FelicityR

East/West calling the TD and insisting that South pass his partner's 2♥ bid seems ludicrous. South wanted to play in 2♦, is now one level higher, and North finally remembering (or not) that transfers do not apply after an opponent's interference really cannot be seen as UI - surely? We all forget our conventions and agreements from time to time. The only exception to the above is that the 2♦ bid prevented West from making a bid with a reasonable ♥ suit him/herself. If that were the case, then the TD needs to take the appropriate action against North/South for misinforming the opponents about the description of a bid. Otherwise, I'll let 3♦ stand. (I think the level of experience of the players shouldn't be a factor in this, but I believe less experienced players are prone to this sort of bidding error, forgetting simple agreements, if there were any agreement in the first place - which probably wasn't the case given the level of the players.)

North should have stated the line of play (as we all know). In my eyes, it is wrong to distinguish between an expert player and a decent club player here as the play to make all the tricks is reasonably straightforward. However, as North has not stated the line of play on the claim, I would - as a non-tournament director but with some idea of the rules governing TD's decisions - rule that East is right. Hope you weren't North...

The idea of pre-emptive bidding is to make life difficult for the opponents. Remember there are two opponents to one partner. Sticking rigidly to rules laid down in textbooks is not keeping with how modern pre-empts are bid.. They are a disruptive tool, which sometimes works, and occasionally do not. I will do everything in my power to make the opponents second guess what to do next, whether it be IMPs or MPs. You can look at your hand and think ODR (Offensive to Defensive Ratio) but those aces are useless against a void if the opponents can trump, so you have no definite way of knowing whether your hand is good or bad.

Andrew Robson has been playing bridge at the top level for many, many years. Your partner needs to understand that times change and what was standard many years ago - that, is, 4th suit forcing was not forcing to game - has been superseded by it being unconditionally forcing to game. Experts outside of the UK know best otherwise they would have kept the old version. The strange thing is there are still good players in the UK who won't swap over to five card majors, also, though the Americans, Italians and the Chinese through Precision have shown this is advantageous, too. And keeping it game forcing, as Nigel says, is simple and consistent. As you have shown in your post, having it forcing for just one round can be unwieldly and waste quality bidding space. I do not know what system you play, but if you are still playing a variant of Acol there will be hands that do not fit neatly into the game forcing variation of fourth suit forcing, but there again there are many hands that do not fit easily into other bidding systems the world over. The idea of fourth suit forcing, as I am aware, is to keep the bidding open below game to explore slowly both the best game options as well as any slam options. It is the probably the opposite of the theoretical bidding idea of fast arrival, suggesting that game as opposed to slam may be the only contract worth considering.

Partner, if he/she is competent, would have already factored in that you should have in the region of 7-8 HCPs. Trying to be clever by passing, or bidding 3♥ hoping to run to 4♣ if doubled is not what I would do. There is no reason why partner can't have four card ♣ support here, even a three card one with a ruffing value should be all right. I would bid my longest suit ♣s. 4♣ is enough.

The old-fashioned Acol book definition of solid is a minimum of ♠ AKQJxx or ♠AKQxxxx, though if trumps don't behave there is a chance of a loser but that would be bidding against the odds. Even so, you are quite right saying that even if 'solid' might mean KQJT9xx, responder has so much in support of a 2♣ opener that it is easy to visualise the final contract. Don't think I'll ever get, or have ever had, 15 HCPs and two good suits opposite a 2♣ opener in my entire bridge life :(

Given the West hand, and the positive response of 2♥, just bidding 2♠ is a lacklustre effort and, as Cyberyeti rightly says (rather clairvoyant-ly given the actual hand), you need to tell your partner immediately that your ♠s are solid from the top by bidding 3♠ immediately instead of 2♠. (The 3♠ bid usually sets the trump suit, too) At that juncture, East knows immediately that either 7♠ or 7NT is the desired contract.

I'm not averse to trying new recipes and the idlee sambaar looks quite straightforward to make. Thanks for sharing, Hrothgar. It's always good to create an authentic dish from scratch, rather than to buy the supermarket brand. Not that I've ever seen idlee sambaar on the shelves.

