jallerton

Obviously, the whole 1NT structure is interlinked, but I don't like using bids as relays when there is a natural and relatively frequent use for the bid. Both to play (based on 5-4 in the majors) and invitational with 5 spades are sensible natural meanings. After a 1NT opening it's often better for Responder to describe his or her own shape rather than ask on FG hands; the balanced hand is better placed to judge whether or not the honour structure fits well.

My experience in different. In general, I prefer to play my 8-card fits in a suit contract and stick to no-trumps when our best fit is 4-3.

2♣ is a cue bid showing a good hand, but cannot promise primary heart support. What would you bid with say a 4=3=4=2 22-count with xx in clubs?

I prefer 2♥ on the East hand, 2♥ is constructive and should be a wider range than 3♥. The ♣K is of dubious value. If unsure of the strength of 2♥, there's a case for rebidding 1NT, hiding the 4-card support but at least showing the general nature if your hand (balanced, c16-18HCP, i.e. too strong for a 1NT overcall but not enough to overcall 2NT in the passout seat) over to partner and protecting ♣K from the opening lead should partner pass.

Another very reasonable treatment is to play 3♥ as showing a good 2-sioted hand, at least 5-5 in spades and a minor.

The footnote to Laws 70/71 refers to the class of player involved. So in theory if the TD knew the player well enough, he would be able to categorise the player as "flashy" or "safe". In practice, the TD will rarely have enough information to make such a determination. Therefore I think that it would be eminently sensible for the RA to provide guidance one way or the other (e.g. there could be a statement on this matter in the EBU White Book.). In my opinion, it would be reasonable to advise that this is a doubtful point, but it would be equally reasonable to advise (as the NBB has done)that the "safe" play is the only normal one.

This is a matter of agreement. The normal meaning of double it take-out of diamonds (in which case I bid 2♥). However, I have one partner who likes to play double here as penalty orientated (so I would pass playing with him).

My observations are different than this. Players fall into two categories which I shall call "safe players" and "flashy players". "Safe players" will play their highest card when leading and their lowest card when ruffing or discarding. "Flashy players", if they believe that two cards are equals, will often choose to show off by leading the lower card or discarding/ruffing with the higher card. The flashy player is equally likely to take each of these actions, as both have the same element of showing off. There are a lot more "safe players" than "flashy players" around. The NBB must consider the difference sufficiently high that it is abnormal to behave like a "flashy player".

When is the next version of the Laws due to be published? When is it likely to come into force? What changes are expected? Is it realistic to hope that many of the contradictions and ambiguities in the current Laws will be removed?

The problem with using 3♥ for such a specific shape (whether or not you swap it with 3♠) is that you render a whole lot of ordinary hands unsure of the correct strain difficult to bid. The "preference" to 3♦ will have to cover a wide range of hands; those with decent support (not suitable for jump preference to 4♦) plus lot of hands with a doubleton; maybe seriously false preference if 5=4=1=3 not suitable for 3NT. Yes, 3♦ is cheap, bur there's a lot to untangle on the next round. Indeed. Hence the chance that we belong in the 4th suit is relatively low.

I don't understand why you think Opener would bid 3NT. Isn't 3♥ 4th suit forcing? Over 3♥, Opener should bid 4♦ to show additional length in the suit.

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but wouldn't the response to Opener's 4♦ minorwood holding 2 key cards be 4NT? Could be tough if 4NT is also what Responder bids when trying to sign off! Opener should have done more. This is a proper Acol 2 in diamonds. It would be reasonable for Responder to pass the jump rebid holding xxxxx xxx A QJxx and +170 would be a bit embarrassing. Yes, I've constructed a perfect fit hand, but plenty of other weak hands opposite will make game. You say that you don't like fake jump shifts, but this isn't particularly fake (10 cards in the minors partner); if partner raises to 4♣ you have the option to jump to 5♦. On the actual Responding hand, she should bid 3♦ over 3♣ (see previous thread). Would 1♦-1♠-3♣-3♦-4♦ be optional Minorwood?

