jallerton

One thing to consider is 4th suit forcing sequences. You are probably used to a sequence like 1C-1H-1S-2D-2H being typically based on a doubleton (3415s jump now or raise hearts on the previous round). But if Opener is 4324 he is presumably bidding 1S in your new partner's style and now bids 2♥ over 2♦ 4th suit. Similarly 2NT over 2♦ now could be 4234. A further round of bidding is required to differentiate the hand types. (Some will be tempted to rebid 3♣ on a 5-card suit, but I don't think that's best.) Another thing to ask partner what he rebids on a 4(32)4 18-count. Some now agree to show the point count with 2NT but others still prefer to show ther spade suit. In some cases they don't. This is clearly a weakness of the method. I remember watching a USA pair in the Bermuda Bowl a few years ago bidding 1♣-1♥-1♠-3♣-Pass, reaching a silly 3-4 fit with two balanced hands. In BWS, as I recall, this problem is partially solved by rebidding 1NT on 4333 hands (and opening 1♦ with 4) so that 1♣-1♥-1♠ does at least promise at least 4 clubs.

I've had a couple of situations of the type below over the last week. I show just the spade suit: [hv=pc=n&s=sat4hdc&w=sj962hdc&n=skq85hdc&e=s73hdc]399|300[/hv] You are East. Declarer (South) plays in NT having denied 4 spades in the auction. Partner leads ♠2 (leading style: 4th highest leads from length to an honour, 2nd highest without an honour). Declarer wins trick 1 with ♠10, cashes ♠A (all follow), plays ♠4 to the 9 and Q so you discard. Now at trick 4 declarer plays ♠K, discard from you, discard from declarer and partner starts thinking. You know from the bidding and play in the spade suit that partner has the remaining spade (the jack) but you also know (from UI) that she appears to be thinking about what to discard, apparently having forgotten that she has a spade left. Can you say anything to stop partner revoking? At the table, I did nothing as I am familiar with the wording of Laws 73A1 and 73B1 regarding communication with partner. Subsequently it occurred to me that a different Law could be relevant: Does this Law permit me to remind partner of her requirement to follow suit? If it does, how can I do so without breaching Law 73? Or should I adopt the WBLFC approach of pretending that Law 73 does not exist when it suits me? Alternatively, is it acceptable for me to ask declarer "Have you no more spades?" (Law 61B3) in the belief that declarer is unlikely to have revoked but secretly hoping that partner will overhear and be woken up? Or is that an improper question solely for partner's benefit (Law 20G1)? [Yes I know that Law 20 is titled "REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS"] but we are told in the Introduction to the Laws that "Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law".] Which Laws take priority and why?

Thanks. Is the sight of East's card UI to West (and is West's requirement to "bend over backwards" to avoid taking any advantage of this UI what creates the potential for the Law 23 adjustment you mention)?

Thanks, Robin. East was following to the lead from the "correct" hand, but if I understand you correctly you are saying that this card is deemed to be accepting and playing to declarer's lead. On this occasion, all three cards played were from the same suit. But suppose instead that declarer had called for (say) a club from dummy and that East (holding cards in all four suits) had played a club to follow to dummy's club lead. Now what would be the ruling?

Dummy (North) won the previous trick. Declarer (South) leads the heart 3 from her hand. Dummy says "You are in dummy." The defenders say nothing. Declarer picks up the heart 3 and calls for the heart jack from dummy and East plays a heart to follow to this lead from the "correct" hand. In the meantime, West calls the director about the original lead out of turn. How should the TD deal with this?

This is a good solution sometimes, but it won't work in the hand which should have led doesn't have any cards in the suit which was actually led out of turn (and accepted).

Not specifically discussed, but if double of 2♠ is take-out, then 3♠ sounds like a game forcing club raise. Partner may be able to infer the spade length from failure to double and the overcall/raise. You are right that 2♠ takes away two calls, but in return: (i) Responder gets back one extra positive call (double); (ii) you've told the opponents about the spade fit; (iii) you've told partner about the spade fit so there's a significant possibility that he'll now over-compete the hand. Even worse (iv) in the future on hands where you raise to 2♠ he'll think twice before competing, fearing that you have a completely useless hand like this.

If LHO has that hand she can still bid 3♠ over your 2♠, but more important is the fact that by raising you'll encourage partner to bid on far too much. If he competes to 3♠ I'd expect -200, the "kiss of death" on a partscore board. If partner's hand is strong enough to make 3♠, then you'll still end up with a minus score as then he'll just bid game.

First you said you couldn't remember the auction and asked me what it was. Then when I tell you the auction you don't believe me! Why did I bother? Well you seem to have contributed to this thread!

