broze

I have found the new version fine so far apart from one massive issue which means I will be sticking with the old version until it is changed. In fact, I wonder if it is something I am doing wrong? Viewing tournament results and hands I've played in the new version is painful. As far as I can see the only way to do this is to select the history tab on the right-hand side. But then the window for clicking through the hands is tiny! Yes I can resize the window but it doesn't increase the size of the board that much and ruins the look. The review hands feature on the old software was perfect. Sorry if this has already been covered in this thread.

broze 19 - shuba 10

broze 49 - twisterrz 9

broze 32 - tim_ucin 30

broze 20 - zzmiy 7

broze 16 - hrothgar 16

broze 38 - mlbridge 14

broze 39 - cherdano 6

I did not say always taking 10 seconds to play would solve the issue, but legislating on it would. I should expand (so apologies for slight derail): the change I am looking for is that declarer must take 10s at trick one (if he takes less time, then any BITs by third hand are AI). If he takes the necessary 10s then any further time taken by third hand is UI to his partner, the opening leader. This makes this ruling easy as it's a basic UI ruling and an easy adjustment. Moving on to the OP scenario. Taking your comment into account - that RR takes the same amount of time with a singleton - it therefore appears that actually the UI has nothing to do with the length of the BIT. You agree? (Although, as a IRL TD I would have a hard time believing that anyone would ordinarily take more than 15 seconds to play a singleton to trick one). Assuming I did accept that this was RR's normal tempo, I would ask SB whether there was anything besides the tempo that he thought gave away the doubleton. If not, then result stands. If there is, and ChCh agrees it then rule contract making. If Sb says there is, and ChCh disputes it, ask him why he switched to a spade then take a view depending on the quality of his answer.

AFAIK there's nothing about that in the laws (but maybe in some local regs?) I have long been an advocate for a mandatory 10 second pause for declarer at trick one which would completely resolve rulings like this one. Until that's in place I suppose we have to rely on what East's usual tempo with a singleton would be. Absent any other information I would assume that close to 100% of Easts would play a singleton immediately after a ten second pause by declarer so that's the basis I would rule against him. There's incomplete info in the OP. Did East and West agree that East paused? Do they assert that he usually takes 15 seconds at trick one with a singleton?

This one seems very simple so I feel I may be missing the point. If East played immediately after writing down the contract then there is no UI (as he would do the same with the singleton) so result stands. If he took some time to play after writing the contract and after declarer's ten second pause then there clearly is UI so rule making.

Do you play 1C 2H as a weak jump? If so, I prefer to have a 2♥ rebid by responder be invitational with 6 (10-12ish depending on opening style). I think 1C 1D 2C 2D is best used as as an artifical force.

I disagree. For N to bid 3D he must have about 7 so South is justified in passing. South must have 5C 4H or substantial extras. North should have bid 2N scramble or 3C.

On hand 1 it just seems like a systemic issue. If North can show 6S and offer 3N, or if S can offer 3N at any point then both players will clearly sit. If you don't have that option then you are going to struggle. Hand 2 both players were very pessimistic. From South's point of view game is good opposite xx xxx AKxxx xxx so I think he is worth another move over 3D. For me 3H would be a general try. As North I might have tried 3C over 2S as I feel very uncomfortable showing a minimum with an extra trump and all my points working.

I know what a forcing 1NT is. :) I think rebidding 2♣ on a 2 card suit will lead to many more silly contracts that passing 1N.

Tbh I don't really get why East doesn't pass 1N

I blew it. broze 34 - gerardo 16

broze 31 - ranmit 16

broze 56 - shuba 42

Thanks for adding my GIB. :)

broze 55 - Mkgnao 4

Good point - you are quite right. The confusion comes from the difference between "trick losers" (i.e. how many tricks the opps can cash) and "squeeze losers" (total remaining tricks minus cashable winners for your side). In fact there are three squeeze losers here. I will edit the OP so it is correct.

This hand is from the free daylong IMPs tournament last Sunday. (Rotated to make South declarer) [hv=pc=n&s=st8hq9daj876cj642&w=&n=saqj2hk843d94cqt3&e=&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1cp1dp1hp1nppp&p=s4s2sks8d5d6dqd4hjh3h2hqc2ckc3c9c5cqcac4dtdad3d9sts9sas3sqs6d7s7]399|300[/hv] Loath to give up on clubs 3-3 and judging that West has KQ♦ and East the ♥A (and maybe the ten), I decided to rise with the ♦A at trick 6 and cash some spades. Click through to the five card ending and think about how you would play. The full hand is below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [hv=pc=n&s=st8hq9daj876cj642&w=s974hjt5dkq3ck875&n=saqj2hk843d94cqt3&e=sk653ha762dt52ca9&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1cp1dp1hp1nppp&p=s4s2sks8d5d6dqd4hjh3h7hqc2ckc3c9c5cqcac4dtdad3d9sts9sas3sqs6d7s7sjs5h9htcth2c6c8hkhad8h5d2djdkh4c7h8h6cj]399|300[/hv] On trick 9 West is squeezed in three suits. Throwing a diamond or a club gives up immediately so he has to throw a heart. At my table GIB made a nice play and threw the ♥T (which would have been necessary if East had been dealt the ♥8 else declarer can come out a low heart). But any heart pitch allows me cash a club and play the ♥K. The opponents will be forced to give me a heart or a club in the ending. The blocked position in clubs is typical of a stepping-stone squeeze where an opponent has to keep length in a suit to prevent declarer overtaking a winner. It usually matures with two losers but here we have three (with only one club trick immediately cashable in the endgame), so it it a stepping-stone squeeze without the count!

Thank you for your response. I did say I was missing something so I don't know why you found it necessary to make your condescending little jibe.

I am missing something that I don't think has been discussed. Lamford said " it could never gain West to split on the first round of clubs, even without the UI that his partner had the nine." Why not? Why can't opener have 97xx?