Aardv

I think I'd bid 5♦. If the auction dies here it might be the right spot, or if they bid 5♥ I'll bid 5♠ involving partner.

He could have known that there's a widely held but irrational belief that a hesitation is consistent with Qxx.

It's just about possible to construct a reason to hesitate with Qx, but never with Qxx which is the holding declarer is playing for when he runs the 9. In reality, some players looking at xx will take their time opening the fan and pulling out a card - not hesitating, but playing in a slow tempo. But no one in the County C team hesitates with Qxx, and South if asked would not be able to give any rational reason for playing a hesitator for that holding. Suppose we establish (i) that a hesitation satisfying L73F occurred (ii) declarer changed his line because of it, and (iii) the change of line was irrational. Are we required to adjust?

The fact is that no one but a rank beginner hesitates here with Qxx (a lot of players play low more smoothly with Qxx than with xx). Is that "innocent" in the sense of "simple-minded"?

I play 3♣ as an enquiry here (whatever suit Y is). Responses: 3♦ shows a fit for Y (Hx or better), 3major shows no fit, not minimum, 3NT shows no fit, minimum, 4any shows a fit and a maximum (there are deemed to be three ranges). This would work quite well on the hand given - the auction would start as suggested, but with a different meaning for 3♣ and 3♦. (Opener might now choose to raise spades, which might end the auction.)

What's worse, it's quite likely that some pairs will have gained an advantage by being familiar with the hands, even if they didn't consciously recognize them. What troubles me about the popular solution is that it has the effect of handicapping the pair who sat the boards out, relative to the rest of the field. My favourite law, 84D, tells me that I have to adjust the score in favour of a non-offending side which has been damaged by an irregularity for which the Laws otherwise offer no rectification. So I'm obliged to make it up to this pair somehow. I doubt the scoring program will allow me to give them matchpoints for a board they sat out. The only way I can think of to get round this is to throw the boards out. And add a PP to the offending pair to restore its disadvantage.

Suppose there were time for the last table to deal and play one or more of the boards. What score should the players there get? They could get results on the redealt boards, but there would be no comparisons.

Result stands, but Pass is certainly a logical alternative. Swap DK and C3, the first three tricks are the same, but the defence wins the diamond finesse and takes eight more tricks. Would you still be telling us that fit is more important than high-card points? Personally I feel aggrieved that N-S should get a good board with these horrible wrong-siding methods.

My opinion is that you shouldn't be playing forcing pass here, and if you are you should have a better agreement than double shows a minimum. However, the problem on this layout isn't our system, it's East's lucky guess that West has twice failed to bid spades when he should.

Did West face the queen of clubs while holding onto it, or did he lay it down on the table? That affects my ruling, following Law 45A.

♥6 is a surprisingly high heart - I think someone is being slightly dishonest here. Which makes me more inclined to play the ace of spades.

fwiw, 'Stayman' seems to have been first invented by Jack Marx. For myself, I'd prefer to announce 2♣ as "asks for a major" when that's what I'm playing, but if the powers that be tell me to announce "Stayman" instead, it has the advantage of brevity.

I am ruling under Law 84. 84B tells us what to do "If the case is clearly covered by a Law that prescribes the rectification for the irregularity". Well this one isn't clearly covered. So I go to 84D "He seeks to restore equity".

It's an absurd fiction to pretend that RHO has attempted to lead out of turn when plainly he has merely been trying to follow suit. I've been persuaded that what has happened is a change of call by declarer, but not a change of play, because his first call was automatically voided without becoming a play. Therefore 47D does not quite apply, and we are left to our own directorial devices. However, 47D does provide the best guidance as to what the lawmakers might have written had they considered such an event. I am going to rule that declarer can lead what he wants, RHO can play what he wants, and, since both sides have committed infractions, RHO's possession of the queen of clubs is UI to his partner and declarer both.

Declarer has committed an infraction by naming a card not in dummy - his is the offending side. I don't believe that by deeming the original call to be void the lawmakers intended his subsequent designation not to be a change of play for the purposes of 47D.

Thanks, I'd failed to interpret the cryptic note correctly. According to the EBU, "frivolous psyching" is a breach of Laws 74A2, 74B1, and 74C6. I don't see that frivolously agreeing to play an unusual two-meaning method without bothering to discuss continuations is any better. In either case opponents get the expectation of a good board, but they don't get to play bridge, which for many bridge players is more important.

2NT shows an unspecified 2-suiter, and they have no agreement as to continuations? I'm not sure that there's damage from misinformation, but I'm unhappy with North-South's approach to the game, which arguably is contrary to Law 74.

Which means that LHO could beat me by dropping the king from KJxx Jx K9 J9xxx. I'll buy him a drink.

