david_c

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sa3hak52dt52cak75&w=skh9873d9876ct986&e=sjt987542hqjdkjcq&s=sq6ht64daq43cj432]399|300|[/hv] Whatever they lead, you can come down to [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sa3hak52dt52cak75&w=skh9873d9876ct986&e=sjt987542hqjdkjcq&s=sq6ht64daq43cj432]399|300|[/hv] When you play the ♠Q, West is squeezed in three suits: (i) If he pitches a heart, you can cash the ♥T, cross to the ♦T and cash the established heart, pitching a club. West is squeezed in clubs and diamonds. (ii) If he pitches a diamond, you can play to the ♦T, back to the ♥T and cash the diamond, squeezing West in clubs and hearts. (iii) If he pitches a club, then you cash all three clubs, catching West in a criss-cross squeeze in the red suits.

Yeah, 1♥ I suppose, but only because we have an invitational hand, where heart support makes a big difference to the level we want to play at. If the hand was any weaker, or any stronger, I would be showing clubs first.

The suit is good enough at any vulnerability. But I wouldn't bid 3♦ at unfavourable because it doesn't seem to achieve anything - at other vulnerabilities at least there is the possibility of finding a good sacrifice. You don't really expect this 3♦ to mess the opponents up very much, since they've already bid your shortest suit (most likely to be their fit), and if you manage to push them into a contract you don't have any defence. So "equal or favourable" for me.

It's not necessarily relevant whether declarer thought of it at the time. We have to imagine declarer playing the hand out, and whether a failure to pitch a heart and ruff a heart would be irrational when he comes to the last few clubs. In my opinion, once declarer has played out four or five clubs the end position becomes sufficiently transparent that he cannot avoid noticing that pitching a heart will get another trick. So my vote is for giving him 13. (I would actually be more worried about the possibility of him playing off all his trumps before starting on clubs. In my opinion this is irrational as well, as from his claim statement he is clearly aware of the possibility that clubs may not split, but I think this is closer than the question of whether he will pitch three diamonds rather than a heart.)

Strong words. Certainly in the ACBL is it illegal, and therefore if you played this convention despite knowing that it is illegal, then that would be cheating. On the other hand, there are many countries where the random 1♠ overcall is not illegal, and is therefore a legitimate tactic.

I'd bid 6♦. It might be cold, or (more likely) it might make on a non-heart lead. Seems good enough for me. Sure you could play in 5♦ and score up two overtricks, but where's the fun in that?

Ergh, is this really a B/I problem? There are two very good lines people have suggested: (i) Ace of clubs, queen of clubs intending to pitch a diamond. (ii) Ace of clubs, ruff a club (have to decide whether to ruff high or low), duck a heart. I think both of these lines can cope with spades 3-1. [i won't say how in case people haven't worked it out.] But which one is better? I think I'll go with (ii) - ace of clubs, ruff a club low, duck a heart. But not entirely sure about this, are we missing something more obvious?

I tell E/W that I can't see how they would have done anything differently. Unless they can suggest something plausible (not involving changing East's second pass, since he had a chance with the correct information at that point), the score will have to stand. It looks like South's well-timed misbid of 2♠ has done the damage, and there is no redress for that.

But that's their job. Surely it's not unreasonable to expect the people on the WBF systems committee to be people who are actually good at writing systems regulations. And yet the plebs here on BBF regularly find gaping holes in the regulations and offer better alternatives (admittedly mixed in with some bad ideas, but we can tell which ones are the good ones). Anyway, no matter how difficult it is to get the regulations right, there is no excuse for coming up with a new interpretation of the regulations after the systems have already been submitted, as has been done here.

And banning the Multi would be unfair because it benefits the countries where multi is not popular. You can't win. How many systems committee members does it take to change a lightbulb? It can't be done: even if they're standing in the dark, they'll refuse to believe the current lightbulb doesn't work.

Oh, don't be silly. I happen to think 2♠ is best, but 2♣ is a perfectly reasonable alternative. And like Frances I know why you're asking, and you won't do yourself any good by trying to argue that 2♠ was the only sensible bid. The best you can say is that 2♠ is "normal". And the worrying thing is I can think of a couple of people who might describe bids as "bonkers" like you did, and if you've been listening to them too much (which wouldn't surprise me) you're going to be getting some very idiosyncratic ideas.

