jallerton

I know that Paul has previously pointed out that the wording of Law 16B could be improved, but this doesn't actually matter in cases like this. Law 73C requires West to continue to assume that he has opened a weak 2♦ and that all the subsequent bids mean whatever he would expect them to mean after a weak 2♦ opener. If East picks up any UI from West, then Law 73C equally requires East to continue to assume that his partner has opened a 'both majors' 2♦ and that all the subsequent bids mean whatever he would expect them to mean after a 'both majors' 2♦ opener.

I disagree. ♦A is not in the same category as the subset of small diamonds. If West always leads an ace when he has one, then this card takes up one of West's vacants places, just as (as you correctly point out) ♥K inferentially takes up one of East's. There may also be inferences from the aucion (even if E/W passed throughout). However, the reasoning you or I might have applied in this situation is not necessarily relevant. What the TD has to try to judge (and it is not easy) is what line of reasoning the declarer at the table would/might have taken. Often this sort of case is easier to rule in ACBL-land: then the TD only has to decide whether it is (i) at all probable; and/or (ii) likely that declarer would have found ♣Q had the irregularity not occurred.

It would be nice if the Law allowed us to do this, but I don't think it does. Law 12C1C states that "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". It's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores. Whilst Law 12C1f does say that, it is just an observation. Law 12C1f does not tell us how to assign the score; see higher up in Law 12C1 for that.

.whereas opening 1NT implying tolerance for all four suits is even more likely to persuade partner to compete to this level in his long suit.

I agree that you'd need to play 1♥-2♠ as a weak jump shift to make this workable. If I played it, I'd use 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♠ as invitational. It's not great to get to the 3-level, but at least if partner is kind enough to rebid 2♣ instead, then I can bid 2♠ as invitational, now that 2♦ is available to use on game forces (whether used as standard 4th suit forcing or as a marionette to 2♥).

...and do you agree with the use of this principle, Gordon?

Law 16B and the footnote to Laws 70&71 refers to the "class of player" involved. Is this generally interpreted as referring solely to the standard of the player, so that the classes could be e.g. beginner, intermediate, expert; or is it interpreted as having a wider meaning, for example could there be a class of, e.g. Bulgarian beginners, aggressive intermediate players, sleepy expert players?

I suggest bidding your longest suit at the lowest level. Why on earth would you want to waste a 2♥ response on showing a hand type where the best contract will often be 2♣ or 1NT, or a 2♠ response on showing a hand type where the best contract will often be 2♣, 1NT or 2♥?

It would seem that N/S had a disagreement as to the meaning of 3♥. It seems likely that South described to West that 3♥ showed spades. If this was not their agreement and if the contract had subsequently made, then West presumably might have asked the TD to consider an adjusted score. Knowing that dummy has hearts makes a lead of the singleton heart rather less tempting. But this year: (i) they only played for nine days (with a rest day); and (ii) the event was cut down to 48 boards/day. With a team of 6, on average players would have had to negotiate 32 boards/day (though Fantoni/Nunes probably played more than 2/3 of the boards).

If, like sfi, you have discussed your leading style with partner than you have an explicit partnership understanding. If you have played with someone for a while and notice what they tend to lead in certain situations then you have an implicit partnership understanding. Laws 40A1b and Law 20F2 imply that these understandings should be disclosed to the opponents. If you know that your partner has an aggressive style of overcalls, you would disclose that fact to the opponents, would you not? If you know that your partner has an aggressive style of opening leads, why is that any different?

Theoretical answer: I'm not sure. Whilst your point about 3NT may have something going for it, you are more likely to want to stop in 3♠ if you have 5+ spades than if you have precisely 4. Practical answer: you must be joking. This sort of 'brilliant' agreement is liable to be forgotten.

If you want to see a list including pairs who played fewer boards, try this link which someone referred to during last weekend's vugraph commentary. If you want to see a ranking list of how well each pair played then hard luck, it does not exist.

I think you're right that it pays to overcall 4M on a wide range of hands. However, there must come a point where a hand with a long major has too much playing strength to overcall 4M. Whatever hands are above your cut-off point, I'd prefer to describe then on the first round with a double jump cue bid than start with a take-out double. Yes, when reserved for seriously powerful hands this meaning for (1♣)-4♣ will not come up very often, but nor do the other suggested meanings. With 6-6 in the majors, not too much can go wrong if you start with a Michaels cue bid (or whatever you play to show a 2-suiter) and then bid to an appropriate level on the next round.

It's not unknown for the opponents to be in a 4-3 fit on this auction. If I'd been commentating, my "praise" would have been along the lines of "not a bid I would have found".

Some clubs uses scoring software (Pianola) which automatically supplies players with the %score in your four scenarios. There are so many random factors in bridge that I think you'd need a fairly large sample size before the results become statistically significant. I seem to recall that someone did some analysis of lots of hands played on Vugraph. This appeared to show that Nunes (#2 rated player in the world) was a far better declarer than Fantoni (#1 rated player in the world). Or maybe it was the other way round, but the stated difference between the two seemed highly implausible to me.

