broze

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c3hdp]133|100| Just trying to gauge what is standard, and to think about what is best in this spot, assuming that pard has not necessarily promised 4♠ - I think that is pretty standard. So some questions: 1) Is p's double game forcing (unless opener passes of course)? If not... 2) Is 3♠ forcing now? If so how high? 3) Would you ever rebid 4♠ as opener? 4) What is a 4NT rebid by opener? 18-19 bal? I appreciate that some of this will be down to partnership agreement and I think I know what some of the answers should be, but interested to hear other's opinions. [/hv]

Must be a void.

I think Phil's point is an excellent one. I haven't seen the hand but I bet most of the time it is low that is right in practice.

[hv=lin=pn|iandayre,~~M24382,~~M24380,~~M24381|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3SJAHTQKAD5678TKC5%2CS257TQH59JD39JC47%2CS368H348DC238TQKA%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%205%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7CPreempt%20--%207%2B%20%21C%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%20%21CQ%3B%206%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7Cstrong%20rebiddable%20%21D%3B%2017%2B%20total%20points%3B%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4D%7Can%7C7%2B%20%21C%3B%201%2B%20%21D%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%20%21CQ%3B%206-11%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5D%7Can%7Cstrong%20rebiddable%20%21D%3B%2023-24%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CSK%7C]400|300|[/hv] Wow, this might be the weirdest I've seen.

This should be your signature Lamford!

Agree with everything you said but this I take issue with. It certainly seems like a tough job to do - similar to Vugraph-operating I think in that people underestimate how difficult it is. I am certainly very grateful to the people who do do it. But don't the commentators do it because they enjoy it? And I hardly think it is a thankless job; I imagine most of the kibs find the comments insightful and I make a point to thank commentators whom I have particularly enjoyed. The commentators make sure to thank one another and BBO at the ends of the sets too which is nice. I'd hate to think I was listening to someone who didn't want to be there. Re: agua's comment: as for "prattling" I quite enjoy some of the non-bridge comments, and it's nice to see a friendly light-hearted dynamic between the commentators. As Roger said I am just glad that there is anyone commenting at all. My one peeve however is the commentators consistently moaning about how boring the hands are. This goes back to what I was saying about not wanting to be there. In-jokes are also irritating for obvious reasons. Some are certainly better than others as well. Kit Woolsey is always excellent. He finds something insightful to say about almost every deal and he is absolutely pro in his approach despite not getting paid a dime.

Once I was actually bombarded with invitations in this way. I just made the person an "enemy" and that stopped it. However he had sent me about 20 invites by the time I managed to do it. Is this filter something that has been brought in recently then?

Is the question basically this?: "You are waiting at a train station; 3 trains will arrive randomly within the next hour; what is your expected wait?" Because that seems relatively simple. (15 minutes; see Steven's formula above) Or is that not what is meant by the OP? The puzzle as written seems badly formulated. Also from a practical point of view you can't have randomly distributed trains because they can't realistically arrive within a minute or so of each others. I'm assuming light-fast trains and passengers. :P

*retch*

Doesn't this just depends on what your agreements are? If you don't need H support to make a cuebid then you can do that, or you can bid 2♦ depending on what it means for you. Might be a bit uglier if you had QTx Ax AQT xxxxx but then you could lie about your club stop and bid 2NT. Playing standard UK stuff I would just bid 2D.

For us it is a transfer to 3NT. (Yes, I expect "standard" would be to play it as a splinter)

I'll admit I saw this on Youtube today, which I guess is where you saw it. The guy showed the solution quicker than I could think but his reaction at seeing the solution made me laugh a lot! Great problem.

Thanks Georgi.

[hv=pc=n&w=s74hq986dat8cj753&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c1h1s3h4cp6sppp]133|200[/hv] What's your lead? Does it make a difference if RHO is know to be a bit of a loose cannon?!

http://tinyurl.com/qckbhjp See GIB's 4♦ bid. This is just one example from loads of hands where GIB's explanation promises x+ HCP and it has fewer than promised. What is going wrong?

Would you have actually got to defend 1Hx though or can the opps escape? The reason I think 1♠ is totally clear is that even if defending 1Hx is best, most of the time LHO is going to redouble for rescue or pull to his second suit and even if he does sit for 1Hx you are not at all guaranteed to get it off. After you pass if the auction continues (2C)-P-(P)- what are you going to bid? You might be missing a 4-4 ♠ fit but bidding spades now seems to overvalue your hand somewhat. Bidding 1S now is just going to lead to a much better auction.

Double looks totally normal at these colours.

This has happened to me several times as declarer in national tournaments: I am declarer in what appears to everyone at the table to be a tricky contract. I lead a suit and both opps follow. Me: What is your carding here? LHO: Oh, we don't play any. Me: Okay. (Inspects convention card) It says here you play standard count on declarer's lead? LHO: Yes, but we don't do it when we think it will help declarer. Me: No, of course not. Lo and behold, every single time they have given honest count!

Pass for me

This. There is a problem when the South hand is weak with four-four in the Majors since most people play a 2S response to the support double as forcing and so you may play 2H in a 3-4 instead of 2S in a 4-4 but there shouldn't be a problem with this hand. If a bid 2S would have have non-forcing for you in response to the support double I think this is non-standard and also technically inferior but there are strong players who play that way.. Perhaps that is how you missed it but your auction in the OP stops two bids too early.

Perhaps, although the law is that dummy "may not communicate anything about the play to declarer". It does not explicitly say that limitations on dummy only apply during the play period. And as evidenced by laws such as 42B3 stating that "dummy may call attention to an irregularity after play has ceased" dummy is still dummy at this point. You might therefore argue that he has the right to object to a claim but not to communicate anything about the play to declarer. In any case I would also find SB liable for a procedural penalty (maybe debatable) and so would rule inequity in that NS should not directly benefit from an action of theirs that gives rise to a PP. @barmar: I have not read the other thread.

I agree that the "normal line of play" and "class of player" aspects of the law seem only to refer to impact on the claimer and not his opponents. Then again on the face of it you might rule under 70A that you should adjust the board "as equitably as possible to both sides" as it certainly doesn't seem equitable for South to make a contract he was not going to make without SB's help. And you might argue that North has breached 42C by communicating to declarer about the play; it wouldn't be equitable to allow NS to benefit from that either. So I would rule contract one off. (Disclaimer: NAD [not a director]) (Nice hand by the way)

To me this sentence implies that dummy remains so, at least nominally for the purpose of the laws, after play has ceased. It is also far from being common sense (for me at least) that dummy stops being dummy for one hand before that hand is over. I wouldn't have said that we were "between hands" in Lamford's scenario. In any case, to me there seems to be a conflict in the laws between "dummy may object to a claim" and "dummy may not communicate anything about the play to declarer."

From where are you quoting? I meant "finger" to include 'thumb'. I still don't see how you hold 13 cards with five digits on the back and still be able to see them properly. Not to mention the question of how you show a void...

I am not too well versed in the laws so to save me leafing through them, where does it say/imply that dummy ceases to be dummy because there has been a claim/play has ceased?