Echognome

5th trump and shortage = 4♦ for me. However, I do not believe my 4♦ bid shows a control there, that is just a coincidence (except for it being part of why I value the hand).

"With this staff and this sword, I can just about see up her dress." (apologies in advance if someone takes offense)

You also have to figure out what you are going to do if after winning the ♠A, RHO returns a trump.

I mean not that it really matters to how I would rule, but why would we ask before passing? Is there any meaning as to what 2♠ is that would lead us to do anything else but pass? I can certainly understand passing and then asking after partner has selected his lead. That aside, others (Frances, Kenberg, Jdonn) have explained why we shouldn't call the TD after seeing dummy. After the hand, when North explains that "I thought you had clubs, or 11 points..." that is a no no. Of course the remedy is to explain everything to the TD as a player. As a TD, I would point out to North their obligation to explain their agreements, even if the answer is "we do not have an agreement" or "we have not discussed this sequence" or "I can't remember which of these two options we play". But it is wrong to give deliberate misinformation. As they were rank beginners, I would just give a warning and not issue a PP. I am happy to rule MI, but cannot see what damage there was, given your partner was uninterested in the alert and you do not have a call over 2♠ regardless of the meaning.

I disagree. I think you could make it much more interesting to a wider audience if you did a little translation (and people played a basic system). "Each player is dealt out 13 cards and the play occurs in two phases. In the first phase, each player in turn starts an auction where their side tries to outbid the other side for the trump suit. The winning side must take the required amount of tricks to make a positive score or else the opposing side wins points." "Most players use a point count system to initially evaluate their hand A=4, K=3, Q=2, J=1 and then make adjustments if they have a lot of cards in one or two suits." "Here we see Jones as dealer and he doesn't have a very good hand." "Yeah only 4 high card points Bob." "So he passes as dealer. The next player Smith has 14 points and 5 hearts. He bids to take 7 tricks in hearts." "Yeah. You have to start the bidding at taking more than half the tricks, so he's getting the ball rolling." etc. etc.

9. Assuming we're missing a spot card, then: Extra ♠ - Pass, unless playing Ekren's Extra ♥ - 2♥ Extra ♦ - Pass Extra ♣ - Pass, unless playing Muiderberg 10. Impossible without knowing what 2♠ showed. Opening 1NT is certainly rich and I can live with answering a question about a situation I would not have been in, but not without knowing what partner's bid showed.

Am I playing a support XX here? I'll assume not. In which case I need to know if 1♠ showed 5 (would partner's double of 1♥ be penalty or responsive?). I'll assume partner's 1♠ showed 4+, not 5+, so I'll pass 2♦, as partner should be 4-5. I'll lead my systemic diamond with no conviction.

2NT which I believe should be scrambling. I can see playing a natural 2NT here for the weak NT hand, but I think that hand might pass the double. I will shrug on this one. I also concur with 4♦, but I could see 3♠ followed by 4♥ also working out. However, we have found our fit, so let's make use of the landing spot.

3. 3♣, vulnerable, but I feel the 5th club makes it reasonable. 4. Pass. Whenever I try to be really creative here (3♣?), it seems to come back and bite me in the arse.

1. 4♥ (unless partner has some real insanity in his vulnerable weak 2 bids) 2. I bid 3♥ if a fit jump, otherwise a wtp 4♦.

4♠ is great if it is interpreted as a Bluhmer. I'm not sure if it would be.

Perhaps it will be more interesting to see what the next round of bidding brings, because I cannot understand anything other than 1NT this round.

At the table, RHO held Ax and popped A to return a diamond. However, we thought it a more difficult problem if she had ducked the first club. Well done to most of you!

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skxh98xxxxdakjcxx&s=saqjxhaxdxckq8xxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP (P) - 1♥ - (3♦) - 4♣ (P) - 4♥ - (P) - 4♠ (P) - 5♣ - (P) - 5NT (P) - 6♣ - All Pass[/hv] You and your partner were exuberant in the bidding, but you are not down yet. Lead is the ♦8. You win the ace and play a club to your K which holds. Now what? Note: I assume you will have some problems with the bidding, but it is included for whatever inferences you want to take from the defense.

"Standard" is not a very useful adjective to describe any call. Why not just say what it means? What if the opponents are used to a different "standard"? Maybe they come from a different country or maybe they are beginners and have not learned "standard". What difference does it make?

I pass. Sucks, but I don't like any other call.

For what it's worth, I called them "Justin's Transfer Extensions" because it was from his blog I learned them and figured people would understand. I didn't mean anything more or less than that.

1. 5♦ 2. 3♣, as I would not play 4♣ as natural. (I thought most people played this as the good single-suited Major hand?).

Gonzalo, No offense, but why would you want to learn Viking Club? I mean I have the book and have read the system, but it seems like an outdated relay system for today's times. Why not learn one of the symmetric relay systems instead? For your *help* question, I would use the term "secondment": se⋅cond⋅ment   /sɪˈkɒndmənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [si-kond-muhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun British. the transfer of a military officer or corporate executive to another post for temporary duty. Although in colloquial speech, I might say "my friend is working as an expatriate in Saudi Arabia."

I voted for the 3rd option, but would add "...at a level below 3NT". That's where I think Justin's transfer extensions help so much.

Hold on a minute. You make it sound as if there is no middle ground. Have you seen the Orange Book from the EBU? It certainly seems clearer to me than the ACBL convention charts. It's obviously not as short as they are, so I can understand the tradeoff, but it doesn't have to be "almost as long as the Laws".

1. I bid 2♥. I think that much is clear to start. Where we go from there depends somewhat on what partner responds and what is style is. 2. I bid 2NT pretty much whatever it is. I am willing to play in 3♦ if partner shows a minimum. 3. I bid 2NT and see what partner says. If playing Ogust, I may hear 3NT, over which I'll shoot out 6♦ (we may have a trump loser anyway, but it's likely he can develop a long spade, before our third round loser in a round suit gets set up for the defense).

Point #1 - Not to be a sourpuss, but it doesn't seem to be extremely helpful when someone asks, "What do you like out of A, B, or C?" and you reply "I like D." So, although I think a 4♦ call showing a void may be just fine if you play those methods, it's not really answering the question. I do not direct this thought at any particular poster. Point #2 - I prefer a fit jump to showing shortness (even if I can show a void), because (a) I think it describes our hand better and (b ) it gives us more room. I definitely prefer it in the context of comparing the fit jump with the splinter.

It's certainly possible that Gonzalo plays redouble different from other people. It's then hard to compare choice of action on that basis. I wouldn't ReDbl for that reason as in all of my partnerships, ReDbl would promise 1st round control in hearts. So I would pass and see what partner does.

I think the problem is difficult. Of course keeping the onus on the players to check their scores if they think they are incorrectly too low is one thing. However, I don't think it's feasible to require players to check their scores and make sure they are not too high. I think there are a couple of reasonable alternatives. One option is to keep the correction period to 30 minutes and say to everyone that the organizers will do their best to get the correct scores in and people should check all of their scores, but once the correction period is over, the scores are final. Another option is to caveat the results, allowing for certain types of scoring errors, such as mistyping the score from the traveller (where there is a direct chain of evidence). So, the scores are "unofficial" until a later time when they become "official" and then just set a reasonable extended correction time for those types of errors. Maybe 1 day?