david_c

Well, I said there should only be one rebid for the balanced hands, I didn't say it had to be 2NT :) Clearly after 2♦ it should be 2♥, so long as you don't mind playing artificial methods. On the other hand, after 1M : 2♣ , 2♥ you don't gain a whole step by using 2♠ as the relay rather than 2NT. When responder is balanced and opener is not, it's important for responder to be declarer in 3NT: if responder hasn't already bid NT then that really restricts what you can do later. You do gain a little, but it's nowhere near as much as you would normally expect for an extra step. So I don't think it's obvious to use 2♠ as the relay there.

I disagree with the approach of the first two posters: IMO responder should make the same rebid on all balanced hands at his second turn.* So for example after 1♠:2♣,2♥ I think responder should always rebid 2NT on a balanced hand (assuming you've defined 2NT as natural here!) irrespective of whether he holds support for one of partner's suits. If he does have support then he can show that later. This is for three reasons: (i) It means that a direct raise promises a real club suit. (ii) When responder has a balanced hand you want him to be the one making the decisions. Bidding 2NT gets partner to describe his hand, which is what you want, rather than starting a co-operative cue-bidding sequence which you don't want. (Unless your name is Ken.) (iii) You need as many bids as possible which show unbalanced hands. Whereas with a balanced hand you just want partner to describe his hand to you, with an unbalanced hand you need to describe what you've got. In order to make room for lots of ways of showing unbalanced hands, you can't afford to have more than one bid for the balanced hands. Somewhat related to this, I think if you want a genuinely effective method it is vital for opener to have some way of describing his strength. It's OK for opener's first rebid to be wide-ranging if it is below 2NT, but once responder has shown a balanced hand, opener's next priority should be to say whether he is better than minimum. This can only really be done artificially. For example after 1♠:2♣,2♥:2NT you might play 3♣ as any minimum with other rebids showing better hands. [*Assuming that opener's rebid was below 2NT.]

Meh. Since when has "p_n - 1" not been a valid sequence? The answer is obviously 6♥. :)

My first thought is to cash the ace, then cross to lead up to the ten, losing only to Jx with LHO. No idea whether that's best, it just looks decent.

I know these hands: Mike meant to say that the response on the second hand was 2♦. So 2NT isn't a psyche :) I bid 2♠; maybe it is a style issue but I wouldn't like to be playing a style where you bid 2NT.

If you are starting clubs low to the nine I dont think it matters whether you kept the ♥K or ♥A. Suppose LHO goes in with an honour on the first round ...

I think a disconnection isn't the same as a withdrawal here.

Yes, you can do better. Once you know spades break, you should play a club to the nine. The key is to keep the ♥K as an entry to table and the ♣K as an entry back to hand (to repeat the club finesse). I must admit I didn't see the problem with cashing the ♣K first, but now we've seen it, small to the nine must be best! What a great problem! (This line is 78% given that spades break. ♣AK and another is only 71%, even when you take into account the fact that you can switch to diamonds if clubs break 5-1 or 6-0.)

(Deleted while I work out the percentages.)

You average player isn't playing in the events for which these rules are intended. OK I didn't put that very well. I really just wanted to exclude the pros. Everyone else is there because they want to have a good time. I think that taking away their mobile phones is one way to stop them having a good time.

I don't know much about what happens in America. But where I come from, bridge competitions are run for the benefit of the players. The most important thing is making sure your average player has a good time. Any ban on electronic devices which affected ordinary players would be guaranteed to upset just about everybody. We do ask people to turn their mobile phones off while playing. You can have penalties for phones ringing if you like. But it is unrealistic to ask them not to bring their phones in at all. If it's because of the possibility of illicit communication, I think that's truly ridiculous. The danger is barely more than theoretical (and there are plenty of easier ways to cheat at this game), whereas the inconvenience from banning phones is massive. [Edit:] Perhaps I should say that I do think things might be different in America. You seem to have more than one event running at the same time, and rules for the top events can reasonably be more strict. And there seem to be more pros, who can be expected to accept restrictions for reasons of security as part of what they do. But from what I understand, I don't believe that there is any event at an NABC which warrants such severe restrictions as a complete ban on electronic devices. In a trial or an international event, then yes maybe.

No, I think it should be more constructive, even if you are a passed hand.

Well, this topic is called "Judge the Litigants", and I'm happy to do that: it is completely ridiculous to hold an inquest about this board. They got to a normal contract, did they not? The MPs on this board are won or lost in the play (including what happens in 3NT at other tables, which you can do nothing about). OK, I do think it is silly to rebid 1NT rather than 2♦. But this had nothing to do with the result.

I think 4NT is natural.

I go against the forum majority on this. I would rebid the first suit maybe 80% of the time, when the second suit is a minor. With 6♠-4♥ it's a very different situation, but I still rebid the spades maybe 20% of the time. I can't give you any particularly good reasons, sorry. I don't feel very strongly about it anyway.

Oh, fair enough. It's just that you wrote "I agree" when I last said that.

I agree, unfortunately, the rules still don't allow it. Yes they do. Once you agree that the "meaning" of the insufficient bid is "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT", then this is the same meaning as the proposed correction, so the correction to 3♣ is allowed without penalty under the new section B1(b ).

We don't: and this is why a correction to 3♣ should be allowed. The most likely explanation for bidding 2♣ over 2NT is that responder wanted to bid Stayman over 2NT but forgot that this involved bidding 3♣. You don't even have to agree that this is the most likely explanation. As long as it is a possibility, you don't know anything more from the insufficient bid than "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT". Since this is the same meaning as the correction to 3♣, this correction should be allowed. Funnily enough, my partner actually did bid 2♣ over my 2NT opening this evening! (Playing under the old Laws unfortunately.) And he had a hand which wouldn't have bid Stayman over 1NT.

That's not such a great example because it is allowed under section B1(a) - both the insufficient bid and the correction are natural.

If I understand your notation correctly, I think this is wrong. A call which excludes lots of hands is "more precise" than a call which excludes few hands. Thus the condition to be met is that we need C to be a subset of A - D. You've got it the wrong way round.

This has just come out today. I thought BBF might be interested. If you're a face-to-face TD this will probably be the hardest thing to get used to in the new Laws. The big change is section B1(b ). (The version which came out last year was supposed to be "final", but nevertheless they have changed it. I don't think it's even been updated on the official site yet. This information comes from BLML.)

Wow I totally disagree with that. There are loads of good 4-3 fits that you find with this convention, because the singleton is in the short hand.

A likely reason is that currently they can't stop people playing a wide-ranging NT opening, but they can (and do) stop people playing conventional continuations after it, which makes it very difficult to play. Under the new Laws, which will be brought in later this year, they will be able to ban a wide-ranging NT outright. Perhaps they are going to decide whether they want to do this.

TP is you haven't counted your cards.

This is an interesting one. You can play LHO for holding at least one of the honours, which is 76%. That seems the best you can do legitimately. Alternatively, lead small towards the nine, intending to run the jack if the nine loses to the ten. That should be just a little over 74%, but RHO has to avoid jumping in with the queen from Qx or Qxx, which might not be too easy. Certainly in the NICKO I'd try it that way.