jallerton

[hv=pc=n&s=skt8haqdkt5caqj53&n=sa3h432da862ckt96&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2np3s(Minors)p4cp6cppp]266|200[/hv] After a simple auction, you reach 6♣.IMPs. West leads ♣8. Plan the play.

Maybe, but if intermediate players are not consistent with what call they might make on a particular hand, then they might (even if only subconsciously) be influenced by any UI from partner. Another reason why experts might gain in this type of situation is that their partners are more likely to be experts, who know to try to avoid pausing for longer than the normal stop period in positions where partner may come under ethical pressure. But experts don't always have it their own way. Sometimes, there will be one obvious action which I'd expect most bridge players to choose; it would be the only logical alternative for an intermediate player. But an expert could think of an extra possibility, maybe a bid which can't logically be natural in the context of what (s)he believes the auction to mean. Now suppose that the expert has UI from an unexpected alert/explanation. Now the expert may be ethically obliged to make the "can't logically be natural" bid which is less likely to clear up the misunderstanding (s)he has discovered through UI.

Correct, but it is not a live ruling. I am reviewing some old appeals for the next EBU Appeals Booklet. Yes, this is why I posted the hand in the I/A forum, although Justin's views are always worth reading. Double was selected at the table after a slow pass from partner. Partner's hand was AJ109x none AKQxx Axx. She passed the reopening double and then doubled the escape to 3♥ for penalties (an interesting choice on a void when 6♦ looks like it might be making). The TD ruled that Pass was a logical alternative and adjusted the table result [3♥x-2] to 2♠ undoubled -4, but the AC over-ruled the TD and restored the table result. If the respondents to this poll are peers of the player, then it seems as though the TD was right (currently, slightly over 20% have selected Pass and some of the doublers seem to have seriously considered it).

What do you mean by "claim like a good player"? You and I know some good players whose method of claiming involves putting their hand back in the board without showing it. When challenged about this procedure, their answer is something like: "Everyone knows the hand, don't they?"

Matchpoints, the opponents are vulnerable, your side is not.[hv=pc=n&w=shkt74dj9842ckj95&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p2spp]133|200[/hv]

What card would your world class partner play from singleton queen?

I quite like a 2NT rebid on this hand. (a) to protect the ♣Qx. Partner can still check back for a 4-4 spade fit. If the auction starts 1♦-1♥-2♠-3♣(4th suit forcing), what next? If you bid 3♥ and partner has ♣Axx or ♣Kxx, he probably won't risk 3♠ now and NT will be wrong sided. (b) to describe the general strength of the hand (18-19). If you rebid 1♠ and partner passes, you'll be concerned that you may have missed game. If you rebid 2♠, it's fine to force to game if partner needs the traditional 6HCP to respond, but these days many people respond very light and it's nice to be able to stop in a contract you have a chance of making!

I agree that this would be a good idea. In the meantime, I find that joining Walddk2's table usually works!

I don't understand. A defender has 62 doubleton in a suit defending against 7NT. Declarer leads the jack from hand. What is the bridge reason for breaking tempo in deciding whether to play the 6 or the 2? This is not some moral statement which Gordon has invented; it is a direct quote from the Law.

The reason is probably because this is an example that the L&EC had come across in practice. I've certainly heard about cases where declarer has a 9-card fir with a 2-way finesse for a Q. He leads the J from hand and then the next hand pauses from xx. When asked by the TD, the defender explains what he was deciding whether or not to give count.

The purpose of the WB is to provide guidance to TDs. It contains many examples, but it is not reasonable to expect a guidance document to describe every situation exactly. Readers are allowed to use their intelligence in assessing whether the example of hesitating with two small cards is explaining a principle rather than issuing a directive about one specific situation. Why is the regulation illegal? Isn't it just explaining that deciding which low card to play when following suit is not considered to be a demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo in the context of Law 73? By the way, it is possible to think about one's signal without breaking tempo. it is also highly desirable. Varying tempo before signalling provides UI to partner; this makes defending even harder for players who are trying to comply with their ethical obligations. Do you mean Robin rather than Frances? As an alternative we could ask Paul to become the editor of a new document, the Extended White Book, to cover every possible example he can think of. This will probably be at least ten times the length of the standard EBU White Book. The Extended White Book may not be widely referred to, but at least it can be adopted at one bridge club.

This is a matter of agreement, but I don't at all like the idea of having to jump to 2♠ to initiate 4th suit forcing. If you play most or all of 2NT/3♣/3♦/3♥ as NF, then most game forcing hands have to start with 4th suit, so why pre-empt the auction by a whole level? It's still possible to find a 4-4 spade fit when Opener is 4414 or 4405.

