dburn

I can't improvise with 3N and expect partner not to understand? If not, then 4♥. I didn't think Meckwell used OS by the book, but they did have some similar method but I do not know what it is specifically. I'm guessing Dburn is having us lead the ♥J against 4♠ and we have to work out the switch based on pard's card. I suppose you can try 3NT - partner is Zia, though, so if he doesn't understand it will be your fault, and if he does he will tell you that you don't have the bid anyway. I bid 2NT and it went 3♠-Pass-Pass, so now I bid 4♥ and it went Pass-Pass-4♠-Pass-Pass-Double-all pass. Zia leads ♥A (he would lead this from ♥AK and in the absence of special considerations, you would be expected to signal attitude) and you can see: [hv=d=e&v=e&n=sk42h8daj103caj932&e=sj103hj10765dkck1084]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] What card do you play to trick 1 in your preferred methods?

Of course that would be an excellent point if counting your cards held very tightly in your hands close together so you can't see them were mandated in the laws. I don't play poker myself, but a lot of bridge players do, and I have watched the game being played many times on TV and in casinos. I have observed the following curious phenomenon: when a player is dealt a couple of cards (face down, bien entendu), that player will contort his entire body into unnatural shapes that must incur severe muscular strain. Lifting one of his arms some way above his head, and bending the elbow of that arm at an angle never intended by Mother Nature, he will simultaneously with the thumb and forefinger of his other hand raise the cards no more than a millimetre or so from the table. When, for a second or two, both arms meet, I conjecture that the indices of the cards are fleetingly visible to the holder thereof. The notion is of course that the player should not move his head by so much as a micron, otherwise: [a] the other players might gauge from such movement whether the cards were good or bad; and (more importantly) the stupid hat or sunglasses worn by the player might fall off. Now, nothing in the rules of poker actually mandates the players to resemble collectively a bunch of crabs scuttling to the shore. Presumably, therefore, they do it because they don't want some other fellow to see their cards. Why (apart from simple considerations of human dignity) should bridge players not act likewise?

To the best of my knowledge, they are playing as Rodwell suggests (and as they have been playing for decades). That is: if they want partner to continue the suit led, they encourage it; if they want partner not to continue the suit led, they discourage it and hope that partner can work out what they want him to do instead. They do a couple of other things also, but these may safely be dismissed as idiosyncrasies. A problem I faced only the day before yesterday concerned this hand: ♠J103 ♥J10765 ♦K ♣K1084 You pass at unfavourable vulnerability, LHO passes, partner opens 1♥ (in principle five, but may be four in third seat), RHO doubles. What call do you make? (2NT sound raise; any number of hearts pre-emptive raise; 3♣ clubs and hearts; no other artificial calls available). You may wonder what this has to do with the question in the OP, but all will become clear. In the meantime, I thought it was an interesting bidding problem.

Here, Sven, you go too far. If a card is boxed, the natural question is "who did it?" and the first likely candidate is the player who held the hand in question at the previous table. To accuse someone of trying to "cover up" something he (knowingly?) did or failed to do is just too much. I would not call that "the first natural question". This would be the case only if it actually were an infraction to return one's cards to the board with one or more of them face up. But it isn't. No doubt it should be, but it isn't. Again, if you think it is - especially if you are bluejak and think that it "clearly" is - you need to say of which Law it is an infraction. Believe me, I have every sympathy with jdonn and bluejak and blackshoe and others who suggest in their various ways that: if a player removes from the board a hand in which some cards are boxed; and if he attempts to fulfil his legal requirement to count his cards face down; and if in the course of so doing he exposes a card not through his own clumsiness but because it was face up in the first place; then that player should not be penalised. Moreover, I cannot find anything in the Laws that actually says, as Sven repeatedly says, that a player is "solely responsible" for his cards from the moment he withdraws them from the board. Law 7 says only that no other player may touch them, but that is not the same thing at all. Suppose that this is the first round and, due to an error by the duplicating staff, the player's hand proves to contain two kings of diamonds - no one would suggest that this was the player's responsibility and that he ought to be penalised for an infraction of Law 1. However, what a player is responsible for doing, once he has taken his cards out of the board, is counting them face down. If they aren't face down, that - as the Laws are presently constituted - is his responsibility (though not necessarily his fault), and if he exposes a card face up while counting, he has committed an error and is subject to the rectification provided by Law 24. In bridge, as in life, it is no argument at all to say that because people habitually do not do things (such as checking for boxed cards, or wearing seatbelts in the back seats of taxis), therefore they are not legally constrained to do those things, and are not personally liable for the consequences of failing to do them.

