jallerton

One of the challenges for written commentators, especially for those of us who are not fast at typing, is to express oneself clearly but succinctly; if you pause to think about how to compose the perfect sentence, you may find that by the time your comments have been made, they have been overtaken by events. Voice commentary can often be easier in this respect. Unless of course [name of different commentator] has hogged the airwaves to moan about too many "boring" hands, tell the audience about the huge number of kibitzers in the room, or even about his planned television viewing.

I'm just reading this thread for the first time, but I reckon I can still guess the identity of "[name removed]".

I agree. This is what Opener will assume when making the initial decision on whether to defend 2♠x. A more interesting question, worth discussing in any regular partnership, is what Responder's bids of 2NT/3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠ mean instead of double. There is more than one plausible way to play, but as usual the most important thing is to be on the same wavelength as partner.

The AC overturned the TD's decision and reverted the score to the table result of 7♣=. The AC did not explain its reasoning, but there does not seem to be any support for the AC's decision on this forum.

Sorry, I don't like it. When the opponents' suit is spades and they have already bid to the 4-level, any contract our side ventures will be at the 5-level there's no need to focus on hearts more than either of the minor suits. When partner doubles 4♠, our most likely response will be to pass, but if we choose to bid, then we should focus on arriving at our longest fit. Trump control can be an issue when we arrive at an 8-card (or 7-card!) fit with an increased chance of trumps breaking badly.

Let me give you an example I have seen a few times at my table. North makes a conventional call. South reaches into the bidding box for her alert card but pulls out the double card instead. As a matter of practicality we have a laugh about it, note that South has alerted North's call, it is East's turn to call and we get on with the game. But technically speaking we should be calling the director as South has made a call out of turn (and quite possibly an inadmissible one).

It is often an advantage to make the first bid in the auction, but not always. For example, say I hold ♠x ♥AQ98 ♦Jxxx ♣KQJx and RHO is the dealer. I don't want particularly want RHO to pass as if I probably won't be able to get the 3-suited nature of my hand across to partner if I open the bidding. Instead I am hoping that RHO will open 1♠. Now I can use the special call I have available to show decent values and support for the other three suits.

Yes, you are right. I have now edited the original post to correct this.

Yes, there are risks attached to doubling 3♣ on moderate club suits, but surely partner would double on the holding you cited in your previous post, ♣AQ10xx.

Personally, I would want to be rather more than moderately suggestive of playing in 2♣xx holding ♣AQ10x over the doubler!

I would assume that 3♣ asks for a stop from both sides. If Responder has a game force, he can bid 3♣ over 2♥. If Responder is precisely invitational, then I don't see any alternative to 2NT. This puts the onus on Opener, if accepting the invitation, to bid 3♣ over 2NT if worried about the stopper situation. This is clearly not perfect, in particular we could declare 2NT on a marked club lead when neither of us has a stop in clubs, but that is what I would assume in an undiscussed situation.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj95hadk8cj987&n=s4h7da6543cakq632&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2cp4cp4n(RKCB%20in%20clubs)p5h(2%20without%20QC)p6c(Slow)p6sp7cppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs. There is nothing to the play. Table result 7♣=, N/S +2,140. At the end of the hand, the TD is called by West. The 6♣ bid was made after an agreed hesitation. West states his opinion that the hesitation before the 6♣ bid suggests that South do something other than pass 6♣ (as it implies that North was interested in an alternative contract, most likely a grand slam). The TD asks South why he bid 6♠. South states that he bid 6♠ because he had solid spades and 6♠ scores more than 6♣. The TD asks North what she was thinking about before she bid 6♣. She explains that she was deciding whether to bid 6♣ or 7♣. From her point of view grand slam was likely to be making if partner held ♦K, but she had no way to find out. The TD rules that passing 6♣ was a logical alternative and that bidding 6♠ could demonstrably have been suggested by the hesitation. He assigns a score of 6♣+1, N/S +1,390. N/S appeal. South maintains that his 6♠ bid was not influenced by the hesitation. How do you rule?

This might depend on the rest of their system. Many people have a way of showing a single-suiter in a major at the 2-level, but no equivalent way of showing a single-suiter in a minor. With say ♠Ax ♥ Jxxx ♦xx ♣KQJ10x they would bid 2♣ showing a 2-suiter including clubs, but with the suits the other way round, say ♠Ax ♥ KQJ10x ♦xx ♣Jxxx they would just show the hearts. This means that when 2♣ is selected and the partner is 3-3, they are more likely to have an 8-card fit in clubs than in the major, so passing 2♣ does have some logic to it.