Aardv is right about the bidding as well as the correct defence. Cyberyeti's quoted auction is only "vaguely close" in the sense that he got the first round of the auction correct. The actual auction was: [hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1d(hearts)1s2cp3s(Splinter)d4d(RKCB)p4n(2KC%2Cnot%20CQ)p6cppp]133|100[/hv]

FYP. On a hand where I would bid 1♥-2NT (limited Jacoby, as I play with one partner)-4♥-Pass or 1♥-2NT(any strength Jacoby, as I play with many others)-3♣(any minimum)-4♥-Pass, your 2/1 auction will allow Opener to show his side suit (or lack thereof) on the second round. MikeH explains that there's lots of room after an auction starts something like 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥. How does he take advantage of the extra room? Some play that Opener patterns out on the third round. That's very helpful on routine game hands, very helpful for the defenders that is.

A lot depends on system and style. With one partner I play an old-fashioned system with strong jump shifts and space consuming continuations after 1M-2NT. With this partner it makes sense to show a decent side suit on the first round and then the support. With other partners, when I can expect to have a sensible auction after a forcing raise, I prefer to show the 4-card support immediately. If you play 2/1 FG, what would partner expect you to hold if you bid 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♠? Many play it as showing good clubs, but does it show 4-card support or can it be 3? Alternatively, Opener might rebid 2♠ or 2NT over 2♣. Now it's hard to see how Responder can distinguish between 3- and 4- card support.

This is nice method, but only really works if played in conjunction with 4-card Stayman (and Smolen). If played with 5-card Stayman, then there's no way to investigate both a 4-4 spade fit and a 5-3 hearts fit when Responder is 4-5 in the majors. Some pairs solve this problem by having Opener break to 3♠ with 4-2 in the majors, but this method suffers from information leakage and also seems to make it difficult to unscramble all of the hand types.

I have copies of three lawbooks. They are entitled: "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" "The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997" "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007" Have we stopped playing Contract Bridge without realising it?

IMPs. Your side is vulnerable against not. The auction has got high quickly. What now? [hv=pc=n&w=sqt9752hdkjt9ct83&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c1s2h4s5n(GSF)p7hpp]133|200[/hv]

Yes, 2NT seems obvious and until I read your post I was wondering why nobody had mentioned it. 3♦ is a constructive call in this sequence but partner would not expect a 3♦bid to deliver all of a solid suit, a heart stop and a trick the side.

Double.

I double 1♠. This tells partner a lot more than overcalling 2♥. The downside is that we'll occasionally miss a 5-3 ♥ fit, but we'll also miss some 5-2 and 5-1 fits; double makes it much easier to get to other strains.

No. If you open 3NT on hands with a long minor, then it gives 2nd hand (and sometimes 4th hand as well) 'two bites at the cherry'. The opponents have a bigger range of calls available so the artificial pre-empt is less effective. For example, if RHO opens 4♣ natural, I only have one way to bid 4♥. If RHO opens 3NT showing a pre-empt in a minor, I can overcall 4♥ immediately, or I can double then bid 4♥ on the next round, or I can pass then bid 4♥ on the next round (assuming there is one). Similarly, I can assign different meanings to double 3NT then double 4m, double 3NT then pass over 4m, and pass over 3NT then double a correction to 4m.

It's best to use a 4♣ opener as a pre-empt in clubs. This improves your results by making life difficult for the opponents. They have to guess, and whenever they guess wrong, you win.

Well, over 2♥, 2♠ is just a weakish hand competing with 4 spades and 4+ diamonds. We could jump to 3♠ over 2♥, but (i) it takes up a lot of room and (ii) are we sure that partner will interpret it as forcing rather then invitational?

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but how do you propose the doubler bids on Aardv's example hand (both 4-card majors plus a club stop)? If he bids 2♥ over the responsive double, what does he bid on the next round over your 3♣ cue? How do you investigate both the 4-4 ♠ fit and the club stop?

The wording "A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings" was previously in the Orange Book and remained when the shorter Blue Book replaced the Orange Book. I seem to recall that at one stage the wording was "A pass which does not convey values or specify suit holdings" but then somebody pointed out sequences in which it was normal for a pass to convey values or specify suit holdings and that nobody was alerting passes in these sequences. Take the uncontested sequence: 1♠-1NT-2♦-Pass. I've never known anybody alert Responder's pass. The pass "specifies suit holdings" (preference for diamonds over spades and, by inference, not sufficiently good hearts or clubs to introduce either of those suits), but not unexpectedly so. Also, as Campboy mentions, the clause could have been written differently had the alternative meaning been intended. Note that it does not say, for example, "A pass which does not convey unexpected values or specify suit holdings" So I conclude that the writer(s) intended the word "unexpectedly" to attach to "specify suit holdings" as well as to "convey values". By the way, I also believe that the writer(s) intended the word "not" to apply to both parts!

It's even better to bid 3♣ on these hands: sometimes the Cyberyeti method will wrong side NT. 2NT could be used to show a decent hand suggesting that the partnership tries for game in NT declared by the 2NT bidder.

I agree with Aardv. Double followed by 3♣ asks partner to make a sensible call, generally this will mean bidding another suit because the first suit suggested did not find favour. After 1♣-dbl-2♣-dbl-Pass-2♥-Pass, to reserve 3♣ for slam tries in hearts when the doubler is limited by the failure to jump is making very poor use of the available bidding space.