PhilKing

Not saying you are wrong, but under which law?

But it reduces his scope for bailing us out. For instance, in this case, when we alert 3♦ giving partner UI, if he now bids 3NT the opponents will claim foul (incorrectly imo, but bear with me). Where we don't alert and bid 3♥, an intelligent partner should work out what has happened anyway, since the opponents silence makes it impossible for us to have a "Hastings" (a 1-0-6-6), but now there is no sanction for bidding 3NT. The argument usually, goes "he might have worked it out, but your alert made it easy", so you get ruled against. Therefore, I believe we are obliged to alert to maximise the chances of getting screwed by officialdom.

That's what I thought I said, though I see there is a distinction.

The Bridge World panel tends to recommend 2♥ as the rebid on this pattern (eg KQJ A2 A76542 AQ March 1994). On that occasion, 2♥ finished comfortably ahead of 2NT with 3♣ a distant third. There were, more justifiably than here, many complaints over the failure to open 2NT, but that was unthinkable in the Kaplan era.

I would alert, since I am not allowed to breach 73C. Alerting screws partner, generally, so WTP?

I'm not saying the suit is blocked. If the leader leads high from KQJxxx or AKJxxx, then the suit becomes blocked. From the latter holding it is true he may lead low, but he may also not lead the suit at all. Likewise AQJxxx.

South is obliged to follow law 73. Completing a transfer is not taking advantage of anything - South is merely ignoring the information he now has. You just can't then do him under 16B1 by giving a load of his peers a scenario that is in no way relevant.

I like 3NT a lot here. Collecting 300 instead of 600 is quite a big deal. Even when partner as a small singleton, the opening lead will often block the suit, and we give partner a chance to come again when he is 4450. Pass at all other vulnerabilities.

I like 3NT a lot here.

Yeah, that turned -200 into -800, but double turned -90 into -200. I just don't see the attraction of coming in with these hands except when the opponents are NV and it is matchpoints.

North should remove the double to Four Diamonds on the grounds that pard should have more useful holdings outside clubs. Souths double shows a good hand with no clear direction.

East was trying to field imo - he though his partner had psyched with spades. But there is no punishment for abetting a crime that never took place. South got what he deserved for opening 2♣ with a three suiter, and NS for not knowing what they were doing.

Does it get you to the site? If so, type AKJT73 J75 in the search box.

I just came across a recent board where Meckstroth held: ♠A96 ♥J ♦AKJT73 ♣J75 And righty opened a 15-17 NT at game all. It did not end well - -800 versus on a partscore. No biggie - it wasn't as if it was in the 2009 Bermuda Bowl Final. To be fair, they still won comfortably. http://www.bridgetoernooi.com/index.php/home/search2 Clicky

But why why do you let your various partners make you play all six variants? (And potentially 24 if you play puppet :( )

I think it's tough to consider everything when the players have not - you gave the right ruling on the facts presented. As a director you are not necessarily solving the Murder on the Orient Express. I don't know if there is a recommended protocol - there are several people here who will obviously know. It's not as if this kind of shennanigans is overly common, but two-suited fields are probably the most frequent, and a more experienced E/W might have noticed anyway.

If South has a weak hand with long hearts and no minor fit, as the bidding would suggest to North: ♠xxx ♥QJT9xxx ♦xx ♣x Then 3♥x will make, but 3NT will go 5 down unless diamonds break.

Punish them!

Maybe he forgot he had a method for showing that hand after opening 1♣. Anyway, as we both play, there are solutions to this problem after opening 1♦. I've just generated a few hands, and my conclusion is that for no trumps, you are right - the hand should not be upgraded to 23-24.

Thanks! I play 4m as RKC here as well. 4NT would show a void in pards suit for me. Pard can bid bid 5♥ as the infamous Sand Wedge RKC if he accepts and wants to check controls.

South blatantly fielded the misbid - they had obviously been there before. South treated it as the minors and screwed EW in the process by explaining it ("correctly") as the reds! Had South bid 3♥ (anyone for 4♥?) West would have been less inclined to bid 4♣ (a terrible bid, but it occurred after South's infraction). West could double 3♥, and I can see no compelling reason not to rule that 3♥x is the final contract. PP for South as well. Law 40c1 if anyone cares.

I think it was partly because people still played some variant Acol Twos, which limited the chances of having a legitimate monster for 3♣.

You will play in hearts exactly 0% of the time, unless partner makes an insufficient club bid and corrects to hearts, since you can always return to spades or no trumps. Partner can't have 4-4 in the majors - he would respond One Heart, so when he raises hearts, he guarantees five or more spades. 3♠ now, sets spades as trumps for partnerships who have discussed this position (it's standard theory so I can usually do it undiscussed). A more pure example would be a 3361 hand with 16+ points.

2NT works reasonably well on a value basis as long as partner does not have a good suit. For instance, opposite a 3433 you need something like: ♠Kxx ♥KQxx ♦xxx ♣KJx to make slam cold. 2NT is a slight underbid, though. Opposite: ♠KQTxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣xxx You will languish in game when grand is excellent. Playing my way I can open 1♦ and rebid 2NT forcing (various). Partner bids 3♣ on any non-shaded response, and now I bid 3♠ showing a game-force with long diamonds and three spades. 4♥ (cue confirming spades as trumps) and RKC would follow on my second example hand. Playing standard, you could sell me 1♦ followed by 2♥. If treating as balanced, I would go for 2♣ followed by whatever shows a balanced 22-23 or 23-24.

Gold. What was his full hand?