Both seem to fall within my normal 7-10 range for constructive raise. The second hand is a real pile of junk compared with the high card point count. Bidding 1NT followed by 2♠ on the second hand is extremely wimpy if you will bid the same way with a 6-count and a doubleton spade. In some of the Precision textbooks these hands used to pass the 1♠ opener, but this practice is not always followed these days.

moderators: please can we change the topic title from Take-out double, what does this actually mean?" to "Dress code: what does this actually mean"?

Yes, of course. But in this case, the TD reported: So the reason why there was no score adjustment is that she concluded that no damage was caused by the misexplanation.

Not as a matter of course. This is consistent with blackshoe's point that this violation is "not often penalised". The implication from this is that there should be some circumstances in which this violation ought to be penalised. I would suggest that these circumstances should be the ones which cause a problem. In the present case, it seems from the AC write-up that the PP was awarded not so much for the wrong partner giving the initial explanation, but more for the bidder's partner not correcting it (implying that he would have given the same explanation had he explained the call himself). I have to confess that I (and my partners) are sometimes guilty of this particular violation. Our reasoning is that it is often quicker and clearer for the explanation of the entire auction to be given in this way. However, we only do this for 'routine' auctions in which we are 100% sure that we are on the same wavelength. As soon as we reach a 'grey area', we'll revert to the correct procedure of the caller's partner making the explanations, in order to ensure that the opponents receive the information to which they are legally entitled.

If E/W had agreed the meaning of a 4♣ response to 1NT, then it should have been noted on the convention card. Presumably the TD and/or AC would have checked the convention card; we can probably infer from the 'no agreement' conclusion that the convention card was silent on this point. [if the convention card was not properly completed, that fact could itself be a reason for a PP.] In the ordinary course of explanations, the bids are explained in order. East should have offered an explanation of the 4♣ bid and then his doubt would have come to light, allowing N/S to draw their own conclusions. Law 20F1 states: One commentator has the impression that West explained the entire auction. Whilst this practice does not cause a problem when both partners are on the same wavelength, it does cause a problem in situations like the present case, by depriving the opponents of information which they would have known had the explanations been given by the correct opponents.

If you are going to state what the TD reported, why have you only quoted part of what she said? The full statement of facts is as follows:

"correct" is too strong. As we cannot identify "the" non-offending side, the "should" part of Law 86D does not apply so we are in the realms of "may". So it seems to be at the TD's discretion whether to award anything other than average to both sides.

Game All, IMPS. 2 part question. [hv=pc=n&n=sthq6dq65432caq42&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2h(Weak%202)2s3hppdpp]133|200[/hv]

It's clearly a matter of agreement, but if your partnership style allows Responder to make a 2/1 on some hands with 4-card support, then that is what a jump to 3♥ ought to show. If the initial response denied 4-card support then a jump to 3M ought to be a good 3-card holding with a fairly specific range (though this is only useful if you have discussed with partner what range this is!).

This is really a matter of agreement. If partner will expect 5+ diamonds and/or reversing values for 2♥ then it's unwise to make that call on a weak NT hand. If partner will expect 4-card support for 3♣, that is unwise too. I appreciate that bidding 2NT will sometimes wrongside NT, but it certainly simplifies the auction.

It does not follow from the fact that someone has written an article on Bridgewinners that everyone else has to play their suggested meaning for a sequence. In fact you seem to have misread the article. The authors point out that (1NT)-dbl-(Pass)-2NT implies a 2-suiter but they suggest playing (1NT)-dbl-(2♥)2NT as Lebensohl.

I can do much better than 16,000%. A taxpayer defers their state pension (entitlement) of £150 per week and then after 5 years elects to take the back pension as a lump sum. The lump sum accrued is £39,000 and with interest this might go up to say £41,500. This lump sum is taxable at a flat rate percentage in the year of receipt; the flat rate percentage is determined by taking the highest tax rate payable on the taxpayer's other net income for the year (excluding the lump sum). The highest tax rate could be any of 0%, 20%, 40% or 45%. If the taxpayer's other income happens to be on one of the first two borderlines then he can save tax of £8,300 (20% of £41,500) with a £1 charitable donation. In fact 50p would be sufficient as it would round up to the nearest pound, bring the tax relief up to 1,660,000%!