Quartic

Whether pass is a LA is not dependant on the existence of UI. I think asking the poll without the UI will give a clear indication of which choices are LAs (as long as peers are suitably chosen), and I can't see any advantage to also conducting the poll with the UI.

We're not too bad with memory load as long as it comes up sufficiently frequently.

Tonight this hand came up: [hv=pc=n&s=sj95h6dakqjt84cj2&w=sat643hj854d762c5&n=sqh9732d9cakq9874&e=sk872hakqtd53ct63&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=3n(Solid%20minor%2C%20no%20outside%20A/K)p4d(Asking%20for%20shortage.)pp(I%20don%27t%20remember%20the%20continuations.)p]399|300[/hv] I was North, and realised shortly after my 4!d bid that I shouldn't have bid it - there being no way we had 6!d unless partner has a heart void, which he won't be able to tell me. Discussing at the end of the evening, it was suggested that the Gambling 3NT isn't a very good use of a 3NT opening anyway, and that we should find an alternative. One suggestion was using it to show a solid 8 card Major, allowing a 4M opening to be a broken suit. Is this a good use for it, and what would the follow ups be? Are there any other treatments we should consider?

Using the information available in the order of the cards picked up is a violation of 16A3. Intentionally doing so is a violation of 72B1, so I give a procedural penalty to both players. 16A: Players’ Use of Information A player may use information in the auction or play if: it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information. [*]Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations. [*]No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous). [*]If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C. 72B1: A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

He gave three definitions, which made what he said technically ambiguous. Of course I knew what he meant!

I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that discarding when I have no cards of the suit led is illegal! ;)

Last night I had the following auction: [hv=d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1sp2cp2hp3np]133|100[/hv] How many Hearts and Spades should a bid of 4♥ imply now? What about a 4♠ bid? We were playing Acol, so 2♣ wasn't Game Forcing, but feel free to answer for your own system. The full hand from last night:

Yeah, its clear to me now that I didn't think enough during the bidding of this hand.

Partner psyched in 3rd. I can't say anything about the opponents' bidding. The full hand: [hv=pc=n&s=st7hkt4daj73cjt32&w=sahq9652dk9852c74&n=sj5432h873d6cq985&e=skq986hajdqt4cak6&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1s1nd2hppdp2sdp4dppdppp]399|300[/hv] Unfortunately, I doubled 4!d, turning a good result into a bad one. My partner suggested I had shown my hand with my first two doubles, so I should have passed. From the poll so far, I guess he was right.

[hv=pc=n&s=st7hkt4daj73cjt32&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1s1nd2hppdp2sdp4dpp]133|200[/hv] Playing online with a strong partner you have the above auction. What do you do now?

The problem is worse than this - to make a true single dummy solver you have to assume the other players are also playing single dummy - that is you have to take into account that they don't know all the cards either. Also, accurately modelling the two defenders (for example) you're playing against at the time is another layer of complexity.

I would consider it East's (in this case) responsibility to ask again if he felt the answer wasn't sufficiently clear while it was still his turn. I would expect West to wait until his partner's lead is face down for clarification if he still needs it. I would consider giving West a PP in this case if I felt he should know better, and a warning otherwise. East also has UI, though whether it is meaningful depends on West's question.

Thanks for the offer, I don't mind playing solely online, and I can probably get online at a time suitable for both timezones. PM me with more details? Unfortunately I'm unlikely to be in the financial situation to be able to fund a trip to Australia any time soon.

I feel like I'm in a similar situation - my regular partner is going to university soon, so I want to start a new serious partnership. I play with various good players at my club occasionally, but nothing regular has developed. I think the biggest problem is the large age gap between me (I'm in my 20s) and the rest of the club - it makes it less likely that a potential partner will have the same or complementary goals. What I do want is to get into a strong partnership where we both respect each other; are both willing to put time and effort into bidding and cardplay together; and where both of us want to become competitive at a higher than club level. Unfortunately I don't know how to find/create such a partnership.

Double seems right to me with your partner's hand.

I wondered that when I first saw the OP, but (at least the old school 4NT) specific ace asks are tricky when three aces are missing and the opener has a void - if partner shows two aces, you don't know if he has the two you need, or whether one is wasted opposite the void.

[hv=pc=n&w=sakj986hj52dk43ca&e=sq2hakt83dt8c8652&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1d1sppp&p=d6d8dad3s4]400|300[/hv] Who should have bid more? Also, how would you play the hand? 6♦ lead to South's Ace, small ♠ back.

Club game, both NS and EW are experienced players. [hv=pc=n&s=saqtht74daq87caj2&w=sj73h52dkjt3cq853&n=s952hj9863d542ct6&e=sk864hakqd96ck974&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1s1np2hp3h(Long%20tank)ppp]399|300[/hv] After North's 2♥ bid (not alerted) South thinks for a long time and bids 3♥. NS's agreement is "systems on" after a 1NT overcall, but they haven't discussed what a transfer to the opponents' suit shows. 3♥ goes 2 off. Has South fielded North's misbid? Would you adjust the score? EW gained 7/12 matchpoints on the board. Also, when should EW call the director? When South's hand goes down as dummy, or at the end of the hand?

I think natural calls such as these *are* partnership understandings. Certainly any partnership (that doesn't contain a complete novice) will have a partnership understanding about a 1♠ opening, and the vast majority will have also discussed jump shifts.

I try the ♠6. ♦4 second choice.

I play a weak NT, and I rebid 2♥ with a minimum unbalanced hand. With a 15-17 balanced with 4 card support I would jump to 3♥. Maybe it depends which weak NT system you're playing. Edit: I don't know what I was thinking - I don't ever have a 15-17 balanced with 4 card support here... I would have opened 1♥ (4 card major system). I jump to 3♥ with an unbalanced 15-17.

We did have the agreement that redouble shows first round control. I'm not sure why my partner didn't choose to use it.

1NT wasn't an option for me - we play 12-14. I could have rebid 1NT, but I'd prefer a better ♠ stop, and probably better ♥ tolerance.

Actually we don't play support doubles, I just didn't think of doubling at the table. What should be the distinction between double and 2♣?

How should we have bid these hands? Hand 1: [hv=pc=n&s=sq742hj642d5c8763&w=s8haq95d98743cqt9&n=sajt953hkt7dajc42&e=sk6h83dkqt62cakj5&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1dp1h1s2c2s4dp4sp5dppp]399|300[/hv] 5♦ was one off when the ♥ finesse failed. Should we be in 5♦, or can we stop in 4♦? Should East cue 4♠? Hand 2: [hv=pc=n&s=s9hq98653dj3ca953&w=sjt2hakt7dat6c764&n=s65hj4d8542ckqt82&e=sakq8743h2dkq97cj&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2d(Multi)p2h(Pass%20or%20correct)3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] We gained some matchpoints for 13 tricks (J♦ lead) when most of the field also missed slam.