jallerton

Codo: No, pass is definitely not forcing. Forcing passes only apply when the partnership has shown the high card strength for game.

If West is able to see that a spade lead has a 75% chance of success and a heart lead has a 25% chance of success, then yes he would always choose a spade lead. However, my scenario 3 is based on a player not being sure what card he would have led given the correct explanation, but with his instinct suggesting that it is probable, but not certain, that he would have led a spade. If you prefer, imagine that the probabilities for scenario 3 are determined as follows. The TD finds 20 peers of West who agree that the opening lead on the explanation originally supplied was a toss-up between a spade and a heart. He asks these 20 players what they would lead on the correct explanation. 15 say that they would lead a spade and the other 5 say they would lead a heart. Using this logic, are you advocating that the Scenario 3 adjustment should be to 50% of 3NT= + 50% of 3NT-1?. That way the expectation of a successful lead becomes 50% plus (50% of 50%), a total of 75%

West is on lead against 3NT. If West finds a spade lead this will trivially beat the contract by 1 trick. If West finds any other lead the contract is bound to make exactly 9 tricks. West asks about the N/S auction before leading. Based on the explanations received, he judges that there are two plausible opening leads: a spade and a heart. He cannot decide which to choose, so mentally tosses a coin. He fishes out a heart lead and declarer claims 9 tricks. The TD agrees that on the given explanation, it was 50/50 whether West chose a spade or heart lead. However, it transpires that there was misinformation. Scenario 1. If West had been correctly informed, the reasoning behind West's choice of lead would have been somewhat different. West contends (and the TD agrees) that it was still 50/50 between West leading a spade and a heart. Ignoring "sympathetic weighting" for the moment, is it correct to: (a) leave the table result to stand, on the basis that West was no more likely to find the winning lead given the correct explanation; or (b) adjust the score to 50% of 3NT= + 50% of 3NT-1 on the basis that this "would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred"?; or (c) something else (please specify)? Scenario 2. If West had been correctly informed, West contends (and the TD agrees) that it was 50/50 between West leading a spade and a diamond. Ignoring "sympathetic weighting" for the moment, is it correct to: (a) leave the table result to stand, on the basis that West was no more likely to find the winning lead given the correct explanation; or (b) adjust the score to 50% of 3NT= + 50% of 3NT-1 on the basis that this "would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred"? c) something else (please specify)? Scenario 3. If West had been correctly informed, West contends (and the TD agrees) that he would have been 75% likely to have led a spade and 25% likely to have led a heart. Ignoring "sympathetic weighting" for the moment, is it correct to: (a) adjust the score to 25% of 3NT-1 and 75% of 3NT=, on the basis that West was 25% more likely to find the winning lead given the correct explanation compared with the explanation actually received; or (b) adjust the score to 75% of 3NT-1 + 25% of 3NT= on the basis that this "would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred"? (c) something else (please specify)? What is the correct reasoning in each of Scenarios 1, 2 and 3?

From what you describe, it sounds as though declarer claimed with 5 or 6 cards to go, the "steady stream" of cards thereafter being his explanation of the order in which we planned to play his cards. In that case, it's not a concession by the defence, merely agreement to declarer's claim.

It depends on my methods. Can I find out about partner's shape after Jacoby? Can I show a very strong splinter myself?

[hv=pc=n&s=sk63hakj742dqj6ca&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1sdr4cp]133|200[/hv] Teams, vulnerable against not. I have two questions. 1. What type of hand are you expecting from partner? Write down an example hand. 2. What call do you select now?

That was a great duck at trick 2 by RHO.

You are right in theory, but I agree with CamHenry: in this case, don't these questions come to the same thing? If pass is a logical alternative, then the implication is that raising is not automatic. If pass is not a logical alternative, then the implication is that raising is automatic.

I was given this as a bidding problem over dinner and I had to ask for the hand again, assuming that I must have misheard the hand, when I was told that double had been selected at the table! Yes, double might work well if our side has the balance of the points, but that is a rather less likely scenario than might be concluded from considering the possible distribution of the high cards alone. Often partner will have a singleton spade and with (say) a 12-count he would have the right shape to double 1NT or overcall. At this vulnerability, his minimum for a double or overcall of 1NT might be somewhat lighter than this and some hands with reasonable values and doubleton spade would act also. Hence I'd expect the opponents to have the balance of the points here more often than not. Add in Helene's point about the 1NT bidder being able to bid again on an unbalanced hand, double looks to be a losing action in the long term.

