peachy

I am completely at a loss to understand what blackshoe said and why. Perhaps my problem is that I have understood the OP question differently? Could we start over... The OP question as I understand it, is: I hear others talk about a hand I am playing or will soon be playing. Is it legal to use this information that I have just heard/read in the lobby chat? What is your answer to this question, blackshoe?

Negative double.

It is important to include 2C opener's followup bids as well, otherwise one is left as much in the dark as when responder's actions in competition were not defined/agreed. Better to use general principles than specific bids, such as by responder: Pass is positive Dbl is bust or bad hand NT never bid directly (if NT is played, it is opener's privilege at least initially) Suit bids are positive with hands that would not be interested in penalizing the overcall - at least not in this round of bidding.

Under those conditions, it is forcing. Under other conditions, it is forcing unless methods agreed where it is defined as nonforcing.

Don't take it so seriously. You were a pick-up partnership, they were a pick-up partnership. The event is called a "tournament" but only because it was arranged that way. If it was a free tournament, there is no assurance of quality directing, it varies. UI may be rampant and not ruled upon. Rulings may have no connection to the laws. TD may not even know the laws. You have other options where to play. Anyway, to answer your question: "no information" means that the call was not discussed and that the pair had no agreement what the meaning of the call is. You can assume/guess what you want, and the opposing pair is doing the same - guessing. THAT'S HOW IT IS IN PICKUP PARTNERSHIPS.

3D gameforcing. Over that, 4H is 3-card limit raise. This is an exception to fast arrival if you otherwise have such agreed. 3H is either false preference with weak hand _or_ a 3-card LR that now has slam potential due to doublefit in diamonds or for some other reason. Everything else is natural, except 3S bulky three cards.

And luckily, the law is the same for the types you describe and for honest types. Otherwise, a mind reader is needed for the types you describe and any law that requires mind reading cannot work. So, if it is judged that there was a BIT, AND there was no bridge reason for it, AND the opponents were damaged, the ruling is the same for *I wanted to fool my opponents* , *I don't know*, *I really really really had a such-and-such-bridge-reason for thinking*, or even *I didn't tank, you are are all wrong* . Nobody is questioning the integrity of the tanker. They all get the same lesson for future as well. PS. After posting, I realized I hadn't read all of this thread. What I said, had already been said, and maybe better than I did.

What nigelk said. Responder should not rush in to bid his suit (unless it is phenomenally pretty like AQJxxx). He should let opener describe his hand first. I strongly recommend you do not use 2D for "negative" and use it instead as "waiting". You can always agree to have the lowest 3-level bid be the "negative" next round or you could agree that 2C-2H is a direct "negative".

If the finesse was judged to be repeated in the hand recently under discussion, it would be judged to be repeated in this hand also, by common logic. Or is it that unresolved points should be ruled against claimer so in the recent hand the ruling is "finesse not repeated" while in this hand the ruling is "finesse repeated". I'm still a little in the dark...

I can never understand cases like this -- how does a person reaching for a pass card end up with 1♣? It is in a different section of the box. Ones mind is a curious thing..... if you just happen to be thinking you should have opened 1♣ on the previous board there is a chance you might actually bid 1♣ instead of wanting to pass. The most famous one when ones mind is not operating in sync with ones hands, is when you open 1M and partner bid 3m as Bergen. Now you decide you wont accept the game-invitation and pass! Aren't these "senior moments" or "lapses of focus" rather than "mispulls". TD will normally allow change of a mispull (if he judges it a mispull) while in "senior moments" the player is stuck with his choice, like passing a Bergen raise when not accepting invite? And, Congratulations David!

Any method of carding is fine, as long as both you and your partner use the same method and observe which card was played. What you should be certain of: to know when to give an attitude signal, when to give a count signal, when to give suit preference signal, and what to discard when not following suit. All carding methods work, just learn to use them properly. Choose the method that is common where you play, mainly because it is easier to get partners to play with.

