MFA

F - NF That's my current agreement and I wouldn't want to change it.

It depends on the level of the players. My starting point would be to give the defenders both tricks, since for tournament players I don't find it normal to make such a great error as to keep a card at T13 in a suit that partner has already positively shown out of (when partner is on lead).

I play a reverse as NF at the 2-level but GF at the 3-level.

It seems that when partner jumps all the way from 3♣ to 4♠ we are not entitled to hope for a good dummy. This is not a close call.

4♥. Unproblematic raise. This is a nice dummy for hearts.

These things are often nightmarish for new partnerships. 1) 4♥ is a cuebid. I don't think 'sudden desperate' preferences into a 4-3 fit on the four level exist when partner is slamgoing. I would interpret 4♥, 4♠ and 5♣ as cuebids and 4NT as natural. I would be happy to cuebid the ♥Q here if my hand is suitable for a diamond slam. 2) Natural. I don't like being excluded from suggesting 4M when one of us has shown a long suit there. To make qualified decisions about playing 5-2s, 6-1s or even 5-1s we need these kind of delayed support bids to show some fit. Or responder would be left to gamble on his own on 4M too often with an inadequate suit. For 4♥ to be a cuebid, when 4M is still feasible because one of us has 5+, a rule of thumb could be that the minor should already have been agreed with a previous cuebid. The opening hand should bid as described with a stiff H in hearts, minimum and a mediocre diamond suit. For instance.

Given the facts I think the result should be adjusted to 5♣X.

Dummy should tell about the failure to alert before the lead. Therefore TD can reopen the auction regarding the final pass, and if the player thinks he now has a double, he can double.

Yes, I agree. To watch the Americans struggle in the endless swamp because they insist on overly patronizing system regulations is somewhat amusing. But not that amusing...

You admit you can't be sure of what happened, but are making rulings and handing out bisquits. I'm sure glad to not be meckwell, how annoying it would be for everyone to presume they know everything about me, including what I'm thinking at times when the assumers aren't even there. Making hypothetical rulings and handing out bisquits. I'm very sorry, if you find a bisquit too offensive, and yes it must be annoying to be the top professional players of a game and have everybody have all sorts of unqualified opinions about you, your game and everything. We must be able to discuss such things as this incident even when we don't have all facts for sure. As long as it's done with due respect for the players. I have plenty of respect for Meckwell in all aspects and have no intention of degrading them in any way, and I don't think I did by potentially awarding them a bisquit.

I agree, also with the implication that X+bid is forcing. Also 1NT-transfer, then balancing with 3 of a new suit is competitive, as I play it.

In Denmark we say "have a bisquit" if someone is quick to cry. Why was this problem not solved at the beginning of the set? I mean, did Meckwell intend to use the provided defense or not? If yes, without even examining it? How can they possibly have a problem now? If they spotted the legibility problem from the start (which we can't be sure of but it is very likely) I think it is grossly inappropriate to wait to addressing it until the bid comes up. Unless something specific in the regulations told me otherwise, I would rule that Meckwell then had accepted the defense as it was (that is provided that we knew that they were aware at the start of the set) and I would have allowed the opponents to play the convention throughout the set. It seems to me that Meckwell perhaps should have been awarded a bisquit in this situation.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=stxxhqxd8xckjtxxx&w=skxxhakxxxxxdjcxx&e=sqxhjtxxdqtxxcaqx&s=sajxxxhdak9762cxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Crazy stuff. I was south and partner chose to take a preference to 6♦ (thinking I might have tried 5♥ with a clear 2-suiter). This is totally out of character for east, who is usually solid as a rock. Luckily for us east somehow forgot to double 6♦! Down 5 (I managed to lose 3*2 tricks) was still a bad sacrifice, even undoubled. :D Most people will turn up with some really crappy defense for a bluff like that. A balanced 11 count is just wow.

Actually I think of east a very solid citizen. The type of player that seems to always put down a maximum hand in dummy. But since the opps are strong players there are no guarantees of anything.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=saj543hdak9762c72]133|100|Scoring: IMP (4♥) - p - (4NT) - 5♦ (5♥) - p - (p) - 5♠...[/hv] 4NT is RKC. EW are not used to playing together, but there is no doubt that 4NT is RKC and 5♥ therefore 2 without the queen.

Or if you are allowed to lead a low spade from this holding. :lol: Or if you don't play any sort of signals to sort things out later. -_-

3♦ is a gameforcing bid in my book, and my usual meta agreement is that all doubles in gameforcing auctions are to defend. Other approaches are possible.

That 4♦ was a mistake. With 4-4 in the majors, opener could bid 4♥ if he wants to.

I would pass. Have to have some standards, and even though 4441 is 'perfect' it contains so little playing strength. Can live with double ofc.

5♥. I'm closer to calling this automatic than to doubling.

Of course, if you have a clear understanding that 3♠ surely denies four spades, then we can't pass 4♠ now. I would have thought that partner's 4♠ showed four, and that we with a 6-5 were assumed to bid 3♠ and then 4♠ next time.

If weighted scores are not allowed then I agree with 3NT+2. East keeps all his clubs and hearts and I would not allow north to play for the endplay. If weighted scores are ok, I would say something like 3NT+3 25% and 3NT+2 75%. One is not assumed to conjure magic when an adjusted score is being awarded.

2♥. A normal minmum.

3♥. No reason to make a problem out of this. Our Q, Q, J will often mesh well with partner's values.

I think this is a somewhat dangerous piece of advice. Becoming too cautious when defending a lead is a major pitfall. It's important to realize that one cannot eliminate the natural variance in bridge. There is no such thing as playing for 0-0 in imps. The swings will be there, and if sufficiently many of them are adverse, we will lose. So playing normally should include being willing to make all the normal, aggressive moves. The moves that gave us the lead in the first place and the moves that we consider percentage bridge. Also, any sudden change in partnership style might cause uncertainty if it leads to some bad boards. One could even argue that taking cautious views is even more dangerous against a team that is likely to play over-aggressive, since this will amplify the variance (instead of the opposite that was the intention). But I'm not a big fan of such speculations. I know you didn't mean that we should stop and play scared. But any advice about playing conservative is dangerous since inexperienced players will do just that (tend to play scared in such situations). No need to push them further.