965 KT63 Q632 K AK73 lead: J of diamonds. First trick is J, x, x, K Second is 4, 3, 2, A of clubs (ace lead, tried to make it as clear as possible who has which card). So it all comes down to play the clubs for 5tricks (or endplaying RHO holding something like spade ????/AK??/xx/Qxx on third club and J of hearts). Is this still a "9ever, 8 never" type of hand or is the inference from the lead of long diamonds strong enough to create a vacant spaces argument for the finesse? (if vacant spaces can give some edge to the finesse line is the endplay version an argument to strenghten the decision to go for the drop since there is an extra chance good enough?) Bonusquestion: if lefty held 3442 with Kxxx, QJTx would he favour leading diamonds to hearts in this sequence (taking away from the interference of the lead to be from 5+, thus ruining a vacant spaces argument for the finesse). Did I just screw this thing with vacant spaces up completely or is my thought process of this being awfully close a valid one?

if you open good 10s and can have an excellent 15 it makes all the sense to split the range for the version of gazilli I play in precision. we don't play forcing nt either so the comment about 5-3 M+clubs is semi void. I find gazilli a great tool for judging when to invite/bid thin games. admittedly we play inv+ trf follow ups on 2/1 so a lot of the good hands in 1n are gone and responders 1n is most likely a very descriptive bid. Finding the right partscore when opener is balanced is a lot easier when ranges are split and most likely the hand with suitlenghts interested in not playing 1n. where i play a version of gazilli to precision systems is standard. greater minds then my i trust. there are few problem hands in the version suggested.

Admittedly in a precision based structure but this is how we solve it: 2♦: accepting invitation or a weak 3suitedhand (short in opener´s suit) that will pass on p´s rebid 2♥: (if opening 1♠, weak 0-1♠, 5+♥)opener is allowed to raise with fit, even if minimum 2♠(over 1♥-1n-2♣): both minors with better ♦. I also strongly prefer to play 2♣as strong or 6+M, and 2M as M+♣. It makes it a whole lot easier to end up in correct part score exept in a spade sequence where you have a 5/6-3 ♥ fit. I play the same when playing 2-1 and find it working except the pass out version of 2♦ is a lot less frequent since partner can be so strong you strive to find an alternative that is descriptive enough. In one partnership we have 2N after 2♦ as a GF bid catering to this and 2♦ works as description above again.

Jack of hearts. Either pd has 2 aces in a mix up and if hearts lets it through pd should avoid dubbling. I'm rooting for k of h and an ace with pd.

I was asked my opinion in a case yesterday from which arose 3 questions. In a 24board team match, level intermediate (not that it matters much) the following occurs: 1♠ - p - 2N* - p 3!♥** - p - 6♠ - all pass *alerted and explained as jacoby transfer, 4+♠ FG, asking hand type ** alerted and explained as cuebid denying ♦ cue and not minimum. Bidding finishes and prior to lead declarer informs defence that there was a misexplaination in the bidding (we understand this explaination to be the one of 3♥ since this is the only bid explained by his partner). Opening leader does not ask what is the correct explaination but his partner does and is told by declarer that he has no right knowing this now since it is not his time to act. Opening leader still does not ask (some further investigation regarding actual circumstances here might be in order but I was not directing, my advice was asked) and leads. Slam makes. Upon realizing declarer was off 2 top tricks on different lead director is summoned and it is claimed that under correct explaination the setting lead would have been found. Leader's hand: xx AQxxx Txx xxx Correct information according to system notes was that 3♥ showed some extras and short clubs. On a ♥ lead slam would fail since declarer had xx to xx in the suit. How would you rule? My questions: The director decided to make a poll with correct information, not mentioning the mishap of wrong explaination at all (i did not find this investigation particulary useful). Players of comparable skill mostly did not lead ace of ♥ or a ♥. To me ace of hearts looks to be on the money with correct information. With the corrected information at table - i.e. knowing what LHO thought it meant and what it did mean - ace of ♥ stands out by a mile. 1) with above information. do you let defenders change lead to ace of ♥, 6♠ -1? 2) by not investigating the true answer what 3♥ meant before leading to the slam has opening leader forfeited his right to correction based on incorrect information? 3) when evaluting what lead what would have been chosen given correct information is it correct to analyze the hand based only on the correct information or in the light knowing what the player giving the incorrect information thought his partner held (here we "know" a ♥ stopper was what LHO was looking for based on his bidding, he is likely to have a good stop in ♦ and a source of tricks somewhere so the setting lead is more easily found with the inference that he thought partner held ♥ cue than with solely correct information)?

This is an interesting position to play forcing p in. Me and p has discussed playing forcing pass over favarouble sacrifices from opp when we have shown some values. This fits the description. Sure opps can use this convention to their advantage with knowledge of it; still i think it makes sense and do make the cases of the working preempt considerably fewer.

Reg: Swedes switching. Captain felt he wanted to make an effort winning the match and not making an adjustment too late he tried for a switch early. Upmark Nyström will start playing as a partnership after this BB and knows oneanother well. They won an invitational in China just prior to BB partnered by Fredin Fallenius and it is the ambition this will bring the necessary momentum. The overall feeling in camp sweden is that the relays has not paid off and the captain wanted to go for a switch to a nat sys something that was always an alternative (a team sys was registered for this purpose). That is the explanation on swedish discussion boards given by the swedish captain.

i withdraw - not thinking. sry!

Since it is more likely to miss one card in hand rather than two, especially if one of them is an honour.

IGNORE - NOT THINKING. in nt dummy holds Qxxx to AKTx Decl advances the A and LHO discards. Before declarer follows from table LHO admits to holding the suit in question and rules for a non-established revoke is envoked. EDIT: Decl now - wrongly - assumes LHO to have revoked from x and not Jx, enters in another suit (for some reason unexplained) and take a losing finesse to the Jx. Is there damage? (I think yes). Should there be an adjustment? (in case of a yes under which paragraph?). sincerely /fredrik

Maybe a bad idea but I would think: 4n- initial minors or spade slamtry with heart q.(follow up 5h void and one suiter in spades) 5s- slamtry no heart q 5hearts- void and a 2suiter in minors. 5n-pick a slam-2places