david_c

He already did :) And I agree that there should be no adjustment. The pass does not look like it should be alertable to me (even though North did in fact alert) so West has not been misinformed.

I like this: Dbl = 4 spades 1♥ = 4+ hearts 1♠ = 5+ spades

Hi Mike, what I was trying to say (not very effectively, I agree) was that I think you should wait for a more clear-cut case than this one before telling the TD that you think they are wrong. I believe that the view that pass is not a LA is defensible here.

I'm surprised at some of the answers: I think the decision is sufficiently close that I wouldn't be sure whether pass is a LA without taking a poll. I think there must be plenty of people who would bid on routinely - just as there are plenty of people who would not realise that 3♥ is a splinter. Added to that, it is always much easier to work out LAs for other people than for your own problems at the table. So I believe that telling this TD that he is wrong is, well, wrong. He seems to understand what the issue is, which is that he can bid 4NT only if it is "clear" not to pass. This seems like a good start for a club TD. The only thing is, we may disagree with the judgement of whether pass is a LA. Certainly in an expert game it would be, but in a normal club I think it's close, and I wouldn't criticise anyone who bid 4NT even if I might rule against them.

Hmm, I think if I'd taken the trouble to discuss this with partner, I would have agreed that 1NT shows a slightly stronger hand than this. (This only applies over a minor-suit opening: over a major I think 6 HCP is fine.) But without discussion, I would go ahead and bid 1NT anyway. The order of the other suits doesn't really matter.

Supposed to be "humble" I think, but that always sounds a bit false to me so I use "IMO" instead.

If you said "this was a bad ruling because my partner is supposed to pause for 10 seconds" then I would have a lot of sympathy. Of course, for this to be a valid defence it would have to be true that your partner always paused for 10 seconds on this auction. I don't know many people who do that. Heck, I admit, I don't do that (unless RHO leaves the stop card out, as they are supposed to do here in England but hardly ever happens), and I would expect to be ruled against if I was in this situation. But when you say (to paraphrase) "this was a bad ruling because a spade is clear" I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Many people would lead a club. It doesn't make any difference if you are convinced a spade is right, the TD will judge it on whether a club lead is a reasonable alternative, and it is.

I wouldn't say that spades have been "agreed" on this auction. A minimum response to fourth-suit does not set trumps. So I would take 4NT as natural, as usual after 4sF.

Yes. Particularly if you are lucky enough to have a method to show the precise suits you hold. Though this hand is dead minimum for me.

No, Raptor is off in protective position. I would bid 2♦.

Agree, playing a club looks better. The writer appears to be confusing the word "solution" with "what would have worked at the table".

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that a short 1♣ opening is popular in Italy so they have more reason to overcall naturally in clubs. Personally I think you can afford to pass with a natural club overcall even if 1♣ is short, so it seems to me to be much better to use 2♣/2NT/3♣ for the three two-suiters. (This is the only opening bid over which I would play something approaching "Ghestem".) But anyway, if you can't overcall a natural 2♦ on that hand, that just solves the problem you had of whether to overcall 2♦ or 3♦. :D

I'd open 1NT. If the strong 3-card suit was a minor instead of spades then I would open 1♥, intending to rebid that minor. But with spades that is not an option, so I vote for 1NT.

I would double. Neither of the major suits look biddable to me, and my Michaels bids promise 5-5. I've lost my fear of doubling with a doubleton minor after a couple of bad results from not doing this.

On the first hand I want to raise to 2♦. On the second hand I want to bid 2♦ ("to play opposite a weak NT"). OK, I can do neither of those things playing standard methods. But the question was asked, "what would you like to do?" And these hands are a good example of why I like to play methods where 1♦ promises a good suit and 1♣ "promises" a balanced hand (as in Polish Club - there may be unbalanced hands possible but these will have extra strength to compensate).

