jallerton

**Or strictly speaking, the strongest team where all the players have a vague connection with the same country.

What did you type into your search engine? Maybe typing "EBU Blue Book" gets "showing results for EBU Orange Book"! I interpret OB 5G3h as referring to sequences like (uncontested) 1♦-1♠-2♥ and 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♠, in which many players might bid a 3-card suit even if undiscussed. On the other hand, after a forcing 1NT response, there is a partnership agreement that Opener has to rebid a 3-card minor on a 5332 shape. The opponents might not be aware of this quirk of the system, so it is a "potentially unexpected meaning" and should be alerted in EBU-land.

In Sweden, a change of suit is assumed to be natural and forcing (whether in competition or not) if not alerted, so alert non-forcing bids in a new suit. In Sweden, like Germany, doubles should not be alerted whatever they mean.

Thanks for the replies. The TD adjusted the score to 3♦x -2 by East, N/S +300. His reasoning was that he had consulted three strong players, all of whom stated that they would have expected Opener, if he held 5 hearts, to remove the double of 1NT to 2♥ on the prevous round. Do this ruling and reasoning make sense?

I agree with Zelandakh. If a partnership has discussed its discards, it will have agreed on a primary method. The opponents are entitled to know what this primary method is. If a partnership has played a few sessions together, each partner will have a pretty good idea when the other partner considers that the primary method does not apply. Again, the opponents are entitled to know this. The opening post is a bit unclear, but I assume that it means to refer to a discard at trick 1 or 2. If so, in a national event, I'd expect the discarder's partner to know whether the discard in this situation was suit preference or count, and declarer is entitled to a straight answer to her question.

I'm not familiar with Dutch alerting regulations, but in many places the following meanings for 3♦ would be alertable: (i) natural, showing long diamonds but with a fit for spades; (ii) natural, showing long diamonds but implying a side suit of hearts; (iii) natural, but implying a solid diamond suit; or even (iv) natural, but non-forcing [if forcing is considered normal] as well as: (v) various artificial meanings. It seems to me that East wants to double now because he has worked out that N/S have had a misunderstanding, but that he would have passed in the original auction whether 3♦ had been alerted or not.

Not necessarily. Law 21B1 says: In this case, there are all sorts of potential meanings of an alerted 3♦. The fact that East failed to ask the meaning of an alerted 3♦ suggests to me that he would have passed whatever its meaning.

If you apply that logic, you'll be ruling misbid, not misinformation, most of the time. Try this instead: We cannot conclude from this information alone whether the TD should rule misbid or misexplanation. However, the TD should take note of the Dutch regulations as well as Law 75 itself.

I think you have these the wrong way round. In 1st/2nd seats, I prefer 1♥. You'll miss quite a few games if you open 2♥, unless you have agreed to play 'constructive weak twos'. In 3rd seat, pre-empts should be a wider range. Game is unlikely opposit a passed hand so opening 2♥ makes sense. In 4th seat, the range for a weak 2 is stronger anyway (say 9-12, just pass with a weaker hand) so this hand fits the bill.

One of the problems with sequences like this is that not many partnerships have discussed whether bids like 4♦ should be forcing. It's not just whether you think the bid is forcing; what will partner think (that you think)? This has a knock-on effect on the meanings of the other bids.

Were you playing 4- or 5-card majors? If the latter, I'd be tempted to bid 2♦ on the first round on your hand. I'd expect to make a heart partial and score more than 2 or 3 of a minor. If partner bids on he should not be too disappointed with the dummy.

There are a lot of awkward decision when partner doubles 4♥ but this looks like one of the easier ones. Yes, we are likely to have only an 8-card fit, but it could easily be a double fit. The 5-card club suit might enable us to make 4♠ on some hands where patner has only 3 spades.

Not exactly. He was suggesting that partner is less likely to lead a potentially terminal diamond without a double than with one. He may have a point. Make a miniscule change to the opening leader's hand (♦J942 (or ♦Q742) instead of ♦J742) and now a diamond lead lets the contract through (if declarer reads the position) whereas declarer cannot get rid of his losing heart after a passive spade lead.

