OleBerg

1♣ seems very clear to me. One or both of the major-queens off-side or in partners hand, makes those nice looking intermidiates worth a lot less than they look like. Furthermore tha hand is aceless. Not a big minus in my book, but definately not a plus.

My sentiments exactly. You can't always play the very most superior method, everybody's memory is limited. Furthermore, the advantage of the variable NT is limited. So, when you play a complex system (Could be Transfer-Walsh with 1♦ as unbalanced), it's probably not worth the trade-off, as many sytematic gadgets, many in competitive bidding, is centered around the fact, that a 1♣ opner cannot have a balanced minimum. An aside; fourth hand is actually the place where I sometimes upgrade 11 hcp to a 12-14-NT. We know the strength is evenly divided, and if I have a few tenaces they can lead into, and some good intermidiates, I think (hope) it is odds-on.

And lead a thrumph!

Would bid 3♥. Have no problem with 4♥.

This is what I bid, but the other 3 players at the table (1 WC 2 expert) all said after the hand that they would have doubled, and that this action shows a penalty pass of 1♦x. Double shows hearts the same as 1♦ X 1♥ X, how is that not obvious to them? Didn't occur to me. :( Probably even a better use for the double. I wouldn't put to much faith in the WC and the expert players, as they are obviously easily influenced by seeing the actual hand.

Haven't voted. I play 12-14 NT's and adhere to the interval. If I should play 15-17 NT's, I think I would open some 11 hcp hands. For instance: ♠ 832 ♥ K743 ♦ KQ102 ♣ K2 I would never open this with a 12-14 1NT, but a 1♦ opening has more going for it (as opposed to passing it): - Lead-directing value. - If partner has hearts, my hand is easily worth a full opening. Furthermore, the risk of conceding a large penalty is much smaller, when you open one of a suit. Still, I would also pass many balanced 11 hcp hands, those that doesn't have anything special going for them. I'd love to say, that I would also pass: ♠ Q32 ♥ A432 ♦ Q32 ♣ A32 but I can't keep a straight face. :lol:

9-11 is a little light, I would bid it with 12 as well. X is classically penalty, isn't it? Is there a modern trend towards t/o or is it different when p doubles in balancing seat? Regarding a possible double of 1♥: I would never expect an expert partner to bid or interpret this as a penalty of diamonds. It may fit (very) classical definitions, but it is simply not often enough, that it is worth hunting the opponents at the 1-level. One problem is: How is partner going to react to my double? With 4 hearts, should he leave it in? That would be very unwise, if I can double with a singleton in hearts. So apart from promising diamonds, it should also promise a number of hearts? Simply to much guessing. Furthermore, the double in the third seat of a one-level opening, is one of the most wide-ranging bids in bridge. We really need all the bids we can get, to use for constructive auctions, even discarding the hands that has been denied by not overcalling. As the reopening-double can so easily be bid with only three spades, I would expect it to show exactly 4 spades. (Some diamond length will of course be implied, if the hand has something like 11+ points, but xxxx would be more than enough.)

East a whole lot. East has an atypical preempt. (Much to good in my book, if you want to preempt with the hand, bid 4♦.) That aside, when West bid 4♣, it is mandatory for East to bid 5♣, showing that 5♦ is bid to win. West gets a little blame. Double can hardly cost a lot, and they will often be -2 or -3. (-5, like here, should be very unusual, as partner should not be able to have the actual hand.)

Obv. 4NT. If I played with a partner adverse to bidding on few values, I might bid it reluctantly, preparing for the post-mortem.

Well, thats what I do, send it directly to committee, without a ruling.

I play: 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3♦ = Forcing raise with clubs. Loses the splinter, gains on other hands.

It is in Law 81 C.7 (...to refer any matter to an appropriate committee.) In Denmark this is intepreted in the way, that the TD can appeal his own ruling. As a TD it is not seldom that I encourage an appeal. Not only does this insure a more fair treatment of players, it also helps towards building a reputation as a fair and unbiased TD. (Making an effort to be fair and unbiased doesn't hurt. :) ) This has, for me, in turn, actually meant that I have fewer appeals, and that the players are generally satisfied.

Also, if the TD had determined that UI was passed (through the screen), a committee could not change that.

Dubious.

Watching it on BBO, it was clear that the final pass was preceeded by a significant huddle. All you see on bbo is how long the vugraph operator takes to input the bid, not how long the player takes to act. Needless to say, this is often not the same amount of time for a lot of reasons (such as potentially in this case, the vugraph operator contributing to the commentary). I am aware of that. Anyway, if the score was adjusted then Feldman-Zagorin didn't deny the hesitation, so it is immaterial what we saw on BBO. That is completely untrue, both in general and in this case. That's like saying if I'm in jail for murder I must not have denied it. I'm with jdonn here. What you can gather from the fact that there was an adjustment, is that the TD determined that there was a hesitation. This means that he will base his ruling on that. It doesn't mean that Feldman and partner agreed, or that it actually happened. The TD has to determine something, and the hesitation is what he found most likely. (See Law 85, linked above.)

Hi all, I was in a bit of a hurry, when I wrote my first post in this thread, and would like to elaborate. DISCLAIMER: The next part of this post assumes, that the call for the director was made in a way that is acceptable for protocol. The ruling is really clear and simple; If the facts are disputed LAW 85 comes into effect: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/Law...awsComplete.pdf Since there is a case at all, it must be assumed that the director have determined that there was a hesitation. It also seems quite sure, that there are one or more logical alternatives to a heart lead. And the hesitation demonstrably suggests that a heart lead is better. So the adjustment of the score is a trivial matter, where the law is concerned. END DISCLAIMER Whether the ruling is fair, could much more easily be an object of debate. Much better players than me are already deeply into this, so I will not go there. Nonetheless I belive we need to have rules that are pretty much like those enforced in this case; it is whether they were correctly enforced that, in my wiew, is debateable. In this thread two wiews have been raised, namely that there was a hesitation, and that there wasn't. This is obviously the key-question to answer.

And neither can there be any doubt that any hesitation before passing 3NT, suggests that a heart lead might be better. So it all depends on one thing: Was there a hesitation? (There might be something with protocol too, but thats a technicality.)

Call for director, as there must be two ♣J's in the deck. RHO obviously have: [hv=s=s2hq10dk8caj1085432]133|100|[/hv] http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=31855

It seems to me, that the more often you open 1♦, the less ahead of the field will you be, when you actually do it.

Be careful where you do that!

Non-systematic diamond. Not something I normally go for, but it looks like the type of hand, where partner will know what to retain. It's a little optimistic, but maybe it could send declarer astray.

Nice to see that I am not the only non-fundementaslist in the world.

4♥. Need one usefull card. I'll double a possible 4♠, showing that 4♥ was bid to win.

It all depends on your preempting-style. If your style is solid and pure, 4♠ is obvious. You can already diagnose, that vs their 620, you will only be -500, with the occasional -200 as a bonus. If partner has more leeway, regarding both strenght and flaws, things are much more uncertain. 4♠ might be -800, 4♥ might be down, or 3♠ might be a winner. Hope this de-mystifies our thoughts a little.

I actually play this, along with: 4♣ = Generel slam-interest with hearts.