Echognome

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s3haq9dkqj92cq942]133|100|Scoring: IMP P - (P) - 1♦* - (1♠) 1NT - (2♦)** - P/Dbl - (2♠) P - (P) - ?[/hv] *5+♦ unless 4=4=4=1 precisely **Good Raise in ♠ (roughly 9-11 by PH) Your answer now may depend on whether you passed or doubled (or did something else) at your second turn, so feel free to answer in both cases. How now?

Played last night with Phil against Justin and Aaron. I felt this hand was nicely played by Justin. See if you can match his good technique. [hv=d=e&v=n&n=skj9863h64daj6c72&s=sqhkq5dkqt85ck643]133|200|Scoring: IMP (1♥) - 1NT - (P) - 4♥ (P) - 4♠ - All Pass[/hv] Opening lead: ♥2 (3rd/low against suits) T1: ♥2 - 4 - A - 5 T2: ♦3 - ? Over to you. Hidden continuation:

I think even with the 1997 laws it may have been a bad ruling, but all TD's give some bad rulings. It's not to say that they don't give a lot of good rulings as well.

If you are going to lead a diamond to the J and it holds, why wouldn't you return to hand and lead a diamond towards the Q? That works against Ax(x)(x) with LHO, whereas back to the K would lose to Ax.

Not really. It's patently absurd to deem declarer to have claimed before he has seen dummy, unless he had 13 tricks in hand on the lead. Heck. I completely agree with you, except other people may "judge" the situation differently. I do not think much of their judgment then however.

I've already talked with Phil privately about this hand. It's a book ruling, although there is some judgement on the facts. The 1997 laws state: This law was clarified in the 2007 Laws to read: I think the key words in there are "he may be deemed," which is not the same as "he shall be deemed." The paranthetical note added to the 2007 laws clarifies the intent. Here I would rule that the facing of the cards was demonstrably not an intent to claim (but rather confusion about being dummy) and feel ruling that it was a claim would be unduly harsh. So I would just let declarer pick up her cards and carry on.

Had to figure out which birthday thread to choose, but decided to go with this one. Happy Birthday Frederick!

3♠. Not too happy about it, but at least heart ruffs can come in the short trump hand.

The opponents clubs seem to be breaking 3-3, although it'd be nice to know their actual lead agreements. If they are leading 2nd/4th, then it's possible clubs are 4-2, in which case I would eliminate the red suits and play ♠A and finesse West for the ♠Q, so that I get the extra chance that East will have to give me a ruff and sluff if he wins. This is basically the same idea that Art had, but had misread the play to the first couple of tricks.

I vote for almost "same meaning as responder's double." As if responder's double is penalty, then a penalty double by opener is non-existent. However, if responder's double is takeout, so is opener's.

Assuming Gerber... Nice!

I think you need to go back and read the OP my friend. The big binding constraint to the problem is 1NT = ART GF. Take it from there...

These "how to bid with a pickup partner" problems are brutal. So let's see, I'll start with 1♠ because my pickup partner might pass 2♠ thinking it's weak. Over my partner's 1NT, I would worry that partner would pass any bid I make. I guess to bid 2♦ and hope that partner plays that as forcing (even better if partner plays that as artificial and game forcing). But everything is a guess of course.

and from RichMor Seriously folks, no disrespect intended, but (if you're going to introduce equivalents here such as the 16HCP balanced hand example) let me introduce my own equivalent. Your responses to my original question have been akin to this ... JOE: Hey Mike, I'm buying a new car. I can only afford the Chevrolet or the Pontiac. Which do you think I should buy? MIKE: Joe, if I were you I'd buy the BMW. Good evening gentle folk and have a good night. Actually I reckon it is more akin to: JOE: Hey Mike, I'm buying a used car. I can only afford the Chevrolet or the Pontiac. Which do you think I should buy? MIKE: Joe, the Chevy has a cracked engine block and the Pontiac has 350,000 miles, if I were you I'd consider the BMW.

As Josh said, the equivalent is for you to ask us what is the most appropriate way to show a balanced opening hand with 16 high card points when playing Standard American 1♥ or 1♠? We'd say, "well the answer is 1NT." Now, you say, "Look, I'm not asking that. I'm asking which is the better of 1♥ or 1♠?" How can we answer that?