I do know better. As I have said, the last call in the uncontested auction 1NT-2♦-2♥ requires an alert in some circumstances but not in others. The statement "transfer accepts are specifically non-alertable" is not actually true, and the problem with a statement like this is that most posters will take it at face value... However, that is not the issue. The question is whether the completion of a transfer is "natural", not whether the completion of a transfer is alertable. On this question, as far as I know, the L&E is still divided (bluejak thinks it is not; I think it is; what others think I cannot tell). While that remains the case, the question of whether a double of 2♥ in the given auction is alertable or not remains open. You see, the regulations on alerting doubles are not only non-intuitive, they are also non-simple. Addendum: I have just discovered that it's even worse than I thought. It appears that these "very simple" alerting regulations contain the principle that: A takeout double of a bid S in a suit below the four level is not alertable if S "shows the suit", but is alertable otherwise. Any other double of a bid S in a suit below the four level is alertable if S "shows the suit", but may not be alertable otherwise. Now, in the sequence 1NT-2♦-2♥, the question is no longer whether 2♥ is natural, but whether it "shows hearts". If it does not, the following is a consequence of these "very simple" regulations: In the sequence 1NT [Pass] 2♥ [Double], the final call requires an alert unless double is takeout; but In the sequence 1NT [Pass] 2♦ [Pass] 2♥ [Pass] Pass [Double], the final call requires an alert if double is takeout. Not only may the regulations on alerting doubles be non-intuitive and non-simple, I have the feeling that they may actually be verging on the criminally insane.

Per the Orange Book, the last call in the sequence 1NT-2♦-2♥ requires an alert if it denies four hearts, but not if it does not. Since a bid of 2♥ in this sequence does not "show hearts", I imagine that a takeout double requires an alert while a penalty double does not. I am not certain of this, however, and no doubt one of my colleagues will be able to give you a more definitive answer. However, I sincerely hope that we have not created the following absurdity: a takeout double of the last call in the sequence 2NT-3♦-3♥ does not require an alert if opener promises 3+ hearts, but does require an alert if opener does not so promise. That would be too ridiculous even for the people responsible for the ridiculous regulations in the first place.

None that I know of. I suppose it might be considered a breach of Law 90B: but technically, fouling a board in a knock-out match will not always result in an adjusted score, merely in the play of a replacement board. It is all very well to say that the people who wrote the Laws omitted to provide that cards should be returned face down to the board because this was too obvious to need stating, but I am afraid that such arguments have no legal standing whatsoever. Law 7C should be amended in the next revision, and in the meantime, if you want to make it an infraction to return a card to the board face up, you had better petition the various Regulating Authorities under whom you play accordingly.

It's the Director's duty to determine the veracity of claims like this. If someone gets away with a lie, justice is obviously not going to be done. But does that mean we should reinterpret laws to prevent someone from possibly being falsely accused of an error? No, it is not the Director's duty to have to arbitrate when "claims like this" arise. I know what I saw: my opponent accidentally turned one of his cards. He lied in his teeth when he said that he didn't. Of course, he might give you a completely different version of events, and of course - for you as a Director have absolutely no way of knowing what really happened - he may be right. In all seriousness, what would you have a Director do in order to "determine the veracity" of our conflicting statements? How many rounds of "Oh yes you did" "Oh no I didn't" would you be prepared to tolerate? Or would you go to the next table and, bending low and in a bondsman's key with bated breath and whispering humbleness, say this: "Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last, but on this day, perchance you boxed a card?" Would you not far rather, as a Director, have recourse to the Pran Principle that a player's cards are his responsibility and his alone, once he has taken them from the board with the topmost card face down? There is no question of "reinterpreting" Laws just because bluejak thinks it is a "clear" infraction to box a card. It isn't, and there is no Law that says it is. However, it is an infraction to expose a card during the auction period, and it is entirely consistent to say that a player who does so while solely responsible for his own cards must bear the consequences. Bluejak, as usual, seems to think that just because people do not do something (count their cards under the table), they are under no obligation to do it and can avoid any consequences from failing to do it. He is, as usual, wrong (and he might even see this for himself, if he reflects on his belief that people should always pull the Stop card before raising 2NT to 4NT, in case failure to do so creates unimaginable problems for the next player to call).