Same here :)

I think this is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen. Am I correct in interpreting this that your 1♣ (2+, not forcing) is "natural" whereas Fantoni-Nunes 1♣ showing exactly the same possible distributions is "conventional" simply because theirs is forcing and unlimited? Presumably he has interpreted the non-forcing 1♣ opening as showing "willingness to play" in clubs, hence not conventional according to the Laws, whereas a forcing short 1♣ shows neither willingness to play nor length (which is defined as 3+ cards). Nevertheless, this is not the normal interpretation. I do not know who this Mr. Wignall is, but in my opinion he should not have the right to reinterpret the meaning of conventional like this. Maybe he does have that right, but he should not. In doing so, he has lost all respect I might ever have had for him.

It is indeed. I don't know anything about Duplicate Decisions apart from this one sentence, which has been brought up many times: it is a notorious mistake.

Pass. I'd need an ace more than this before I even consider bidding 2NT. Double is not an option unless you can find some more hearts amongst your diamonds, and even then the high-card strength isn't really there.

Well, if the order of the suits doesn't matter, that will be miles behind this: HHxx Hxxx Hxx xx which is apparently less common than this: HHxx Hxxx Hxx Hx. If the order of the suits is fixed, a 4333 might win.

These hands are pretty bad: [hv=n=sh765432dc8765432&w=sakqjt8642hdtcakq&e=shakqjt8dakqjcjt9&s=s9753h9d98765432c]399|300|[/hv] In 7NT, South can win the first five tricks in the majors, and E/W discard all their diamonds. To make 7NT with two Yarboroughs you need at least three nines: for the first five tricks at least one of the opponents must follow suit, so between them they must have at least five cards below a nine. That leaves only 23 cards below a nine for you and your partner, so you must have three nines. So you can't beat the example above by much, if at all.

Doesn't work for me - I'm getting a similar problem to Helene. (But I'm using Windows XP and Internet Explorer.) My computer can see there is something going on with port "3336", and the firewall claims not to be blocking it, but the number of "bytes received" in that connection is always zero.

A bit ironic really, since there are many bridge players who in turn would like to disown the ACBL, and the reasons may well be much the same.

2NT: Definitely a two-suiter. Undiscussed this should be spades and diamonds, but it wouldn't completely surprise me if a non-expert pick-up partner intended it to show the minors. (There might be experts who like to play it as minors as well, but they would know it is non-standard and not do it unless discussed.) 1NT: The default is natural. Playing with someone from England I would be completely confident about this. Playing with a random person on BBO, particularly if they are from North America, I might worry that they believe it shows a two-suiter since it seems this is a popular treatment in some places. 2♣/2♥: If playing with someone from these forums, I would expect these to be natural. Otherwise I would not make either of these bids if undiscussed. I think that most people where I come from have never heard of the possibility of these bids being natural, and would assume they showed some sort of two-suiter. If partner sprung it on me I would look at my hand to try and work out what was meant.

I disagree - until the auction is over and an explanation has been given, West cannot be sure that he has been misinformed. Maybe N/S do not have any agreement, and/or North has misbid. So West should not call the director after North's pass, because it is not his turn to ask about the opponents' bidding, and there is no proof yet of MI. Indeed, if West does call the director at that point, he would be giving his partner UI, since he is implying his call might have been different if he knew 3♠ could be passed.

IMO both players got this wrong - they both have enough for game on this auction - but South's mistake is much worse than North's.

OK..my guess: 1) A piece of music written by J. Haydn, maybe "Lord Nelson Mass"...? Hmm, no, I've sung that (not my cup of tea to be honest) and I can assure you it was in Latin. If it's Haydn it's more likely to be The Creation.

Well, you still got the 15th post (I was 14th). Ah, I wondered whether anyone would fall for that - you had the 15th post, Matt had the 15th reply.

I don't understand why this is true? I've always included some invitational hands as well. You must mean something different to what I was expecting then. I was assuming "Transfer Lebensohl" meant that over a 2♠ bid, 2NT shows clubs 3♣ shows diamonds 3♦ shows hearts 3♥ and above can be given some other meanings This allows you to distinguish two different strengths of hands when you have clubs or diamonds, but only by bidding again once partner has completed the transfer. So this stronger sequence has to be a game force - you can't use this scheme to distinguish between "weak" and "constructive" hands, as with ordinary Lebensohl over a weak two. Even if you were to change the meaning of 2NT so that it didn't necessarily show clubs, this wouldn't help on those hands where you actually hold a club suit. So in those situations where it's important to distinguish between a "weak" 3♣ bid and a "competitive" 3♣ bid, transfers don't work.