zasanya

Everybody agrees 1♠ is standard.Is it? Don't we need 11 at least?or better quality of suit we are going to rebid if we are brave enough to bid on 10 points?

The thing to remember at mps is that your ops are not your ops!Your ops are all those other pairs sitting your way.So spare a thought to what the other pairs sitting your way would do on this hand and do something better than that ! :(

3♣ Almost everybody who voted against it ,have done so because it sounds like GF. Well, it is P who created the GF by bidding 2 ♠, not me. So tell him "I don't have ♣ stopper ,I don't have 3 cards ♠,I don't have 5 cards ♦,I dont have a stronger than promised opening,I have almosr certainly 4 card ♥"

Hand A has 8 points ,7 losers,empty suits.Opponents may have 24 points.We may have misfit hands.We are vul and may lose @ 100 per undertrick in a part-score deal.I do not know whether leading 'my'suits is correct. So I pass hand A unless I am desperate. Other hands I pass, even if I am desperate. :ph34r: The poster specifically says red vs white so why bother about other vulnerability possibilities? :huh: BTW I voted 'only hand A'! I am generally desperate. :)

Much ado about nothing Shakespear perhaps inspired by some of the discussions on http://forums.bridgebase.com :)

Can the following suggestion work? 'Controversial conventions like multi or Wilkosz or any other can be used if opponenets allow and cannot be used if opponents disallow.' Put the onus on players and take it away from Director. Two incidents from India which support my suggestion. Incident 1:Our multi 2♦ which has 5 meanings (Weak in either major strong in either minor or 21-22 balanced) was allowed but our rco bids (2♥=6-11 5-5 minors or 5-5 majors, 2♠=6-11 both red 5-5 or both black 5-5, 2 nt= 6-11 5-5 non touching suits were disallowed.As per BFI rules I was told. Incident 2:Our opponent was one of our most respected life master who knew that me and my P are fond of rco bids asked us hopefully whether we were playing rco I told him no because Director says its illegal. In the 1st incident we felt resentful because we felt we were deprived of an effective weapon and in the second incident my op was resentful because he thought rco would have harmed us and benefitted him! If the above suggestion is implemented it will protect the weak and still allow others to enjoy as they want.

Forgive my novice question but with ♠ 2-3-4 and ♥ J 10 9 what is the reply to cappelletti?

I have played many tournaments and I have officiated as TD in only 1 tournament and that too because regular TDs were participating in the event and I was the only acceptable person. I noticed something strange which corroborates the views expressed by McBruce. I always had excellent equations with all -repeat -all players participating, but that changed when I was officiating and even my best friends were hostile to begin with and became more so when I tried to put some discipline into the procedings.Some of them even went out of their way to irritate me in manners similar to what luis did.(No offense meant luis) I was very disturbed and shared these thoughts with one of my friends who is one of our most respected TDs and he responded ,"Do you remeber last month's Indian Gymkhana Open? I gave a ruling on your table which you didnt like and you called me thrice afterwards for absolutely trivial reasons." This leads me to think that 1)All players consider TDs as hostile. 2)They go out of their way to create mountains out of molehills for nothing just to spite the TD especially if she has made a decision which they disagree with. I have resolved that henceforth I will go out of my way to help the TD whether I like his decisions or not. I further suggest that all players should officiate as TD at least once.

Ty Ben Ken and McBruce I had never before started a topic and was a bit apprehensive that these cases I mentioned would look trivial and won' merit a reply.I am very grateful to tou all and now feel bold enough to add a few details which I should have mentioned in the first place. East and West were playing precision so East could not have had more than 15 and hence 7♠ was in my opinion stupid rather than unethical . :) East and West are part of a 6 member team who regularly play with each other but sometimes change partnerships.East simply forgot that with this P,he was not playing Flannery and in his version of Flannery 1♠ response to 1♥ is indeed non-forcing.West is known for his audacious (read mad :) ) bidding. I didn't issue any procedural penalty but did issue a stern warning. However I would like to know whether forgetting system is punishable? BTW McBruce usage of pronoun is correct. :D

I had to officiate as TD in an imp tourney where bidding boxes were used .I faced some unusual situations in my first attempt as TD. Please advise if my decisions and actions were correct. Case 1: South as dealer passed.East bid repeat East :lol: bid 3♦ before West bid! I asked South if 3♦ was accepted and ruled that in that case bidding would procede from that point as if no infringement has occured.South did not accept.So I ruled that West had to pass throughout the auction and East could bid as he liked and in case E W became declarer there would be a 'lead penalty'.North now passed and East now having 7 cards of ♦ headed by A K J and ♣ Q bid 3 nt which became the contract.West had 5 card ♣ headed by 10 and 2 major suit aces and another 3 points .♦ Q was dbltn in North hand .9 easy tricks rolled in. On no other table 3 nt was bid .Now after the result there was a protest that East was the offender ,yet his team gained and so the score should be adjusted.I allowed the result to stand.No adjustment. Case 2: East incidentally the same guy who bid 3nt in the case 1, bid 1♥.His P bid 1♠ which East alerted as non-forcing.The inquiry was loud and so was the explanation and West heard these exchanges.Now East with 3 small ♠ ,♥ Q to 5 ♦ A K J x and ♣ singleton bid 2♠ after a long pause and West who had 20 points promptly bid 7♠.It hinged on afinesse and went down 1.So there was no further discussion.Subsequently I was asked what would have been the decision if finesse had worked ,I replied I would have allowed the result to stand. Are these routine occurences for TDs ? Were my decisions coreect?

