Ant590

The draw for the 2013 Schapiro Spring Foursomes has been made. This event is probably the toughest event of the UK calendar, and runs on double elimination KO. Many forum posters are represented in one team or another. Triangles, in the form: first seed (1-16) second sead (32-17) unseeded (random) Ordered by rank of highest seed (i.e. Allfrey are event favourites) Allfrey Miller Morrison Byrne Nelson DoE Hauge Tracy C Barnes Gillis Murphy Lillycrop Penfold Wilson Hecht-Johansen Seale Gipson Nonnenmacher de Botton Feldman Kane Liggins Smith Shah Mossop Small Williams Ewart Kendrick Edwards Tøndel Sanders Pattinson Rees Bell Kurbalija Bowdery Green Fiveclub Partyband Teltscher van Duffelen Roper Head to head (both seeded) Mestel McIntosh Complete team-listings: https://www.ebu.co.uk/events/?eventid=16&round=1_2

Hi all, Had a complicated (for me at least) director call this evening, and in hindsight I'm not sure my ruling was best. [hv=pc=n&s=sq2hqj864dk9842c5&w=sat95ht32dj6ck842&n=s8743hak97dtcqj96&e=skj6h5daq753cat73&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1n(12-14%2C%20may%20contain%20singleton)2dp2h3dppp]399|300[/hv] Neither 2♦ nor 2♥ were alerted. Before East's second bid, he asks North what 2♦ was. He was told "I don't know, but I'm treating it as natural". East then looks at NS convention card, and sees that 2♦ is systemically showing the majors. He then bids 3♦. I was called mid-way through the play, and told there has been misinformation. I ascertained the facts above, play continued and declarer goes 1-off, and a ruling is asked for. I checked what South thought his 2♦ showed, and was told "natural constructive." -------- I ruled that although there has been MI from North to East, East protected himself by looking at the convention card (and so his random 3♦ bid stays). The fact that NS both have forgotten their system is unfortunate but rub of the green because South has no UI from North (only that North doesn't know what the bid is, and is treating it as natural, which suggests bidding on rather than passing). In hindsight, I'm not so sure if I should allow south to pass 3♦. South's initial bid of 2D is weird, and when partner bids a presumably-natural 2H, how can you not raise with undisclosed 5-card support. Does south have UI that because north doesn't know the system, he might think it's majors, and so passing 2H is an unauthorised tactical decision that should be adjusted? Is it just ironic that the "UI" that partner doesn't know the system has woken South up to that his bid shows Majors and he has made an "unauthorised panic"? But the UI that partner is "treating it as natural" suggest natural hearts, and so bidding on might suggested by this UI! My judgement of the situation might have been swayed by East inferring that "rub of the green" rulings when *both* players forget their system allows cheating to prosper. I interpreted the tone of this comment to be an accusation of improper conduct (basically calling NS cheats without saying so explicitly), so I gave East a disciplinary penalty.

My agreements on FP situations were given to me by a mentor several years back: A forcing pass is in effect: When partner's last bid was a forcing pass and the opponents have not jumped When we are forced to a level, and they intervene below (but not at) this level If we have bid or forced to game on power When we have cooperated in doubling or redoubling for penalties By other agreement, including (weak 1NT) -- dbl -- (non-jump run) -- (weak 1NT) -- pass -- (stayman/xfer) -- dbl -- 1x -- (dbl) -- rdbl -- (pass or 1y) -- 1x -- (two suited 2x) -- dbl -- (bid) -- 1x -- (two suited 2NT) -- dbl -- (bid) --

I don't know of anyone who would treat a double of a Bergen raise as a takeout double for the unbid suits (♦ and ♥ in your 1♠-3♣ example) for the reasons Helene outlined. I remember someone (80% sure it was Justin) on here say that they like double to be lead-directing (in the example showing clubs) if the artificial raise is game-forcing, but takeout of the major if the artificial raise is not game-forcing. Seems a sensible rule to me. As for the two-level openings, they too show strength rather than strain, but in this case both sides of the partnership haven't bid. So we have no suit to anchor to, and they have announced a really strong hand. Moreover, it gives them extra bids (pass, redouble) which they would not have had before (which is a bigger gain compared with the Bergen auction because they haven't agreed a suit yet). A sensible option would be for double to show the suit they bid, but I would be interested to hear other themes.

