OleBerg

True story, a competent player to his teammates: "You let East play 1♣??? How did the bidding go???" Not so trye story about Stalin playing with three generals: The bidding goes: 1♣ -3♦ - 3♠ - 4♥ 1♣ - pass - pass - pass Best Regards Ole Berg

And just for inspiration, here are our replies to the Pass-opening: 1♣ = 0-8 or 16+ 1♦ = 9-15, natural (But not one-suiter), or balanced. 1♥ = 9-15, 5+ or specific 4-4-1-4 1♠ = 9-15, 5+ 1NT = 9-15, 5+♣, 4+♦ 2♣ = 9-15, 6+♣ or 5+♣, 4+♥/♠ 2♦ = 9-15, one-suited diamonds. 2♥/♠ = Disciplined weak-twos, at most 8 points. 2NT = 5+♣,5+♦, at most 8 points. The one-suited diamond hand has been taken out of the 1♦ reply to allow for a smooth relay-structure.

I play Pass = 0-8 or 16+, and has done for quite some time. I would always prefer something that tends to be natural. Otherwise you're very handicapped in all the competitive sequences after the opening of 1m. And believe me, they will be competitive. I have chosen: 1♣ = 9-12 balanced or 9-15 natural 1♦ = 9-15 4+, unbalanced This structure combined with Transfer-Walsh, allows a system where you can respond 1m - 1M on 4hcp, and still get out alive. (Opener has a "good-raise to 2M" - option below the three-level.) I don't think it would make a big difference if I switched to 1m = 3+, but I would not try the "balanced/unbalanced" method. Best Regards Ole Berg

Bridge is like sex, if you do not have a good partner, you have to have a good hand. Best Regards Ole Berg

My partner was asked: "Does 2♥ show anything about the spade lenght?" "Nothing at all. Except that it shows exactly three." Best Regards Ole Berg

I think what lamford meant to say was: "Because East is likely to think of a "small" as a loser, while he might think of "♦6" as a possible winner, and thus think." (I still wait to hear where in the laws there is justification for the assumption that the infraction would cause East to react thus.) But instead he described what his reasoning would be after he established that there there was an infraction. Best Regards Ole Berg Ps.: If the player said: "Play the losing diamond" against an absolute beginner, I would definitely consider it bad style, but not something for the TD to resolve. This would more be a case for the manager. ("We do not like your kind around here, please leave, and come back when you have learned to behave.")

I agree (a little) with the top-directors. The thought experiment you should make, would be more like: "What if we played with screens, and the sled comes through with a 4♠ bid. What do you do then?" In the actual circumstance, this experiment would lead me to believe, that there where no logical alternatives to 5♥ Best Regards Ole Berg

For chrism: You wrote: "Declarer was clearly aware that the ♦6 was not "small" in the sense of being a loser,..." Where in the laws is it said, that the term "small" is equal to a loser? And yes, I would like to compare with the story, where the Hog says something like: "It is a small heart". The two situations are nothing like each other. The Hog transfers unauthorized information to his partner, information the partner could not get in a legal manner. If South is, as alleged, "coffee-housing" in the described situation, he changes his use of technicalities in the game, to try and get an advantage. As the practice of calling a card "low" if it is the smallest in dummy is generally accepted, it is a part of the game. I would rather much compare it to this one: Declarer has: Dummy: ♥AQJ109 In hand: ♥5432 Declarer plays a small heart to the ♥9, East showing out. Now declarer crosses to the hand, leads a heart attempting to finesse. West plays the ♥K, but declarer, being ahead of himself, finesses with the ♥10. Just declarers own silly fault. Not that my comparison is completely similar to the original problem, but it is a lot more like it. Best Regards Ole Berg

Mostly for JLOGIC: As an active TD I can assure you, that we can circle-jerk to our own brilliance without having to resort to such silly rulings. :) Best Regards Ole Berg