Just so that I can be sure in my own mind - of which Law is it a "clear infraction"? You see, Law 7 says only: I once saw a player count his cards onto the table. He accidentally turned one of them face upwards while doing this, and when the Director was summoned, claimed that the card "must have been" face upwards when he took them out of the board. I would hate to think that the Director should automatically penalise a player at the next table for clumsiness by the fellow at this one. The Law does not say that your cards must, or even should, come to you face down, and I am inclined to agree with Sven when he says that the proper handling of your cards (including your duty not to expose any of them during the auction period) is your responsibility and yours alone from the moment you remove them from the board.

If I had those West cards and thought I were in a game force I would routinely pass, expecting this to show a mildly slam-suitable hand with nothing clear-cut to do for the moment. With a hand more suitable for slam I would bid something other than 4♥ (maybe 3NT should be a spade control-bid, but that is for the Rexfords of this world); with a hand less suitable for slam I would bid 4♥ or double (penalty). Still, not everyone bids like me. Certainly this South doesn't bid like me - I would bid 4♠ in the given auction whatever 2NT meant. But if he is telling the truth, he has lucked into a situation in which it might really have gone 3♠-all pass, and some weight should be given to that.

I don't know how much bridge you people have played with screens, but I have played a fair amount, and I will tell you this: if I had been on the same side of the screen as South, I would know when the tray came back whether North was making a slam try in spades or whether he was just "raising" an opening bid of 3♥ to four. After all, four hearts is a pretty strange slam try to be making after a 3♠ opening. If (as I would not) I organised my methods along those lines, I imagine I would play it as asking for trump quality, in which case I would accept with the actual South hand, not reject. But that is by the way - if I had the actual South hand and I knew that 4♥ was natural, then I could not imagine doing other than passing it. To me, it seems very much as though South did in fact have some UI from the speed at which the tray came back - it is naive to suppose that the mere presence of screens prevents all possible transmission of UI. Did South alert 4♥ to West, by the way?

Finally he is worth his place on the Laws and Ethics Committee. Finally? Almost the first ruling I gave as chair of an Appeals Committee, having recently been appointed to the L&E, occurred at the Brighton Pairs weekend during a century that was probably the twentieth, but these days I find it hard to tell. North had cheated by removing a slow penalty double of 2♠ to 3♣, which was doubled by East-West who defended ridiculously to allow it to make. Both sides were awarded minus 670 (not surprisingly a bottom for all concerned), and the question of the deposit was resolved as follows: AC Chair "What about the deposit?" AC member 1 (a strong, not to say headstrong, player) "Was there one?" AC member 2 (an equally strong player, but a more equable sort) "Well, there's a five pound note on the table." AC member 1 "Who was appealing, anyway?" AC Chair "Not sure - better have a look at the form." AC members 1 and 2 in unison "Don't bother. Just keep it." But that was then, and this is now. Since East-West didn't actually revoke in the course of the worst defence ever seen, they would not only have been awarded a lot of matchpoints instead of none, they would have been entitled to six months' worth of counselling by the EBU Advisory Committee on People Traumatised by Having to Play Bridge Despite An Opponent's Putative Infraction. North-South, instead of forking out a fiver (a lot of money in those days, let me tell you) would have been awarded a grant of several thousand pounds by the "There, There, We're Sure You're Not Actually A Pair Of Cheating Bastards" sub-committee, in order that they might develop methods that could not be foisted upon them by bullies such as myself. Twisted? Dead right. Bitter? Thanks very much - I'll have a pint.