Yes, I agree. The North hand is awkward in SAYC or Acol, not just 2/1. In any partnership it is vitally important for both players to consider their rebids before actually pulling a card from the bidding box. 1♠ looks automatic but it shouldn't be.

As I was primarily an Acol bidder before reverting to SAYC and 2/1 my view, for what its worth, is that I would never bid 1♠ after a 1♣ - 1♥ auction with 4♠333♣ shape but I am happy to do so with 4♠(32/23)4♣ shape. (Incidentially, if you have 4144 shape with a singleton ♥, the opening technically should be 1♦, although I am sure a few partnerships (through agreement) may agree on a 1♣ opening here.) As awm has summarised, there are advantages and disadvantages either way rebidding 1♠ or 1NT. And as helene_t has also pointed out, many experienced partnerships play Transfer Walsh here. I like the idea of immediately limiting your hand and putting the brakes on by rebidding 1NT, and also concealing the four card ♠ suit, as responder could take you for more shape after a 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ auction. However, if you have a two way checkback after a 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT auction, plus the option of fourth suit forcing in the 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ auction, things should not get out of hand if responder has one of those giant hands where he cannot use a Soloway shift (if the partnership uses such methods) but has to resort to a one level suit response and then wait to see what opener rebids next.

I saw a sign in one of our village shops that I hadn't noticed before while walking the dog yesterday evening: SHUT HAPPENS I can only sympathise with if you are 'shut' out of the bidding by the opponents' bidding and then them getting good results: SHUT HAPPENS AT THE BRIDGE TABLE TOO :)

Thanks for sharing. I once did a 'crazy' thing by taking a hot balloon trip on a whim - there was a spare place. Not ideal as I feel jittery flying and suffer vertigo just standing on a ladder! But learning bridge, rewriting the 'rules', opening singletons and then getting banned from your club, now that's seriously bonkers! Enjoy your bridge, but don't think you'll get many players wanting to partner you if you carry on :)

I would never bid 2♦ here. Would always always rebid the strong six card ♠ suit. I believe the original poster, smerriman, specifically made the North and South hands as they are - they might be from a tourney - because it's awkward introducing the ♦ suit by either North or South. The other thing to note is that North's hand doesn't particularly want to game force with 2♥ with such a poor suit if he/she were a bit stronger. The misfit makes these hands quite difficult to bid. If I am wrong about rebidding the strong six card ♠ suit in preference to the jack high four card ♦ suit after a forcing 1NT response, I hope the other commentators will kindly advise me. Rebidding strong six card major suits always take preference over introducing poor four card minor suits in my book.

There's no way I would force as North in a 2/1 auction with the North hand, Forcing 1NT response as the best/worst case scenario. Misfits are misfits. As for locating a 4-4 ♦ fit with better honour cards that's likely to be tough, too. Some hands you accept that whatever tools you have in your bidding gadgetry, it is virtually impossible to bid to the correct contract. This hand is most likely one of them.

As strange as it sounds, you need some sort of responder 2♣ checkback where 1NT is never to play by opener. If responder is promising 5+ ♠s, if you have 5332 shape and a minimum hand as opener, at least you are offering doubleton support at worse. With any 5431 hand and no support for responder, you can bid the second suit. With these 6331 hands and limited 3 card support for responder, it could be clarified precisely on the second bid. StephenTu has outlined how difficult it is to clarify hands with 3 card support. If you use Flannery to open hands with 5♥/4♠, then you should have a 'checkback gadget' in your bidding arsenal where a 1NT rebid is forcing by opener after a 1♥ - 1♠ auction being either natural or artificial.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Perhaps I didn't look at lamford's forum post in every context. My sincere apologies. Obviously, if this hand was played in any important tournament the TD needs to called. And yes, dummy may have hesitated without showing it so as to allow declarer time to change his or her mind. At basic club level we all have a desire to win, but I personally wouldn't call the TD if I were a defender if a) declarer changed his/her mind very quickly b) dummy hadn't given me the expression that they ignored declarer's instruction so as to give declarer a second chance. We are all prone to being absentminded from time to time, and especially at the clubs where I play as many of the members including myself are senior citizens. There is a discreet difference between a 'senior moment' and a general lack of concentration.

