jallerton

Yes, the wording of this whole Law needs a rethink. As a player, I'll often hear some remark or other from another table. Typically I would regard the remark as insignificant (even something like "I should have led a heart" would not have an effect on what could happen at my table when we don't know who was on lead to which trick against which contract on which board. My policy when in receipt of such insignificant information is to forget about it. However, my policy seems to be inconsistent with Law 16C1 which states. Apparently, next time I over-hear a remark or even an announcement such as "12-14" from a another table, what I should be doing is asking the players at the table concerned which board they are talking about. This seems totally counter-intuitive to me, but I need to know whether I have played the board in question so that I can know whether the TD should be notified.

Does this mean that the TD is required to ascertain to begin with whether the information did relate to a board already played or not? Interestingly, the timing of the receipt of the UI is relevant. If received after the first call in the auction was made, Law 16C3 points the TD to 16C2© which advises the TD to: Note that 16C2c talks about "unauthorised information" not "the unauthorised information". Is the information received from the other table (assuming that it was about another board) authorised or not?

The remark did not come from the teammates of any of the players at table 1. It came from a player in a third team, which had played the same boards but in a different match.

Round robin teams event. Table 1 has played 7 out of 8 boards and has just started the auction on the final board. At table 4 (from another match, playing the same boards), the set has been completed and the team is scoring up. "I'm glad I bid on over 4♠", says one of the players, with sufficient volume that it is heard by players at table 1. Table 1 calls the TD and explains the overheard comment. The TD advises them to continue to play the final board for the time being. The auction on this final board was:[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp4h4s5h5sdppp]133|100[/hv] It was the winning action to bid on over 4♠ on this final board as both 5♥ and 4♠ are likely to make 10 tricks. Should the TD be inclined to adjust the score? If so, to what? Does it depend on how obvious the 5♥ bid was? Now for the twist in the tale. When the TD talks to the players at table 4, they claim to have been discussing a different board in the same set, i.e. a board which had already been played at table 1. Should the TD be inclined to adjust the score now?

[hv=pc=n&w=sqt6ha73d853cqj97&n=sak9872ht86d96c32&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p2s(5-9)p2n(Asking)p3n(Max%2C%20decent%20suit)ppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs. ♣Q, 2, 5 [low = enc], 6 ♣7, 3, K, 4 ♣8, A, 9, ♠2 ♥K ? Do you duck or win? Why?

I agree with your first three sentences, but on balance I prefer 1NT. If there's no ♥ ruff available that will usually be because partner is singleton or void in the suit herself. In that case, she'll be disappointed with your dummy if she bids game or makes a game try over 2♥. The hand seems a bit strong to raise to 2♠ but I think you'll be more comfortable suggesting 3NT on the next round: at least you'll have extra values when partner makes a game try. If you bid 2♥ and partner makes a game try with (say) 3♣, wouldn't you have to bid 3♠ to show that you are minimum? I accept that spades will sometimes play better than NT, but the opposite is equally possible and the advantage of 1NT is that it gives a better indication of your overall strength.

Are these pairs playing ferts at all vulnerabilities? What's their full opening call structure?

[hv=pc=n&s=skq976hq976da3cq5&n=sa8haj85dk642cj62&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sdr2cpp3cp3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] West leads ♣A, 2,3,5 West switches to ♦Q on which East plays the 7. E/W play standard signals (high encouraging). What's the best line?

Yes, I did wonder if your methods might have been use at the table, but that does make a significant difference to the bids I might choose. What would double of 2♥ mean in your methods? The biggest weakness of short club systems is in competition, because Opener often cannot clarify his hand type. Whilst I would open 1♣ playing standard methods, if my methods included opening 1♣ on a 3=3=5=2 12-count, then I would be a lot more tempted to open 1NT.

I don't understand partner's double or what it was trying to achieve. Support with support. Partner should have bid 3♣ on the 2nd round. Then you bid 3♦, he bids 3♥, you bid 3NT. No clever 3♠ bids required from either player!

Without systemic discussion, most would assume that 2♥ is 4th suit forcing. Natural, NF is aiming for a seriously low target, whilst rendering a whole range of hands unbiddable.

