MFA

I think that "passing wtp" in the last seat is definitely an underbid. :P Well, I'm not convinced if it's right to double or not. One could argue that paying out 790 instead of 620 is at worst 5 imps but often less. In our match, south opened 1♠ with his AKJxxxxx, Kx, x, Jx at the other table, and EW got to 5♦ easily. Sure there could be overtricks and redoubles, but... I had the west hand and felt I had to pass. Had I known that south preempts like my great great grand dad used to do, I might have considered pulling - playing my partner for something like the hand he had.

[hv=d=s&v=b&w=sqxht8xxdak3ckt8x&e=shqj9dqt87xxcaq42]266|100|Scoring: IMP (4♠)-p-(p)-X all pass[/hv] 10 tricks, 8 spades and ♥AK. 5 of a minor is cold, if they don't fint the heart ruff, and they won't since hearts are Axxx to Kx. Bad luck or...? NS are strong players. Any difference if south is generally known as a tight preemptor or as a loose preemptor?

Yes we did, Roland. But I think it's only on the surface that the two situations are similar. In the Danish playoffs it went 4NT (RKC for ♣) - 5♠ 5NT - (huddle) 6♣ 6♦! - 7♣ 7NT So it's not quite the same, because it's perfectly logical that a 5NT'er can bid again below 6NT, when he can see the same 12 tricks in suitplay and in notrumps - giving his partner a chance to produce the last one. In this thread's board it's not logical that the grand slam invitee suddenly "accepts his own invitation", when partner has declined with 6NT. The indications of taking advantage of partner's thinking are very strong. So as it has been posted here, I think it's clearcut that bidding 7 after partner's huddle is illegal. It takes a crystal clear 7♦ bid to be allowed in this situation, I think. And the actual hand is not close to that.

If the result of the appeal was not relevant to the outcome of the match, there would be no appeal (with the possible exception of an appeal in the course of a very long match). So the committee is well aware that their decision may effect the outcome of the match. Still, it's knowing the margin that causes the problem. Around 10 years ago we had a very close national championship final that had a serious slow play problem in the last segment, so the TD judged that penalty imps had to be awarded to the more offending side. But how much more offending were they? Everybody had been slow to some extend, but one pair certainly in particular. Even though there was vue graph and everyone seemed to know exactly the standing of the match, he carefully avoided to hear anything and made his decision in vacuum - which just happened to change the winner of the match. But the important thing was not knowing that when he decided upon the penalty.

The result from the other table is irrelevant for the TD's decision at this table. So "I think a 3-IMP change would be appropriate." is the wrong perspective imo.

How misleading is this non-alert? Just curious. Forcing NT is quite unpopular in Denmark, so here 2m on three would surely also be alertable and therfore forcingNT + non-alert 2♣ would be suspicious to a good player by itself. I would surely have asked about club length, if I was to bank on this kind of defense. What I'm trying to say is - should north have protected himself in any way? What is "standard" in ACBL about this situation? The ruling seems fair, if north is completely innocent about the missinfo.

I like 2NT. Sure, if the 1♠ overcall promises a near opener, and the 2♦ advance promises a good hand, we might be able to indulge ourselves and pass. But I don't trust them that much, in real life we might have game. We have tricks and stoppers, and this 2NT could easily be a good competitive move by itself, besides getting to some 3NT's. -1100? No, they won't double very often even when we are potentially in big trouble. 2♥ is not so dangerous, but we don't get to any games and NT might very well play better if they have ruffs coming.

BIDDING GOES 1D-1S-P-1NT-P(15-17)-2S-DBL(PENALTY)-3NT-P-P-DBL-P-P-4H("NATURAL")-DBL-P-P-4S - DBL- ALL PASS Perhaps it's just me, but I hate this way to post the bidding - it's so hard to decipher. :P This post I just skipped because of this. Sorry OP, not specifically aimed at you, lots of posts are like this, unfortunately.

2NT. Seen this before recently... :P Hmm, and what is partner then supposed to do after this double? :angry: If you can have almost anything with "values", then it's too hard. Sometimes ♦xx ♣AKJ and sometimes ♦AKJ ♣xx? I think a double should be very close to 2524, and a good hand obviously.

I have not been especially happy with the editors, I have tried so far. So until somebody comes up with something really nice (Wayne? B)), I'll stick to my word template. Much to be said for what you see is what you get, when you are typing.

I have been experimenting with antisplinters 3♥ minimum 2NT: Good hand, "pard: any splinter you have is fine!" 2♠, 3♣, 3♦: Good hand, antisplinter, "pard: a splinter in this suit is bad, but good in the bypassed suits" After an antisplinter, partner can splinter below 3M with the inversion that 3M-1 is retransfer, while 3M is a game invitational splinter in M-1. This hand would bid 2NT.

2♠ Don't see why we should make a big problem out of this hand.

Fixed - yes. Double of 3♥ would show hearts, since it's a major. It would be responsive, if it were a minor. At least that's how I play it. So, P+X should be responsive, not penalty, since we didn't have a responsive double available on the first round. With this hand, I'm just going to pass 3♠.

I play 4♣=good both majors, 4♦=bad both majors.

I was told that this issue will be decided next week. Robert The Russians have now posted their line-up on the official eurobridge site, and Balicki-Zmudzinski is not in it.

I was told that this issue will be decided next week. Robert OK, I see. I have been wondering. The line-up deadline was 15th of April and the deadline for submission of systems today. EBL has been threatening us very harshly with an automatic penalty for any delays with the systems: the partnership would have would have to play a WBF standard system for at least 2 days. Also a 200 SFR fine is automatic, and brownstickers and other conventions might be forbidden for the pair for the entire event. Hmmm. Laissez faire or robot-like discipline, which one applies? :unsure: I think that Italy is a huge favourite - as usual. But where is Denmark on your list, Gerben? B)

"2H=no agreement, but can be taken as reverse and GF" Huh? No agreements in this sequence? :) If north can bid a natural 3♦ over 2♥, then why not? South seems to be optimistic with 4♣, but I don't know this system...

With a club void and 4 decent hearts, partner will take the push even with a dead minimum as a two-way shot. Although our hand looks promising and slam easily could be on, I think that there are too many holes to bid an undisciplined 6♥.

1♥. If I bid four, I'll find myself x'ing 4♠ with xx & x in their suits. I can't do this. I think X has a lot more going for it than gnasher says. We don't risk all pass, and we might get something valueable from partner, for instance a ♦-response. If part jumps to 4♠, we are likely toast, but if the opps get there in one round, I'll have a comfortable 5♥.

North has a minimum 4♦ bid, not far from just 4♠ (which makes it a clear sign-off after 4♦-4♥ imo, whereagles). I would certainly have bid again with south's cards after 4♠. jxxx, xx, xx, kqxxx or the like is not a 4♠ bid.

3♥ is absolutely automatic as I'm used to play.

I prefer penalty doubles regardsless of the 1NT opening strength.

Yes, yes, yes. Yes, of course it happens. I routinely ask about any alerted bid, at least on on the first two or three rounds of the auction. I do this partly to protect my partner from receiving unauthorised information, partly to avoid giving the opponents information, and partly because I like to know what's going on. Regardless of my hand, it wouldn't occur to me to call over this redouble without first finding out what it means. Exactly!

Something is terribly wrong with the numbers... :(

1 thing more: Why play these 3mi bids in this framework? If we hold a 6-4 hand, we would be able to transfer and bid the major conveniently.