mich-b

I dont understand.. What other hands? didn't partner show about 11hcp? Doesn't South with a 14 count (plus some useful intermediates) has a routine accept of the invitation? And, while accepting, isn't it routine to show the 3 card ♥ fragment?

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sqhatxxdkqxxxxxct&s=s9xxhkxdaxxckxxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP P-P-1H-3D All Pass[/hv] Did North or South bid poorly , or that is just "bad luck" hand?

♠[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s87542hk93d5cqj42]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1NT-P-2H-P 2S- P-P- X P - P -?[/hv] 1NT was 15-17 Do you put down the dummy, or try to escape (how)?

Very well said - I agree completely. Because you (at this stage of the bidding) haven't shown the strength of your hand , and it's defensive potential. 4♥ even V Vs NV shows a hand with lots of shape , but not lots of HCP. If you want to somehow involve your partner (and this may be needed , because 4♥ could well have been making) he needs to know that your hand is different from ♠ x ♥ AQJTxxxx ♦ xxxx ♣ -

I would suggest : With anything other than a minimum 5332 bid game opp a 4 card LR.

3♠. Would not seriously consider anything else, even though other options can work on a particular hand.

I think 3D should promiss around 15+. Responder can bid 4C when it looks that 4NT should be safe , so I would say around 15+ if 5-5 , or less with more extreme shapes 6-5, 6-6... Sequences like this are one reason why I think 3D should show real extras , and not just any 5-5 , like some people play. Responder is better placed to judge if he can bypass 3NT , if he knows that opener will provide a good hand even opposite a misfit.

2C

Pass , and be happy you are playing Multi - if partner had opened 2♥ , you could not reach 2♦ ...

6 of Spades. I think the 6 is better than the 10 , when LHO is likely to have shortage (doubleton or singleton) , and RHO is likely to have Spade length , possibly 4.

1NT - 2♦ (Capp) - 2♠ (GF takeout) - P 3NT ( strong majors) -P -P-P

An important clue to remember is that partner will not have 5 Spades (and a reasonable hand) , because he would have overcalled, but he could have a 5 card ♣ suit, if his hand was not good enough for a 2 level overcall.

In Israel there aren't many Swiss Team events - I can think of 3 : 1. Open Swiss teams in Tel-Aviv Festival (close to 100 teams) 2. Mixed Swiss teams in Tel-Aviv Festival (guess around 50-60 teams). 3. Open Swiss teams in Eilat Festival (around 70-80 teams). In all of the above events , usually the top tables (maybe top 8 matches = 16 tables) play pre-duplicated boards (not in the first couple of rounds , but for sure in the second half of the event). Of course , for the pre duplicated boards , hand records are available to the players after the session. The pre duplicated boards , and prepared in advance by the TD and/or federation officials, usually at the federation headquarters. There is a "central table" where boards are located , and players take the boards from there, and return them there - the order of play could be random. Assuming 6 board rounds there might be 4 sets (24 boards) for 16 tables. The Israeli teams league (which is a longer event played over several weekends), is played with fully preduplicated boards. The Premier League (12 teams = 12 tables) plays 14 board per match with 2 preduplicated sets (28 boards) , again , all located on a central table , and taken by the players in random order.

On the actual hand I would bid 5C , because of the 8th club, the void , and the vulnerability. About the question : "should a "jump-cuebidder" have outside stoppers?" I prefer to agree with my partners , that this shows the same hand as a gambling 3NT opener (meaning NO side stoppers) , and then responder can judge well what to do. If the bid does show one outside stop, how can the responder figure out which? And also , the hand with an outside stop is obviously stronger, and can be handled with some slower route , rather than a jump-cuebid , which is effectively a 4-level preempt (though giving partner the chance to play 3NT if he wishes).

3♣. Even though this does look ugly , when my partner is off-shape, he will usually have extra strength, so will bid again over 3♣. If we do belong in 3NT I think we will have more chance of getting there if I bid 3♣ now, and it will be rightsided.

Though this is probably correct, I think this kind of thinking in system design is dangerous and too difficult. Perhaps only a pair that plays together on a daily basis could afford to assign different meanings to a bid depending on whether the opps play Walsh or not. For the rest of us, just asigning a meaning, that would be OK against a "generic" natural system will work fine, and make our life easier.

Here are some of my thoughts about this case: 1. NS have a responsibility to fully expalin their convention, and I believe this responsibility is even stronger when playing a complex (=multimeaning) method. 2. I wasn't at all convinced by NS's statements, or by anything the AC had said, what exactly would either North or South do differently, had they been given the correct information. Suppose EW would use self alerts (like online) and NS would have more information than they are entitled to, what exactly would happen? It seems to me that a major reason for NS's failure to find their ♠ fit , was the ambiguity which was embedded in their methods , rather than EW's misunderstanding. 3. Why didn't EW appeal ? after all they were making 4♥, and their misnderstanding was (at least partly) caused by NS's different explanations. Why wasn't 4♥ by EW considered as a possible outcome by the AC? Did EW accept that their misunderstanding was entirely their fault? 4. My advice to EW would be to treat any double as if it was Strong, and play whatever their escape system, because advancer (doubler's partner) can always find himself with a good hand , and judge to convert the double. I know this advice is not popular in many circles , but it saves me from misunderstandings like this (which tend to be extremely costly) , and also seems to me to have enough theoretical merit. 5. I feel the AC was generous towards NS here , mainly because NS failed to even suggest how exactly they would reach ♠ game or even ♠ part score.

Agree with both points mentioned by MFA. Also , I think south's hand is worth bidding again after a (in tempo) signoff.

se12sam actually got the hand right (almost). Dummy had : ♠6 ♥J85 ♦A ♣AKQJ8632 Partner had a ♣ void and the ♥ Ace (declarer singleton ♥K). So a low ♣ works, a ♦ doesn't (not even the King, which I agree is the better card to lead). I lead ♦ J, just woodenly selecting my longest suit, but I keep hearing this little voice inside that says I could have done better.... :D

Natural

Pass , though 1♥ is not awful. 2♥ is...

3♦. Will probably bid Spades on the next round, if there is one.

We rebid 4♣ with 18-19 Balanced (with 4♥s) , and splinter with strong unbalnced hands, so a direct raise to 4♥ shows a hand with a lot of shape and not strong in high cards. Partner might hold : x AKxx x KQxxxxx For me it would be pretty clear to pass 4♥ with the OP's hand.

Sorry, whereagles , of course that is what I meant. Edited my post accordingly.

A slight improvement is that over opener's 3♥ - 3♠ = "I have a King" , 3NT would ask which. 3NT = Ace of ♠ This leaves more room to identify responder's King.