david_c

I was watching, and no, I don't agree. Yes, he made a string of highly anti-percentage calls. If that's the way he wants to try and get back the 60-IMP deficit, I don't have a problem with it. It just so happened that each one got severely punished. And maybe he was "on tilt" at the end, but that's not the same as losing your temper. I don't have any problem with the concession, so long as it was done graciously. Shake hands and congratulate your opponents - that's fine. If they stormed out, that would be different. It may be that there is a rule against it. But even if so, I do not think that a severe punishment is needed.

I used to play this; I wrote about it on my blog. I like playing opener's rebids as: 2♥ = most minimums 2♠ = 6+ spades, minimum. (NB: Some hands with 6 spades might bid 2♥.) 2NT = 6+ spades, forcing to game 3♠ = artificial GF with heart support others = as normal After 2♥ or 2♠ (which are non-forcing) we just continue as in Acol. This system wins big on invitational (or mildly-invitational) hands. When you have a GF you may wish you were playing 2/1, but sometimes you gain from the better description provided by opener's first rebid. The downside, as I see it, is not being able to bid a natural 2♦. You have to either bid 2♥ with these (which causes difficulties when opener has hearts) or put them through an artificial 2♣ (which is playable but makes things fiendishly complicated).

Actually, West has 24 points on the "rule of X" scale. Maybe that's what East meant.

Awful programme, but it was worth watching just to see Brian being Brian. Though you probably wouldn't "get it" if you hadn't met him before. My dad was convinced he was "acting a part" for the camera. "No, he really is like that!" It was nice to see his sense of humour come through occasionally.

On the MythBusters experiment, Wikipedia says the result was overturned in a subsequent episode: When retrying the test in actual rain it was conclusively proven that the running test subject got less wet than the walking test subject. The use of artificial rain in the original test led to a false negative.

I voted yes, though I may be missing something. It seems that LHO has nothing to gain from falsecarding. So the only relevant holdings are indeed QT and T9, and PRC says the first is more likely.

3♣.

Again, you would have the same problem in a standard system.

Yeah, take-out doubles are the way to go. You can't penalise them when opener has a weak NT and responder has good trumps. But you would have had the same problem in a "standard" system with these cards. So you're not really losing out much, I think?

Unfortunately the definition in the 1997 Laws leaves plenty of room for argument, and the WBF never issued any interpretation. So it is up to the national authorities to interpret it. Which is a rather daft state of affairs - the national authorities are supposed to be bound by Law 40, but they also get to interpret what Law 40 means. But that's the way things are. So, when the EBU bans canape bids, they are (implicitly) saying that they interpret them as being conventional. We could argue about whether this interpretation makes sense, but at the end of the day the EBU has the right to interpret it however they like, unless a higher authority (the WBF or EBL) says otherwise. To answer your question, I expect the EBU would say that canape bids are always conventional, whether or not they promise four cards in the suit. However they have chosen to allow canape bids that promise four cards and not allow ones that promise only three.

I thought the old Laws allowed SOs to regulate conventions, but not natural bids (except for initial actions that could be a King or more below average). This is why the ACBL can't ban 8-10 NTs, but they can bar any conventional responses to an 8-10 NT. "Natural" is not the opposite of "conventional". - "Conventional" is a term defined in the 1997 Laws. - "Natural" is a term defined by the EBU (or ACBL, or other authority). A sponsoring organisation can ban any conventions. Some of these banned conventions might well be "natural", depending on how "natural" is defined.

There is no rule which says a "natural" bid is allowed. So if you want to know whether a canape on 6-3 is allowed, it's irrelevant whether it is defined as "natural". Instead you have to look at the specific rules for what is allowed for 1m openings, and these say that you can play canape but only if you promise four cards in your first suit when holding a two-suited type. This is very different to the ACBL, where the convention charts only deal with conventions, and it is implicit that anything not conventional is OK. I'm actually not sure whether canape is considered natural. The EBU OB isn't terribly clear on this point. However there is no need for them to make it clear, because it doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. (But "normal" 3-card minor openings are certainly natural, as of 2006.)

