mfa1010

4♣. Great to get both suits in immediately.

Rhm's line of running trumps is of course the right one. But against these opponents I think we are approx. 99% if we just run the ♠Q. There is no way east is going to return a spade if he is a weak player -only if by accident (hence the 1%).

I did write 0 in his suits. It is not impossible for us to get 11 tricks in diamonds or 9 tricks in notrumps, but odds are heavily against if partner is following a normal, aggressive competitive style. One can really get his judgment screwed up by these threads we have had lately. Completely normal passes but hey partner might have the magic cards, and if we just make the flexible bid then... Since the hands were posted in the first place, partner had the odd hand and the flexible approach was of course the winner in practice.

I think you are way too harsh here. It may be a "serious error" to go wrong about if ghestem applies or not when there is an agreement about it. But thinking that partner's minimum for some competitive double is 8 and not 6 is not a "serious error". For anybody I would say. I strongly believe that the term "serious error" is unrelated to the depth of the partnership's agreements, if that is what you are saying. It could never be a "serous error" not to have discussed the meaning of some bid.

3NT 3♠ 2♠. If p bids 3♠ I will raise myself to game. 1♠ is also possible, but I like the pressure bid.

I think vulnerability is only a small factor here. What matters is offensive vs. defensive potential so we make the right competitive decision. With an 11 count, bidding 3♦ on 2542 nv is bad and so is passing with a reasonable 11 count and 0553 v. Please don't call that style "so aggro", unless you mean a lot less... :)

Pass. I don't know why you are discussing all those majestic suits. This is really an everyday position. Partner has roughly 10 hcp and a one-suiter in clubs, but it doesn't need to be close to solid.

Pass. Bidding on with 0 in his suits is punishing partner. He should be allowed to compete against their cozy 2♠ fit without a monster.

I don't think that 3NT qualifies as a "serious error". So I would adjust to 2♥ with some number of tricks for both sides.

No, that was not what I wrote. Or meant, at least, if I was unclear. It was west who couldn't change his pass because it had been released on the tray before he realized his memory lapse. So he didn't bother to ask the TD for permission to change his call when he knew it wouldn't be allowed anyway. I don't know why the TD wasn't called underway by south. He just didn't. I think we can assume that south (erroneously, surely) thought that the TD could do nothing about it anyway, apart from ordering the play to continue and then look into it afterwards. An interesting part of this situation is that both west and south were required to call the TD, but neither did. What does that mean for the decision.

[hv=pc=n&s=skjthat965d754cj6&w=sa73h732djt86caqt&n=sq982hkj84dk3c975&e=s654hqdaq92ck8432&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1cp2dppp]399|300[/hv] Screens are in use. East's 2♦ was systemically an artificial club raise, limit+. But west initially forgot, so he explained it to south as a weak jump shift. After his pass, west remembered (and then corrected his explanation), but since his pass had been released on the tray, west knew (correctly) that he could not change it under Danish regulations. So the tray was pushed and north passed also. Lead: ♦ to the K, and declarer managed 12 tricks after two heart ruffs in hand. After the hand south summoned the TD and explained that if he had been given the correct explanation he would have had a routine 2♥ overcall. Against a potential misfit it was much less attractive to bid. What would happen thereafter south didn't know, but he wanted the TD to examine if he had been damaged. What should the TD do?

4♦, showing a sound GF raise, and then quit. There are a lot of crappy openers that make the 5 level ridiculous, so no heroics.

It's not just about surviving the first round after 1♦. I think expert practice is to make rather aggressive reverses with 5-6 shapes. If partner ever shows any enthusiasm of his own for our suits we will be strong enough for a leap to 7-direkt. So we can anticipate a bad guess later on after opening 1♦, I think. Unless of course he finds a cunning pass after 1♦-1♠-2♥ with Kxxxx, JTx, x, Jxxx or the like. On the other hand, if we open 2♣ and can bid 3♥ then 4♥, then judged from this thread, partner can't expect less from our hand than we have (or we would have opened 1♦). So what is the problem?

I don't like that. Different situations are different. In your bidding the opponent has made a NF bid at the 2-level, in the actual hand he has not. For instance.

LOL, bunch of merchants.