This is a Laws forum. When a poster asks what he should have done, what matters is the correct legal procedure.

Really? Wasn't a pair "caught" in the 2013 d'Orsi Bowl (Seniors)? I'm sure I remember reading about that somewhere......

Their CC confirms that they play Polish club http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/2015-Chennai/OpenTeams/Poland/gawrys-klukowski.pdf So the maximum for a 1♠ opener is somewhat stronger than in most strong club systems. 1♠ is up to 17HCP.

Does this pair play strong ♣, not Polish ♣ then? The bulletin I read 24 hours ago showed an opening bid of 1♣. At the time I assumed this was just a typo as it looks like a 1♠ opener it most systems, and a 2♦ response to 1♣ would surely have been game forcing. My assumption was correct: there is a correction in Bulletin 14: "In the printed version of the Friday Daily Bulletin, there were two significant errors. On page 4 in the report on the review from the Poland-England Bermuda Bowl match, West’s opening bid in the diagram should have been 1♠.........."(The second correction was regarding a score in the Transnationals)

Several pages from the WBF on the subject of cheating are in the final day's bulletin.

The Bulletin write-up is here.. It is a shame that it doesn't give more details about the inferences available to the players from the auction. It seems incredible that a director at this level did not follow the "correct procedure". If the director had a "severe cold", why couldn't the ruling have been handled by another director?

[hv=pc=n&n=sk9hakj6532d5ckj4&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2d2s5d]133|200[/hv] Love All, Matchpoints. 2♦ is a natural weak two.

The use of the word "unintended" in the Laws is unfortunate. The way this is supposed to be interpreted is to consider what call East was trying to make at the point where (s)he pulled out the pass card. In some quarters the recommended practice is for TDs to ask the player what bidding card (s)he intended to pull out, but this is open to abuse: players can (and often do) gain through dishonesty.

Nigel: please can you explain the reasoning behind your second choice "2. Pass. Partner knows opponents are likely to hold 7 trumps."? The point about "the opponents are likely to hold 7 trumps" (so presumably partner is likely to hold 6) is the one Phil hadn't appreciated when he heard the alarm bells.

My teammates play this method and there is no easy answer to your questions. Perhaps the best solution to the first question is to play that Opener is expected to big again on the 'good' hand with diamonds. At least Opener has some comfort from the fact that Responder does not have a marked preference for clubs over diamonds. In practice, the direct 3-level bids should be a wider range that the options which go through 2NT, so at least Opener has made a reasonable description of his or her hand. The reason why my teammates prefer the 'reverse' good-bad is that the weaker 3♦/3♥ bids come up more often that the stronger varieties. These ambiguities are the price you pay for putting many hand types in 2NT (whether you play 'standard good bad' or 'reverse good bad'). For this reason I am far from convinced that multi-way good-bad is the best use of 2NT.

That's quite a relief, given that I was East and my partner was West! I know that bridge journalists often rotate deals to make South the declarer, but I didn't want to distort any of the facts, so I was simply reported what happened on this deal.

Thanks for the replies. Currently 80% have voted for ♣Q with the rest split between the red suits. I was declarer on this hand which was played four months ago in a very close final (fortunately, my team managed to win by a small margin). This was the full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=sq62h83da9765cqjt&w=sj84hqt75dj8ck765&n=sak95ha9642d43c98&e=st73hkjdkqt2ca432]399|300[/hv] The popular club lead works well. Although it does not hit partner's length this time, it sets up a trick to go with the six tricks the defenders have on top in the other suits (with spades 3-3). At the table, my LHO found the surprising lead of ♠2 without any great thought. Interestingly nobody in this poll chose to lead a spade or even mentioned it as a possibility. The ♠2 lead was won by the king and low spade came back to the queen. South switched to ♣Q but it was too late. I judged to win this with dummy's king and start on diamonds [A lead from ♠AQxx is usually avoided, so LHO appeared to have led from a 3-card suit. He had not acted over 1♦ so it seemed to me that he probably had diamond length so was more likely to hold ♦A than ♥A.]. South won the 3rd round of diamonds and played another club, but when East got in he only had major suit cards left and had to give dummy another heart trick at the end. Contract made. It occurred to me that I would not have found the same opening lead, but I thought nothing more of it. Until last week, that is. Why? Well, my LHO was a young man called Lotan.

It's fair to say that 1♦-1♥-2♦ doesn't have to be a 6-card suit. It could be a 7-card suit.