I don't think this is true. Indeed, I've tried playing a method which relied on there only ever being two suits you need to worry about, and it didn't work! Basically there are two different situations you might find yourself in. Assuming a NT contract: (i) More than one suit has been led. In this situation there is nearly always at least one suit which can be ruled out. Methods which focus on a straight encouraging/discouraging message seem to work well. (ii) Only one suit has been led. For example, the opening leader cashes a few rounds of a suit and partner shows out. Or opening leader finds a bad lead and declarer leads the suit straight back. In this case it very often happens that you might need to show interest in any one of the three remaining suits. Mckenney or other suit-preference methods seem to work better here. My preferred methods now distinguish between these two situations. Against a suit contract, (ii) only applies if the suit led is trumps.

The double is take-out, and should be close to perfect in shape since a passed hand has no business coming in at the 3-level otherwise. In particular, the doubler must have either a void or a small singleton in clubs. So the only question is whether to bid 3♠ or 4♠. I'd probably bid 4♠ - as whereagles says, game is possible if partner has a well-fitting maximum, and as far as I'm concerned partner must have a well-fitting maximum to justify bidding on this auction! But 3♠ is OK I suppose. No other calls make any sense.

Agree with hrothgar. Whether something is considered a LA depends on what other people in your position would do. The people that the TD would consider are those with the same level of experience, playing the same system and the same style. So if your style is to pre-balance aggresively, the TD (or AC) will take this into account. But there has to be some clear evidence of this, for example some mention on the convention card. If a player just says "I'd always bid with this hand" then this is unlikely to influence the TD even though it may happen to be true.

[Edited numerous times, sorry] It would certainly look a bit silly to cash the ♠A and then find partner did not have any more diamonds to lead. I think we need to know what cards partner followed with in diamonds: that would at least distinguish declarer's Kxx (should cash ♠A) from Kxxx (should not cash ♠A). On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out declarer having Kx either, particularly if the first trick was slow.

In my opinion - As soon as West finds the diamond switch, declarer should ask if the opps agree that there was a hesitation. If they agree, then (unless your SO has decided not to allow "reserving your rights") there is no need to call the director until the hand is over. If they do not agree then you must call the director immediately.

I don't think there was ever any doubt that the hereditary peers would be abolished, this was just a matter of time. But the big decision to be made was whether the members of the new "House of Lords" (if it was still to be called that) would be appointed or elected - the latest vote was in favour of them being 100% elected. I feel this is completely wrong. We don't want politicians in the second house, we want people who are good at the job of revising legislation - experts, specialists, clear-thinkers. I don't believe it's possible for the general public to select people on that basis.

Indeed - they should be restricted to at most one.

I think this may be an EBL-specific thing. From what I've picked up from reading various forums, such a ruling is based on this paragraph from the WBF "Code of Practice": [in particular the words "such part".] I know for a fact that this does not apply in England (it says so explicitly in the EBU's White Book), and if I remember correctly it doesn't apply in the ACBL either. It seems to be only EBL-trained TDs who rule this way.

Seems worth playing just for the fun of announcing it by name. Yup, that is pretty much the whole point :)

I've never found this to be much of a problem. It may look awkward not to have clarified either partner's hand types in the auction 1♣-1♦-1M, but it seems to be very easy to sort them out later. Having said that, I do like using 1♣-2♣ as a semi-positive, moving the stronger hands somewhere else. And I'd love to be able to show semi-positive hands with 5+ diamonds immediately as well, but that seems more difficult to fit into the system. I mostly agree with Glen's suggested changes. The most important one in my opinion is opening 1♦ rather than 1♣ on two-suiters in the 18-21 range when diamonds is the longest suit. For two-suiters with a major suit being longest it's not so clear - my preference is to open 1♥ with hearts but 1♣ with spades, but I could be persuaded to change my mind on either of these. The other change I would make would be to define opener's rebids more clearly after any positive response. I think it's OK for the 1M rebid to be made on a variety of hands after a negative, because responder never has much else to say and can allow opener to reveal his hand type later. But after a positive response things can get a bit fuzzy if opener doesn't clarify his hand type immediately. So for example, after a 1♥ response, I think opener should always rebid 1NT (or 2♥) with a minimum balanced hand, and not 1♠ as is allowed in WJ. Similarly, after 1♣-2♣/2♦, if you play these as forcing, opener should have an artificial rebid available which shows the weak NT hand (probably step one). Actually I've got a webpage on this which you can see here.