kgr

Ok..so, how do you rule (Do you believe East that it is a mispull)?

1NT-(2D..3♦) North opens 1NT and East almost bids 2D and changes it to 3D. South calls the TD and this is the story: South says that East bids 2D and that bid did almost hit the table. Everybody could see the 2D and West was already reaching for his Alert card, not sure if he already touched it, but it was very close (and clear for South that he was gonna alert 2D). The 2D bid of East was not yet hitting the table and East did put the 2D back in the box and did bid 3D. The TD asked East to show how the bidding did go. East showed he took the 2D, almost reaching the table and showed he replaced it with 3D. East said that she did misbid. (This wasn't really asked or said at the table, but suppose that East says: I mispulled). TD said the replacement was fluent and in one movement and ruled that the replacement was ok and no punishment. Remark: Maybe it is difficult to imagine, but this was a fluent replacement, but still the intention of West to alert during this fluent movement was clear. How do you rule? (I suppose you don't look at East's cards yet?)

We had a Namyats bidding yesterday: Teams/IMP's [hv=pc=n&s=sahdaqj9742cjt853&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=4c(Namyats)4s]133|200[/hv] What do you bid now?

We open 5542: 1♦=4+c♦

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1h2sdp2n(%3F%3F)]133|100[/hv] We have the agreement that 2NT is never to play in competitive auctions. Mostly 2NT in competition would show the stronger or more flexible hand. We play support DBL's, but the DBL here show a good hand (or extra's with support). We play Lebensohl after (2M)-DBL Q: Should 2NT be like Lebensohl OR should 2NT be the stronger hands, with 3X non-forcing?

1♣-(1Y/DBL)-RDBL/DBL/1Z I play all as transfer. I would think it is standard and even more useful then without the intervention. And if you play T-Walsh it is logic that 1♦-(1♥)-DBL is also transfer to ♠

Note that I edited the Original Post. East did bid 2NT after West did bid 2♦ I did bid 2♣ iso 3♣ hoping that opps would DBL 3 or 4♣...But now it looks like opps are doing the same with me (without realizing it)

[hv=pc=n&s=saq2haq5dcaqjt932&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1cdp1d2c2dp2nt3c3dp3np4dp5ddppp]133|200|MP's[/hv] This was at the club evening (MP's) against opps that are not good. Or do you rather disagree with my bidding? What do you lead? Edit: The bidding was in fact a little different. East did bid 2NT instead of his first Pass. I changed the bidding

What is best/standard definition of Namyats? My partner prefers a closed suit like the first 2 examples. I prefer some points & would probably preempt 4S with the 1st hand because the lack of defense. We both agree that it promises 8-9 tricks, but not sure if this should be more strict like vul=9 tricks, nvul=8 tricks. AKQxxxxx=x=xx=xx AKQxxxxx=x=Qx=xx AQJxxxxx=x=Qx=Ax AJTxxxxx=x=Qx=Ax AJTxxxxx=A=Qx=Ax (We also have uni-color major available: semi-forcing via 2♦ and GF via 3-level transfer preempt)

The hand that triggered the question: [hv=pc=n&s=sak832ha32dt53cj2&n=sqhkqj4dakqj2ct43&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s(Sayc)p2dp2s(forcing%2C%20mostly%20less%20then%2015%20pts)p3hp4dp4n(RKC)p5h(2%20of%205%2C%20no%20DQ)p6dppp]266|200[/hv] Opps cashed 2♣ tricks. We wondered if 4♦ (iso 4♣) already denied a ♣-control

We play that 2♠ is forcing.

This were NS hands and the bidding[hv=pc=n&s=s2h32dakqj5432ck2&n=saq98743hq4dcjt43&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1s2h3dp3sp5ddppp]266|200|MP's[/hv] 2♥ was bid at our table by a beginner. He had a weak hand with 7c♥. Lead was ♥A followed by a small ♥ for the K. A 3th ♥ was played and ruffed small and overruffed. 5♦ would make if ruffed high because LHO had ♠KJTx and ♣A

I would think that 4♥ is to play.What do you bid with AQJTxx=xxxx=Kx=Q

In fact I wondered if this could be anything else then a ♣-cue with ♦-support & 4♦ would deny a ♦-control.

Not 2/1; 2♦ is not GF and 2♠ can be 5c♠ with less then GF: 1♠-2♦ 2♠-3♥ 4♣ What is 4♣ here? (BTW: Can opener bid 2♠ with a minimal hand and 64xx & is responder promising a 4c♥?) Edit: 1S-2D-3D would also be GF

[hv=pc=n&s=s2h32dakqj5432ck3]133|100|MP's[/hv] What do you open with this? We had following options: - 1♦ - 3♠=gambling 3NT (3♠ is not really 3NT, but same meaning :) ) - 2♦...3♦=GF with ♦ - 3NT=preempt ♣ or ♦ - 5♦ to play If you start with 1♦ then it goes: 1♦-(P)-1♠-(2♥) ?? ..or at another table it was.. 1♦-(P)-1♠-(3♥) ??

That is what I play with non-forcing 1NT & happy with it. (1NT can contain 3c support and 4-7 pts).

and this was another joke?

I think that the question was: Do you let them make 6 so they 'll feel bad and make more mistakes in the next boards? ..I wouldn't

E: I would bid 4S iso DBL S: If South can make an inv raise then I would prefer that, but RDBL is not too bad W: 1H does not show points for me (and that is standard I think), but I prefer a preemtive 2H N: Pass would show an interest to DBL for penalties, but given the short Spades the 2C bid is not too bad E: difficult to say after having DBLed first, but 3S looks ok now N: I would think that DBL after Souths RDBL is penalty. You could wonder if that still applies after showing no interest in penalty DBL first with the 2C bid. But for me the DBL now show short Hearts. Something like 3=1=5=4.

I would be good if date&time of the scheduled the matches are added in a calendar or in the frame posted at the top of this post.

Yes

Ted

Never in writing

right And it was brought up by the TD in his decision. And none of the players were aware that written questions/explanations are required. Explanations are in fact never given in this division (also not by the player - a TD - a played against in the first half).