No indeed! I play both, as did my partner in this scenario ... at least according to her BBO profile. And had she bid 2NT I would have understood. That was the point of my original question ... not whether Michaels was appropriate in the situation or not. My partner (beyond my control) chose to describe her hand (which held 5-5 in majors) with Michaels. Her bid after (1♦) - P - (2♣) was 3♣. The original question was, considering her intent to bid Michaels, was 3♣ a correct bid or would 2♦ have been better? I think, perhaps, the answer you are looking for is "2NT would have been better".

I seem to recall something in the letters to the editor section of either this month's acbl magazine or last month's where there was a question about prism signals and the editor wrote that they would be illegal. Maybe it was just illegal in GCC. I tried them for "fun" for a short while about five years ago. They weren't that fun really and seemed to slow down play as you worked out all the possible distributions. You could sometimes have a full count on the hand very early, but of course you could also do so with count signals in general. I imagine if they became popular, they would be more of an advantage for a good declarer than a good defender.

I normally play a Walsh style, so my answers are framed around that. a. 1♠ b. 1♠ c. 1♠ d. 1♦ (would invite showing spades over 1N and over 2♣ I would GF. 4=3=5=1 would have been tougher) e. 1♦ (clear GF) f. 1♠ g. 1♠ h. 1♠

If he returns a diamond, you still need the club finesse. I think Han's plan is to try to eliminate the diamonds first. I'm not sure it's the best plan, but it's probably the only plan that doesn't need the club finesse.

By the way, for my own view, I think the "right" opening bid should obviously depend upon system. BWS says it is right in their system and who am I to argue that. However, using judgement is certainly something that should be considered. I would say, e.g. that when playing gnome club that the only "right" opening bid is 1♠ as you can later relay out your 5=6=1=1 shape and the light opening is expected (as is the possible canape on 5-6 hands). In Tarzan club, the "right" opening bid is 1♥, but it would also be right to open 1♥ with 6-5 or 6-4 in the majors. Obviously I understand that the debate is centered around what is the "right" opening call playing a natural based system (maybe specifically 2/1 or SAYC).

Not that I disagree. I'm just more curious what you think about this quote from Bridge World Standard: Which of the following options do you think with regards to the above quote? (by the way, although I quoted Fred, this isn't just directed at him) 1. BWS is just plain wrong on this view and that you should always open your longer suit. 2. BWS should add an amendment to this rule with an exception when holding both majors. 3. BWS is not wrong on this issue, however the agreement is really more suited towards BILs and expert partnerships should find other ways to bid these hands. 4. Something else that you will explain.

Those are the options you need for the grand slam. In 6♣ you need either friendly trumps or the finesses (as was stated several times before).

Personally I think this is easier to post as a bidding problem on the West hand. I don't think East has a call at either turn. I suspect I'd take the chance of bidding 5♥, but it's harder to be unbiased knowing both hands.

A couple of points. 1. It's impossible to answer what the "right" bid without knowing your system. 2. Given that the "expert standard" you will find on this forum involves some type of Lebensohl or Ingberman over a reverse, most will play that your 3♣ is a forcing call that your partner passed (who obviously thought that 3♣ was NF). 3. Your partners choice to reverse with his hand was suspect and hopefully he did not decide to pass a forcing bid because he thought he was too light for his earlier actions. 4. I think most will agree with your 3♣ call given that it is forcing. You have a huge hand in support of clubs with diamonds as a secondary suit. Unfortunately, your partner didn't have much of a reverse.

But 3♣ is also a descriptive bid. If partner is of the school that would often raise 1♥ to 2♥ with 3 hearts, and usually give preference to 2♥ over 2♦ with Hx in hearts, then the chances of making game have decreased quite a lot. We will make game opposite maximums (see Roger's example), but probably go down opposite minimums. Since partner is more likely to hold a minimum than a maximum, there is certainly a good case for passing. I understand, but also think that if partner held something like: x x JTxx AKQJxxx They would be none too pleased to be playing in 3♣. And let me put it yet another way. If we were going to pass 3♣, why did we choose to game force?