What would it have meant if West had doubled a cue bid? Or did he contend that because it was a cue bid, it was therefore more likely to make? Mind you, South had easily enough not to sign off facing a 4♥ bid that is supposed to be a slam try in spades (especially if North, who thought 3♥ was natural, needs more than that to offer a slam try in support of partner's major). Score adjusted so that everyone gets a bottom, and as many players as possible get fined.

If his partner also has 45 years' experience, yes. if not... Here is a way in which you can tell someone's strength from his actions at the table: if he asks a question, he is strong enough to consider bidding; if he does not, he is not. This is not only legal in England, it is compulsory. It is also absurd - why do we have a regulation that in effect forces players to give information to their opponents while placing constraints on their partners? If I knew, I would tell you, but I don't, so I can't.

Would double at the table, and try not to look anguished. Can't imagine bidding 3♣. Can just about imagine bidding 3NT, but would hate myself in the morning. Not ashamed to say that even if I had ♠KQ109 and ♣AKxxx, 4♣ (clubs and a major) would never have occurred to me even though it is a great bid, and the reason people like Chip Martel win big tournaments while people like me watch them do it. Still, more good things can happen after double than can happen after anything else. Imagine partner with ♠AQxxx and out. The 3NT bidders will lose the first six or seven heart tricks. The 3♣ bidders will be plus 190 if they can draw trump and ruff a diamond or two in dummy. Chip will be plus 710 in 4♠, winning 14 IMPs against the 3NT guys and 11 against the 3♣ guys, but losing 17 to the doublers who play in 7♠. And if partner has only hearts? Well, maybe we can still end in 3NT. If we don't - what would we have ended up in if we had chosen some other action? Maybe in the real world I doubled, partner jumped to 4♥ and went for 1100 while at the other table 3♣ made exactly. But maybe not.

Funny you should say that. Until today, you could open 1♦ to show hearts and 1♥ to show spades. Now, you can still do the former, but you can no longer do the latter. Give us this day our daily mask...

Up to a point, Lord Copper. "ilk" (from the Old English "ilca") meant merely "same"; it did not necessarily connote a place. The current chief of Clan Donald is Godfrey James MacDonald of that ilk, but the clan is so called because they are descendants of a man named Donald (of Islay), not because they come from a place called Donald. Nowadays, the phrase "of that ilk" is used as mycroft indicates. It is not in any way pejorative; the Oxford English Dictionary currently describes the usage as "erroneous", but so common has it become that only a pedant would object to it.

It works for three tricks, but gives up any chance of making four, which is why the book will tell you to cash the king and then lead the eight, running it if not covered. This is also safe for three tricks, but secures a fourth when LHO has the doubleton queen. The combination is interesting in that there are three ways to play it, each of which is "correct" depending on circumstances. If you need four tricks, you should cash the ace and play to the jack. If you need three, you should play as described above. At matchpoints, unless you judge that you will score well for making a safe three tricks, you should lead low to the jack without first cashing the ace.

I pitch a club and play (or try to play) ace, king and a third spade. What happens?

It is possible, I suppose, that "cleavage" may have been incorporated in the poll under "other". Or, if sufficiently exposed, "others", or if even more sufficiently exposed, "udders".

Might as well play the queen. What happens?

Not ridiculous to add 2♠ to the poll options, at least. May be ridiculous to bid it, but I'm not so sure. Don't begin to understand 3NT - however ridiculous 2♠ is, 3NT is ridiculouser.

One is always a little suspicious of this "no agreement" business. Is it really the case that West has never bid 2♣ over a Polish-style 1♣ before? Or that East and West have never discussed the possibility that one of them might?

Yeah I got the first 4 in about 5 seconds each and I'm tanking hardddddd on #5 lol edit: Your rating: INCORRECT :( edit: Dammit got it right on my 2nd try.......................... NOOOOOOOOO. Interesting problem, #5 (in the free samples). How should South play if East puts the king of spades on his partner's jack at trick one?

Where can one obtain these problems?