fbuijsen

I feel a lot for blackshoe's line. This is clearly a case of director error. So we assign EW a score for 6♠ made for +1430. We assign NS a score of 6♠x -1 for +200. In addition I assign south a PP of 17 IMPs for clearly and deliberately misusing the rules to try to induce a director error. I also ban south from my congresses for the coming 5 years.

As I read it, lanford's argument is specifically for knockout matches: it is simply impossible to really give unbalanced assigned scores. Let's say you give an unbalanced assigned score of +3 to both sides as above, and the score ends up as 33-31 for team A and 34-30 for team B (the score being 31-30 without the one board). Clearly, the team B ends up winning the match. So the so-called unbalanced score assignment is effectively the exact same as as giving an assigned score of 0 IMPs to each side.

I generally use Suitplay as a reference tool. Whenever there is a card combination where I am unsure of what the best line is, I put it in Suitplay and it will tell you what is the best line to play for x number of tricks.

Download Suitplay and work with that. (Google "Suitplay" will get you there)

With a 15-17 1NT and 20-22 2NT opening, the club suit will be a doubleton (4-4-3-2) roughly 3.5% of the time. I don't remember the numbers for how often it is a 3-card suit, but would guesstimate it is roughly 3 times as often, so about 10% (4-3-3-3, 3-4-3-3 and 4-4-2-3)

I still woudn't do it then, though I guess it's not that big of a stretch. However, there is a reason for choosing the 16-18 range -- 8 tricks is quite a lot and I therefore consider 15-17 already a very aggressive range in such a bidding sequence. I would be very hesitant to stretch my range at the bottom.

I play this exact 2♥ opening this way (majors 4-4 or better), and am convinced that a natural 2NT overcall (16-18) is the best way to play against this -- or possibly any other method that allows you to show 16-18 balanced in another way. I have had the situation against strong opponents several times where they bid to a sharp 3NT and the opponents (us) are given the task of finding the right major to start. That said, stretiching this hand to 16 HCP looks like a very big overbid to me. I consider this one close between 3♦ and pass. Doubling and hoping to find a good fit in a major still is overly optimistic in my view.

Tammens-Wintermans. There is a write-up of the whole incident (in Dutch) in WekoWijzer 82: http://www.bridge.nl/groepen/Wedstrijdzaken/WEKOwijzers/wekowijzer82.pdf

It would seem you do not have a clear agreement over the meaning of doubles in competitive situations. North thought the dbl of 3♦ was competitive, south thought it was penalties. Agreeing with each other which of these applies is paramount, more imprtant than actually choosing the technically best option. A possible agreement that is useful and not too difficult to remember and apply: a dbl of a bid below the 4-level of a suit that has been bid by both opponents is competitive. Other dbls at the 3-level after the first round of bidding are penalty. That would make this a competitive dbl, and south has an easy 5♣ bid: the dbl promises about what North has here: extra values, heart length, club length. NOTE: if you play the dbl as pure penalty here, north is kind of stuck. 3♥ is pretty ridiculous, since partner probably has fewer than 4 of them. I'd guess between 3NT and 3♠ with the north hand.

It's a bit unfortunate trump are 3-0, but it does make more sense to start drawing trupms with the ♦A from south, since east is slightly more likely to have a void in diamonds.

I play the ♠3. If E takes the ♠K and a spade back, I play the ♣5 to the ♣J. If that holds, I can make my 9th trick in diamonds. If it loses to the ♣Q, spade, and spades turn out to be 5-2, it's a bit harder, but it's probably still safest to try to develop the 9th trick in diamonds. It trick 1 runs to my ♠Q, I can play on hearts (A, K, T).

Frankly, I think there's no difference. No doubt it's theoretically possible to make something up that might be useful, the next time it comes up in 15 years or so, but I'm not bothering. 4♣ is probably clearer in just asking for the best major, helene could well be right that 4♦ might just as well be natural, to disarm the psych by responder.

It's close, but I consider the east just a bit too weak for a takeout double in the direct seat. Add any sort of extra value and I am in. As west, over 3♦ I am passing if partner passed-- the distribution may be nice but vs a passed partner game is far away. As it went, I agree with west's bidding, though I'm not sure the X of 3♦ should be reflective, 4♦ seems a better choice. 4♥ needs a bit more than good play and good luck -- you're missing 4 tricks off the top.

No. This is explicitly stated in article 47E2a. Play should continue with the planned opening lead, and the TD can assign an adjusted score if he judges that west was harmed by the incorrect explanation, after the hand.

I voted "K is marginally better", because I think west is lsightly more likely to choose an aggressive lead holding Axxx(x) than holding Qxxx(x). Given the NS holdings, west might have a better club alternative in the latter case. But any difference in odds is very small, so you might just as well flip a coin for your choice.