MFA

sounds rather expensive in appeal deposits lol really? I guess I'm crazy because it seems way more likely partner is deciding what to do with xxx Qxxx xxx xxx, or has bid 3S with Kxx xxx xxx xxxx than that partner has a hand that wants to bid 4 when they think and bid 3. Guess this is why I bid 4? lol Yes, it would be quite an uphill struggle to make a claim like that to a TD or an AC, after partner has just hesitated with a standard good 3♠ hand. I'm confident I wouldn't huddle here. It is a principle for me, when it comes to constructive game bidding, that I never huddle partner out of a game. As usual 3♠ huddled is the worst bid, so if I were caught on an odd, sleepy day, I would have to bid 4.

I prefer takeout.

I would try 3♦ on my own, although risky of course. I don't see why 1♠ should promise so much. Opposite xxx, xx, xx, xxxxxx we have a reasonable chance in practice in 3♦.

sounds rather expensive in appeal deposits

The first one is the only difficult one. If 3♦ could be only 5-4, I think I'll probably quit now. But that means I expect partner to be optimistic with most 5-5's. 2 is an easy keycard 4N. 3 is an easy 6♣.

Edit, sorry got the auction wrong :-) Would pass now.

3♠ is enough.

1NT.

6NT north. 6♠. Viking club 1♠ - 1NT (10-15; GF relay) 2♣ - 2♦ (max; relay) 4♠ - 4NT (7-6 pointed!!*; aces) 5♣ - 5♥ (1A, kings) 5NT - 6♠ (1K; no reason to ask for queens). (*) there is another route to showing a good 7-6 that can be used with übermax, if one can't stand a pass to 4♠. One can show 7-6 and min as well. So the actual sequence shows some body in the suits. http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2222864/viking-main_Full.jpg

Tbh it sounds like a very annoying and time consuming procedure to me. :mellow: Also there seems to be clear UI downside with sharing notes.

Good comments so far, I think. I agree with mich-b's view that the committee was generous to NS. This doesn't seem sharp to me. NS has one extra chance only to get into the auction, and that is directly after East's 2♦. South was misinformed. Could he possibly bid a direct 2♠ if he were told "transfer"? Quite unlikely, and it seems that South didn't even suggest at some point that he would. This would btw have been a good AC question to South during the hearing. North was not misinformed, so nothing could be done about his pass. East was misinformed by North, and maybe that caused the E-W misunderstanding. I don't think E-W were damaged as such, but a better result was possible for their side. All in all I like the director's ruling of result stands. A weighted score of some low percentage of NS 4♠ making (as the AC decided upon) is not unreasonable. But I feel it is a favorable ruling for NS. The procedural penalty seems wrong. As TimG points out, E-W explains differently only after N-S did so, so how can the 'secondary' explanations get punished when the 'primary' don't? I don't think any penalty points are appropriate here.

I think that this case was handled well, and that Lanor Fow's comments are sensible.

With all respect I think that this case would have been a very easy "result stands" in an international competition. This is a huge problem. It's always the player on the other side who should call attention to a BIT. It could easily be so that the other side of the screen didn't notice a thing. This is not much playing with screens. The combination of these facts would most certainly lead an international TD to judge that there was no BIT and South was free to bid as he liked. Let me quote from the 2008 WMSG screen regulations: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...Regulations.pdf

4♦ was forced as I play. 5♦ should be a sort of trial bid with about 11 tricks in hand , asking for ♦-help. I don't know how to recover. Perhaps 5♠, or 6♦. We might miss the 13 top trick 7♥.

Sounds like count to me but please post a layout, so we can consider the logic of the situation. Partner must have a point when he cashes the ♦A in such a situation.

Sure commentators can use the DD software, if we wish, but some of us just don't. Imo is good commentary not about making 'predictions' but rather to try to explain about the problems that the players are facing. And of course to entertain. I have no problem with making an occasional analysis mistake. Actually some specs just seem to love it when it happens. :-)

I would expect 4NT to be take-out to the minors and would therefore bid 5♣. If partner is not on the same wavelength and bids 5♠ I can raise that, no problem :) .

A possible play for north is to discard the ♠A. This is safe unless south has discarded his only spade as the very first thing holding 1651 (declarer might then build a spade trick). But that would be absurd. I realize that south tried to keep the defense alive, should declarer have the ♠K. But perhaps south should have got it right anyway, if we can assume that north sequence of cards is as strong a signal for spades as he could possibly send. These situations are often much tougher at the table than it might seem with open cards. GL Fred today!

You may be right. I say only that if I had ♠KQJ10xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣Kx I would consider it more effective to bid 2♠ over 1♠ immediately than to pass for the duration of the auction and watch partner lead a non-spade against 3NT (or any other contract, for that matter). With another ace, I would be content to pass at my first turn, then bid spades at my second, because I do not anticipate the auction being at an inconvenient level when my second turn comes. Your mileage may vary, but the main point I was trying to make is that if you and your partner have agreed to play that an immediate 2♠ is natural, you do still need to have a good idea of how strong it is. Would you raise it with, say, an ace and a king and a couple of spades? One more drill: if you open one of something, and partner responds 1♠, and the next hand bids a natural 2♠, what is your double? This may seem a simple question, but not all that long ago I watched a pair of champions conduct exactly this auction, and the double was explained (but not intended) as "three-card spade support". Presumably 3♠ would have shown four-card support. I definitely understand your point. As I see it, it's a very narrow target if a direct 2♠ should be weakish. Because for safety we would then need a very good suit or it would become suicidal. We wont get dealt exactly HHHHxx with minimal outside values that often. If a direct 2♠ shows a good hand we can let outside strength compensate somewhat for lack of trump quality. Partner will know that fitting trump honours are golden. This kind of hand will be frequent. Also some of us would want to balance in less than ideal suits, if they subside at the 2-level. The actual hand or Balicki's hand. We can't do that if a delayed bid shows a strong hand and these hands are too soft to enter with directly since partner might have a complete bust (and responder might have 6 spades that he were about to rebid...).

I'm not used to unilateral penalty doubles of partscores by an unpassed hand that hasn't heard anything from partner. So for me, X of 3♣ was take-out of clubs. X of 4♣ is in principle still for take-out but he is oriented towards defending, since he couldn't raise spades. A strong 3442 would bid like this. With flat distribution I have an easy pass.

DBL, 1NT and 2Y are natural. I play 2X as natural too, but an interesting idea is to use it as both majors 5-5 even when Y is a major.

I would pass here.

Some play that 1NT is a normal raise to 2♥ showing (or denying) a top heart honour.

Why would it be strange to fail to balance into a suit an opponent has bid holding an aceless 9 count when their suit (which may not even be a fit) is likely to be breaking badly? It would be strange because this hand has just about zero defense against clubs but quite some tricks with spades as trumps. Having no aces but KQJ QJ in my suits is an argument for bidding 2♠, not against doing so. I can't stop you from thinking so if you wish. I'm just stating my opinion to the problem and that is I find it strange not to bid 2♠.

R/W east can't really bid 2♠ over 1♠, but balancing 2♠ seems very easy. Selling to 2♣ is strange. I would also have doubled as west, but it is minimum and I'm not religious about it.