shevek

NFBs have had bad press for a while now. Better suited to strong club systems. However, I still like them & this one looks fine, perhaps planning 2S over opener's 2H. Double might have worked too but X (3C) 3H would be unwelcome. 2D NFB slows partner down.

You open a strong club and get a 1D negative. Next hand doubles. You ask. This might be explained as: "diamonds" or "majors" or "some good hand" or "undiscussed". In these cases, what should opener's redouble be? (Assume it's not relay) Secondly, when should responder pass this? Thanks

3♥, having denied 4. This allows me to bid 3NT over partner's 3♠ to show my ♦Jxx or partner to bid a delayed 3NT instead with his ♦Qx.

It's all good.

Hardly a perfect example. It would a bit better if 4♥ was failing but bidding game is clear with 8 hearts & ♣K. Also no good over a 3♦ overcall since need double with 4♥s.

Okay, how about these: (1S) X (2S) no (no) X (no) ? Are you limited enough by choosing not to act over 2S for this to be a scrambling auction? (2D*) X (2S) no (no ) X (no) ? 2D = standard Multi. Likewise, you could have bid directly over 2S but didn't. Maybe the answer depends on the meaning of doubles.

We have this general agreement: When partner doubles 2H or 2S for takeout and the next hand passes, 2NT is never to play. It's either Lebensohl or scrambling. Trouble is, we are never sure which. The usual agreement is "Lebensohl if game is still a chance". However, this may need to be re-assessed if the 2NT bidder is limited. For instance, with a 16+ 1C 1C (1S) no (2S) X (no) ? If passing 1S is nominally 0-4 (5), should 2NT now show complete crap, or "2 places to play", meaning something like xxx, Qxxx, Qxxx, xx looking to play any 8-card fit, converting 3C to 3D to show reds. Compare 1C (2S) no (no) X (no) 2NT this seems better as Lebensohl since responder could have a decent but awkward hand that couldn't act first time, say Axx, x, QJxxx, xxxx bidding 3D with this to how decent vaulues, going via 2NT without SA.

Okay more info. - I was East. - The AC is unlikely to read any of this. If they do, can't see that being a bad thing. I look at this panel as a bunch of appeals advisors. If everyone said "EW have no chance, save your money/VPs" we might duck out. - NS were Australia's top-rated pair. - I believe the 6 who failed in 6S were playing from East with South usually silent. I think they should make anyway but it's tougher. Certainly played by West on a heart lead after a heart overcall makes it lot easier, though not trivial or even routine.

Assuming 1♠ shows 4+ spades ... Rubensohl has worked well for us X = unlimited tko, not 1-suited 1NT = nnf, stopper 2♣ = 5+ ♦s 2♦= 5+♥s 2♥ = bal GF, no stopper 2♠ = 5+ ♣s 2NT = GF with stopper 3♣+ = as you wish. Maybe 2-suiters, or slammish 1-suiters. In this style, X then a new suit is limited, 2-suited. For instance, ♠xxx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣QJxxx is awkward. We would double 1♠ then bid a reluctant 3♣ over the unwelcome 2♦. No fun but at least it's weakish since a stronger hand would transfer to clubs then bid 3♥s. In response to double, opener's 1NT does not guarantee a stopper. 2m usually 5-carders. We like 1NT by responder as natural, non-forcing. These hands are common enough: ♠QTx ♥xxx ♦Ax ♣xxxxx We would often prefer 1NT to X with the 3-4-2-4 say Transfer then a new suit is GF, etc.

[hv=pc=n&s=shqt9876d754ck742&w=skqt5hakj5dat32ct&n=sa874h32dj986c985&e=sj9632h4dkqcaqj63]399|300[/hv] West - a decent player - plays 6S at IMPs on H3 lead-Q-K. Pass (13+) - (no) - 1H (spades) - (2H) 6S - end Then she spreads her cards and says "I think I can handle this." N-S look quizzical. She adds "I'll see how trumps go, then ruff two red cards in dummy." South suggests that she plays on, so the director is called. Declarer restates her "claim." N-S agree that she "will probably make." Director comes back with +100 NS at the end of the session, saying that he "can't see a making line". E-W appeal, 23 IMPs at stake, Butler. To be held in 6 days time. A few points: - N-S don't believe they acquiesced. - The director's comment about "no making line" seems to suggest that he requires declarer to keep playing trumps. - If trumps were 3-1, declarer's stated "line" would fail, since she would presumably play a second round of trumps and end up a trick short. (She's allowed one club trick only) - Declarer needs to ruff THREE red cards in dummy. "Cross-ruff" was never uttered. West's contention is that the 4-0 trump break will alert her to the need to stop trumps and cross-ruff. All the cross-ruff lines work, don't need to be careful. She didn't mention clubs so there seems to be no alternative line. So declarer was made a "careless" claim, not counting tricks. Is she then permitted to count tricks in the face of the 4-0 trump break? Is it "rational" for a declarer who has made such a careless claim to keep playing trumps?

I like English-style UCBs - unassuming cue-bids - combined with change of suit non-forcing, as advocated in Mike Lawrence's books. The cue has to work hard, acting as a takeout double, a good raise and a force in an unbid suit. After (1♥) - 2♦ - (no) - ? Advancer might have ♠AJxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AQxx, or ♠Kxx ♥xx ♦Kxxx ♣AQxx, or ♠AQJxxx ♥xx ♦x ♣AQxx With the last one, there is a strong case for 2♠ being forcing (after a 2-level overcall) though that hampers weakish hand swith long spades.

