kgr

Rem: I'm not sure about these actual hands: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqxxhkqdjt9xxcjxx&w=satxxhxxdaxxcakxx&e=sxxhj9xxxdqxxctxx&s=skjxxhaxxxdkxcqxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♣-(1NT)-Pass-(2♦) (*) DBL-(Pass)-Pass-(2♥) Pass-(Pass)-3♦-AP (*): 2♦ was not alerted and I (Dealer) asked about the 2♦ bid and was told it was to play. I kind of thought it was transfer so I asked LHO if he was sure and he said Yes. No convention cards. 3♦ did go -1. What is the normal ruling for this? Without convention cards you assume that the explanation was wrong (?) and with the correct explanation South would have passed, West also passes (because he only knows the wrong explanation) and North passes and they play 2♦?

North was GIB's older brother (not the newest version of Jack). System is 2/1 with constructive raises. So 1NT is normal.

I play that 1NT-2S Is either: - transfer ♣ - invite with ♦ . => opener supposes that it is for ♣ and superaccepts for ♣ with 2NT and 1NT-3C Is weak or strong with ♦

2/1 and too weak to bid 2♠

Thanks for the answers. I Dbl'ed because I didn't want to exclude 3NT. [hv=d=s&v=e&n=st85h842dq9cajt54&w=s32ha7djt872ckq76&e=sq97hkqjt953d3c93&s=sakj64h6dak654c82]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♠-(Pass)-1NT-(3♥) DBL-(pass)-4♣?-(pass) 4♦-(pass)-4♠-AP

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sakjxxhxdakxxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You play 2/1 (1NT can include weak 3c♠): 1♠-(pass)-1NT-(3♥ weak) ???

That is not my theory, but a constraint in the OP:

Agree, but is there any punishment for that; Are opps harmed by that?

Thanks for replies. Partner had: [hv=n=stxxxhjxdxcakxxxx&w=sajxxxhkqtxxdatxc&e=sxxhxxxdxxxcjtxxx&s=skqhaxxdkqjxxxcqx]399|300|[/hv] I did bid 3NT and LHO did lead a small ♥. You are not always punished for bad decissions. I made 6 NT as RHO did discard 2♣'s.

Does North have UI information? I don't think so. So he can pass 2♠ South has UI but passing 2♥ does not seem like an option

Partner can have both minors, why not? His first Dbl tells us he wants to play at least 1 minor suit contract doubled at 3-level. Now it's a VERY clear penalty Double imo, otherwise he would've bid 3♦ to let us bid again. After: 1♥-(2NT)-DBL-(3♣) ?? Partner says that he has a penalty for one minor and not for both. Because with both he would have passed and DBL'ed later. Therefor I don't really like to pass here.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqhaxxdkqj8xxcqx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♦-(3♦!)-Pass-(3♥) ??? MP's You open 1♦ because too strong for 1NT (agree?). LHO bids 3♦: Majors, at least 5-5 What do you call over RHO 3♥ bid?

Partner certainly has not both minors (then he would have started with a pass?) and therefor opps have a good fit in one of the minors. It doesn't feel like we should defend here and the first pass doesn't feel right to me. Do passers think that defending 3m DBL'ed will be the Par score or do they think it will be the best 'table score'?

??? B) It was not a typo or anything. It was really this combination. I only realized the nonsense after reading the first answer. ...Maybe I better get stoned.

K9873 - A542 You want to play this suit for no losers. You start with the 3 from dummy, RHO plays the J, you the A and LHO the 6. Now you play small from hand, LHO the T; => Finesse or drop?

Hi Roland, Will there be any vugraph of the 50th anniversary tournament? Thanks, Koen

Roland, For the Italian tables: Is there always one in English and one in Italian. Or is it possible that both are in Italian, but one of them also has English commentators. (Just want to know: if Italian comments, should I wait a bit to see if there is also English comments on the same table) ...I can also accept that if the Italians are paying this that both tables are Italian. Thanks, Koen

The easiest part is most interesting for me: 1♠-2♥ 2♠-3♣ 3♥-3♠ Isn't 3♠ a cue for ♥. Because with ♠ support we could bid?: 1♠-2♥ 2♠-3♠ => How do you define if you are setting trumps or are bidding controls?

Agree with this. 5♦ cue after first cueing 4♦ should by 1st round control. Or was 5♦ last train for ♥? But then he should pass 5♥. => I really don't understand 5♦

Opps silent. After 1D/1H/1S-1NT-?? We play that 2C is a limit+ inquiry (2NT and 3C are respectively invite and weak with Clubs)

Thanks. Somehow I missed this :huh: Maybe I should edit that remark in my OP.

Isn't the best line of thinking at the table: 3-2 is more likely, so I should always make when Spades are 3-2. But can I also protect against 4-1? No when QJxx is off side. What is most likely; x off side or an honour off side? x can be 3 cards; honour can be 2 cards (Q or J). So it is more likely that a singleton x is off side then a singleton H. => Finesse first to protect against singleton x off side; When that looses then play trumps from the top to win when the are 3-2. Or is there a better way to think this through at the table?

I play B. We also play t-Walsh and they go logically together

You are in 6♠ and this is the trump suit. You don't have any losers outside trumps. How do you play this for one loser: [hv=n=sxxx&w=s&e=s&s=sakt98]399|300|[/hv] Remark: This is easy and destined for beginner/interm

Did he have extra's? Did I say that? I only said (or meant to say) he doubled... :rolleyes: You are right. Having is not Commutative