MFA

North could be thinking about a lot of different things, but only if he was immediately sure 3♣ was NF and was considering a constructive move, it would be helpful for the 5♣ bid. It seems equally likely that North was wondering if 3♣ was forcing or that he was thinking about getting away from clubs (by bidding 3♦ or 3♥). Those things don't suggest bidding 5♣. So I'm inclined to say result stands.

Did I open 2♥ vul vs not on this hay? I don't understand this convention I guess, so abstain since I don't know what I promised with 2♥.

This is an interesting thread. My view on 'swinging' in general is pretty harsh. I see it as a sign of lack of competitive toughness. That one is willing to give up on best strategy for the hope that something fortunate will happen after some random bash. Especially so, if one is swinging against good players only. It is a big "celebrity bonus" for the well-known players when underdogs are willing to back longshots instead of playing bridge. I would always prefer my underdog opponent to play like that. If they are playing with bad judgement in general, there is no reason why their bashing should be well-judged in particular. So they are just giving up even more equity. In general players underestimate the natural variance in bridge - it is there already with normal play - and grossly overestimate the closeness between the normal action and the 'swing action'. So often the swing action is just so heavily against odds.

Giving up the penalty double of a weak NT is a crime, nothing less IMO. I would never ever consider a weak NT defense without the penalty double, and I have never heard about a strong international pair not playing X of a weak NT as penalties.

If one knew the match standings before the last 1 (or 2) boards of a knockout match, I would be nervous about what might happen. There could easily be some crazy psyching, and I would fear about ethics. Consider someone winning by smelling out partner's bluff in the last hand. Who can blame him really, if we deliberately makes it a part of the game to gamble? But it would surely be so ugly to watch. I'm very doubtful about this suggestion.

5♠. Denies a heart control but partner is allowed to pass with one. (5♥ would show a 5♠ bid with a heart control. At least that's how I'm used to play). We will often have a slam, and it takes a careful construction to leave us in greater danger in 5♠ than an unlucky ruff or a very bad trump split. I'm surprised about the pessimism of some of the previous posters.

They can only say intermediate if it is intermediate, which would be something in the 11-16 interval.

I agree with the TD. The hesitation doesn't really encourage passing 3♥. So pass is legal regardsless of his hand.

I hope very much he recovers. I don't know Curtis that well, but we've met at tournaments quite a few times and have had beers at the bar. He is a very nice guy.

No idea what this means. If it means that a 22 hcp hand takes fewer tricks than a 21 hcp hand, then you have just proven that there is a bug in your program.

I agree. There are other BBF categories, where posts like this would be very welcome. I suggest that a moderator moves the thread. If the A/E forum doesn't contain A/E bridge, the strong players will disappear. That's just how it is.

Legal sure, no problem. It's normal to have different defenses to different bids by the opponents. That's perfectly legal. And it's perfectly legal to investigate the opponents' system by questions. Law 40B3 is about varying the system for example on the mere fact that questioning has been going on. Say we have a very unusual pet treatment, and if they don't ask we can be fairly sure that they don't have a clue about what's going on. For that reason we agree that when they don't ask about our bidding, we will proceed with system X while when they do ask about our bidding, we will use system Y. That's not allowed under 40B3 (provided that the regulating authority has said so: "The Regulating Authority may disallow...").

2♣ then 2NT. 1♣ could end the auction right there, and the bid won't help us that much really if we do get another chance.

I would say back to 4♠, probably weighted between down one and down two. Agree with Frances and others.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Since he realizes the inconsistency before making his bid, he must ask if he wants protection. If he decides to guess for himself between the meanings (choice 3 or 4 above), he is on his own. The laws only protect innocent players. If you don't 'buy' my views then so be it.

I think that it is the word "innocent" which directs the law to 12C1{b}, and in particular that in order to be deemed "not innocent" a contestant has to commit a serious error, or take a wild or gambling action. Which of these has our putative player done in not asking for clarification? I disagree that this is the logical interpretation of 12B1. Innocent is part of the definition of damage, and an independent condition for using 12B1 at all. 12C1b is about the non-offending side adding to the damage by their own 'bad' play. This additional damage will not get compensated. This doesn't mean that 12C1b defines or has anything to do with the term innocent. (In fact it would be logical inconsistent to talk about part of damage in 12C1b, if 12C1b were the definition of innocent. Since there is no damage if the party is not innocent according to definition!) The reference in 12B1 to 12C1b is solely for convenience so that the TD doesn't forget to take this into consideration.

