jules101

And how common is it to get one hand where THREE players each hold a NINE card suit? This one came up today! [hv=pc=n&s=sq8h6d3ck98765432&w=skhkqj987542dq94c&n=sat7htdakjt87652c&e=sj965432ha3dcaqjt]399|300[/hv] Have you ever seen that before?

When overcalling am I right in thinking "the modern style" is to bid your 5-card major when you are 5-4 in the majors? If so, do this always apply, or when there is big disparity in your suits (eg the 4-card suit is much better) do you prefer to double? For example What would you do with [hv=pc=n&n=sk8643haqt6dcqjt5&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1d]133|200[/hv] or with [hv=pc=n&n=sj8532hakjtd8cqjt]133|100[/hv] Thanks for your thoughts!

I once bid 1♦ (first bid of auction), and LHO (who seemed to be in a bit of a dwam) led the 2♦ much to the surprise of the other 3 of us at the table. The director was quite excited to get an uncommon ruling rather than the usual nonsense!

[hv=pc=n&n=skq865h7dakqjt2ck&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1hp2h]133|200[/hv] What's your plan?

Thank you very much for confirming. I was going to ask your last point as a follow up question, but you got there first. I wonder why it's too late for East to "wake up" to their error after West agrees. [i bet there is a Law somewhere about that, but I don't know that one!] #rookie-director-here and trying to get to grips with the laws.

Just wanted to check whether a revoke is established by a claim? Dummy JTxxx Axx Hand Declarer is South has pulled trump, etc. If they lose one trick in this suit they make their contract, lose two tricks and they are one off. Declarer's only hope is one of their opponents has KQ doubleton. Declarer plays the Ace, West follows with low card, and East doesn't follow suit. Declarer concedes 2 tricks in this suit for one off. THE OPPS AGREE TO THE CLAIM/CONCESSION Law 63A3 applies here? LAW 63 - Establishment of a revoke A. Revoke Becomes Established 3. when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way. So the agreement to the concession means the revoke is established. Declarer is awarded a trick for the established revoke and makes her contract. If, however, East realised they had revoked, and didn't agree to the concession, then East could correct her card. In this situation the revoke would not have been established, and declarer is still one off. Am I understanding this correctly?

Good point - 6♥ was lazy. Pard just the contract tho, so we should have been in 7♥-1.

Thanks for clarifying. I ruled one trick for EW as per claim, but wasn't sure I had detail quite right, hence my question here. #rookie-director-with-much-to-learn

No easy answers, but it sounds like double and 6♣ are favourites! This is what happened. [hv=pc=n&s=sahaq93dcajt87654&w=skqt3h2d982ckq932&n=s8654hkjt864dak4c&e=sj972h75dqjt7653c&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3d5cd5hp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

South is declarer in a heart contract, and these cards remain [hv=pc=n&s=shd95c&w=shadc5&n=sht3dc&e=shkdjc]399|300[/hv] West is on lead and tables his cards saying "One each". He's obviously been asleep and oblivious to the fact that East may still have K♥ (trumps] and that by leading 5♣ then the defense can take two tricks. East immediately objects to the claim (as she is is entitled to do). Director is called and situation is explained. You are aware that 16D now applies, West now has some UI. What happens next? May declarer ask for A♥ to be led at this point? May West lead the card of his choice - ie 5♣ - given he now has UI that this might work better for the defense? Does it make any difference that West has tabled his cards? [Even if not tabled surely he still has some UI]. I thought this would be "simple", but can't quite find out if it would now be "normal" for West to lead 5♣ at this point. How do you rule? One each, or two tricks for the defense?

[hv=pc=n&s=sahaq93dcajt87654&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3d]133|200[/hv] What are your options? Double seems wrong - you expect partner will bid spades, and then what is 5♣? A forward going cue bid agreeing spades, or natural? 3/4♥ is just wrong! 4♦ would show both majors - generally 5-5 or better. 5♣ seems somewhat unilateral - may miss a heart fit. So what's your choice? And why?

Yup - but it did buy them most of the match points on the board, so they'll believe their action was sound. Can't argue with success I suppose even tho I would like to.

