TMorris

Can you explain why. I see people saying this all the time but no-one either explains or (just as good/better) points to a source that I can read which clarifies this comment. Something explaining why it worse than using a strong NT etc... would also be great if you can comment or have a link. I understand with a weak NT & 4-card majors that the auction 1M-1NT (I play 2/1 is 10+here) causes problems but presume that there are other issues. Thanks

Just to be clear I am sure that dummy didn't have a clue. For example she was genuinely quite insulted when I even suggested that there might have been a psyche (I was trying to think of possible reasons for her bidding) saying something to the effect that she was an honest upright citizen who wouldn't even consider pysching. At the time with little opportunity to consider the hands I thought 4 spades would make so 3NT should be good for us. Well 4 spades makes double dummy but apparently rather less often in practice hence our 12% score on this board. I am surprised that a substitute was allowed in such an event albeit that is not directly relevant to the case under discussion (I'd have thought a substitute pair would be allowed but not one player which is what I think Gordon said). It does rather sound like it had the effect of randomising the scores, when one played this pair, rather more than I would have thought appropriate in a final.

No just incompetence.

Aguahombre, They were playing a simple 4-card major system, I am pretty sure, so both 1C and 1D were natural.

Gordon, Thanks for your comments which are appreciated. It has been niggling at the back of my mind and I wanted to get things clear for future reference. Trevor

Playing in a national final our opponents bid, with us passing throughout 1♣ 1♦ 2 NT 3♥ 3 NT Nothing was alerted. My partner with AKxx hearts and xx spades led a spade. Dummy was a little unexpected it was A10976 Q8 J976 96 There is no entry to dummy and the only way that the spades can be picked up is if my partner leads them. as I have Qxx and declarer has KJx. 3NT making was not a success for our side as the spade lead is the only lead to let it make. Dummy said that the 3 ♥ bid was intended as a transfer to spades, declarer said he had no such agreement. I believed declarer The director ruled (not in so many words) that dummy didn't have a clue - how could I argue - and the result stood. Time has passed and I have a question. As dummy thought that her 3 ♥ bid was a transfer and declarer, not surprisingly did not alert it, should she have said before my partner led that declarer should have alerted the 3 ♥ bid?

Well sometimes my partner (and even shock horror on occasion myself) are not playing well and make bids that are not the best. Nonetheless we all have to deal with them & being able to do so is a necessary skill. I clearly stated in the original thread that partner was not playing that well so this could be allowed for. Maybe you have partners that don't make mistakes.

Thanks all Out of interest partner had ♠ xxxx ♥ x ♦ Ax ♣ AQJxxx I wouldn't bid 4 ♣ with this but I am conservative & partner is aggressive. ♣ K was offside of course so in clubs you can only make 4 and the 4 ♥ bidder had KQ10xx of ♠ so his partner had to guess the Jack ♠ for one off (which he did not so they were 2 off). I doubled in the hope that if 5 ♣ or 5 ♦ made we would get enough compensation, luckily for me diamonds were 7222 around the table so 4 ♥ is always one off

Gwynn, Thanks for your two posts much appreciated <_< I did ask for the duplicate post to be removed but I guess my request is in a queue.

At teams with none vulnerable the auction to you is 3♥ 4♣ 4♥ You have ♠ AJ ♥ xx ♦ KQxxxxx ♣ xx The opponents do not play weak 2s so the 3♥ bid is more likely than usual to be a 6 card suit. Your usually reliable partner, generally quite aggressive against pre-empts, is not having a good 2nd half of the match. So what do you think?

At teams with none vulnerable the auction to you is 3♥ 4♣ 4♥ You have ♠ AJ ♥ xx ♦ KQxxxxx ♣ xx The opponents do not play weak 2s so the 3♥ bid is more likely than usual to be a 6 card suit. Your usually reliable partner, generally quite aggressive against pre-empts, is not having a good 2nd half of the match. So what do you think?

