jallerton

OK, thanks for the replies. I now need to persuade partner to click on something which says "obsolete"!

A great feature of BBO is the partnership bidding table. When setting up a new table on the new version of the software, how do I set up voice? I'm probabky missing something obvious. If I log in to the old version I can still set up voice fine. However, my partner logged on using the new version and could not access the voice I had set up. Does voice work for other people on the new version?

[hv=pc=n&s=s532hdkqj764ct982&w=sa986hkj93dt53ca5&n=sqthaq8542da9cqj3&e=skj74ht76d82ck764&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1c(2%2B)1hd(4%20spades)2d2sd3sppp]399|300[/hv] Matchpoints. I was North on the auction above. As soon as the final pass had been made, South led and faced ♦K. The TD was called and she explained the options available to West. West elected to accept the opening lead, table her hand, and make East declarer. As North, I had an inference that would not normally have been available from my partner's choice of opening lead. Partner had not led my suit at trick one. It wasn't a case of him having too many hearts (as he had failed to raise), so he was very likely to be void in hearts. If East had been the first person to bid spades, then my correct defence would be to win ♦A on the first or second round and then switch to a low heart, awaiting making ♥HAQ in due course. Am I allowed to take advantage of this inference after the lead out of turn? If I do win ♦A and switch to a low heart, should the TD adjust the score? Please give Law references when answering.

The point you seem to be missing is that in practice the few players using screens who look at the opposing convention card (and find the relevant sequence there) do not waste time by asking theor screenmate to write out the meaning of the same sequence. [At least 90% of players using screens who want to know the meaning of a sequence ask for an explanation without attempting to find the sequence on the convention card.] So the misunderstanding would not come to light. You can crticise the White Book as much as you like, but this particular "interpretation of Law" comes from the WBF Laws Committee:

1. No, the EBU is not copying the EBL. The EBL doesn't allow players to appeal these days, whatever Law 93 might say. 2. It is irrelevant whether East knew the relevant laws. It is not even directly relevant what peers of East would have done (unlike in UI cases). All the TD needs to assess is whether this particular East would have doubled 3NT had he received correct explanations/alerts of the 2NT/3♦/3NT bids. If this East doesn't think he would have doubled then there is no benefit in performing a poll.

In that case, it's hard to comment on what the correct ruling should be. If the TD asked enough people and gave the correct inferences about the N/S agreements in the poll, then that he/she has adopted the correct procedure in determining whether 3H was a LA - and the conclusion seems to have been that 3H was a LA. As TD, I would be looking to adjust for MI to 3NT-4 IF N/S did not explain that South had probably denied 3 hearts. However, if this inference was clearly explained at the table, then there would be no reason to adjust on this matter. You misunderstand. The deposit nowadays is a monetary amount (£30 I think) plus 1VP. So as soon as the AC judged the appeal to be without merit, the appealing side lost 1VP. It would have not have been an a 1VP fine in addition to losing the deposit, unless the find was for something else (e.g. failing to correct the misexplanation at the proper time). I think that the TD should normally only consider 3NTx if East suggests that me might have doubled: this call would simply not occur to many players after correct alerts and explanations. Not necessarily. If the basis of appeal was "3♥ was not a logical alternative" and the AC agrees that it isn't then the appeal has merit. Or perhaps the AC knew more than has been described on this thread about the N/S agreements. It is quite common to play accepting the transfer as showing 3-card support after 2NTopening, but this agreement makes far less sense over a 2NT overcall (which is a weaker range). I've heard from another source that this particular N/S's system file indicates that after a 2NT opener accepting the transfer shows 3-card support, but is silent as to whether this applies after an overcall. I would imagine that the TD polled and the TD/AC judged the LAs on that basis.

Well done, you made it and read LHO's hand for almost exactly what he had: 1098x KJ9 9xx KQx. At the table, LHO thought for a long time ("almost five minutes" according to dummy) before winning the queen, Declarer inferred from the break in tempo that LHO did not hold ♣K, so when she won ♦A she took the club finesse and now had four losers.