Ax AKQxxx AKx AQ On this I would gamble slam (X then 6♥). In principle I have only two losers, and they are deep, so there will be many ways for one of them to disappear. If you made the hand a little weaker, I would bid 5♥ over 3♠. Ax AKQxx AKxx AQ 5NT over 3♠. Again, I need very little from partner for slam. If my hand were a little weaker, I would bid 4NT natural over 3♠. Here it comes in handy that 4♣ shows spade support. To keycard for spades, I would have to start 4♣ and then bid 4NT. Axx AKQxx Axx Ax Yes, double then 4♥ shows flexibility. This is a strong hand for this sequence.

For me 4 of a red suit would be a cuebid and forwardgoing with spades. In a pinch I guess that it is possible to cuebid a queen if the hand is too good to sign off in 4♠. 4♣ is not a choice of strains, it is a strong raise in spades. In my context partner has every reason to rebid spades with a five card suit. It would be exotic to start with 4♣ with 2-6 in the majors.

What does partner bid with 4♠+4♦? Or 4♠+4♥? Or perhaps even sometimes with 5♦+4♠? I guess 3♠. So there is no particular reason to count strongly on five spades with partner. Bidding 5♠ seems very unsatisfying. If he passes it is often a very shaky contract. If he raises, then it is often a 4-3 in slam. Should we correct to 6NT? Why can't we just bid 5♥ now? Would that be something really technical? I don't think so, so that's my choice. If we had just hearts, we could have bid 5♥ over 3♣ or over 3♠. A 5NT bash is also possible, planning to bid 6♥ as a choice of majors. We could also go low and pass. Very annoying problem.

If north can get south to show somw club support then it would be reasonable to bid 5♠ exclusion and head for the grand opposite 2 KC.

My assumption was based on the fact that we almost always copy international regulations when we make the Danish ones. ACBL could learn from that. :P Yes, NS might be damaged as you describe it. But it seems to me to be a detour first to say that the failure to announce "counts as a mistaken explanation". We would not be using that to anything. We would be adjusting directly from the fact that the infraction damaged the opponents.

Ok, thanks. I wonder if anyone could explain to me if it has any real consequence that it "counts as mistaken explanation" or if it is all just hot air.

Matchpoints. Two bread and butter opening lead problems. 1. 3♠ - p - 4♠ - all pass ♠85 ♥KJ92 ♦9876 ♣742 2. 1NT - p - 3NT - all pass ♠JT86 ♥9 ♦983 ♣AK742

Failure to alert is equivalent to making a positive statement to the opponents that the bid is not artificial (etc.). Such a statement could be misinformation. But failure to announce seems to be the opposite: the complete absence of a statement that the rules require us to make. It may be a breach of law, but I don't see how it can be misinformation to say nothing. I suppose it's not like the opponents can freely assume some range absent an announcement and then get compensated if it turns out that they assumed wrongly.

I would lead a trump.

Which law says that? But what do the EBU regulations say will happen if a player fails to announce as he should? Do they really say nothing? Not sure. I don't agree that east "certainly could have known that this might happen" as the basis for using law 23. Could east "certainly have known" that NS were about to break the laws? Anyway this is a not so desirable solution. Adjusting twice in order to get back at the starting point is very doubtful. I prefer: Having different yardsticks about what constitutes UI in different situations is not so unusual: 1) If a player makes a skip bid but forgets the stop-card and next hand bids in normal tempo, then the TD should lean towards jugding no UI. Atleast under Danish regulations, but I assume that this is an international rule. 2) If a player behind screens takes more time than usual in 'highly unusual situations generated by unfamiliar conventions or treatments', then the TD is supposed to be 'sympathetic' to the player who was to contend with such a situation. Which I suppose translates to judging no UI if it is at all reasonable to do. WBF code of practice, p.9 http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files/WBFInformation/CodeofPractice/WBFCodeofPractice.pdf There are probably more examples. For me it sounds right to judge no UI if in doubt in the thread situation. It is very likely that the breach of correct procedure by itself initiated the questioning. Also I don't give so much weight to the players' asking habbits as others seem to do. It is not necessary to have very strict habbits in order to avoid giving away information in practice.