Yes, this is an escape mechanism called Houdini. The downside is that it gives up the possibility of playing in 1NTx. but yes it's playable, technically slightly better than the most commonly played version in the UK (where hands with a 5-card suit start with pass and 4/4 hands just bid the lower 4-card suit immediately). A slightly variation (improvement) on Houdini is to play: P forces XX (to play in 1NTxx or ♠+ another, as you have described above) XX as a puppet to 2♣: to play in 2♣ or both red suits or 4♠+5♥ 2♦+= natural, to play

Thanks for the advice. In future I'll wait until I have 10 tricks in my own hand before I come in on this auction. The doubled undertricks are so much worse vulnerable, how silly of me to focus on the possibility of a vulnerable game, or even to fantasise that partner might choose a more favourable action such as 4♠, 4♦, 3NT, 3♠ or pass over my double. In my dreams partner might be intelligent enough to work out that (3♦)-dbl-3♥-4♣-4♦ is available as choice of games to cater for me holding 3=3=1=6 or 4=2=1=6. Following your recommendation, it could be a couple of years before I do anything other than pass over a 3♦ opening, but at least my partner won't be deceived into thinking that I hold a monster hand.

(a) and (b). Double. If partner bids 3♥, now I bid 4♣. If partner jumps to 4♥, I pass, being ready to apologise at the end of the hand if this is a silly contract.

After 1m-(1♠)-dbl-(P), I don't think that a 1NT rebid should show a spade stop. What else can you rebid with a 33(43) weak NT hand? I also prefer to open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors and a weak NT. Suppose that partner is also 4-4 in the minors and the next hand overcalls in a major. Partner might be nervous in raising what could be a 2-card suit, but he'll be happy to support when he knows we have an 8-card fit. With 18-19 balanced different considerations apply and what you do really is a matter of agreement. Opposite a non-passed hand you might want to open the better suit. Opposite a passed hand, some players take the view that 3NT is the most likely resting spot and that they would rather open 1♣ because it gives away less information about (what they hope will be) declarer's hand.

That can't be it, because they are still only playing 3 matches per day. If they changed from three 20 board matches to four 16 board matches I would understand. In fact they have found a way to increase the length of the tournamen:, by introducing a rest day, (just what you need when you have been slaving away for a full 32 boards per day).

I see that they are now playing 3 x 16 board sets per day rather than 3 x 20 board sets. Why the change? With most countries entering a team of 6, many pairs were playing 40 boards under the old arrangement, now reduced to 32.

I posted this case because I thought people might find it interesting. Do you expect me to vote in my own poll? It's fascinating that a claim in a 3-card ending can generate such passionate but differing views. Sorry, it's probably not good practice to post 'live' appeals, but normally when an AC has made it decision the case is no longer considered to be 'live'. Perhaps 'resurrected' is a better description. I should probably point out that the facts being considered by the National Authority could be slightly different than those I have described: my informant had heard the facts from the players (the N/S and E/W versions agreed) rather than from the TD/AC. Yes, the missing spade is interesting. Suppose that South had retained the 13th spade, discarding a low club instead, the 3-card ending now being: [hv=pc=n&s=s6hd7cj&w=shdqtc7&n=shdjc96&e=shd8cqt]399|300[/hv] Again, with South on lead, declarer claims "2 off" without stating a line. If South cashes the last spade, as declarer expects, then he does indeed make the last two tricks with his two queens. But suppose the defence object to the claim. South points out that if he plays a diamond through, declarer might finesse. If he does, North will win and play a club; declarer might finesse again. Does this mean that the TD should rule all three of the remaining tricks to the defence?

You ask about modifications, but compared to what? "Basic 2/1" is ill-defined and means different things to different people. For example, I often play a rebid structure which allows me to handle all 5M332 hands after opening 1M. Using this style, the continuations after 1M openings will not vary depending on my NT (particularly useful if playing variable NT openings!). Some strong NT players use a style whereby all 5M332 hands are opened 1NT if in range. If you are starting from this point, then yes you need to make a modification to find a way of bidding these hands. As other posters have said, 1M-1NT-2NT needs to show a strong hand (say good17-19) as you really don't want to play in 2NT with a 15-count opposite a 6-count. Just rebid 2 of a minor. It's traditional to bid the lowest 3-card minor with 5332 hands not strong enough for 2NT, but it's probably better to agree to rebid 2♣ even when the doubleton is in clubs. Some people have mentioned Gazilli. There's no compulsion to play this; like all conventions it has pluses and minuses. If you want to play something sound and don't mind playing something quite complicated, then the Kokish system file (see the link provided by Dan in post #2) is worthy of consideration. Eric Kokish is both a fan of the weak NT and one of the world's leading bidding theorists. If you are opening 1♦ on some 15-17 balanced hands then you should not play 1♦-2♣ as game forcing. 1♦-1NT is up to a poor 9-count. 1♦-2♣ is enough to force to game opposite a balanced 15-count; just play Acol style rebids after that. After 1M-2m and 1♠-2♥ forcing to game, all sorts of rebid structures are possible. If you prefer a natural structure, then Opener's rebids can be similar to Acol with 2NT being 15+ balanced.

Declarer's claim statement was simply "two off". You can debate what this claim statement implies, but that it is all he said at the point when he claimed.