I think this is more likely to be applied to better players. But I merely gave my advice as to the best thing to do. It is a reasonable alternative to say nothing, and seek a ruling if it goes wrong. But do not blame me if you get ruled against! :) <_< Yes, there are of course no obligations to seek information about their system. So if one likes, one can go ahead and bid. To get a compensation afterwards, however, the laws require the player to be innocent (Law 12B1). If a player realizes he is getting conflicting information and is taking no steps to clarify, then that player is not innocent and thus shouldn't be awarded damages. He can call the director, no problem. Just to get refused hopefully. I'll first have a problem with it, if he applies the :D and doesn't tell honestly about what he was aware of at the time of his decision. Since that could easily provoke a wrong ruling.

Ask to clarify. You are recieving conflicting information about the opponents' system. It's not in the spirit of the game to lean back in that situation and hope to recieve compensation afterwards, when you know right now that there is a problem. Partner will hear the question but that is just how it works.

Down 4 was unlucky and certainly 1 or 2 more down than what you'll normally be. Any reason you are assuming he is NV other than that it is absolutely insane to bid vul (I guess some people play weak NT only NV also)? (...) It was for that reason. I just don't like to write words like insane.

Down 4 was unlucky and certainly 1 or 2 more down than what you'll normally be.

Yep, a very important principle when playing with screens. Otherwise a lot of cases are created out of nothing when the screen mate protests about a break of tempo that really wasn't noticed at the other side (which is where it matters). I agree with the TD that this is a very easy 'result stands' when the call is from the wrong side. Had it been from the right side, and a significant BIT was established as a fact, the case would have been a delicate matter. I'm leaning towards judging 'result stands' on the basis that it's obscure what one really can deduce from a BIT behind screens here. East can't really expect west to take forever finding out about min/max, so a significant BIT is quite likely to stem from something else (e.g. questioning and/or south wanting to bid, or west thinking about system, which would not be an incentive for east to bid on). IMO a good example of the merits of playing with screens.

A problem with all this is that an early double might help their evaluation. Therefore the agreements should cater to the fact that we don't always want to reveal a nasty surprise early in the bidding in an honest way. Double then double to say that we have changed our mind is very reasonable imo. --- Recently I had 6340 and the bidding went (1♥) - pass - (2NT fit) 4♠ from me, (4NT) - pass - (5♣) Thinking a double might make them stop, I decided to pass and then double 6♥. Only to see my partner lead a diamond from length in both minors (but it went off anyway:)). I was probably being too 'technical' there, but the above point is important I think.

Of course we get good scores. Just because they have bid to the 2-level there is no reason to assume that their contract is the optimum for them. They have taken a stab, nothing more. And the card play hasn't even started yet. To me it sounds like panic.

1) X 2) 3NT.

Denmark. Everything is allowed here at teams. In club games the local club can make its own restrictions if it likes. But in national team tournaments there are no restrictions. I have had the pleasure of playing 2-way forcing pass with OleBerg (0-8 or 16+) in a (very strong) club game. For instance. Once in a while people do show up with their own home brew. I'd be very interested in the details of the OleBerg ambiguous (0-8 / 16+) forcing pass system. 30 years ago I devised a 0-7 / 17+ FP system and have been playing it sucessfully ever since with Wacko Jacko when we get the chance (I now live with a Greek on her island!). Thanks. Keith Henson We played it as an extension of the Viking Club system, so that there was a relay system available in most sequences. The basics are: Openings: Pass= 0-8 or 16+ 1♣= natural 9-15, includes all 9-12 NTs 1♦= unbal natural 9-15 1♥/♠= 5card, 9-15 1NT= 13-15 2♣= 9-12 5♣+4♥ 2♦= 9-12 5♦+4♥ 2M= weak2 2NT= weak both minors. Responses to pass (openings in 3rd/4th seat) 1♣= I also have 0-8 or 16+ (:)) 1♦= Nebulous, 9-15 (includes all balanced hands) 1M= 5card 9-15 1NT= Both minors at least 5-4, 9-15 2♣= 6card 9-15 2♦= 6card 9-15 2♥+= Disciplined pre Pass-1♣-1♦ shows 0-8, anything else 16+. If we have 0-8 opp 0-8 we pass 1♦ in that sequence. The basic rule in competition is that partner can always see if we are weak or strong. So it's perfectly ok to bid actively with 0-8 (when we also can have 16+). That part has never gone wrong for us. Feel free to inquire if interested in more details.