3♦is Responder's best rebid on the originally quoted hand and this should not lead to a problem if Opener is on the same wavelength. This keeps the auction sufficiently low that Opener's next bid is meaningful: 3♠ with 3-card support, 3NT with a decent heart stop, 4♣ with 5/5; with nothing particular to emphasise Responder can bid fourth suit forcing cheaply. If the auction starts 1♦-1♠-3♣-3♦-4♣, a raise to 5♣ does not invite correction back to diamonds! Yes, the auction 1♥-1♠-3♦ is notoriously space consuming (even 1♥-1♠-2♦ is awkward), which is why some regular partnerships seek to solve this and other problems by playing a non-natural rebid structure after 1♥-1♠.

Well in the case reported to me which inspired this thread, there does not seem to have been any specific prohibition of psyches (or misbids). There was a list of permitted conventions, with a statement at the end saying: "Please do not use prohibited conventions or you will be warned and might be penalised" Is there any way in which , when the partnership understanding itself is permitted, psyching (or misbidding) could be interpreted as being caught by this restriction?

Some clubs have "simple system nights" aimed at less experiences players whereby everybody is expected to play a standard system. Suppose that North makes a bid which is a gross deviation from his system, for example opening a 15-17 1NT on a balanced 10-count, or a strong 2C on a hand barely worth an opening at the 1-level. Assuming that South had no prior knowledge of the light action and acts as if North's bid showed what it was supposed to show, is North's bid "illegal"? Does it make a difference if North's bid was a deliberate mis-statement (psyche) as opposed to a mistake (misbid)?

I agree. Despite having seen partner's hand, the most likely layout to explain the bidding includes partner holding a club void.

If the 2♥ bid is very (in capitals) unlikely to hold 3 hearts, why do you use two of the five cheapest available call over the relay to show hands with 3 hearts?

Fair enough, although the likely success of this lead depends to some extent on the opponents' system. Did the 1♠ rebid imply an unbalanced hand? The problem is that a top spade could well be the only lead which allows the contract to make!. Declarer is quite likely to hold ♠A and the jack will often be in dummy.

Only if you have the (relatively uncommon) agreement to open a weak NT on all 5M332 hands in range.

It would certainly be very reasonable to award N/S a PP for North's 4♣ bid (breach of Laws 16B & 73C). But which Law would the TD use to award a PP to someone for having given an implausible explanation to the TD?

Alnwick Bridge Club meets at Lindisfarne Middle School, Lindisfarne Road, Alnwick Every Tuesday evening at 6.45pm. http://www.bridgewebs.com/alnwickbridgeclub/home.html For other clubs in the North East, see: http://www.neba.co.uk/CLUBS/home.html

I agree with this. Law 27B1b states that the replacement call must have "in the Director's opinion, the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)". No, "in the Director’s opinion" simply means that it is up to the Director (not any of the players) to judge which replacement calls have the same or a more precise meaning. It does not given the Director (or the WBFLC) any freedom to permit the auction to proceed with no further rectification if the replacement call (according to agreements) could include any hand with which the offender would not have made the insufficient bid had this bid been sufficient.

The play in 4♠ is certainly evidence of how many tricks that might have been made in 5♠, 6♠ or 3♠; but it is not definitive. The opening lead might be different on a different auction (maybe even it ends up in the same contract!); declarer might adopt a different line of play with a different trick target, or the subsequent defence might be different. Like Zelandakh, I would have bid 3♠ (positive) over an Acol 2♠, but a poll of South's peers would probably reveal that 4NT (which most play as RKCB/Blackwood over either meaning of 2♠)is a logical alternative. Depending on how you judge the probability of making 5♠ with that South hand opposite a weak 2, the UI arguably makes 3♠ more attractive than 4NT. In the putative auction we assume that South adopts the logical alternative least demonstrably suggested by the UI, so it seems entirely reasonable to adjust to 5♠ on the auction 2♠-4NT-['ace' showing response]-5♠ making the requisite number of tricks (quite likely to be 9 tricks, but not necessarily; it might even be right to weight the number of tricks!).

How does this procedure prevent disputes about the contract? Does East (or West) have to press the OK button to agree the contract before the bidding cards are put away and the main play period starts?

As with written commentary, the quality of voice commentary depends on who is commentating. However, it tends to be more structured in the sense that there is usually more of a conversation. Also there it usually a sensible number of commentators (two or three) involved.