OleBerg

My agreement, for better or worse: It is exclusion blackwood if: - It is a jump unnescesary to create a force, and - It preempts our normal ace-checking.' For instance: 1♠ - 4♣ 5♦ 4♣ showed spades and clubs. 5♦ is voidwood A few specific cases has also been defined as voidwood.

What a nasty hand. So many ways to make a wrong decision. Checkback and invite. (If I had the option of checkback and sign-off vs 2♦ I would.)

2♠. Clubs is the only possible suit-denomination, and I'll scramble back to nt at all opportuneties, but if partner can bid NT, it is even better.

An intriguing hand. Better math-chrushers than me have already answered (and I dont have my tables nearby), but I still think some things have not been taken into consideration. First of, the double, and the lack of a spade bid/preempt: At the time 3♠ was doubled, NT played in North was still a possible denomination, so I'll give the double credit for showing the ♠K and very likely the J too. I do not feel however, that this, and the missing spade-bids, gives me licence to bank on that spades are 5-5. Non-vulnerable, East migt have bid 1♠ with the KJ-fifth and the ♥K. Also a slight indication that the ♥K is with RHO. The lead: Like already noted, the lead look suspicious. I find it very likely that LHO has divined, that a heart-lead is "safe", as the bidding, at least somehow, indicates that South isn't worried about second round control in hearts. East had probably made the lead to take out an entry in dummy early in hand. From what holdings wouldn't east do that? The king is of no consequence, but with a hand with shortness in hearts, East could fear that a heart lead might rip open the suit, if declarer holds Kx of hearts. A slight indication that hearts are balanced, and even more so if RHO has the ♥K. All this, I think, would upgrade MFA's and Gnashers original line, and that the discovery line should be downgraded. But if it is enough, I honestly don't know.

Well, commentators can see all 52 cards, and many has a problem abstracting from this, especially if the situation is a little murky.

I'd bid 2♥. Puts me in a good position if next hand raises. (I'll back in with a double.)

3NT is sacred.

Easy pass. Doesn't show extra. (Should partner not be allowed to balance with a 6-count???)

No way I am making a non-forcing bid. 3nt is so close. If nothing else is available, I bid a perverted 2♦ in tempo.

Rereading my own post (I'm so full of myself) "See no evil, hear no evil, bid 3nt (I)", I wondered if it were possible to create a hand, where 3nt was a reasonable bid. Here is my try: [hv=d=n&v=n&s=saq10h109d109cqj10987]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (2♦) - Pass - (2♠) - pass Pass - 3NT??? 2♦ = 6(7) Hearts or Spades, 0-4 hcp, must be a decent suit when vulnerable. 2♠ = Invitational if partner has hearts. This is the best I can come up with. RHO must have the KJ of spades in the slot, and all partners red values are stacked behind LHO. And the clubs can "easily" be set up. If you want to make a better example, the following should apply: 2♦ must be some kind of multi. 2♠ must be invitational. The hand cannot contain a hand that would make a tough overcall or double on the first round. (So no 12 counts, and no ♣KQJxxx and ♠AJ9.)

2♦ was waiting and 2♠ was forced. So after 3♣, 3♦ is responders first chance to introduce a diamond suit. It should be natural.

4♥. Seven of my points are sure to be hardworking, and the ♠J might be very usefull, if we have to ruff to clubs in partners hand. I do not move again. 4♦. LTTC. I don't move again. Very tough. I pass. This hand highlights the need to have another bid than 4♥ available, when you have a balanced 18-19 count. Slem might be laydown and 5 might be off, and we have absolutely no way of finding out. 4♥. No. This sequence simply shows preference betweem clubs and hearts. I would have bid 4♥ the first time, or 4♦ if I felt I was to good for 4♥.

Hi ken, you are only missing what han't been noted. When playing with screens NS is responsible for pushing the screen through. Thus they can (quite legally in Denmark, but I believe also in the rest of Europe and maybe US) create a hesitation. And so can EW, by signalling to her/his screenmate, that a bid has been decided on (by showing the bid), but not place it on the tray. It is a good ideé to do this on a random basis. This way, once the tray remains behind the screen for a little longer, you will not know if partner hesitated, or if it was an arificial break of tempo. Of course, and that might be what happened here, sometimes somebody tanks for a long time. It is not unreasonable to say that this creates UI. I don't know what practice is in such cases, but it looks like somthing that is hard to legislate about, and can easily create trouble.

now this hands screams Clubs, clubs clubs, so partner, who has a perfect picture from our hand will never pass 3 NT. So you pull 3nt, only to find partner with: ♠ AJ10 ♥ QJ10 ♦ J32 ♣ AJ109 3nt is the last safe spot. 4nt is on a finesse, and 5♣ will need the ♦K singleton or doubleton onside.

Well, I simply cannot let things rest. :rolleyes: Which is why I wrote: "I agree that 2♣ should not deny 13-15 and a balanced hand." but if I have to call this hand 16 hcp to be allowed to bid 2♣, then fine by me.

Just two last examples, and I'll leave this alone: ♠ Qxx ♥ x ♦ AQx ♣ KQxxxx 6♣ is laydown, 3nt is dead. ♠ x ♥ Qxx ♦ AQX ♣ KQxxxx 3nt is laydown, 6♣ is dead.

