hotShot

Why did West lead ♦, and when at trick does not follow ♦? It does not matter which ♣ W played, E has to take it and switch to ♦. Playing the J♣ should promise the T, so E can expext W to play ♣ again to cut out the Q later, if possible.

if 2NT does not promise a solid ♦ stopper, than i prefer 2NT. Otherwise dbl is the bid of choice here.

N 2♦ was nonforcing and S passed, i can't see a use of UI here. Opps reopen an partner bids again. He should hold at least 4+♦ and 5+♥ (perhaps more like 6+♥ because there s a known 7card fit in ♦ and he's looking for something better). N has shown some distribution and strength now and this is AI for S. South can now upgrade the Q♥ and expect North to be short in ♣ (since his 5 and Easts 5 don't leave much ♣ for others). South has to expect 2♠ loosers (W has introdiced ♠ and probably holds the A), a ♣ looser (if North holds 2), 1+ ♦ looser (AKJ ♦ are missing) and even though it is most likely North holding AK♥ he does not know for sure. If the ♦ split is not 2-2 North may be unable to ruff more than 1♣ and if the ♥ are not 3-3, South can't drop his ♣ on ♥. I not sure, if i would follow the argument, that hesitation suggests bidding 5♦.

Well Gerber is fine after 1NT- 4♣, but only if you can't bid 6NT directly. I think after 2[NT] 4♣ there is better use for it (e.g. as transfer to ♦ in a 4way transfer to keep the 3NT bid, or RKCB based on ♣ so you can stop in 5♣ if slam is not on). The problem is that people think they have to bid Gerber or Blackwood to reach a slam. But Gerber and Blackwood are not conventions to bid a slam, they are intended to avoid a slam, if it can't be made because of missing keycards. If you are strong enough don't use them, otherwise you just give your opps hope that there might be a killing lead.....

4♦ Partner will know that I'm strong and that I'm very short in ♦. Since dbl would give him the choice what to play, he should know I'm looking for controls and I'm not looking for a fit.

5♣ dbl might lead partner to bid 5♥ with 4 cards.

If it really needs the table to close, maybe some tables live that long, changing players and hosts all the time.........

Put the bloodthirsty look on your face and smash the red dbl card on the table ...... but i well guess the TD won't let you keep the score so it's pass for me unless, penalty dbl is agreed.

2♠ of cause Good opps don't make "unforced errors", so i'll put some pressure on opps. Furthermore opps should learn that sometimes my weak 2's are solid :huh: , they'll be more carefull next time.

East! 5♣ was great NS will never find out if slam is in reach or not. East violated the most important rule of preempts: Never rise your own preempt!

I love to play against forcing pass systems! We all design our systems to preempt opps. We want to keep them from exchanging information, and take away bidding space. Now there are opps, that volunteer to pass in first seat, if they have something to say. Now you know in second seat, that a preempt makes sence now and that you won't preempt your partner. This is very helpfull. Playing a forcing pass system opps have to open, if they are not strong. So all you need now is a little construtive bidding and a well defined penalty double. Down two doubled is better than every part score you might have. All you need to find are games and slams. So just bid solid in 2nd and 4th seat. The advantage of HUM's in usually that opps don't know what to do, and leave your bidding undisturbed. A lot of these methods are not as good, as people think, if they play against opps that are prepared. Is there any world class pair playing a forcing pass system at championships?

Assuming that opps and partner would have found an opening with 12+hcp, they are all limited to 11 hcp at most. Your side has a maximum of 11 + *what you hold*. How strong would you want to be playing 3m making? It must be "making", because you can get a positive 0 just by passing now. So i guess 2NT and any combination with a minor is no longer interesting, unless you hold opening strength. If you want to change just the strength, i would say (10)11-12(13) meaning that game is out of reach but the partscore is save. It might be even better to change the system, so that 2M is just a good weak2, keeping the contract at the 2 level. To the hand shown: No i won't open that in 4th seat. We have 19HCP at most, and any negative score will be bad for us. Since opps did not bid, we can't beat them (well done opps) and partners limited hcp's will be useless, if they are in the minors and we can only hope we have a fit.

2♦, because: - i'm strong enough and my partner needs to know that - 3 small ♥ say that if opps have a fit partner is short there - this board will only see a partscore - partner will know what to lead - partner will not try his ♠

There are 2 major problems in these hands. Suit quality in ♠ and West has to downgrade ♥KQx, because the chance that the ace is with 1♥ bidder is more than 50%. So he is not strong enough to dbl and raise to 4♠. Even more important than the ♥ problem is that W hold 3 kings. West needs to get declarer, to protect his kings. It is very unlikely that South will hold an ace, because there aren't 4 HCP left for S. So west needs to bid 3♠ or (better) 3NT (showing values in ♥). After 3NT East can than downgrade his single ♥, because it is opposite of partners values. This is all wests fault.