PRC must stand for Principle of Restricted Choice. 'Guess' was presumably in inverted commas because the odds favour the winning play over the losing one.

OK, but your original post said: which is somewhat different. Opener needs to know if he is expected to bid his Jxxx suit or his AQx suit.

Jinksy: how does Responder bid with an FG hand with a 5- or 6-card minor and a 4-card major in this structure?

"forcing to 3NT". If the auction gets to 4 of a minor it has gone past the level of 3NT.

1. & 2. Natural. 3. It depends on the partnership's agreements about other calls. Is there a hole which can usefully be filled at this high level? In a couple of partnerships where 2NT means something other than a game forcing 2-suiter, I have suggested playing this as 6-6 in the majors. Why? If you start with Landy or Asptro, there is a danger than partner will pass, (mis)guessing that 2m is the best contract. Some people can't double 1NT for penalties, so for them 3NT = natural seems the obvious meaning.

If the advice changes from alertable to not alertable then it really ought to be included on a list of examples of not alertable calls. In my opinion, it's unreasonable to expect TDs, let alone players, to carry out the comparison you suggest. Even some avid EBU-baseed readers of this forum do not reaslise when a new version of the Blue Book has come in to force. For example: The first edition of the Blue Book came into force on 1st August 2013. A revised edition came into force on 1st August 2014.

I agree. Not alertable. This should be the same as 1NT-Pass-2♦ weak take-out. How about this natural sequence: 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦? Some play this as 5+♠, 4+♦. Some play this as 5+♦, usually only 4 spades. Is either of these sequences alertable? I'd argue that both are potentially expected (as an opponent I know to ask at the end of the auction) so no need to alert.

This is a matter of partnership agreement. Without previous discussion, I think that both partners need to be aware of the possibility of potentially ambiguous sequences. It might have been more practical for you to bid 4♣ rather than 3♠, but your partner's bidding was particularly dangerous: he should realise that there is a possibility that 4♣ might seem NF to you, so it's silly to risk it when his hand is close to a slam force.

That depends on whether North judges South to have the gnasher bidding style or the rhm bidding style.

Yes, the L&EC is (at least certain members of it are) a clear fan of the Milton Work Count. K&R rates this hand at 19.1! Wait until you hold something like KQJ KQJ QJ J5432 (K&R of 12.2) before you open a strong club!

Yes, South did well, but I suspect he might have been more tempted to lead his singleton with ♠Qxxx rather than ♠Q108x. That's why my hand contruction gave him a doubleton club.

I think your point is more valid when the opening leader has a 7-card suit. If the opening leader has a 6-card suit: (i) It could be right to attempt to hold the lead. Suppose that dummy has ♦Kxx and declarer a singleton. A forcing defence may be best. (ii) Dummy could have Qx opposite declarer's A9. Leading low is a bad idea double dummy, although in practice declarer is likely to play the Q at trick 1 anyway, I admit. (iii) On some hands, denying the Q at trick 1 is useful information to partner.

I would duck at trick 1. This could look silly if partner has seven diamonds, but with that type of hand there's a fair chance that partner would have bid 4♦ after my double or (if that is his style) made a 3♦ weak jump overcall. My reasons for ducking are: 1. I don't know what to play back at trick 2. I'll have more information from declarer's line of play and/or partner's signals when (I'm hoping when rather than if!) I get in with ♦A later on. 2. It could be technically necessary to deny dummy an entry later in the play. Suppose declarer has ♣A10x or A9x and partner has a trump trick (♠Kxx or Qxxx). He would like to draw trumps, then take the club finesse. If we force him to use his entry to dummy a trick 1, he may choose to take two ♣ finesses immediately but then partner can ruff the 3rd round of the suit and ♦A is my entry to give him that ruff.

Yes, but all Helene's example proves is that "encrypted signals" are very difficult to define. I could equally argue that a count signal showing the mumber of red cards in my hand is clearly not encrypted and that therefore just rewording it to (say) "if she has an odd number of diamonds we give standard count in hearts, otherwise we give reverse count in hearts" does not make it encrypted. Signalling the number of red cards is non-standard, but being non-standard should not by itself be a reason to ban the method.