kgr

I've played following 4cfit-bids. I don't play them like that anymore but I don't think that it is important if the system is good or not: 2NT: 10-14 balanced or 15+ any distribution. 3H/3NT/4C/4D: 12-14 singleton/void 3♦: 10-11 HCP 3♣: 7-9 HCP 3♠/4♠: very weak All these points are HCP, and we were strict in that. Opener could ask singleton/void if he wanted. f.i by bidding 3♦ over 3♣. With the given system I would bid 3♣...4♠. ...But: It seems that Pass is much more then a LA to 4♠, so contract will be turned back to 3♠ after the BIT.

I'm really 90% sure East would return a ♦ when he knows that South has 0/3 aces.- Maybe he should also realize -after the possible MI- that something is wrong. (I personally don't think that this is required if we are sure enough that a ♦ would have been returned without the MI, but I'm not really an experienced TD. That's why I ask here) - It is not 100% sure that there was MI. Maybe there was correct explanation, but East didn't hear it correctly or the information was misinterpreted in his brain?

It is definitive as far as East's explanation of what happened, But North thinks that he gave the correct explanation. North already showed the wrong number of aces on another board the same day. I think that North had South's number of Aces correct on the current board and therefor did correctly bid to 6S. But the question then is: do you believe East when he says that he got the wrong explanation when he asked this at the beginning of the play? Or East - 'supposing' that there was an ace out- did not think long enough to realize that something was wrong. (didn't even realize that 2 aces were out if North's explanation was correct). He knew that the contract would go down by playing a ♣, then either ♣A or ♥A would come in & didn't think more about it.

forcing to 3♠, but the 3♣-bidder is still allowed to bid 4♠. And maybe in OP-system the 3♣...4♠ was the best way to show his hand.

No TD at place.Case written to TD committee (hopefully more correct then my original post) Note: change in OP: The CC's say 41/30Probably North believed his partner had 3 Keycards. But according to East, North incorrectly explained this to East. (Maybe he correctly thought this over, but incorrectly explained it when East asked it at the start of the play....like I'm making all these mistakes in my posts) They play 5-ace KC 41/30. This is corrected in OP: They play 41/30 and that is on their CC. Isn't it possible that East was 'confused' by that wrong info that they were playing 30/41. And he therefor knew that either C or H-Ace was out and therefor he didn't really need to think longer. Isn't there a link between MI and bad result then?

But 3♣ is forcing and maybe there was no better way to show the hand then 3♣...4♠

I hope I corrected all mistakes in the OP (and didn't add any) :( and you want to do another try to give a ruling with the correct info. :rolleyes:

:( sorry: Edited the auction and added the info that this happened behind screens.

Behind screens. Both E and W did have a convention card.The convention card said answer to RKC: 41/30 of 5. North explained to East: 5D=4 or 1. In the first half 16 boards were play at the 2 tables. North did make an incorrect response to RKC. That was on another board. Edited in OP: This happened behind screens. East says he got wrong explanation of 5D bid and therefor did return Club K iso a D.

thanks! corrected now

Edit: Auction corrected Edit2: This happened behind screens. N and E on same side of the screen. Teams [hv=pc=n&s=sk752hak3djt85ca3&w=s983h862d2cj97652&n=saqj64hqjt54daqct&e=sth97dk97643ckq84&d=s&v=n&b=5&a=1np2h(transfer)p2sp3hp4sp4np5dp6sppp]399|300[/hv] (I'm not sure of the spots or actual distribution of ♣-suit, but I think the relevant part of the hands is correct). West leads ♦2 (3rd/5th) and declarer plays ♦Q won by ♦K of East. East returns ♣K and South soon claims 12 tricks. - East says that he got the explanation from North of 5♦=4/1 aces of 5. - North says that he and his partner already play 41/30 for 20 years, so he thinks he gave the correct explanation. - West did get explanation from South of 5♦=3/0 aces of 5. - The CC's available to East and West - but not consulted says 41/30 (also Edited this one). What do you rule and how would following info potentially influence your decision?: - In the first half North Did incorrectly bid on another board 4D iso 4C on 4NT. - East knows that NS were in 6S (edited:on that other board) with 2 aces out in the first half, against his teammates. He doesn't know why. - East knows that NS were in 6S (edited:on that other board) with 2 aces out in the first half, against his teammates. He knows that N did gave the incorrect number of aces. - East can work out that his partner can not have an Ace. But didn't really consider that after North's wrong explanation. Is East's level important and deciding for you in the ruling? - At the other table bidding and play on the 1st trick was the same, but with correct explanation and a diamond was returned at trick 2. Edit: - EW had a big lead after the 1st half. Playing equal in the 2nd half the result would be around 25-5. ...or is it just a case of who you believe and if you believe that MI was giving then that is sufficient to think that this caused the wrong play of East?

