hautbois

Frequently there won't be 16 teams in the top bracket so it's easy to add anyone else who would like to play up. If 18 teams enter a bracketed KO, the brackets are best divided 9 and 9, so if one team gets elevated to the top bracket, someone else is pushed down or the brackets become 10 and 8 which is also awkward.

Generally they will allow it in the ACBL so long as a team that should be in the top bracket is not forced down and the team requesting are earnest and able to compete at that level. It can be awkward if 18 teams enter.

[hv=pc=n&s=st65hj943dkqjt2ct&n=skq7hada743caj854&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2hppdp3dp5dppp]266|200[/hv] 5♦ may be aggressive, but you're behind in a KO match. Lead is the Q♥. What's your plan?

Thanks.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq6ha72dqt65ca986&n=sj74hk83dak932ck4&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d2d(Michaels)2h(control)2spp3s(asking)d(asks for spade lead)]266|200[/hv] I have tried to get my partners to agree to play redouble here as a half-stopper: K, Qx, or Jxx. It would have been successful on this hand. I play anti-lead-directional doubles in this position and I have no idea what is generally played in this position for XX, Pass, or bidding directly. Do the meanings change when the double is asking partner to lead some other suit?

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhdt654cakjt9543&w=sq82hk742dk72c762&n=skt7543hq653da3cq&e=sa96hajt98dqj98c8&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1h5cppp&p=h4h3hac3sjsqsksad8dtdk]399|300[/hv] Step through the play. Ducking the diamond should be clear, but I like how the hand makes by two different lines of play, dependent on what west exits.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. I guess a Lebensohl double would be for penalty and that would be alerted. As usually played, the double isn't Lebensohl per se, but for take out and won't be alerted. However, a Lebensohl 2NT response to the double is alerted. I usually hear it explained as "Lebensohl; relay to 3C." I don't like saying more if opponents understand that. "Relay to 3C to play there, sign off below your suit, or invite above your suit," seems like I'm reminding partner what the follow ups mean, but opponents should be told if the shorter description is inadequate for them. Edit: Assuming ACBL jurisdiction

From East's point of view the hand could be [hv=pc=n&s=sakjthk8dq873ckt3&w=s3h9643dk5ca98765&n=s986542hqt7d62c42&e=sq7haj52dajt94cqj]399|300[/hv] A club switch would be terrible and I don't think east will get defense right if a second diamond is played. It turns out a club was ok on the actual layout, but neither east nor west knows a club switch is ok. From west's point of view, south could have AQ♣. If I could ask for a specific suit as east, I'd ask for a heart. It would be unfortunate if south holds K9x♥, but the suit could be guessed correctly anyways after any other continuation. As I understand _A Switch in Time_, hearts is the obvious switch. Checking Amazon I see _Defensive Signaling at Bridge_ and _Bridge Technique 8: Defensive Signaling_. I'll check them out and see if they have the depth of subject I'm looking for. I can't recommend Kit Woolsley's _Partnership Defense in Bridge_ or Kelsey/Klinger's _Killing Defense at Bridge_ enough, but it still feels like there's more to be said about carding.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakthk86dq873cat3&w=sj3h943dk5ck98765&n=s986542hqt7d62c42&e=sQ7haj52dajt94cqj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1D1N2C2Hp2Sppp]399|300[/hv] Partner leads the K♦. The Granovetter's lay out specific meanings for signalling with the J (club switch), 9 (diamond continuation), 4 (heart switch). You know partner has not read their book, but even if so, you haven't agreed to play obvious switch at trick one. Playing "standard", whatever that is, what would you play as east to trick 1? What would you do as west if partner plays the J? If partner plays the 4? Is there any literature aside from _A Switch in Time_ that deals with card signalling, especially after trick 1?

Win Q♠, cash diamonds hoping north doesn't show out but south does. Come down to: [hv=pc=n&w=s2h97dca&e=sak9hd3c]266|100[/hv] A♣ will squeeze north if he held 4+ diamonds along with 4+ spades.