You being new to bridge, I would recommend other ways to improve your bridge where the impact is much greater than using Zar points for hand evaluation. YOU DO NOT NEED ZAR. Judgment comes from experience, analysing hands afterward, watching top level bridge, reading bridge books, paying full attention while playing or kibitzing. We defend on average twice as many hands than we declare. That is where a wealth of improvement is available and even some very good players still find defending difficult. Counting the hands (partner's as well as declarer's, or both defenders' when declaring) as early in the hand as possible is a surefire way to get more tricks. That's what it is all about, tricks! You can practice declarer play alone, there are programs for that. Good luck and have fun!

his hand was not good enough for the 3H jump - which of course sets trumps. 3H is asking partner to cue. Opener cannot start slam search with that hand. But 2H rebid and next round jump to 4H also sets trumps, I don't see any reason why there could be alternate trumps considered. It was of course not the right thing to do by opener, but that was not under discussion, nor were some other calls in the auction, or hand evaluation. The question was, for RKC, what suit is trump? Answer to that IMO is clear: hearts.

Given your described agreements, your partner did the right thing by passing! Too bad the opponents were asking at every turn, I would make a note of who they were...

IMPs, 3NT probably best. MP, I don't know...

3S but hoping I wasn't turning plus into minus. The upside is clear, we might have game even with a passed partner opposite and at the very least, 3S could be making while -1 isn't a catastrophe. I am worried about the down 2 doubled but still bidding 3S.

The 4H bid set the suit, so RKC is clearly for hearts. But there are some other bidding issues in this hand and those should be addressed first. Identifying the trump suit in this auction was NOT the problem.

2S for me. I play a wide ranging weak two in this seat and vulnerability (1st, favorable) so it could be anywhere from 5-card suit and bad hand to a traditional weak two. If it were 6-5 with aces in the long suits, then it would be more of a problem.

Blame North. He knew neither one of them had a club control and went to slam anyway. South's overcall is on the light side but with singleton in their suit, action is normal and was not cause of the problem.

I play the style that awm describes (sometimes messing with the 2NT inquiry). But playing that style, I think I might feel ethically obliged to bid to a failing 4S instead of Pass with an undeniable supermax, if partner broke tempo, while if playing the style where 2NT is a true invite, the only LA with supermax is 4S.

1. 1H. Most 6-5 hands with adequate controls are worth opening and bidding suits in their natural order longest first. The choice with this hand is not set in stone and I can understand 1S though I wouldn't do it. It is hard to get to 6-2 hearts when partner prefers spades with 2-2 in majors... 2. I would Dbl. The choice is not completely clear, but raising diamonds is unwise. 3. Dbl. This hand has everything a Dbl should have = support for all unbid suits, adequate values and both offense and defense are possible. We might miss 5-3 spades though, but overcalling spades will SURELY miss 4-4 hearts if we have that fit.

If you are not convinved, then we must re-examine the facts, again. It is not a question of merits at all. Fact 1. Responder's 2NT was an invite. Fact 2. Opener has a supermaximum. Given that these are the facts, opener must go to game and Pass is not a logical alternative. If Fact 2 had been "Opener has a maximum" instead of "Opener has a supermaximum" then there might just barely possibly be something to think about. And if opener had a minimum or borderline maximum, only then should there be an adjustment due to use of UI.

After partner issues an invitation, this magnificent maximum (which sme might open on the one level) obviously is going to game. I am disturbed by the fact that opponents asked at every turn. I know they have the legal right to ask, but why did they ask? Just to be a nuisance? Anyway, for adjustment, there has to be damage and there has to be a LA that could be demonstrably suggested by the UI. If a poll were conducted, my guess is that "nobody" passes so Pass should not be a LA, with or without UI.

Play lots of hands. Given what you tell about yourself, you might enjoy reading Kelsey's books on defense (Killing Defense) or other good ones which gets you to enjoy the "detective work" always present at bridge and to make the activity so routine that it comes naturally without a lot of effort or memory aids. This helps your game both as declarer and as defender. Good memory is not key, it is only a crutch to rely on when the pattern recognition is not yet routine and in some cases to remember which cards are high. Anyway, my two cents. People learn differently, do what you feel comfortable with. But: play lots of hands.

People who play this sequence as forcing do so for the same reason as people play bids as forcing in other sequences: they want to be able to explore the right contract without consuming a level of bidding and without the risk of partner passing. A secondary benefit is that they can use a jump to 2♠ to show a different hand-type. Whether these benefits justify the disadvantages is another question. My note was incomplete = should have included "barring specific agreement for it to be forcing".