It's up there now. However, it seems that either the organisers did not want voice commentary or the mystery individual dealing with support@ e-mails could not cope with the vugraph automated sign-up procedure. Now that the Cavendish has moved to Europe, will the Multi 2♦ opening be allowed?

Does nobody know the answer to this question?

I've also had variable experiences with voice commentary. In order to diagnose the problem, it's worth doing a few experiments. 1. Try using a different browser. Georgi (one of the technical experts at BBO) advised me to use Firefox instead of IE and that did help one time when I was commentating. If you can hear properly using an alternative browswer, then you know that the problem arises within your original browser software, possibly the settings you are using. 2. If available, try using a different computer via the same internet connection. If the alternative computer works, then Barmar's suggestion about your internet connection is not relevant. 3. Try using a different headset or speaker system, in case that makes the sound clearer.

Yes, whoever (it may have been Eddie Kantar) came up with the idea of inverting the 5♣/♦ responses has a lot to answer for. The number of net gains from making the 5♣ response theoretically more common has been easily outweighed by the number of slam auctions messed up when the two partners disagreed on the meaning of the 5♣/♦ response. Why not? Some Kickback players use the step 1 response to show 0 or 3; other Kickback players use the step 1 response to show 1 or 4.

The answer to your question depends on the range of your 1NT opening.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq984ha82dq983cqj&w=sakjt6hkq5dt4c764&n=s732hj93dakj752c8&e=s5ht764d6cakt9532&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np2d(FG%20Stayman)p2spp3cp3nppp]399|300|1NT=10-12[/hv] IMPS scoring, screens in use. 2♦ was clearly shown on the N/S convention card as "game forcing Stayman" and was described as such by South to West. The auction was as shown above with West declaring 3NT. North led ♦K, on which South played the 9. North switched to a spade on which South played the Q. Declarer now emerged with 12 tricks. At the end of the hand, West called the TD to record North's "obvious" psyche of FG Stayman. However, it transpired that: (i) On the other side of the screen, 2♦was initially described (in writing) as a weak take-out, then corrected to FG Stayman on the next round of the auction when he saw his partner's 2♠ bid. East did not look at the N/S convention card. (ii) If East had known on the first round of the auction that 2♦ was FG Stayman, he says he would have overcalled 3♣ or 4♣. (iii) North/South used to play 2♦ as a natural weak take-out over their mini NT, but had recently switched to playing it to be game forcing Stayman. (iv) Against NT, North/South normally play that the K is a strong lead, asking for unblock or (standard) count. I have a few questions. 1. In deciding whether to unblock ♦Q at trick one, is South allowed to use the information that they used to play 2♦ as natural here? 2. Should South disclose this information to West? If so, at what point? 3. Suppose that South does unblock ♦Q, beating the contract by 3 tricks. If West claims that he would not have bid 3NT had he known North likely had a natural 2♦ bid, is he entitled to a misinformation adjustment? 4. Suppose that South does not unblock ♦Q, but North guesses to switch to a heart, South then reverts to diamonds, beating the contract by 3 tricks. How do you rule then?

The EBU convention card asks for: "CARDING METHODS Describe Primary method. State alternative in brackets." On that basis, something like: "Standard Count(Standard Attitude in some cashout situations)" would be reasonable. Few convention cards go into great detail as to when particular signals apply. There's not enough room to explain all situations on the convention card. In some grey areas, regular partners don't always agree whether count/attitude/suit preference should apply!

Suppose that an opponent commits an irregularity to which attention is drawn. You know that calling the TD is the best way to protect your own side's interests and you probably also know that the Law requires you to do so. If you decide not to call the TD in these circumstances, that appears to me to meet your definition of "wild" quoted above very well. I must admit that sometimes, in a club setting where there is a playing TD for example, I judge not to call the TD when technically I should do so. I am taking a gamble here: by not calling the TD I save the time and likely aggravation for all concerned (a winning decision if I wouldn't gain anything by a TD call) at the potential cost of not getting a "rectification" in my favour. So my decision not to call the TD seems to meet your definition of "gambling" as well! Sven: Yes, Law 12C1f explains that the scores need not balance, but you need to use other Law(s) to guide you as to how to arrive at particular (potentially unbalanced) assigned scores.

Redress is denied for wild and/or gambling actions irrespective of whether these actions are "unrelated to infraction".