Partner's hand was ♠KJxxx ♥A10xxxx ♦10x ♣void. He explained to me that he decided not to double 7♣ because he was worried that this might persuade the opening leader to try to give him a ruff, in which case she rated to lead a diamond most of the time. He didn't consider Justin's point about the inference from failing to double 6♣, although it's not clear how strong this inference is: after all, if he does have a red suit void 6♠x does rate to be very cheap with the fate of 6♣ unclear.

IMPS. All four players are very experienced. East is a "bridge professional". The auction starts: [hv=pc=n&s=saqhkj876daqc9632&w=sj96hat3dkj87caqt&n=s85432hq92dt5ck87&e=skt7h54d96432cj54&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1n(%5B14%5D15-17)ppd(Penalties)pp2d2h]399|300|No alerts at this stage[/hv] At his turn to call, West thinks for a few seconds and then informs North/South that he should have alerted 2♦. He explains that 2♦ is a transfer to hearts. The TD is called by North/South. South says that, following the change of explanation, she wishes to change her call. East waves his arms vigorously and asks to talk to the TD in private. The TD refuses this request and asks East to keep quiet. The TD allows South to change her call. She withdraws her 2♥ bid and changes this to a pass. The TD instructs the players to continue with the auction. West now passes as well! North protects with a "take-out" double, which South removes to 2♥ and all pass. So the final auction was:[hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1nppdpp2dppdp2hppp]133|100[/hv] South makes 10 tricks in 2♥, N/S +170. N/S call back the TD, expressing surprise about West's pass over 2♦ and claiming that both East and West are in possession of UI. How do you rule?

Perhaps we could ask the people who write the forum software to allow "Nigel style" voting so that each voter awards marks to each alternative. Then the alternative with the best average marks is deemed to be the consensus call.

It's not just "pro-client" partnerships. I can think of plenty of "husband-wife" partnerships in which the husband rarely becomes dummy.

Responder might have long clubs without support for diamonds or Responder might have a hand wishing to cue in support of clubs. The latter hand can start with 4♦ and then cue bid 5♣ on the next round if appropriate. The former hand would be unbiddable if 4♣ did not show clubs, so 4♣ should be natural in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.

A few decades ago it was common to play Opener's doubles as penalties, but nowadays most experts agree that a take-out double is far more useful and common.

You seem to be forgetting that the whole purpose of alerting is for the opponents' benefit! As the player in 4th seat, I want to know whether 4♥ is natural or not without having to give away information about my own hand by asking. If bids like 1♠-Pass-4♥ are not alertable, then the only way I can protect my interests is by asking on every hand. If I do that, the UI for the opening side will be more apparent, not less.

Only a small minority of bridge clubs in England are run as commercial enterprises. Most are "not for profit" members' clubs which do not have their own premises, meeting once or twice a week at village halls, community centres and the like. These clubs will not have their own internet connection. Whilst it is possible for a generous club member who has the facility to print and bind a document on suitable paper, it would be far more efficient (in money and time) for the EBU to do a bulk print run and send a copy to each club. The cost of doing so would be peanuts compared with the amount each club collects and pays over to the EBU in "pay to play" fees each year. Sometimes the EBU hierarchy would do well to remember that the EBU's purpose of existence is to promote bridge in England and that it should be providing a service to its members and affiliated clubs.

Sometimes when I post bidding problems there was UI at the table; sometimes there was not. However, if I post a bidding problem in this forum it is not a "UI question", it is an "AI question". In UI cases, one thing the TD needs to assess is the logical alternatives based solely on the authorised information. Whilst I agree that sometimes comments will taint a poll, it is also interesting to see what comments people have to make and what questions they have to ask. In UI cases, we'd also be interested if people thought that alternative actions were plausible, as these actions might be classified as having been "seriously considered".

On the first round, 2♣ would have been Stayman and 2♦ would have been a transfer to hearts. It was possible to remove to diamonds but only at the 3-level. Most people these days play that a 1NT opening could be 5M332; 5M422 is conceivable but less likely.

..but ducking would be less successful if declarer's hand is something like Kx Jxx AKQJxx Ax. What do you mean by "reverse smith"? Originally Smith Peters involved the opening leader petering to request a switch whilst a peter by the opening leader's partner requested a continuation ("do something unusual please partner"). More commonly these days (at least where I play) the peter from both sides shows extra interest in the originally led suit. So I'm not sure what you consider to be "standard" and "reverse smith".

OK, but is there an agreement as to whether 3♣ is forcing, invitational or a sign-off?