I know of a situation in a local league match where the opponents conceded the rest (declarer was notionally down one). They were asked to show their cards and eventually did so (one of them begrudgingly). It turn out that one of the defenders had "revoked" by ruffing one of declarers winners whilst having one (possibly two I can't quite remember) small cards in the suit led in his hand at the end so was happy to concede the rest for one off. One player at my local club often in my view takes advantage of her partners hesitations and makes overcalls on complete rubbish. The only way I was told that I could deal with this is to ask to see her hand to see if she had her bid (at the end of play) and if she refused to show me then call the director who would ensure that it was shown. Given the above I now always ask to see the remaining cards in any case where I am at all unsure.

Password protecting the Orange book is not going to stop anyone currently (Ie before Pay2play came in) playing in England seeing it if they want to as they will know someone who is an EBU member who will let them have a copy. All it will do is a) stop non-UK people from seeing it and make them less likely to want to play in English tournaments and :rolleyes: reduce the chances of some of the new people thinking of joining the EBU from doing so as they are less likely to want to join an organisation without knowing the rules by which it's events are governed. I see no upside and some, albeit limited, downside to this.

My understanding was that you could still become (not sure but assume also "remain") a direct member of the EBU if your club was not affiliated. I guess the EBU would not have this as a preferred option but still.

ok thanks. I just remember seeing somewhere that you could say this. I thought it was in the Laws forum but could well have been mistaken.

Out of interest, can you not announce this as "weak to intermediate"?

ok, thanks Gordon.

I am sure this is easy but I can't find anything on the search facility to clarify this situation An opponent is in the pass out position after an auction (details irrelevant). He hesitates for some time then takes out a pass card from the bidding box and nearly but not quite puts it on the table (everyone can see he has taken out a pass card) then starts to put the pass card back in the box with the intention of then making a bid. I can see that this gives UI to his partner but at what point is the pass card played? Thanks,

Thanks for the comments. Trumps were indeed 3-0 but as partner had Kxxxx that wouldn't have been too bad in itself. They can probably make 6H as overcallers partner has void A10xx Axxxxxx Jxx and the overcaller has Axx Qxxxx x AQ10x had we got to 4S it goes for 1100 on best defence although they are rather more likely to bid on in hearts. I was told afterwards by an expert that 2S (which is what I bid) "was not bridge" and that 3S was the minimum reasonable bid with 4S being not at all unreasonable. I didn't think 2S was quite as bad as that hence the query.

Auction has gone 1♠ (2♥) You have QJ10xx KJx xx xxx You are vulnerable v non-vulnerable at IMPS

As gnasher says from 2 small you play the highest. This denies the queen, if partner thinks you have a doubleton he can cash the king and see what happens as you will then give count. So from 53 play the 5 from 853 also play the 5 then the 8 from Q53 play the 3 at least that's what I do. the killer holding is J10x I find.

Having failed miserably to find a way to comment on the EBU blog - my fault my computer is no doubt sulking. I have never played against this system. I would certainly be very disappointed if we went down the ACBL route of wrapping people in cotton wool. I can see an arguement of not allowing it for very short matches (say 3 board rounds or less) but personally I would be happy enough to play against it if there was a suggested defence available that I could consult during the auction whatever the length of the match. I am very strongly against killing off innovation. The main problem bridge has is attracting enough younger people into the game. If new systems are not allowed they are the people who will be put off and the game will die.

campboy What you say is not the case in clubs. The stop card is regularly ignored there. The "better" educated might hold their hand over the pass card in the bidding box with a smile until the stop card is put away but then most people just take out the stop card, bid and put the stop card back with no delay - you tend to get quizzical looks if you then wait 10 seconds. Tournements are of course rather better than this. TMorris

Maybe - like a lot of people - they think that something that is purported to have happened over 40 years ago is not actually that relevant nowadays - apart from helping to sell books of course.

Pass, poor suit with points outside & balanced makes a defensive hand.