Incredibly silly ruling. Even if South deliberately called it a small to confuse the opponents, I find it silly to adjust. I know that this may very well be illegal, but if it is, the rules are silly. The lovely game of tournament-bridge is first a competition of wits, and only secondly a social gathering. It is the players own responsibility to keep track of the cards. What's next? Will it be an infraction if you call for a high diamond in a dummy containing ♦KQJ, and will the opponents get redress when they forget to take the ace, because they think that the king is high? It happens 24/7/365 that players designate cards as "High" or "Low", and it is a fundamental principle of the laws, that you do not evaluate the person in question, but that you evaluate the situation as such. This goes for §23 as well. You should not contemplate whether the player in question could have known that an infraction could work to his/her advantage, but whether a player of the general level of the infractor could have known it. As a whole, if you choose to adjust here, you should also give a warning, and subsequent administrative penalties, every time a player designates a card by anything other than its name.(Like "High" or "Low".) Non-sarcasm aside, I would use the same language as the poster with an ALL CAPS name, but I am not as good at it. Best Regards Ole Berg

I agree. But still some good came out of it: Andy's last post is well-written, informative and worth reading. (And done with enviable patience.)

You're tougher to satisfy than my X. You want me to give you a hand, under certain restrictions, where I'd want to bid 4♣, and where 4♣ is the correct double-dummy bid. I give it to you, and you tell me I cannot bid 4♣. Tough one.

No. You tell me. What would you do/have done? Opened 4♣???

[hv=pc=n&s=sah432dakcqjt9876&w=sq2hqjt98dqt32cak&n=sjt987hadj654c432&e=sk6543hk765d987c5]399|300[/hv]

I only see two alternatives; pass and 3NT. 3NT can easily get ugly though, if the run hearts, my discards can quickly become quite bothersome. Alone red at IMP's, I'll be most inclined towards 3NT. Alone white at MP's, I'll be most inclined towards pass.

I agree with the bidding. If you choose to open light, don't be afraid of your own shadow. Passing 2♦ will muddy the waters all the times partner does not hold a clear penalty-double of 2♥. I find the defence suggested by rhm completely obvious, even if you lead low from doubleton. The times it is critical to give partner an immidiate spade-ruff, are not that frequent. But off course it could be the case.

And mediocre if he is angling for slam.

Just open 3♥, then you will not have any bidding problems later. (Of course, other problems might arise. :) )

At the table nothing but 5♦ would enter my mind. Having followed this thread got me to think a little, but not enough to change my mind.

5♦, WTP? Partner isn't "simply improving the partscore"; on 90%+ of hands with 6+ diamonds, he will have no reason to assume his suit is more than a level better than ours. 4♦ is constructive, limited by the original pass. I love fit-non-jumps, but this should not be it. Partner needs a decent hand to overcall 3♦, so it is still quite possible, for a passed hand, to hold values for a natural 4♦, especially as it will be rather narrowly defined.

I simply find no reason not to start with 2♠. When the expected raise in diamonds comes around, I'll be happy to double, having described my distribution almost perfectly. This is troublesome if they raise to 5♦, but if they raise to 3♦ or 4♦, the dividends are huge. You can easily add 3 points withouth it getting me to change my mind. To me, this seems like a standard X-X Again, simply 2♠. Showing the distribution, thus giving us the best chances of finding the right denomination, is way more important than showing exact strength. X-X, and settle for partners choice. (Reflecting that I expect partner to stretch to bid 4♦ with 4-4 in the majors.)

It's not that I feel I'm on familiar ground, bit couldn't 3♠ simply show a 4-card spade suit and a flexible hand. After all, we didn't bid 3♠ on 3♦. So with somthing like 4-3-1-5 or 4-2-1-6 we still can get to 3NT. I agree with Gnasher's 4♦ after the second double. Even if you feel it's a slight overbid, it still solves all bidding problems on the weak hand. If I see a chance to get my hand off my chest in bid, and that bid virtually inusres us getting to the right denomination, I make it whether it's an over- or underbid. In my opinion, this is very importent in competitive sequences. (So obviously I also agree 4♦ is choice of games.)

Unless I desperately need to make the columns on this specific hand, the 9♣ or 10♣, according to my agreement.

WOW