Hi all, The following hand came up yesterday in a teams of 4 match. It turns out several people I know have different views on when to double after they have preempted, so I thought I'd use this hand to see if there was a consensus on the forums. [hv=pc=n&w=sakt9854hkjdk874c&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1d4s(or%201%21S%3F)pp5cp(Or%20double%3F)p5spp6cdpp(or%206%21S%3F)p]133|200[/hv] Question 1: I personally think 4♠ is normal here, but is it? Question 2: When a preempt is "meaty" (i.e. some defense), are we obliged to double next round to tell partner? This hand feels meaty, but is it a double? Question 3: If you pass, rather than double, partner bids 5♠, and then LHO wakes up, competes to 6♣. Do you pull?

Logged into the flash version BBO this morning to find that lobby chat as reared its ugly head. I'm guessing this wasn't intentional, as I can't see a way of turning it off :(

People that underline, highlight and annotate library books. Even if it's in pencil, or useful* comments. * that said, I borrowed a short score from the University library to find some very helpful notes about recurring themes.

Teams of 8: cross-IMPs [hv=pc=n&w=sjt65ht532dktca96&e=sa8hj7da84ckqjt73&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c1sdp3c3sppp]266|200[/hv]

Teams of 8; cross-IMPs [hv=pc=n&w=sj4hdakq82ckqt975&e=skq9872ht42d76ca2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1c4h4sp5hp5sppp]266|200[/hv] Do you agree with the bidding?

Start small by generating examples of hands that are typical for short bidding sequences. Eg a hand that can splinter opposite a major opening, but won't cooperate with a cue bidding sequence. Try to generate a few examples for the same sequence, but that are different in some way. Then build it up to a pair of hands consistent with a sequence, then longer bidding sequences. For visualising hands during the play, practice with Lawrence's CDs and books.

Hi all, Had the following auction in 2/1 this afternoon: [hv=pc=n&s=saj9haqdt3ckj9642&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1sp2cp2dp2sp4hp]133|200[/hv] This is clearly a splinter, and as it's so space consuming in a 2/1 auction, presumably it's meaning should be quite specific. I was wondering what the expected club holding was, because presumably some hands with similar shape (5-1-4-3, 6-0-4-3, 6-1-4-2?) can afford to bid 3♣ along the way. I expected xx or xxx in clubs, so didn't investigate slam. Am I off-base here in my deduction and/or my decision? Oh, and while I think of it, is there similar thinking between partner jumping to 4♦ and making a simple rebid of 3♦?

Thanks for you input everyone :)

Hey all, A hand in bidding practice today [hv=pc=n&n=sakj4h9d863c76543&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1d1hp1s(forcing%201%20round)p2dp]133|200[/hv] How do you play 2♦? Is there a meta-rule here, or is a case-by case job? Would the answer change if 1♠ was non-forcing? Thanks in advance, Ant.

Not sure if this one was overlooked with all posts about the slowness issue in Version 3.2. Bidding rooms, and displaying the other table score (see above), are my personal "must haves". Ant. P.s. Thanks for the landscape orientation, works very well, although it would be nice to be able to swap the chat sidebar for Scorecard.

This type of issue occurred last night: (P) - P - (1♣) - 2♥* (P) - P - (2♣) - 2♥** (P) - P - (2NT) - P (3NT) - dbl - AP * Weak jump overcall, wide ranging opposite passed partner ** ib accepted The doubler decided that to rebid 2♥ partner must be at the top of his overcall. 3NT rolled home with an overtrick. So, if we assume we're in a jurisdiction that allows it, (EBU?) when one has made a wide-ranging overcall and there is an IB in this position, it is probably sensible for a rebid of the suit to show values, lead direct etc. Does that mean that when an IB is accepted / not accepted in this situation partner should alert?

I have had more success with the Opera browser on the iPad for websites containing BBO hand diagrams.

We seem to have been relatively lucky in our triangle (Hackett, Kendrick, Edwards). Not that there will be an upset, but we might not lose every match by triple-digits this year :) There doesn't seem to be an obvious group-of-death this year, although I guess Phil's might depending on the strength of the Norwegians.