Would it be a good idea to display in some way-perhaps a color code- people who have been auto banned for booting so that people dont join their table?After a month or so the stigma could be removed to allow the offenders to reform.

Bestguru, One of our local players Mr K D Joshi has devised a system which will allow you to achieve your aim ;-) 1♣=12-14 response 1♦ 0 upwards but less than game values 1♦=15-17 response 1♥ 0 upwards..... 1♥=.........and so on goes the K D Joshi system ;)

1)11 ♠ missing.Generally would divide 4-4-3 so ops may have more than us .If P has 4♠ no♥ and some points he would bid somethin so 4 types of hands with P. a)few ♠ some ♥ and few points b)length in♠ and ♥ few points c)Some points and minors d)length in♠ and hand which has penalty dbl of ♥ which means points and ♥ 2)I have 13 lho has at least 12 .Therefore 15 points missing.Rho has less than 5. So partner and lho account for at least 11.So two possibilities. a)P has few points and rho has lots b ) P has majority of missing points and penalty double of ♥ 3)Out of the the above 6 possibilities dbl is desirable if P has penalty double type of hand. Even if he doesnt have we can compete in minors. So dbl.

I know the original question was regarding 2/1 or sayc.Yet cant resist commenting that most beginners using any form of precision club would bid the slam without breathing hard.Nothing like good old precision for bidding slams in uncontested auctions. A topic for a new thread but perhaps it has beeen discussed before.

If I play with a 2/1 new partner the only question I ask is "Okay?" after telling him capp +std carding +rkcb 0314+lebensohl+Ogust+everything else natural. :(

After 1♥-(dbl)-1NT Responder has already clarified his hand .So how can dbl of 2♣ be take out?Responder takes out in which suit?!h or !d which are presumably doubler's suits? What is wrong with defining double of 2!c as penalty oriented showing !c values and better than minimum hand?

1.Arguments for bidding 1 ♠ (a)You have a biddable hand but cannot bid your longest suit (b ) A take out double is wrong action because after most likely response in ♥ you dont have a rebid. 2.Requirements for overcalling on a 4 card suit. (a) The overcall is at 1 level.(b)With normal breaks not more than 2 trump tricks will be lost. ABOVE ALL Partner knows and agrees with these points :unsure:

Playing power precision the bidding will go as follows. 1C ( 16 + ) 1D (less than 9 ) 1H (relay ) 1S ( semi forced response) 2 NT (Strong balanced Game force 3NT (no major no ambition ) 6/8 top cards ) 4 NT (Not blackwood just slammish ) pass

Can 3 nt make after spade lead?Even if declarer gets a spade trick i he must make 8 tricks without losing lead which means 3 aces and a king as any finesse is likely to lose and in that case 300 if not 500 certain.So 3 nt not at all attractive whether playing for money matchpoints or imps. 5 club better bet but still requires Aces and a king. So better take the almost certain + score by passing.4 clubs appears a reasonable alternative.

System :Power Precision (As given by Sontag in his eponymous book ) 2 C (11-15 6 carder Club ) 2D (relay ) 2 NT (14-15 2 other suits stopped ) 3D (Which suits?) 3 S (S and D) 4NT (Rkcb in C 0nly suitmentioned Clubs --departure from Sontag) 5 H (2 without C Q ) 7D (Doesnt know Spade posn but can establish Clubs )

Here is a concrete example. My friend's hand had five cards of Hearts headed by Q.Other cards immaterial.His LHO opened a precision diamond which meant 11-15 and Diamond could be singleton.RHO bid 1 Heart (natural) LHO bid 2Hearts.RHO jumped to 3 NT.LHO passed. My friend didnt lead a Heart.Dummy came down with 1-4-4-4 shape (Spade singleton).Declarer had dbltn rags in Heart.Heart lead beats 3 nt.Contract makes on any other lead.My friend protested.TD ruled in declarers favour. Aftermath: My friend told me the story.I contacted the RHO the one who passed 3 nt with singleton spade and expressed my displeasure.He kept defending himself that he had already showed his hand and if his partner for 'some reason' wanted to play 3 nt why shud he he not pass?He agreed that he thought his P had psyched and therefore passed but wasn't absolutely sure so in fact was running a risk.4 hearts might have been making if declarer really had 4 carder heart and 3 nt might have gone down.The same evidence was available to defenders too so defender could have lead heart.Afterall his P the 3 nt declarer is a known psycher. Is the pass of 3 nt alertable?