Only question is whether to bid 2♠ or 3♠.

Actually I do care. Not very much, but a little. It's nice to be rewarded for doing well. Particularly in all the swiss events that we have here in England, you can be out of contention near the end of the competition, and it's good to be actually playing for something, even if that something has only symbolic value. And what Paul said - you should care about the masterpoint scheme, because for a lot of our opponents it's what keeps them coming back, and masterpoints are an important source of income for our NBOs.

I am sure that (2) is the "right" thing to do. (I certainly would not recommend (1). Note that not asking also passes UI, at least in theory, and if you do it deliberately to avoid hearing the "wrong" answer that could be ruled as illegal communication with partner.) But obviously this sucks. Personally I think the most sensible idea is not to have this agreement in the first place. You might think that it is theoretically best to have different methods depending on the strength of 3♣. But we have seen that this agreement is unplayable because you can't help giving UI. You can complain about the regulations if you like (and I think there is a valid complaint here), but complaining doesn't get you any IMPs. Better to work around it. Play double as take-out over any artificial raise.

I would prefer to play it as a splinter, but I'm very surprised that people think it is standard. Unless discussed, I would always assume it was not possible to splinter in partner's suit.

Oh, yeah, I didn't even look at that part of what I was quoting! Of course you do that.

I think if you take this line you should be cashing the top hearts before the second diamond, as you may find LHO has a singleton heart. This was the line I was going to go for, but I think I agree that your original suggestion is marginally better. [Edit: Actually, maybe not, it seems to be extremely close.]

Why? The double properly represented East's hand. That's irrelevant. If East would not have doubled 1♦ with the correct information, and not doubling would have got a better result, then that means E/W were damaged.

FWIW, "psyche" is the British spelling; "psych" is (apparently) the American spelling. Similar to humour/humor.

The explanation seems adequate to me. OK, if I played this convention I would say "at least 4-4" in the explanation. But is a failure to do so actually misinformaion? This is a judgement for the TD to make. Bear in mind that you can never include all the information about a bid in the initial explanation, as that would just be too long: if an opponent wants more detailed information then he has to ask. So is this something that it is actually misleading to leave out? I would say no. But this is not an easy decision, and in a face-to-face game the expectations might depend on what systems are commonly played in that area. Oppo is at fault for assuming that the bid promised more than 4-4. If he has come across a "both majors" pre-empt before he would know 4-4 was possible. If he has not seen it before, then why on earth would he assume he knew what it promised?

Interesting - I'm not sure about that. But in any case, the Law says "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible", and it is incontrovertible that if declarer is pointing up then (s)he is not calling for the small one.

How do you show 5♠ 4♥ invitational? The same way. 1NT : 2♣ , 2♦ : 2♠ just shows 5 spades and an invitational hand. Could be four hearts, could be more (and some people play that it doesn't promise hearts at all). So when you have a 5-5 you may play in 2♠ on a 5-2 fit when you had a 5-3 fit in hearts available. However that is the (small) price you pay for being able to stop at the 2-level. If you do have 5-5 and the bidding goes 1NT : 2♣ , 2♦ : 2♠ , 2NT, now you can bid 3♥ to show the 5-5 shape.

Normally: - With a game force: transfer to spades and then bid 3♥; - With an invitational hand: start with Stayman; if partner bids 2♦ then you now bid 2♠ (invitational). If you do use 1NT : 3♠ as both majors, then it's fairly common to play that opener can now bid 4♣ to show a good hand for hearts, or 4♦ to show a good hand for spades.

I haven't been watching this week but Brian's last post sounds about right on past experience. I do think that the word "oops" should be banned - that is always a sign of bad commentary. I know two very good players who have told me they don't commentate for precisely that reason. We do have some very good commentators as well, but unfortunately when there are four people commentating it is often the case that the commentary would be enhanced if one or two of them were removed.