grishav

[hv=pc=n&s=s876h97532d63ck97&w=sk9hq84dkj87ca632&n=sqt32hakjda9cqj54&e=saj54ht6dqt542ct8&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(12-14)dp(Forcing%20xx%3A%20any%20strong%20hand%20or%20weak%202-suiter)2h(alerted%20and%20explained%20as%20transfer%20to%20!S)p2sppp]399|300[/hv] A club game. IMP scoring. NS are average players and play together rarely. EW are well-established partnership who won the tourney eventually. After hearing his partner's alert and explanation, S said that he needs to talk to director, came from the table and told TD that he doesn't play transfers over X. Of course, it was absolutely clear to all players that he doesn't have ♠. TD came to the table and informed N that all of his partner's actions are UI to him and he must continue to bid according to his own explanation. Table result: 2S -2, -200. After the board W called the director and argued that S must assume that his partner has some strong GF hand with spades and bid 3!s accordingly, so the result should be adjusted to 3♠X or 4♠X. TD reasoned that S had enough AI to judge that pass is correct action with his 3 HCP. How do you rule?

North's, West's and East's cards were played and turned face down. I'm sure about this, but just to be on the safe side I asked my partner and he is sure also. Note that this question was not asked by TD at the table. His question was about South's card. BTW, what do you mean by "may or may not become a penalty card"? I thought that exposed defender's card is automatically a penalty one (unless declarer requires/restricts the leads of the suit). Is TD allowed to rule that the exposed card can be taken back without any penalty? If so, under which circumstances? (Of course, under assumption that "spade" is deemed not to be a lead out of turn)

Well, I start to think something was wrong in my OP - I didn't expect such strong comments. I don't agree with this... South didn't made anything bad on purpose. I believe he was deep in his thoughts, didn't realize that his partner already played a card and asked him to play the small spade. I think BunnyGo's guess is right: That's correct - I admit. I was looking at dummy, he played the card - so from my point of view the trick was played. Then declarer called for spade in the new trick and I played my card. That's it. Moreover, I admit that I didn't payed the attention to the fact that the lead should be from declarer's hand. I don't think it matters however... Actually, the TD in charge was of very high level (probably one of the best TD in Europe) and I think that calling him "dumb" would be very far-fetched to say the least. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was right... He explained that he couldn't establish the exact facts - it was my word against declarer's word. He has chosen to believe the declarer that he didn't finish the trick. Actually neither me nor declarer were sure about the exact timing - he thought that he first called for a spade and then turned his card, while I think it was the opposite way. Hope that clarifies the things - I'm trying not to be too biased.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk94haqj42datck92&w=s8632h8653d85cq84&n=sat5hk97d764cj753&e=sqj7htdkqj932cat6&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1d1hp2hp4hppp&p=d8d4dj]399|300[/hv] Israel international festival. All players are experienced, but not experts. Declarer took the ♦ lead, drew 2 rounds of trumps with A and Q, played ♠ to A, then ♣ from dummy to 9 and Q. West returned ♦ and East (me) continued then with ♠Q. Declarer took ♠K, West played small spade. Dummy also played small spade and turned the card. Declarer paused for a second or so and said "Spade". I've taken this as a lead from dummy and played ♠J. TD was called. South: "When I called for a spade, I meant the card from the previous trick. I think I said it before turning my card." East: "I saw that dummy already turned his card. I can't be sure about declarer (I was looking at the dummy), but I think his card was turned also - before he said "Spade". Anyway, I was sure the trick was over. Declarer called for a card from dummy (out of turn) and I accepted it by playing the J" According to TD decision, ♠J became a penalty card. Declarer played another round of trumps, East discarded the ♠J perforce and ♠9 was declarer's 10th trick. As one can see, declarer had no legitimate way to make his contract at the point of infraction. (though initially he could make it - the ♠A was a mistake of course). Do you agree with TD decision? Does it matter whether South first turned his card and then said "spade", or vice versa? (There was disagreement about the order of these 2 facts between NS and EW). Obviously, I (East) was misled by dummy which played his card without waiting for the declarer. TD said that what dummy does is actually immaterial and I should have waited for the declarer. Thanks.

The largest outcome of the preemptive bid comes from hands where: a. opponents will fail to reach game/slam that they would reached without the preempt b. opponents will overbid to game/slam which cannot be made c. we will find good sacrifice against their game/slam So the largest outcome comes from game or slam hands - not the partscores (shock! :rolleyes: ) When one of the opponents passed, the chances that they can make a game (not to talk about slam) are definitely smaller, and therefore the preempt is less effective. It's not only the question of partner's HCP - though it's also one of the factors we should consider. I think that the other factors are: 1. LHO knows that his partner is limited in strength. After his partner's pass, he will know (sometimes) that they cannot make a game, so he will overbid less frequently. 2. If there are two strong hands on this board, they will be partner's and LHO's. So finesses they need for their game or slam will lose more often. Moreover, LHO knows this after your preemptive bid - so he will proceed with more caution and will make the right decision more frequently. 3. If they play penalty doubles after preempts (though it's not too common nowadays I admit), it will be easier for LHO to double you knowing that they probably can't make a game. Though I don't know how to include these factors in your model, I think they affect the outcome of preemptive bid and therefore your model is not complete.

Frances, The main advantage of this method, as described in the articles I mentioned and as I understand it, is that it makes things easier for the partner. He is able to make an intelligent decision about his subsequent actions based on Low of Total Tricks. If he has 4 of their suit, he will leave the double. If he has 3 or 2 - he'll know they have an 8-card fit and he will try to find ours. But if the double can be made sometimes with 3 cards and sometimes with the singleton (and hope), partner cannot rely on this and the whole idea is lost. Actually I can see very little difference, if any, between your version and "normal" takeout double as we play it now. Am I missing anything? Kit Woolsey proposes that the condition for such double are that we both made some bid and then they overcalled - something like 1♠ - (p) - 1n - (2♥) - ? or 1♥ - (p) - 2♥ - (2♠) - ? These situations are probably easier to handle than the overcalls after 1nt opening, since if you have single in their suit, you also have 4-card side suit or 6 cards in your first suit - so you can find a bid to make. The situation after 1nt opening, especially when it's weak (as I play it) is more complicated. I mean, for example, auction like [hv=pc=n&s=saq32ht5dkt2ck432&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1n(12-14)2hp(weak%20hand%20or%203+%20%21H%20and%20good%20hand)p]170|200[/hv] What to do? Pass and find partner with 10-11 HCP and KQ98 in ♥? Or double (as Phillip Martin suggests in his article) and find us in 3♦ on 4-3 fit for -800?

On bridgewinners site there was an article by Kit Woolsey which proposed an idea that t/o dbl after their 2-level overcall must show exactly doubleton in their suit http://www.bridgewinners.com/index.php/kits-korner/1080-avoiding-promotion Similar idea I found in Phillip Martin's article - here I consider playing this gadget, but both articles doesn't answer all the questions, so I want to ask the people who actually play this. The idea behind this IMHO is good - when you do have the doubleton in their suit. The problem is what to do when you have a single ? For example, what am I supposed to do with Kxxx x Qxxx KQxx after partner's 12-14 1nt and 2h from RHO? I used to dbl with this, but now I can't... How do you solve this? Also, it seems scary to me to dbl with doubleton when I open 1nt (12-14) and my partner passes. How can I avoid being doubled on 3rd level on 4-3 fit, when partner has a yarboro in such situation? Thanks!