What exactly did N/S say to E/W about their agreements before the opening lead? Did E/W ask any questions or receive any information about the true N/S agreements about the meanings of 3♦and 3NT at this stage? You say that the TD polled a number of players, but do we know roughly how many? Were they all told the actual N/S agreements? When you say that one seriously considered bidding 3♥, what did this person actually choose? What calls did the other polled players seriously consider?

[hv=pc=n&s=saqhaqt762dtcat53&n=sj652h4daqj863cj4&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1hp1sp2cp2hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] West leads the ♠10, 2, 3, Q You lead a low club from hand. West wins the queen (6 from East) and switches to ♦2. How do you play on from here?

2NT would be a game forcing 2-suiter here (not so unreasonable with this hand), but in practice you'd be safe starting with a gentle 2♣. This won't get passed out (many oppo play pass as forcng here; even if they don't one of them will probably be competing in hearts (or maybe spades); then you can introduce the diamond suit on the next round.

If you decide to go with or [c], you may have a new trilemma if a heart to the queen holds.

An old fashioned defence to 1NT is to play a 2NT overcall as a game forcing unspecified 2-suiter. Perhaps (3NT)-4NT should be a slam forcing unspecified 2-suiter.

I also think that 2-7 in the reds is an easy 3♦ bid, but we should all remember that not everyone has the same bidding ideas as our own. Some people are quite strict about raising to 2M with 3-card support. So maybe dummy thought that he had already denied 3-card heart support. At the table, I would be askinga regular partnership about inferences like this. Another reason for leading a diamond from this holding is that declarer may have to choose between a simple finesse and a ruffing finesse, and it is harder for declarer if he has to make that decision at trick 1.

The reason for my earlier question is that I was trying to establish whether declarer had another way to show a strong single-suiter in hearts. Apparently he could have responded 2♥ with that, so either he didn't think the suit quality was good enough or he has a second suit (presumably spades given that he chose to bid 2♠ rather then 3♣). Dummy's preference to 3♥ could be based on 3-card support, or perhaps a doubleton honour is acceptable - I should ask that oppo question too. [if a doubleton honour, it has to be Ax or Kx given the 5♥ response to RKCB] Our hand is surprising in the context of the auction. Declarer used RKCB then went straight to 7♥ over the 5♥ response. Declarer didn't ask for help in any of the side suits, which normally means he thinks he has a running side suit, but which one? Diamonds is the most likely suit, yet we hold the king. Spades is the next most likely suit, and declarer surely holds the ♠K, but he is lacking the QJ. He can't even have a source of tricks in clubs as we have that suit stopped too. As declarer is not interested in side kings, he must have a singleton diamonds [voids are not good for RKCB]. He probably holds the ♣K. How does he plan to make 13 tricks? A maximum of 5 top tricks in the side suits and no known ruff in dummy, suggests that he is counting quite a lot of trumps in hand. But 3712 would respond 2♥, so maybe 4612. but that could only count 11 top tricks at most. 4711 would be similar unless he holds the singleton ♣K as his 12th trick. Declarer might make his contract by establishing the diamonds (with the aid of a 3-3 break) in which case our only effective lead might be to knock out dummy's late entry at trick 1. Does 4♣ imply the ace? I would think not, but again we could ask. If dummy's 2nd key card is in trumps (♦A appears to be the 1st one), then there is no late entry to knock out, but we should avoid an opening trump lead, which could present declarer with a 2nd trump entry. A low diamond lead looks safer in this context. What about 4711 with declarer. Seems more plausible is now declarer is gambling on various possible useful side suit holdings in dummy. Now declarer may only have 11 top tricks, but it looks as though we are in danger of being squeezed in the pointed suits (with ♦AQ(J) expected in dummy). If it is possible to break up the communications, the only communication we can break is the link in diamonds. So I am leading a low diamond.

In oppo's methods, what do 1♦-2♥ and 1♦-1♥-2♦-3♥ mean?