Could failure to call the director be regarded as a "serious error"? Probably. "Unrelated to the infraction"? That depends what sort of "relationship" you have in mind. It could at a stretch be called "wild or gambling". I still prefer 12B1, and if you insist, 12A1. It fits with the explicit intent of the laws, and serves justice. In my view, failure to call the TD to assess rectification is "wild", far more so than, for example, making a poor call later in the auction after a UI infraction. Another possibility is to say that both sides are "offending" as the problem was caused by the infraction of failing to call the TD. In ACBL-land this would be easy, we could apply Law 12C1e(ii) to each side, but using 12C1e does not appear to be allowed in the EBU.

I am pleased to see that there is no consensus here. I held this hand at the table. In slam auctions I like to construct potential hands for partner, so it was annoying when I came up with hands where we were making 13 tricks and other hands where even 5♠ was not safe. If you do move, there is also the question as to what partner will expect 5♣/5♦/5♠ to mean here. Eventually I decided to bid 5♣. Partner, holding ♠KJ53 ♥A7 ♦7 ♣KQJ843, now drove to slam. 6♠ is not a great contract on the bidding, but all was well in the end as the 4♥ bidder was 2722 with ♠AQ doubleton.

I agree. I don't see this as a big problem. When I am given a bidding problem, I base my answer on the hand and auction I am given. Even if I know all four hands, I will often come up with a "losing" answer. Like everyone else, I get decisions wrong at the table, so there's no reason to pretend otherwise when someone asks me what I would bid on a particular hand. Even people who always like to be right will tell you when they think it's close between several options; this information is very helpful to the TD in assessing the logical alternatives and/or possible hypothetical auctions which might lead to a weighted ruling. Polling other TDs is fine if the person polled is close to a potential peer of the player involved, but there's little point in asking a TD of average club standard a bidding problem to assess what the logical alternatives might be for, say, Geir Helgemo.

There are so many versions of continuations that it's not clear to me what you mean by "standard puppet stayman". What does your 3♦ response show?

When using 3♠ as some sort of slam try, how often do you bid 2NT-3♠-3NT-Pass and find that nine tricks is the limit of the hand? The advantage of playing 2NT-3♠ as a puppet to 3NT is that then 2NT-3NT can be used as conventional (for example, with some partners I use this as a transfer to clubs); then Responder has far more sequences available. Of course, this suffers from the occasional double of 3♠, but that doesn't always have to be bad (last time my RHO doubled 3♠ in this sequence I got out my blue card). By the way, if you want to improve the right-siding of your structure above, why not swap the minors around? Then you get: 3S = minors or clubs (Opener bids 3NT if he doesn't like clubs) 4C = diamonds 4D/4H = texas

In the subject line you ask "what's simple?". As you will see from the different responses you have received thus far, 5-card/Puppet/Muppet Stayman is anything but simple: in practice you need to discuss the continuations in a lot more detail than you do if 3♣ is 4-card Stayman. Furthermore, it's far from clear that 5-card Stayman is technically better. With nine different partners I play nine (!) different structures over 2NT, although there are obviously common elements to them. Rather than trying to think of the best meaning for each individual response, it's more inportant to design an overall structure which deals with most of the important hand types. If you play 4♣/♦ responses as SAT then it does make sense to use 4♥/♠ responses as single-suited slam tries in the linked minor. However, as these responses take up a lot of room, they should imply a good suit, which means that you need another way to show slam interest in a minor where help in the trump suit is required. 2NT-4NT is sometimes useful as quantitative. I can't think of a better meaning.

This looks like a very detailed analysis, but you seem to have missed a more simple argument. When one team is 20 IMPs up, a flat board is fine. If West believed (however misguided that belief may be) that the contract in the other room might well be 4♠ or 5♠ undoubled, then defending 5♠ undoubled in her room is ideal, assuming that the same number of tricks will be made in each room. Apparently West told the TD that she would have passed 5♠x if it had not been redoubled (although it's not clear whether she was making this statement in the context of the UI- did she think that passing 5♠x was the correct call, or merely that it was a logical alternative she'd be forced to select after the slow double? Perhaps she reasoned that whilst conceding 5♠x is not ideal, it could still be a flat board or only -5 IMPs if 5♠ undoubled is declared in the other room. However, once 5♠ is redoubled, she knows that the contract in the other room is highly unlikely to be the same and there is virtually certain to be a significant swing. She has an obvious way to reduce this volatility by bidding 6♥. I agree. I'm sure that the TD would have polled people with this bidding style if he'd thought he could have easily found some.