I believe the legal term "beyond reasonable doubt" applies here. Declarer's mind might have wandered, but as a defender I would accept the revised card in the interests of fair play. Declarer would never had wanted to play small here, so a declarer having rectified the announcement promptly before dummy had a chance to offer a card from the table should be allowed to continue with the revised card. For a defender to try to profit from a situation like this is not in the interests of playing bridge in a fair and friendly manner. I would be horrified if, as a declarer, a defender had called the TD here. We all make mistakes when playing the cards. The intention to play the ♥Q should be paramount to what was actually said, especially if the error was rectified quickly before the opponents had played a card.

But you are calling the TD because in your personal view the opponents have transgressed the rules and regulations that govern bridge, and whilst that may not be classed as "cheating" per se, it is an "alleged offence" under the said rules and regulations. You did the right thing by calling the TD. It is then for the TD to decide. Edit: Sorry, of course I started with explaining the BIT situation, but I also mentioned the the remark as I thought it made the case even stronger. Do you think that's ok? Yes. The remark surely forms part of the auction as no card has been played, even though bidding boxes were used. It is more suggestive than just 'Good luck, partner,' (which is usually said after the lead has been made.)

I assume the bridge maestros are still allowed to play Meckwell Precision at Lower Twaddlebury, or would that be uncharitable? :)

I (and I am sure others, too) have encountered this scenario at the bridge table many times over the years. When the quality of the room is less than average, underbidding can sometimes result in good results for the opponents simply because if they could bid sensibly and reach the optimum contract their playing skills will often let them down trying to make that contract. I remember playing a team match many years ago against a team of "little old ladies" (as my husband calls them, though I am approaching "little old lady-ness" myself these days) who underbid several boards and beat us 20-0. When the dust had settled all I could say to my teammates at the time was "Shall we retire to the bar?" (as there was a break). The captain of our team replied, "I think I'll retire to the bar for the rest of the tournament after that one [round]".

That's a nice squeeze. I think - please correct me if I'm wrong - it's a variant of a cross ruffing squeeze with trumps outstanding. Triple cross ruffing squeeze, anyone? :)

Thank you for doing this, Rainer. What it also tells us is that North doesn't necessarily need to have 17 HCPs for 4♠ to be a viable contract as the simulation was based on 15-17 HCPs. That's why I also felt that passing 2♠ after transferring was far too conservative with this hand.

Yes, I agree. Superaccepts may help the bidding process, especially if you have a partnership that uses more than a basic 3♠ level superaccept (i.e 2NT to show a maximum with 4♠s and 4333 shape, and 3♣/3♦/3♥ to show a doubleton in the suit bid, 4♠s and a maximum). However, in the absence of a superaccept agreement you are at the mercy of the bridge gods. Those two trebletons in your hand are going to need a lot of support cards from partner, particularly controls. It looks a hand where game is not guaranteed but has a 50/50% chance. Though you're not going to win Matchpoint Pairs events by playing safe at every opportunity.

You're never going to know what cards partner has in the other suits, or for that matter ♠s. It's a hand that's just as likely to make 2♠ (with very bad breaks) to make 4♠ if partner has the right cards and/or a maximum. I'm an optimist. Let partner make the final decision. The play of the hand and/or the opening lead could make a difference here, but there should be good play for 3♠ in most cases. I feel I am half a trick short of going full pelt and bidding 4♠. I prefer to have 6421 shape than the semi-stodgy 6331.

Defenders are allowed to think, too. After a helpful opening lead for declarer, East could play 'second hand plays low' parrot fashion without giving one iota of thought to the subsequent defence. West at this juncture doesn't know if East has made a speculative lead from ♠K1097(x), preferring this lead (to 4th best) trying to snuffle a potential ♠J in dummy. Declarers who expect defenders to assess quickly any situation without a moment's thought are arrogant. We all know that defence is a lot harder than declarer play. Five seconds is immaterial.