I don't agree with this last bit. When the opponents show GF values and no fit, the risks are much reduced. They will tend to bid routine games, rather than go for uncertain penalties. Playing Burgess - Marston a few years back, I held a 3-3-5-2 3-count and bid 2D after their 1♣ (15+) - 1♦ GF. They pottered about to -50 in 3NT when partner led ♦A. This is it I think: http://www.bridgeunlimited.com/bridge/DisplayBoardResults1?club_event_id=12843&teams=teams&header=abf&session=1&board=8 Teammates made 3NT on a club lead. One hand proves nothing. I've never tried Marston's semi-positives, seemed too complicated for a rare part of the system. People like to bid over strong club so we ditch relay often. I think the switch to artificial semi-positives damaged the product over here. Very few play that way now. As you know, Paul plays very little bridge these days, no Moscito.

It's a real hand and bidding is 9 IMPs out, exchanging +200 for -200. Really, it depends upon what partner is prone to do. If she thinks it's usual to double again on a semi-balanced 18-count, then pass is obvious. However, if the expectation is some good hand with 0-1 hearts, not 5 spades, then it seems quite close to me. Opposite that, the single most likely outcome is probably 10 tricks a piece but (all?) the other layouts show a plus for bidding 4NT with such a pure hand & a guaranteed 9-card fit. ♠Axxx ♥--- ♦KQJxx ♣KQxx is admittedly a VERY specific double game swing. Small changes mean one side makes game. Also note that -500 gains 7 IMPs against -790. Anyway, good to see the panel was split roughly 50-50. Thanks all.

[hv=pc=n&s=s84h84d9876ca9876&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hd4hppdp]133|200[/hv] Butler IMPs

The support comes from people with good knowledge of the Laws. The knowledge of many players is sketchy at best. West probably thought that she was okay because she'd remembered prior to partner's prompt. I would tend to believe her. When the director pointed out that was not germane, she thought we were saying that we didn't believe her. I think she thought that I should have asked her about that before calling the director. The bridge culture in Australia reflects the national psyche. We distrust authority, preferring to sort out disputes ourselves. Directors here are underworked. After all, "We all live in a convict colony, convict colony."

[hv=pc=n&w=sakjt543hkqdkqc75&e=s8762ha84da87ck94&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2cp2dp3sp4np5hp6nppp]266|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&w=shakq95daj963ckt7&e=sakj3h87dk87cqj92&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp1sp3d(*)p4sp5dp5hppp]266|200|[/hv] Australia, Butler IMPs East-West are a decent, established partnership. East alerted 3♦, no questions asked. System meaning is "mini-splinter". The auction proceeded quickly in tempo - as is their style - to 5♥ for +450. I was North. With deep foreboding, I called the director at the end of the play. The other 3 looked quizzical. I explained what happened. West said the usual "I realised as soon as i bid it" and "I was always going to bid 5♦." There was no tempo issue. East was quite within her rights to hedge with 5♥. After a while the director came back with -100 in 4♠. They might have been put off by this because they had a bad night, missing qualification for the next stage by one place. East was emotional and keen to appeal but the Appeals advisor talked her out of it. The fallout was unpleasant. EW no longer talk to me. Though they understand the ruling, they believe I should not have called the director. Maybe they think that I should not take advantage of my superior knowledge of the Laws. Perhaps opponents have often bid this way against them and they've let it go. We were non-contending and had nothing to gain, it seemed spiteful. Doubtless West did appreciate the implied criticism of her ethical standards. It's a cultural issue. Advice please!

Is there somewhere better to place requests for moves? Anyway, I have a 2 week Board a Match (Point a Board) event coming up. Think I'll have 15 teams. Obviously I could run 14 x 2 bd rounds and repeat. Is there a way of doing this with 4 board rounds, playing half the teams? 7x4 twice might be awkward. 6x4 then 8x4 is messy too. Any ideas? TIA Nick

Surely the "pairs up, boards back" of Blackpool is easiest for everyone, remembering we are curtailing to 12 out of 14 possible Blackpool rounds. Admittedly not the best contest.

2NT should be natural here. Suggest Lebenstensions less usefull after 2♦. We only play Leb after their 2M opening.

Double-weave too exotic for us, will stick to Blackpool.

Our club plays 24 board sessions most nights. What's the best 2-winner movement for 12 tables? Here are a few choices. 1) 8 x 3 skip, playing 67% boards. (Against local masterpoint guidelines but that may not be a concern) 2) 12 x 2 share, sharing 2 boards. (Quite awkward) 3) 12 x 2 skip & revenge. 4) 12 x 2 Blackpool. (Play all oppos but miss 2 board sets) 5) Something else, not too exotic. Nick

Let's aim lower. How about a world-wide agreement on revoke enquiries by defenders? Also, concerning declining numbers, young people perceive this because they tend to play nights. There is a drift from night to day sessions from the 55+ group. They are healthy and living longer. There were 440 teams at last week's Gold Coast Congress.

Damn. I was hoping this would be a genuine anti-Lebensohl thread. Always amusing to witness 1NT - (2♣) - 2NT "Alert" My #1 bad convention, just edging out DONT, with it's proven ability to miss 9-card fits.

OKay, so what sort of hand raises 2♠ to 3♠?