West passed and 5♠-3 by North (they can get out for -2 if they don't lose finesse the second spade to opener) scored 2 / 14 match points. Double would have improved the score a little (+500), but 5♦ makes (+600), and most were making 5♦+1 (+620) on a non spade lead. One lucky East scored a coast-to-coast top for 5♦X+1. The actual hands are below, but I was more interested in the principle here of whether West should be applying a red card. Forum advice seems mixed, but leaning narrowly towards DOUBLE! There is another debate to be had about whether South's action over 5♦ was sound. Half the Souths in a strong game found pass, a third found 5♥ which was always doubled by West, and a minority found double! [hv=pc=n&s=sk52haj8762dq3cq4&w=s963hqt93d2cakt72&n=sat874hk54dcj9865&e=sqjhdakjt987654c3&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=5ddp5sppp]399|300[/hv]

I should have said this was MP pairs (I keep forgetting to do that) - now corrected. For those who are passing could they explain what they think partner has got in her hand to open 5D vulnerable 1st seat? You look like you have 2 cashing tricks, possibly more. Will partner have none for her 5D vulnerable 1st seat opener?

MP pairs [hv=pc=n&w=s963hqt93d2cakt72&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=5ddp5spp]133|200[/hv] Your call!

Absolutely no BIT. This is bidding question, not an ethics question!

Match pointed pairs [hv=pc=n&n=sqj2hat974dajt85c&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1h2cpp]133|200[/hv] What's your next move and why did you choose this option?

Match pointed pairs [hv=pc=n&n=s865hakq4dj3cq863&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=3dpp]133|200[/hv] Yuck! What's it going to be? Please explain your choice. Thanks.

Match pointed pairs [hv=pc=n&e=sqjt63h4dq984ct63&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1h1n(15-18ish)p3nppp]133|200[/hv] Do you lead partner's suit, or you are quite liking Q♠. What's your choice and why?

[hv=pc=n&n=saj9hqtdat2cakt87&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=4s]133|200[/hv] 1) What's your bid? RHO's preempts are renowned for being "aggressive", especially with shapely hands, eg 6-5s etc. 2) Should knowledge of RHO's "style" influence your decision, or will you make same decision whoever RHO is?!

Thanks all useful. So if playing 5-card puppet Stayman and one's normal responses would be: 3♦ = one or both majors 3♥/♠ = 5-carder 3N = denies 4 or 5 card major But now the auction goes: 2N [P] 3C [X] P [P] XX to restart the auction then 3D be as above, and 3M show a 5-carder. If the initial pass denies a stopper you are now in a fix with a 3343 hand with 3 small clubs, cos you don't really want to reply 3N now! I guess with a 3352 type hand you need to bid 4D?

Prompted to ask by seeing this in vugraph records of Vanderbilt Final Q4 [hv=pc=n&s=skj92ht5dj76ct762&w=sq65h984dk5ckq953&n=sa4hakq3daq93cj84&e=st873hj762dt842ca&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2np3c(Stayman%20-%20not%20sure%20which%20version)dp(No%20club%20stop)pr(conventional%3F)p3s(shows%204H)p4s(not%20on%20same%20wavelength)ppp]399|300[/hv] Result 4S-2, but 3N+1 made in other room after South just raised 2N to 3N.

What are your recommended methods after your auction starts [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2np3c(Stayman%20of%20some%20sort%21)d]133|100[/hv] How does North describe her hand now? She may or may not have a club stop combined with a 5-card major, one 4-card major, both 4-card majors, or no-4card major! What immediate bids and continuation sequences do your partnership use?

Here is an auction. [hv=d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1d(4+)ppd2cppdp2hp3h]133|100[/hv] Two questions 1) What sort of values/hand is East showing for this auction? 2) What does West need to accept the game invitation?

My understanding was that this wasn't a claim. I don't have the hand, but let's suppose that by running ALL the diamonds declarer was squeezing her own hand. She therefore decided it would be prudent to change her plan part way though running the diamonds. [i'm just guessing - I don't have the hand, nor do I know what declarer changed her plan.] I was merely asked about the principle. May declarer countermand her earlier instruction ("please play the diamonds from the top") part way through the task being completed? It sounds from the early posts as if she is entitled to do this.