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?

True. It is also a good system to play in a scratch partnership as the basic system does not need a lot of conventions to make it work. Perhaps, but less ideal for irregular partnerships as it is not so easy to pick up the inferences on the 1m openers unless both partners have experience of them. Weak NT is more common than strong NT and auctions commencing with a 1NT oipening tend to be simpler than those which start with 1 of a suit. Strong jump shifts don't require much discussion in practice because they very rarely come up! Those people brought up on Acol will have an idea on what might constitute standard continuations in any case.

Stefanie: I think you have misinterpreted what Frances said. She is suggesting that England is unusual compared with other countries because matches are played at home in England.

I agree that there's no guarantee that North would run on hearing of the lead directing double (hence the sensible suggestion from various posters to perform a poll). However, there is no legal basis for including any percentage of 3NTx+3. This is a (potential) misinformation case. If North passes out 3NTx then West (who has no UI) will still lead the same card and the defence will still cash the first six tricks (even if South has received an incorrect explanation it will not affect his play of the cards). If the poll suggests that North would pull to 4♣ some of the time then, apart from the percentage applied to the table result, all other possible assigned scores are based on North bidding 4♣ and what the TD judges would/might happen after that. True, but in attempting to avoid transmitting UI, players tend to give verbal explanations quietly; but the fact that the explanations are so quiet increases the chance that they will be misunderstood. Hence the reason for the regulations requiring written explanations.

Yes, no blame could be attached to the directors if they were following the regulations! However, "nonsense" is a suitable way to describe the regulation itself. The main infraction (failing to write down the explanation) was committed by East. This directly caused North's misunderstanding of the East/West system. The idea that a regulation should permit East to gain from committing an infraction of this nature goes against common sense, natural justice and the principles of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. To say that North is the player at fault for "accepting" a non-written explanation is completely missing the point. I've lost count of the number of times I have asked a question in writing and my screenmate has whispered an answer; when I hand them my pen, some take the hint, but others just repeat their answer verbally. Let's check the Law to which the regulation refers: Surely the point of this Law is make clear that a player is not entitled to redress for cases where the explanation is perfectly clear (e.g. East explains that a bid shows both black suits, but North suffers a mental block and does not realise that spades in a black suit) or for a misunderstanding which is nothing to do with an explanation. In the present case, the explanation was not clear (East said one thing but North heard something different) and the explanation was not made in the way required by the regulations. Hence East was in breach of Law 20F. Also relevant in the Law Book is: East was an offender. I would argue that North was an innocent party in respect of East's infraction as North does not control East's hand or mouth. Hence if North would/might have pulled the double on seeing an accurate written explanation, then E/W should receive an appropriate (probably weighted) adjusted score. By default, N/S would receive the opposite adjusted score. Under the 2007 Laws, it is plausible (though somewhat harsh) that the TD could have judged North's failure to insist on a written explanation to be "wild or gambling", thus deeming all of N/S's damage to have been self-inflicted and leaving them to keep their table score. Under the 2017 Laws, this no longer seems to be applicable: Failure to insist on a written explanation is not "a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification". It is directly related to the infraction, so the "extremely serious error" clause does not apply either.

Not fool-proof. A few players, Zia for example, only remove from the bidding box the bidding card relating to the bid they are making. This leaves some "insufficient" bidding cards in your shared bidding box.

With regard to your second sentence, how would you rule if the 2♦ bidder had intended her call to be "Benji" but her hand lacked wither 16+HCP or 5+ controls?

How often do you get to use the business redouble? When I play weak NT, I play something similar to your structure, but Responder's redouble does not see to crop up as often as I feel it ought to. This may be a situation where a completely different structure should be played at matchpoints compared with IMPs.

There probably isn't an expert standard, in the sense that it's not a particularly common auction, but without discussion, most would assume that double is penalties. If they overcall 4m/4♥, then Responder's pass should be placed as forcing. This gives plenty of room to sort out the hand types. If you want to get really cute, you can play 3NT (4m/♥)-Pass as a puppet to double [either a penalty double or something else] and double as suggesting, but not insisting on, a penalty. If they double 3NT (less likely than an overcall) then it's easiest in practice just to play "system on". You can attach meanings to pass and redouble if you like, but this is not the most important sequence to worry about!

Not entirely correct. This freak hand is ideal for an Acol 2♠ opening. I would open 2♠ (natural and forcing) and then jump to 6♥ on the next round, trusting partner to bid a grand holding ♥A but to disregard any high cards in the minors. I would not expect to lose any IMPs unless team-mates make an unwise double in the other room. The only way -6IMPs might be awarded would be to an opponent for a frivolous appeal. Of course, all natural 2-level openings are permitted at EBU Levels 2, 4 and 5.

Well, I stand corrected and must apologise. This is an exception to an exception, and quite a bizarre one to have. Most players on the national circuit refer to this rule as "no alerting above 3NT unless it's on the first round of the auction", then any subsequent discussion refers to what "the first round of the auction/bidding" should be interpreted.