timjand

Playing Acol weak NT. I presume most would open 1C after a pass from South. Sitting E would you respond 1D or 1S? If the bidding went 1C - 1D 1H - 2S (because 1S is 4th suit forcing) what should W bid? I think this is a good argument for playing 1S as natural! Tim

I moved to a new area just over a year ago and was looking for partners. I had the philosophy that I was happy to play with anyone at least once. Of course I had some rather random sessions but got to know the club and had the opportunity to meet other people and keep an ear open for who might be looking for a partner from time to time. Most people play the best they can and I also make mistakes so I don't feel hard done by if someone finds me a partner who is less able than myself. Just as I hope that those better than me have some tolerance of my mistakes if I partner them. The key I believe is not to get stuck with someone you don't want to play with long-term though inertia or politeness. I've learned to say, "happy to play with you from time to time, but I don't want to commit to every week." Tim

Level 4: 7 A 3 Strength of Opening One-level Bids A one-level opening bid in a suit, whether forcing or not, must by agreement show 8+ HCP and, in first and second position, follow the Rule of 18. Natural 1NT opening bids must show 9+ HCP. Tim

EBU Blue Book defines 3 levels for normal use: Level 2 (?novice), Level 4 (?Normal), Level 5 (?Advanced). If playing at an EBU club which has not specified a level, is there a level which is deemed to be in operation? Came up because a hand was opened 1S in first seat which satisfies Rule of 18 but not Rule of 19. Tim

This is what I thought too. Though it seems harsh. Imagine this incident at the little known EBU club the Eccentrics. After a bidding mishap declarer has arrived in 6NT holding: AKQJT9876543 K - - His partner's highest card is a 6. Inexplicably, the lead is the 2S. "The rest are mine," states an ecstatic declarer, facing his hand, but forgetting the heart loser. The director is called. "I'm sorry, but I have to rule that you play the KH at trick 2. Score will be 11 down." Tim :-)

EBU pairs event. Contract is in no trumps. At trick 11, a defender leads a spade. Declarer has a winning spade, Ace of hearts and Queen of diamonds. Believing all three cards are winners, he claims the rest. However the QD is not a winner. Worse, if he leads the QD at trick 12, he loses two more tricks. Since he believes all three cards are winners, should you rule that he may play them in any order thus losing two tricks? Or is "normal play" (Law 70) that he would play the Ace first, similar to the supposition that suits are "normally" led from the top down? Tim

If play continues, could someone clarify whether the claimant's cards are faced during play? Or does this depend on whether they are faced as part of the claim? Tim

I've been reading the new laws. The new claims law 68D(b) says that the non-claiming side may request that play continues subject to the agreement of all four players. I'm puzzled by this. I realise that "play them out" is common practice but it is not altogether fair since a declarer asked to play on may have been informed of something they had forgotten, eg an outstanding trump or an unfavourable split, and therefore gain an advantage. So it is fairer if the non-claiming side do NOT agree but I can imagine this causing issues in terms of social pressure "why did you not let me play them out", the kind of pressure which a clear law is designed to prevent. Have I misunderstood?

So I am sure I am understanding ... let us assume that E/W had chatted before the event and agreed that if an opponent's opening bid promised two or fewer cards in the suit, that overcalling with that suit is natural. But W forgot. Would that change everything? Tim

Agreed S is allowed to know this; however I remain a little puzzled about why E should alert a bid that as far as E knows is natural. I guess this hinges on whether most players who play UCB also play it over a short club or other artificial bids. I have never played it like that, but perhaps I am unusual. Well, he had that opportunity. Further, if E didn't consider 2C natural then E would bid. So there isn't a plausible scenario in which E both alerts 2C and passes. What are you saying is the infraction? East's failure to alert, or West's bid of 3D? I think I understand that W should bid 2d rather than 3d because of UI. It's not clear though that this would have a different outcome. GordonTD says that there could be redress for E not alerting 2C *even if he believes that it is agreed to be natural*. I would value clarification here. I had understood that a misbid was not in itself illegal, for example. Or is it because E/W seem to be playing different systems, is that the problem here? Tim

Not available in this sequence. Similar to after weak NT open from N, say. Tim

Is that on the basis that many would play it as a cue bid, even though at this point N/S have not shown clubs? I admit, it would not have occurred to me that it might be a cue bid in this sequence. Though we know that W intended it as such. Tim

I've got no reason to suppose that he was influenced by his club holding. I probably should not have mentioned it, sorry. Tim

Note I am posting this for my own education and interest. Why should E alert 2c if he believes it to be natural and there is no agreement otherwise? Tim

I get an error trying to insert an image but this is the hand: https://fygckw-ch3301.files.1drv.com/y4mf-712BhZI2uwBxQAB8TOJXsspjiJM6IAlI8Ck7fYKcsS5Rm0ITSPvb40x5XYBU3l-TAdSBa2b5xD7iHwx8M5Gfic46cwcO9PypdvUU__Vyf0k2cbisJ4S7fRHjewxo3w0ksqNqh8-0l_uL7tCtTqKGkAk8pC87czsZGFyDMabWbgb-Cq0F2jEp18NGq4wZ061yvUINlkSFdiF3uF0AhiDQ Tim