I sometimes write our plus scores in the minus column if it's a bad result. I snuck a drink at the bar when I said I was going to the bathroom. I gave the director advance blessing to give us a slow-play penalty.

West could have a stronger hand and still pass 2♠ without blame.

I do not use last train above game level, but I see how that could be a benefit. 4♦ would have been last train. I'm not sure what I'd do with x AKQ8xxx - AKQT9, but whatever the agreements, they should handle that hand as well. I think 5♦ would serve that hand, but the reasoning is starting to look very tortured. I can't still be inviting cuebid responses that would commit me to the 6-level if I didn't want to be there regardless of which one partner has. Bypassing 4♠ means I won't be interested in hearing about the K, only the A.

I think that's my point. Why am I announcing a spade control to a partner who should not use that information? I should only be bidding 4♠ if I do want partner to use that information to correct to NT if he can protect the diamond lead. Partner with both pointed kings may think I have the A♠, correct to NT at MPs and go down. We're not going to miss the 7 level if I bypass cuebidding 4♠. The only card I care about I can still ask for at this point is the A♦ and I'm confident partner will show it over 5♣ if he has it. I rather like mfa1010's solution of bidding exclusion as well.

Even with the edit, I don't think playing 6♠ will be a problem on a heart lead. Win in hand, then A♠ and another. Only a diamond lead affords you the luxury of trying the spade finesse.

I'm not concerned partner may think 4♠ is to play. I'm worried he'll think I have the A. I know the scoring is imps, but for as frequently as these auctions come up I want treatments that will find NT at MPs when it's right. I think bidding 4♠ here with an agreement it could be a void gives up the ability for partner to correct to NT with a protected K♦ and K♠. Partner will show the A♦ over a call of 5♣, so I do not cuebid my void.

Maryland - 6 Delaware - 1 Pennsylvania - 3 Washington - 3 Oregon - 3 Finland - 1 I liked that bidding systems were so diverse in the Finnish club, not just that opponents used a different system than common in the USA but that opponents' systems were so different from each other. My favorite of the clubs I've played in regularly is Ace of Clubs in Beaverton, OR (suburb of Portland).

Is the facing and withdrawal of an illegal card the same as facing an opening lead? Since this card cannot be the opening lead, we could say the auction period has not ended by it being shown.

Law 47B should get us back into the auction period.

What is the argument for low variation on card backings. Why aren't there unique backings for each of the 36 decks in a set of boards? Is there some fear that if the backings aren't the one style of league branded cards the decks might be stolen or replaced with marked cards? Take it further and there's a marketing opportunity for sponsors to donate cards.

Ken: I'm certain it's the same hand. I picked random spots as I didn't grab a hand record and they aren't posted on districtsix.org yet. I didn't think the exact spots would matter. I bid 3♣ because I thought 2NT was too unilateral with poor shape, expecting partner to correct if short in clubs. I suspect 3♣ would be the favorite if I held xx Qxx Kxxx Kxxx. I got raised to 5, but this isn't an ATB post.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq5hq72dqt42cq982&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p2sdp]133|200[/hv] You play Lebensohl.

[hv=pc=n&n=st7ht3dq874ckq842&e=saj5hkj965dkjcat6&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1h1spp1nppdpp2dpp2sppp]266|200[/hv] West leads the 7♥, 3, 9, Q J♣, 3, 2, A (3 is probably upside-down count) Now what?

I don't understand the play of J♣. Is that standard rather than inserting the T?

I don't follow the reasoning here, or I misinterpret the first semi-colon. I thought the determination of LA was completely separate and distinct from determining whether the action is demonstrably suggested. That is, pass can only be a logical alternative if other players in a similar position but without the UI would seriously consider the action and some actually take it or whatever the current ACBL definition is. The UI should have no determination on whether an action is an LA.