Clear 4♠ for me. I would not consider pass a LA Vul at IMPs. You don't know what partner has in ♦, depending on that 3♠ can go down or 4♠ can make. If you had no other way to describe your hand then bidding 3♣ followed by 4♠ (Showing 6-9 with distribution) then I would bid 4♠, also after partners BIT.

The 4♠ was bid by Jack (I think after making a DD analysis of 1000 hands he concluded that 4S scores more then 3NT)

MP's [hv=pc=n&n=sJ87543ha3ckTdT32&s=sahkj87dqj5caj974&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=3dpp3NTp4sppp]253|200[/hv] Pass would have worked better then 3NT

MP's [hv=pc=n&s=sahkj87dqj5caj974&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=3dpp]133|200[/hv] What do you bid?

I agree with everything already said above. It will be difficult in the beginning, but remembering cards/counting is most important to improve your bridge in the long run and you should do as much as possible to acquire the habit.

I play: 2♠: transfer ♣ or limit with long ♦ Opener: 2NT positive for ♣ / 3♣ negative for ♣ 3♣: weak or GF with ♦ This keeps 1NT-2NT natural.

[hv=pc=n&n=sJTxxxhqtxdxxxc9x&s=skhakj9dkqcaqjt32]200|200|MP's[/hv] I had following options available: - 2♦-multi followed by 3♣=GF-♣ - 2♦-multi followed by 2NT=22-23HCP - 2♦-multi followed by 3NT=24-25HCP - 1♣ - 3♦ preempt ♥ or GF ♥-♣ (3♦-3♥-3NT=GF ♥-♣) I opened 2♦: going for: 2♦-multi followed by 3♣=GF-♣ & hoping to find the ♥-fit when partner bids 2♦-2♠. 2♦-(3♠)-Pass-(Pass) 4♣-(Pass)-5♣-AP (LHO had ♣Kx, so this did go -1) I agree that DBL is a better bid then 4♣. Question: After you open a multi and opps overcall f.i. 3♠ like here, Would you DBL with all hands (GF minor, strong NT hand with or without stop) or is DBL showing something more specific?

My thoughts :) I even think that partner will stretch more to bid after having passed initially and we overcalled. ...or also if we pass and he can balance. So I'm curious why we should lower our requirements when partner is a passed hand.

In our methods 2♠=5c♠&4c♦ and weak (6-9); 2♦=6c♠ weak (4-7). He could have lied a little and have chosen both of these if he wanted.

I wasn't sure if 3NT would show this hand or if partner would take it like that. Without the 2H, 3NT would be 4cS and 18-19 for us. But probably after 2H it should be to play. I'll clarify this with my partner. I do :D. (from your posts on this your I always have the impression that you rather look at the bridge question then at all hands)...And I agree that 5H (after the limiting 3D) is a better bid then 6D.

[hv=pc=n&n=sqtxxxxhxdxxxxcaqx&s=sha32dakj5432ck32&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1hd(4+%20Spades)2h3d3h5dp6dppp]200|200|MP's[/hv] North had the perfect hand

2NT iso 3D would have been natural.

That was exactly my thought when I made the bid.Do you think 6♦ is ok, an underbid or an overbid?

Why is it worse then another defense? The advantages I see: - It doesn't give opps the certainty of an additional round because you mostly bid a suit you have. - Frequency is high (you can bid all 2-suiters and 1-suiters). - Partner knows what you have and can easily preempt more.