peachy

I think leading from three small is so bad that I generally don't do it at all except on rare occasions when all other leads are worse. I am not sure but I think it was Mike Lawrence in one of his books who said [apologies if I got the source wrong] the following: Leading from three small has the same effect on your defense as a sleeping pill has on your attention span.

F1. I know of no system where 2D is GF. Also, what common system you play, has nothing to do with whether 2D is forcing or not forcing because it is a matter of partnership agreement. Standard is F1, at least where I play, while NFB is playable if it was agreed.

Responder limited his hand with 3D. After opener's 3H (which I think could be interpreted "are you sure we can't play NT"), responder bid 3S ("passing it back to you, I don't have a club stopper"). After that, bids just kept escalating for no real reason...

This is how "The Law" gets a bad reputation. Someone bids with this hand and uses "the law" as justification for the bid. Pass is very clear.

I see no need for the third option. At the time someone is looking for partner, they don't care. If the decliner wants to explain, he can private message the person.

In 2/1, I bid 1NT and hear what partner rebids before I decide my rebid.

It will be the World Bridge Series event in 2010, not World Championships [which include BB, Venice Cup, and Seniors] if I am reading the WBF information about it correctly http://www.worldbridge.org/competitions/wo...ips/default.asp

I would not be comfortable with the parameters you set. If "peachy" and peachy" were bidding 2S (P) 4S, then opener in first seat could have a 5-card suit with a wide HCP range and responder anywhere from unbalanced zero to balanced 15. If it were second seat, different matter. As far as I can tell by watching what others nowadays play for a weak two, my style isn't that uncommon.

Thanks all who responded. here are the hands. [hv=d=n&n=skxxhakqjxxdaqxca&s=sqxhxxdkxxxckxxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP 2C-2D 3H-4C 4H - PPP[/hv] How would you have bid these hands, using the methods described in my original post? And ATB for us missing the slam.

I don't think a passed hand can make a forcing pass, or what say others? Anyway, I am bidding 5H to make. The 1NT bidder was apparently kidding and setting 5D might not be enough for us.

This could be an exception to "don't lead unsupported ace" because we don't know the type of hand dummy has for the 4S bid and it could be important to retain the lead to decide what to do trick 2. Then again, CA could blow a trick but I'm doing it anyway.

I agree that in P (1D) 2C, the call can be made with less than the usual two level overcall qualifications, if the suit is good. I don't consider it aggressive. It takes away oodles of bidding space, directs lead, makes negative doubles hard to make and hard to read, etc. I might consider 3C if favorable.

Pass and pull is stronger (or 6-4) than direct 4H (distributional and unwilling to defend 4DX). Double indicates some trump tricks in 4DX and inclined to defend. If partner pulls, we are trying for slam. I liked han's examples.

An attempt at sarcasm? Or show of ignorance? No. Responder will not Pass. In the described method, he will bid 2H which denies any ace or king though may have some points, or may have nothing.

2C - 2D [2C standard strong artificial. 2D promises at least one K or A] 3H - 4C [3H sets trump, demands cuebidding. 4C is A or K of clubs] 4H - What does opener have? Has opener denied a diamond control? - If opener has denied diamond control; should responder bid on with Qx-xx-Kxxx-Kxxxx. Why? Or why not? - If opener has not denied diamond control, what is his reason for not showing the diamond control? And should responder with the above hand bid on? I would like to hear opinions from some good theorists and experts.

Without prior discussion with partner, I assume 3C is showing 5-5 and not extras - preferring to play partscore in suit, not 2NT. Responder can do as he wishes with that information = pass, game, 3NT, or preference to opener's major. Most of the time it is Pass or correct to the major.

Your description of standard is spot on. Assume you play that with any reasonable level player, unless NFB have been explicitly agreed. NFB is a playable, some say it is better. Matter of taste :) It basically works the opposite of standard. For example, in NFB negative double followed by a new suit is forcing while in standard negative double followed by a new suit is weakish and intended as signoff.

I don't understand why responder used Stayman. Why? 1NT-2C-2S-4NT is a quantitative invite, not Blackwood.

I suppose you asked and were told that 2H was Michaels. It would not be Michaels for me or for any of my partners. Dbl now, hoping support double is on here. Slightly hazy but I am not going to climb on the 3-level with this hand.

What was the actual NS agreement for the 3S call? Without having established what their agreement was, TD cannot begin any ruling so surely he did that first. If they had no agreement, then there was extraneous alerting. If they had an agreement that 3S was splinter, then N apparently used UI to bid 4S to put partner on track that he actually had spades. It is always a mess when partners don't know what they are playing and sometimes it happens that they land in a lucky place. If no law was broken on the way, unlucky for you. But I think to judge whether yes or no on that, need to know what their agreement was.

In both the given auctions, opener promised another bid. Whatever [non-game] bid responder makes, he/she knows that opener will not pass.

Against strong NT, some method where Dbl is *not penalty* and I can show various two-suiters. Against weak NT, some method where Dbl is *penalty*

Dorothy Hayden's "Winning Declarer Play" is a great book for an advancing player and instructs on all the basic theme's of declarer play technique. Nice format for learning. I would stay away from Watson's "Play of the Hand" which is a classic and the substance is on the spot, but it is a boring book.

Count signal is given when following suit to an opponent's lead. When winning the first trick (or some other trick on partner's lead), standard return from original 3-card holding is the top from the remaining two, and this has nothing to do whether one plays upside down count and/or attitude, or not.

I would only do that if it didn't mean I was wrong, too. That'll teach me to make up my own definition of "Damage." I have to confess, though, I wouldn't adjust a -620 to a -170 in a pair game if everyone else with the same cards was -800. TD must not use the table results from other tables as any sort of basis for a ruling. That is plain wrong.