mr1303

Auction went: 1D (2D) X (2H) X (3C) P (3H) X (4C) 4S 1D was alerted. Opps didn't ask, but were aware that we were playing precision 2D was alerted as michaels. The actual hand was both minors, 5 diamonds to the KJ, around a 9 count. 4S made up one, but I wasn't happy (I was declarer) about the auction and called the director, who adjusted to 2HX-6. Was this ruling fair? Whilst I believe this is correct according to the laws (correct me if I'm wrong) everyone was dissatisfied at the result, which turned the match completely in our favour. Comments would be welcomed

5C should show a void, and say "really, all I need is a cue in a red suit for slam. Don't worry about potential wasted honours".

On Mike Lawrence's 2/1 cd he says that a 2NT rebid now should show a good 16 or 17 count. However, I'm not particularly impressed with 2NT here, as I don't think that 3NT will have chances. So I'm going to pass

4NT with not 1 but 2 voids?!? No wonder you ended up in a stupid contract.

Apologies for the misunderstanding Ben

Ben, I had the South hand at table 1. That hand came straight out of this week's Jr Flight tournament. My 1♣ opening was a precision 1C, not a ridiculous bid, which is the impression you gave with your exclamation mark. However, my partner really should have known better, as we do play exclusion RKCB in this situation. Mark

Can I have the original double back? I think thats a terrible bid with the stiff heart. I'm going for 2NT on the first round. I know I'm only 5-4, but I think that the alternatives are worse

Everything I know about Keri is found in the Ron Klinger book "Bid better, much better after opening 1NT" The main treatments are as follows: 2C = puppet to 2D. After which: Any suit = invitational values, 4 or 5 cards if a major, 6 cards if a minor 2NT = shape enquiry, after which: 3C = no 5 card major, not 4333 shape. Responder can then bid 3D as normal Stayman 3D = 4333, 3H/S are then 4 card suits, asking for support. Opener bids 3NT without 3H/S = 5 cards in suit bid 2D and 2H are still transfers, but slightly modified. 1NT 2D 2H 2S shows invitational values and only 4-4 in the majors. 1NT 2D 2H 2NT is Game Forcing, showing 5 hearts and a 4 card minor. Therefore a new suit at the 3 level after a transfer shows 5-5 1NT 2S is a range ask. 2NT shows a minimum, 3C shows a maximum. This sequence is used when responder doesn't have a 4 card major 1NT 2NT is a transfer to clubs, showing either a rubbish hand with long clubs or a game forcing sequence with longer clubs. My partner Mike Bell knows more about this than me, so if I've got anything wrong he can correct me Mark

Hi everyone. I've recently started playing a simple 2/1 system with my other half, and we've decided to play 2D as a Flannery opening, as this hand is difficult to bid using a forcing NT. However, we're not 100% sure as to what are the best continuations. For those of you who don't know, a Flannery 2D shows exactly 4 spades, 5 hearts, and a hand not strong enough to reverse. My initial thoughts are as follows: 2D (P): 2H/S = to play 2NT = some sort of strong asking bid 3C/D = natural, forcing 3H/S = either pre-emptive or invitational. 3NT = to play 4C/D = cue bid agreeing hearts 4H/S = to play Comments would be warmly appreciated Mark

Another possibility is S W N E 1H 2NT 3S 5D P P X Which has interesting play, given that S, on lead, can't lead a trump. Not that I agree with the unusual 2NT bid, but I know plenty who would bid it

1. Calm down. Bridge is only a game, and there's no point in getting so worked up about things like that. 2. Just because you may be unhappy by a director's ruling, I fail to see the benefit that can be gained by a public message slagging another member off. If you're unhappy about something, you can already put a personal note about him/her so you can remember not to play in his/ her tournaments. 3. BBO is an international arena. Not everyone may know the English for sorry misclick or something similar. I personally think there isn't enough information to go on to make this a clear case of UI. Besides, how do you know that his original intention was to cash out on the hearts? Having not stated a line of play (which people really should do btw) I don't think it's clear cut to adjust this board.

Hmmm. I'm Mike's new partner for this year. The pressure's definitely on now

I modified the Reverse Benji openings in order to right side more contracts: 2C = 23+ bal, or any strong without primary diamonds 2D = 20-22 bal or any strong with primary diamonds. Given that the most common responses are 2D and 2H respectively, this will right side the contract, keeping the strong hand as declarer. I believe this is similar to the ROMEX openings, discounting the 1NT opening of course.

If I understand the bidding correctly, partner is a passed hand, so I think game is about the limit of the hand. Hence I'll bid it now. If they attempt anything higher, the X card awaits for them

But surely when your partner bids 3NT it clearly will have no play whatsoever, so why not bid 4H? Which would appear to be at worst 2 off. I think you're not entirely innocent in this one. And anyway, in individuals misunderstandings do happen. The fact that no-one appeared to have anything approaching their bids on this board is neither here nor there.

[hv=s=s4hk9652daj53ckqj]133|100|[/hv] Sorry guys no vulnerability or format here, as I wasn't told it either.

Forgetting the issue of whether you should adjust, I'd ban this Westplayer from any of my tournaments for what he said there. No matter how upset you feel at a ruling, you don't say that sort of thing to anyone

Not sure if anyone else would agree with me, but a bid of 4NT here is what's your minor, 5C/D = I want to play here, please shut up, unless this is your minor, in which case with good controls you may bid 6. It does irritate me when partners correct 5C/D to 5H or 6 other minor in these positions.

3Nt isn't a contract you want to be in here. Just because the spades happen to block and neither opponent has anything resembling their bids doesn't mean that you want to play it.

5 aces in a hand..... Time to call the director I think

I think this is a very common experience for all of us sadly. However, the only times I leave without a warning is when someone has offended me. They get put on my enemy list fairly quickly too. Otherwise, if I decide that I've had enough bridge for this session, I say "sorry everyone, last hand for me. Thanks all for the game". You could start putting "friendly players only" in your table description, but sadly I think you'll find no difference whatsoever. So what I do these days is generally play with people I already know.

Lots of defensive strength here, and no offense. Presumably 2S is forcing, so they'll be going somewhere, and it's not likely you are. Bring out the pass card very quickly. If partner has a good suit he can bid it, although this is unlikely given his first pass

The point I am trying (probably badly) is that criticising those directors for disallowing psyches in their tournaments, isn't reasonable, regarding viewpoint 2. As far as I am aware the directors on these nights are fully qualified, and are aware that this decision is not in accordance with the rules of bridge. Indeed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays you can bid whatever you like whenever you like, give or take. Given this scenario, I feel that any director should be able to stipulate any regulations he/she feels are warranted for his/her tournament. This isn't exclusive to online bridge I still don't think I explained my point there.

On the issue of psyching, whilst the rules do state that you are allowed to psyche providing........ it is not only in online bridge where restrictions are in force. In one club that I play at from time to time, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, psyches are strictly forbidden. And for their definitions, opening a weak 2 in 3rd on a 5 card suit is considered a psyche.

When I direct I have my (possibly slightly out of date, but still relevant) copy of the rules sitting next to my computer. I've only needed to refer to them twice, though, and I've directed a fair few tournaments in my time. Most of the adjustments I've given are clear decisions, as anything that isn't clear cut I tend to leave as is, as there are a number of external factors that I can't get enough information for.