MFA

I agree 100% with gnasher, although I'd have had a hard time coming up with reasonably diplomatic words about such stupid rules. The example in the OP demonstrates how utterly absurd this is. We have bid and shown a 7-card suit, and now it's forbidden to have more refined T1 agreements, when partner cashes the ace, than: high is encouraging - small is discouraging (or vice versa)?! Paranoia strikes again.

It's quite likely that a non-club lead is best, if we can hit partner's side value(s). We might need to cash or establish tricks, give him ruffs or trump promotions etc. But if we guess wrongly, it will cost. So a safe club lead is a stand-out.

1) I would bid 3NT. 2) I would assume a very strong 1-suiter. 3) Pass would be terrible. The question should be more like if we are worth a grand slam try. But I'll settle for 6. 4) 4♠ and 4NT are both for the minors in the first round, 4♠ being the stronger. One can pull 5♣ to diamonds to show shapes like that.

How often have you been taken in by some really deep deceptive play? I think that the answer to this will also answer your initial question. Let them shine if they find some very nice play.

Luckily for me I have enough frantic card movements, where I fold them and spread them once again, that I doubt that anyone really would be able to infer anything from where I take my card - even if they tried. But like I said, this thing doesn't worry me at all.

Even for the brainiest of players, if he doesn't sort, he will make mistakes. Seems silly to do that to oneself.

I don't think much cheating is going on. I always sort completely by suits and rank and mostly hold my hand above the table. I think that high-level competition is quite clean, also when it comes to UI. Call me naive. But I'd rather be naive than paranoic.

If you entered the teams and only played the two days, did it then cost additional money to play in the pairs? The team qualification was 2½ days. 5 group matches and 7 swiss matches. But no. Even if knocked out early, one can play the pairs tornament for "only" €400. Same price whenever one joins, except for the team finalists who can play pairs for free. Guaranteed number of boards: Open Teams - 120 boards, €235 per person (team of 4) Open Pairs - 260 boards, €200 per person It does seem that the Teams is extremely expensive unless you go deep into the tournament. Right, but this is partly due to the consolation finals. It's not that interesting, perhaps, to play a secondary final with little to compete for.

2♦ does not create a force over 4♠ as I play. Therefore partner's X of 4♠ showed transferable values. 4NT take-out and then 5♠ over 5m to invite 7.

3♥. If he is broke - too bad. 4 aces is huge if we catch him with some shape.

For me, 3♣ would surely be 4th suit forcing. Agree with a jumpshift. Would surely respond 1♥, not close for me.

North's 2♦ is not bridge. He gets the full blame. South has a normal gameforce, at others also have pointed out. That being said, I don't understand what south's bidding was showing?! 2♠ was a diamond raise, but what about either splintering at some point or introduce hearts?!

If you entered the teams and only played the two days, did it then cost additional money to play in the pairs? The team qualification was 2½ days. 5 group matches and 7 swiss matches. But no. Even if knocked out early, one can play the pairs tornament for "only" €400. Same price whenever one joins, except for the team finalists who can play pairs for free.

Q1: No carry over for 3th ranked team? Q2: Teams ranked 3th till 6th will play against each other in Swiss B. They play in a bad Swiss and still have change to qualify for the K.O.? Could there be any intention to try to end 3th in the Round-Robin? Ok, less teams go on from Swiss B and maybe other good teams will - intentionally or not - end up in Swiss B. But it is a bit strange to end last in the round robin and then still have a chanche to win the championship? Q1. There was a typo in the the regulations. Q2. The field is way to deep to consider dumping to the swiss B. Curiously, we started out in swiss A by being demolished by a greek team that knew the fast way to slam without bothering too much about something like keycards and queens of trumps. In round two, at table 33 (♣2 in the tournament) we faced ... the dutch national team with brink-drijver and de wijs-muller. Says something about the field. There were a lot of solid teams that didn't make it to the A swiss. The Lavazza team for instance. The ended up average in swiss B. Anyway, knocked out in R32 today by a team we would normally beat, so pairs tomorrow :-(.

Well done!

In Norway there are no trials. We have a one-person selection committee who picks the team. The federation board has the final word, but always approves the team unless there's some disiplinary/ethical reasons for not doing so. Occasionally we've had trials, or let the Premier League have status as trials. But only if the federation itself has been unable (financially) to send a team. Last time for the 2004 Istanbul Bridge Olympiad. Roughly same procedure in Denmark. 3 pairs are selected individually and play as a team.

Right, south has a 4♠ opening of course. Passing in first seat as east is ok, though.

T1: NS are paying off to not having a strong 3-card raise available after the X. N's bidding is normal, but the auction could explode when one doesn't show support. And that is exactly what happened here. T2: I would never bid like east. I think it's terrible. With a chunky 5-5 one has to get suits in. 4♥ then 5♦ like a the other table. East bid like he were a 3433 11 count with ♠KTx.

4♥. Agree with wtp.

I assume it's a matter of style, but the way I play 3♠ this is a clear pass.

Natural and quite strong. With values I would raise to 3. I suspect that partner likely would have led a 4th best J against a NT contract. TOish doesn't seem sensible to me, especially not if invented at the table without discussion. :(

Obviously close. I can see myself passing here but only against some types of opponents. If I pull, I pull to 3♠. I'm very pessimistic about partner letting me off the hook, if I pull to 3♠ or 4♦. Ken talks about the chance of making 3♠X, which I would estimate is exactly 0%. If 3♠X has any chance at all, partner would have bid at least 4♠ already.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with the director's ruling. Some detective work from his side is in order though. Playing non-penalty doubles in this situation sounds fairly normal to me (although surely not the majority agreement), so I would need some real evidence to brush aside the players' explanations as self serving. Sure, more leeway after unusual methods. Not just to be nice, but in general huddles are just not quite as telling when the confusion factors in. One often just has to realize what's going on, before making a bid, however obvious this bid may be/seem when one reaches the evaluation fase of the problem. So the marginal cases should pass. I'm impressed that this Brown Sticker Convention is allowed in the first place in some Monday night game. But ACBL rules never stop to amaze me. I'm always supporting the view that one can liberaly call the director and this without implying anything bad. This surely also applies her. As a personal preference, though, I would go a little easy on calling the TD after my opponents' huddles in these sequences, if I were having such a spicy entry on my Monday night menu.

This is not enough info. It's a possible play to start with the ♥A and finesse the opening leader. This is bad if he has ♥xx, but if he might have led a trump from that holding, it becomes less likely after a different lead. Especially if the actual lead doesn't seem particularly attractive. To judge all this we need to consider our own bidding sequence and if it calls for an active lead or not. The percentages of drop vs finesse are so close for this combination that I'm always inclined to use even the slightest clue as a basis for an educated guess.

Is that so clear? Some (not I) have a "weak or strong" approach to 2NT, Michaels etc., and in that context bidding 3♦ then 6♦ seems possible to me.