hokum

[hv=pc=n&s=saq98642hqdkqj3cj&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1s3d(%22weak%22)dp]133|200[/hv] Thank you! Experts: your thoughts please.

Nice punchy logic. If declarer has ♠Ax, partner has ♠T9x, which can theoretically be crushed for three spade tricks (♠A, ♠K, ♠J crush). Then they can hook a club and they're home. But will declarer notice the potential of their ♠6? Probably not. And on the off-chance declarer has upgraded with five clubs, you certainly want to keep the suit guarded.

I guess I'm really asking: Which hand types double 3♠? Which hand types pass the double?

Partner doubles again, back to you South... (IMPs) [hv=pc=n&s=sat4hqjdkt974ck84&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1d1sd3sppdp]133|200[/hv]

That's what I was wondering about - West can be just about certain that the opps don't have gameforcing hands. By passing 2♥ and playing the hand out, North has a two-way shot: take a plus score, with the backup option of calling the director if you missed a game.

You're directing a tournament. After this hand, North, an experienced player, calls you over and says: "I was told LHO's 2♥ bid was gameforcing, so I passed 2♠". 2♠ drifted off one. It was an incorrect explanation of the bid - the opponents have no specific agreement. What's your ruling? (Australia) All four hands: [hv=pc=n&s=sqjt2ht76d965cjt7&w=sk98765hqd72caq85&n=sa4hakjdakq83c643&e=s3h985432djt4ck92&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1sd2h(%222%2F1%20GF%22)p2sppp]399|300[/hv]

I was playing "14-30, reverse signals" with someone who hasn't played much bridge for a while: [hv=pc=n&s=skq762hak72djckq6&n=st3hq94da65cajt54&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1sp2cp2hp2np]266|200[/hv] Bidding 3♣ here feels similar to delayed-raise-extras auctions like: 1♣-1♥ 1♠-1NT 2♥ 6♣ is a nice spot, and I wanted to bid it. Perhaps I should have. I asked somebody how they bid 7♠ on Board 6 on Monday night. "Well I reached into my bidding box and put 7♠ on the table.": http://www.nswba.com.au/tourn/res.asp?yr=2015&dir=gnot&E=10&R=5&B=6&T=O 1♥ (2♦) 2♠ / 7♠ :)

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1sp2cp2hp2np3c(Forcing%3F)]133|100[/hv] Thanks :)

You're North - what does partner's double mean? [hv=d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1d2sp3sppdppp]133|100[/hv] And one more - what does your double mean? Which kinds of hands would you make it on? [hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1d1s2c3sd]133|100[/hv] Thanks :)

Thanks everyone! One more - it's the last round of a swiss pairs, you're at table 3 and your opps have been going wild. They're losing the match and becoming irrational. RHO (the steadier guy) opened 2♣ GF, it's your bid: [hv=pc=n&e=sjt6543hdqt87652c&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2c(GF)]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&e=sq86hkt7532d7ct43&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp1n(strong)pp]133|200[/hv] Are you bidding? If so or if not, what would change your mind?

Hi there, a friend of mine is a bridge teacher and wants to test hands he has created against robots and friends online. Is there a simple way to get a series of hands into BBO? Edit: How about with predetermined leads & contracts? Is it possible to create a .LIN file from a bunch of hands created in handviewer? Is it a matter of exporting them all then copying the long text string into a text document then renaming that .LIN? Thanks

My apologies Bill for a typo in the auction (fixed) - East bid 3NT!

[hv=pc=n&s=s63hqj9dq963ckt96&w=sj9hk7532djt7ca54&n=sk8742h864d82cj32&e=saqt5hatdak54cq87&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2np3h(5%2B%5Bspades%5D)p3nppp]399|300[/hv] EW play transfers, but when East alerted West's transfer to spades, West said "Oh". East paused for twenty seconds then bid 3NT and made ten tricks. What is your ruling?

Thanks! The editor really likes MrAce's story because it's about the passion of the game (and hilarious). We've contacted MrAce and he's agreed to submit the story. Other links to non-technical stories would be great.

Cheers

Which type of scoring would be fairest for a 3-7 table IMP pairs event? I'm trying to get more players in, but in the meantime I'd like to use the fairest scoring possible. Cross IMPs, or IMPs vs datum (into VPs?)? And if we use datums with so few tables, is it logical to use all scores when calculating the average (ie, leave in the top and bottom results)? Thanks

Do you have a good bridge story? A friend of mine is putting together a book of tales and anecdotes on the human side of bridge - entertaining rather than technical. Prizes are $1000 / $500 / $250 (Australian dollars). Entering is easy - click this link for details. http://i57.tinypic.com/2z709rp.gif

Thanks

Does the calibre of the claimer come into it?

Thanks, it would definitely be important to try to establish the play before ruling (especially in a congress setting).

That's very clear, I think I understand. Does this seem like a fair ruling: First I discover whether the revoking side gained tricks by revoking. If so, I adjust the score to restore equity (64C), even though the round had potentially ended (8B1, 64B5) and a spectator should not have drawn attention to any aspect of the game (76B5): “Considering that you all agree the revoke took place, I will adjust the score to restore equity to [the non-offending side]” (12B1, 12C1A, 76B4-5, 76C2 “Determinations of ABF as Regulating Authority” cited, but the players not the spectator caused the irregularity, 81C3) If the revoking side did not gain tricks by revoking, it becomes relevant whether the round has ended (64B5). If the director has not yet called the move for the next round (8B1), the appropriate transfer of tricks to the non-offending side (64A, 81C3) is allowable. If the round has ended, there is no adjustment to the score (64B5). To the kibitzer: “In future, please refrain from commenting to players, as the laws are clear that spectators should not draw attention to any aspect of the game” (76B5, 76C1).

If I understand, you'd adjust the score? That's my instinct too, and the laws seem to allow it if I understand correctly. An experienced congress director told me he would let the score stand because the spectator should have had no impact on the game and the round had finished. I felt like those were red herrings and the real issue was equity.

I'm working on a director's exam and this question is interesting: http://i57.tinypic.com/6hkdbm.jpg This is what I've come up with - first of all, is the ruling correct; secondly, have I missed a relevant law or quoted an irrelevant law? i “It’s best to state a line of play when claiming, however, on this fortunate layout, any normal line of play will result in you taking all three tricks” (69A, 70C3, 70E1, 71.2. The agreement has not been established) ii The board can still be re-scored as if declarer had taken the last three tricks (69B, 71.2, 79A2, 79C1-2. The agreement has been established but can be withdrawn) Thank you very much

I presume that in an ambiguous dispute about tricks taken/revokes, you rule in favour of the pair whose cards are still on the table, in sequence (65D, 66D). But what if the number of tricks was agreed, a pair folded their cards away, and then the director is called to resolve a dispute about a revoke? Thanks