Further to the other posters, the way I play GB2NT is for North to bid 3♦ with hands that do not want partner to pass 3♣ with 5-4 or 5-5 shape, it doesn't show extras. I believe this is the way Lawrence discussed the convention in his competitive auctions book. I also play that a rebid of 3♠+ show good hands with spade support, leaving a direct 3♠ bid as a non-forcing pre-emptive raise. So for us, 2NT then 3NT is frivolous, 2NT then 4-bids are cue bids as part of a serious slam try. It also means that 2NT then action later if the opponents compete further confirms spades as trumps. I do not know if this style is standard, but it seems to work well.

It seems that a couple of clubs in Yorkshire have a homebrew rule that 1NT is only announceable when it isn't 12-14. Perhaps Leeds have gone one step further.

I like the following: x=majors NT=minors 2♦+ = weak 1♦/♥/♠/2♣ = 3+ cards and two better suits. Typically it's 4441, 5431, 5530, but I've seen it done on 4432 and even 4333 favorable. Partner can pass with 5 or 4 card support, and if he doesn't have support he knows there are two places to run to. These overcalls seem to muck up unprepared strong clubbers who don't always know what their cuebids mean (it can tip off the opps that their suit is breaking 3-2 though). Ant.

Each of the following hands involved two different interpretations of an auction, and some misunderstandings HAND 1 [hv=pc=n&s=skq72hadak974ckjt&n=st53hkqdt62c97532&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1d2d(majors)2h(diamond%20raise)4h4np5cp6dppp]266|200[/hv] For now ignore the quality of the 2♥ bid. What is 4NT? North thought it was choice of minors, and chose clubs. South thought it was keycard, and thought north had one ace HAND 2 [hv=pc=n&s=sakq975hqt95d92c5&n=st8hakj6dt3caqt87&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1c1d1sp2hp5hp6hppp]266|200[/hv] For now ignore the quality of the 2♥ bid. What is 5♥? North thought it asked for trump quality. South thought it showed asked for a diamond control for a ♥ slam Poll above for whether you agree with North or South on each of these hands. For the option you don't think each is / should be, how do you bid it on each hand? General comments about the bidding welcome too :)

Thanks for all the replies. On the hand, I assumed that it would be forcing in my partnership: clearly a mistake (whatever the "best" meaning is, it's clear that undiscussed this is dangerous), and we ended up with the good-old +170 (seven's on a finesse). Teammates took it surprisingly well - go team! After discussion, 4♦ seemed to be an unused bid on this sequence that could be a forcing club raise, although I like Phil's ideas of transfers, and other Phil's use of 3♦ as various forcing hands. Of course, the problem of finding a forcing raise is even worse when the overcall is 3M...

3NT. In response I play 4♣ = asking (SLAP) 4♦ = transfer to the cheapest unbid major (in this case hearts) 4♥ = transfer to the next unbid suit up (spades) 4♠ = transfer to the remaining suit SLAP (4♦ single running suit with stopper, 4♥lousy min balanced hand, 4♠ "all" monster hands, 4NT "points" ie balanced hands between 4♥ and 4♠)

Ok, so the following sequence came up in a teams-of-eight match. (2♦*) - 3♣ - (pass) - 4♣ * Multi: weak 2 in a major, or strong 2 in a minor, or 20-22 balanced (1) If you sat down with a partner you had not discussed this sequence with, but who you generally trusted to know what you meant in unfamiliar situations, what would you assume it meant? (2) What is the "best" treatment? When you select the "best" treatment, I'd be interested in how you would show the other option(s). Thanks all, Ant.

As other posters have commented, it seems that the following situation could be possible: 4♣: North "transfer to your major" South "bid your major" 4[hearts}: South "this is my major" North "partner has spades" 4♠: North "I want to play here opposite your spade hand" South "Cuebid agreeing hearts" 5♦: South "Cooperating with the cuebidding auction, highlighting club issue" North "WTF, either partner has slam try after making a limited opening, or he's forgotten system" 5♥: North "Guess he's forgotten system" South "Ok, neither of us have a club control, lets hope this isn't -1" However, there seem to be two questions: (a) Can slam tries me made after the 4♣ bid? (b) Is the case that responder can make slam tries, but opener can't? I wouldn't feel comfortable making a ruling until hearing NS's account of the auction, and the above questions. It could be the case of a fielded misbid, and North perhaps should have continued to bid 5♠ etc?