3334 with all suits stopped. Spades twice stopped, just little help needed to have a double stop in the red suits. (Jxx, Jxx in the reds makes it a good bet that all suits are double stopped, Q9, Q9 makes it 100 %). I wished all my NT bids will have a hand so clear NT orientated then this one. It is not even the case that we wrongsiding the contract in too many cases. The red tens are great cards for NT. Of course the hand is well-suited to play 3nt, which will often make. The point I was trying to make, was that it was also well suited for play in Clubs. 12 tricks might eassily be on facing an unbalanced minimum, on which partner will always pass. The real embarrasing ones, are the ones where 3nt is down and 6♣ is making: ♠ xx ♥ x ♦ AQxx ♣ KQxxxx <snip> At least playing teams, partner should remove 3NT with this hand. And he will be down in 4nt or 5♣ facing a lot of hands with fewer controls. With my example hand, 5♣ is doomed, and 4nt is much tougher than 3.

3334 with all suits stopped. Spades twice stopped, just little help needed to have a double stop in the red suits. (Jxx, Jxx in the reds makes it a good bet that all suits are double stopped, Q9, Q9 makes it 100 %). I wished all my NT bids will have a hand so clear NT orientated then this one. It is not even the case that we wrongsiding the contract in too many cases. The red tens are great cards for NT. Of course the hand is well-suited to play 3nt, which will often make. The point I was trying to make, was that it was also well suited for play in Clubs. 12 tricks might eassily be on facing an unbalanced minimum, on which partner will always pass. The real embarrasing ones, are the ones where 3nt is down and 6♣ is making: ♠ xx ♥ x ♦ AQxx ♣ KQxxxx An initial 3nt bid should be something like: ♠ KJx ♥ AJx ♦ KJx ♣ xxxx 3nt, played by us, is in no way un-attainable if we start with 2♣. (I agree that 2nt forcing is a better bid, but we were specifically asked to choose betweem 2♣ and 3nt.) Of course a few things could sway me to bid 3nt. The most obvious one would be playing MP's in a field of unhomogeneous strenght. (I feel I am rightsiding the contract by bidding 3nt.) But if I want to play good bridge, with a competent partner, against equal opposition, I find 2♣ obvious and 3nt a little silly.

Voted 2♣ assuming that since it was mentioned, we have a methods to unearth our degree of club-fit (and slampotential) beneath 3nt. I agree that 2♣ should not deny 13-15 and a balanced hand. 3nt should be reserve for hands leaning much more heavily towards play in NT.

See the threads. See no evil, hear no evil, bid 3nt (I-IV) (3nt is the final contract on the first three hands, and should have been it on the fourth.)

(I)[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sq98432h765dq4cq10&w=s5haq1094dj1082c753&e=saj76hj8dkck98642&s=sk10hk32da97653caj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The contract was duly doubled. The ♦6 (fourth best) was lead to the ♦D. Curtains. On hindsight I find the 3nt bid foolish. I believe that my considerations about well-placed cards has some merit, but the hand is no way near extreme enough. The ♦K is a liabilety rather than an asset, and the club-suit is way to bad. But note that the defence cannot keep declarer from eight tricks, and will have to be on their toes, to keep him from nine. (IV) [hv=d=n&v=b&n=sq98432h765dq4cq10&w=s5haq1094dj1082c753&e=saj76hj8dkck98642&s=sk10hk32da97653caj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The ♣J was lead. Curtains. This is the only hand, where I really feel 3nt is the correct bid. Partners take-out double makes it very likely that diamonds will run, and you only need to find partner with a soft ace. Even here, finding partner with a not perfect minimum,,after an understandable wrong blind lead, it sailed home. (II) [hv=d=n&v=b&n=sq98432h765dq4cq10&w=s5haq1094dj1082c753&e=saj76hj8dkck98642&s=sk10hk32da97653caj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The♥Q was lead to the king. West captured the second Club, and cashed a high diamond before exiting with a spade. Curtains. Here I bid 3nt, so that i could go down in 3nt, instead of watching partner go down in 3♣. Well both should have been down, as the defense had a major lapse. I have little sympathy for 3♦; it will often get us to a worse partial, and it will often wrong-side 3nt. East on lead, will be left to his own devices, while west will have a good indication of which major-suit should be attacked. You will not have a hard time convincing me, that pass is the right bid. (III) [hv=d=n&v=b&n=sq98432h765dq4cq10&w=s5haq1094dj1082c753&e=saj76hj8dkck98642&s=sk10hk32da97653caj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I didn't bid 3nt on this one, the only one where it is a double-dummy winner. :-) I don't really know what all this goes to show (apart from me being a little crazy), but though luck played it's part, they are all cases in favour of the saying: "See no evil, hear no evil, BID 3NT"

Hi CS, I'm not 100% certain, but I strongly belive that there will be a chairman in this committee. She/he will guide you, and more importently, take responsebilety for protocol. There will also be a tournament director, who can give advice on the rules. So focus on the "bridge-aspect" of the game. For instance, if a play or bid is being questioned, consider what the normal play/bid would be, taking all factors into carefull consideration. At least this is how things work in Europe, but I suspect it would be the same in the US. I dont know if you're from USA, just mentioning this in case you are.

If you're a sour pus, you help is welcome too.

Would have preferred 3♦, but that requires partnership agreement/understanding, so 2♦ is ok. I pass now, partner has to have to many perfect values. But of course slam can be laydown.

Excactly. (You forgot to mention that we leave the master thrumph out, and just run diamonds, if the third round of diamonds is covered with the King.)