What's the vulnerability? How aggressive are opponents? The lead (I'll assume it's the three of clubs) is worth taking a look at. Why would LHO want to lead a suit we've both bid from a 3-card holding? More likely he's got 5 clubs and a possible trump entry and hopes to give his partner a club ruff. In that case I want to play ace of diamonds on the first round. (Or he could have a singleton club, when I'm not going to worry about his having a singleton diamond too.) I'll play low from dummy and have a look at RHO's club. If he plays the 10 I think LHO's hand is KJxx Jxx K J9xxx. I'll cash the ace of diamonds, dropping the king, and now have to take two heart ruffs in dummy before playing a second diamond. If I'm right about the club lie the ruffs are fairly likely to stand up.

I think this is quite likely to be a 26-count part score, even opposite Hx of hearts. Therefore 3♦ or 2♥ are too much (if you bid 2♥ you can't drop partner's likely 2♠ bid, and the auction will often wind on to something unmakeable). 1NT is sensible if it shows 6-9, as it usually does in the UK. I have an idea that it's played a fair bit stronger in the USA (is it?) which I think would make it less attractive. 2♦ is ok too. A Moysian 2♦ should play about as well as a stopperless 1NT. And what hand am I afraid of missing game opposite? However, I am a notorious pessimist.

Thanks, I've corrected it.

A rough, but less unreadable translation (of the post in Italian on AV's facebook page): >>> The Sanya 2014 World Open Teams Championship is over. The worst edition of the Rosenblum Cup by far, a true advertisement against bridge. The numbers speak for themselves: 120 Open Teams, 28 Ladies' Teams, 22 Senior Teams. Lille, Montreal, Verona, Philadelphia, the most recent editions, were accessible for all (companions in particular), quite unlike a Chinese island which takes 25-30 hours to fly to, with the ticket costing at least 1,000€, where the hotels cost $200 a day, where to eat costs 40-50€ in the cheapest places, not to mention the cost of drinks (7-8€ in the hotel). Entry fees were $1200 for a Ladies' Team, $1500 for an Open Team, $1200 for the Mixed, $600 for the various Pairs...but you really want to promote the game of bridge? Red Bull China was the sponsor, but of whom? Certainly not of the players, certainly not of the juniors (who could be counted on one's fingers), but of the WBF - to say nothing of the format - two days each with 8 rounds of 7-board Swiss, with the leading 27 teams from group A qualifying with the leading 5 teams from group B [the first day split the field into two groups, with a substantial carry over]. Monaco, Cayne, Nickell (seeded 1,2,3) playing the final round with qualification at stake says it all about the validity of the format (I'm not trying to excuse our failure to qualify but to highlight that we were not the only ones in trouble). [Versace was playing for Cayne.] Now the European Open Teams in July 2015 is planned for Tromsø, Norway, in the Arctic Circle - the most expensive city in Europe, practically unreachable. Let's end this mess, this advert against bridge, which keeps the young away from the most important competitions, which does not allow competitors to meet the champions at the table, this is not bridge open to all - only the biggest sponsors can sustain these costs, the Federations are not able to send teams to represent them, we need to take action before there are only 10 teams left competing in these championships...

Look at this as a defensive problem for West when he wins trick three. Declarer will make three heart tricks and, unless he's playing a very deep game, exactly three diamond tricks. So he needs at least two club tricks, and we don't need to attack the suit now. On the other hand, if partner's hand is xxx xxx xxxx Axx we need to play the jack of spades. That's consistent with East's 8 of hearts at trick three, which ought to have been suit preference for clubs. Now look at West's problem on lead at trick seven. Again, the jack of spades will always beat the contract when it can be beaten, but if partner had KJ10x of clubs we need to play a club to get the second undertrick, in what looks like a normal contract. And that's consistent with East's 8 of hearts at trick two... To get an adjustment from me West is going to have to have to explain convincingly why he would sometimes have got this right. If you do allow West to switch to a spade at trick seven, should it be the eight (arguably correct) or, at least some of the time, the more obvious jack? And if the jack, are you going to make declarer cover it all the time? On reflection, I think yes.

This whole argument about a grand slam try still makes no sense to me. 1♠-4♠, 4NT-5♥, 5♠ is a sign-off, so 1♥-4♥, 4NT-5♠, 5♥, in a world where 5♥ is sufficient, would be a sign-off too.

It seems to me that there are three possible explanations for partner's insufficient bid: 1) He thought I'd bid 5♣ or 5♦. Then I've got extra controls for him and should bid 6♥. 2) He made a mechanical error, and didn't know he was allowed to correct it. In that case I should do it for him. 3) He had a problem on the hand, who knows what, and while he was thinking about it he forgot that 5♥ was insufficient. In that case, the insufficient bid couldn't have happened without the break in tempo, so the break in tempo carries no additional information and I can make whatever call I choose. In either (1) or (2), the break in tempo suggests that a grand-slam try might be advisable, so I would consider disallowing one. Paul Lamford's argument seems to be that either a slow or a quick 5♥ is a grand-slam try, but the slow one is weaker, so I am legally constrained to accept it on a marginal hand or better. I don't begin to follow the logic of that.