N/S are in a near GF situation, but N has not defined a suit yet and south is very strong for a negative response. Seems to mee 2♦ is just a relay. This is wests best chance to disturb opps bidding sequence. With single ♠ west has to assume that NS hold ♠. So 2♥ will not cause NS enough trouble. After 3♥ they might not be able to find out if 3NT is a valid contract and if they don't have ♠ they will have to play the minors at 5 level. OK, well established partnerships will have less trouble than pickup partnerships, but even they can hardly show suit, investigate 3NT and penalty double using the bidding space left. Remember this is MP and not IMPs, so you can't get worse than 0%. If indeed S 2♦ bid is negative, N holds game alone or E is not that weak. I know that E might be worse, but there is a good chance that W will get away loosing just 1♠, 2♣, 1♦ and 0♥ making 3♥.

We discussed that topic several times. One of the main problems is: Who's time is running, if you asked opp to explain his a bid? If it is the time of the one who asked, i can let his time run out by answering slowly. If it is the time of the one who should answer, i can buy time to think by clicking on every bid my opps made, so their time runs out. If both times are (not) running, it is not usefull.

Seems 1♦ is not what it should be, but players are allowed to make mistakes or psyche. If i have no reason to think that this is a regular partnership that often bid 1♦ with just 2 cards, than there is no reason to adjust.

I get your point about about rules: Instead of stating: "Don't pass a red traffic light!" The rule should be: "Don't pass a red traffic light, unless you are driving an ambulance, a police car or fire engine on an emergency and if the traffic light is not out of order." People or computer without proper judgement, need "rules of thumb". "rule of thumb n. pl. rules of thumb A useful principle having wide application but not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable in every situation."

Well if there is no clear line, you will have to estimate the line most likely taken. Taking the players strength into account. At least this is what i have been told to do. I find that hard, especially with players stronger than me, because they may see a line where i don't. And i don't like to exclude a player from a line i see, because he might be not strong enough to see it. "Illegal", but common at club level, is to look at the results at the other tables ......

Well i don't know if one can give complete rules for evaluation, but i do know that those rules won't be simple. Given the fact that you have to deal with incomplete information, you might not even know which rule should be applied. But please post a rule that you think is complete and let us see, if there is indeed no exception.

If it is clear who is the offending, slow pair, the correct way to adjust the board is A- offenders, A+ non offenders. It is my opinion that this should only be used if there is not a clear line and an actual result cannott be given. LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus ( at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs ) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. Law 12C is for cases where a board cannot be played. Cases like: - one pair has seen this board already (table played the wrong boards before) - the cards where put into the box face up and everyone could see them, - a bid was made out of turnout of turn or a was insufficient Following the LAWS you should always adjust if is possible at all. You should even adjust if there is no clear line of play. (Notice: in f2f bridge it is the TD's job to keep the tourney going, long discussions what play might be most likely should be done with the appeals commitee they have the time to do it. And they may avard split scores.) Ave= does not influence the score, it is as if the board was not playedat all. So if you give Ave=- you can give a penalty to one pair without revarding the other. I use that if i can't be sure if there is a "non offending" side.

Ever tiny bit of information, will change the hand evaluation. It does not matter who the source is. Synergie effects are: fit shortness opposite length without wasted values controls values in opps suit placed behind the bidder Downgrades are needed for: misfits values in opps suit placed in front of the bidder shortness opposite length with values (possible double evaluation) shortness opposite shortness missing controls I bet there is more and each rule will have exceptions.

The most important reasons for adjusting boards in a clocked tourney are: - Players will never try to finish a board that will get them less than 40% or -3IMPs (AVE-), because that is what they get, if they don't finish. - Each artificial score (AVE...) is lost as a reference result for the other tables. AT MP's this results in a board that has a different top than the others. To correct this, some scaling is used resulting in fractions of MP's. You will have seen results with 0.1% or less difference they usually result from this scaling. Players that should have reached an identical MP result, will end up with different results. Playing IMPs in the MBC you can see how an extra score is changing the IMP result, it is the same at tourneys. Of cause this effect gets smaller the more tables are involved. The only reason not to adjust the score is: Players that take more time to think might get a better score for the finished boards, than those trying to keep the time limit. After a few boards, you will know the notorious slow players. It would be nice to give them some procedural penalty, but you can decide to use Ave =- (= for their opps) for the rest of the tourney.

The combined point range of your side is limited. You should be strong enought to make 1-2 NT and depending on vul. not strong enough to make 3NT. So your combined point range should be 22-24(25). So if you dbl with 15+, 7+ is strong enough to pass.

What are the distributional limits to the mini-NT ? Partner may have a void and 10HCP or some other distribution that does not fit NT and is to weak to open.