cherdanno

I don't think so.

Strong? I think we should measure him by the standard he set for himself. He wanted to win the tour. Without the team trial and the accidents on the third stage, where would he be placed now?

No big deal, the bridge world is used having to make compromises when dealing with fundamentalist countries :)

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skt965hakq9daq7c5]133|100|Scoring: IMP P (1♣) X (1♠*) P (2♣) X (3♣) P (P) ??[/hv] 1♠ showed a club raise. Do you agree with the second double? Do you double once more?

I don't think your comparison holds. Forgetting agreements always comes together with disclosure problems. Pairs who frequently forget their agreements are often pretty good at guessing what went wrong... Of course, this can be rectified by TD decisions. But then again, I don't remember the last time I had to call a TD because my opponent took a finesse instead of going for the marked drop. And I can't remember the last time I thought dealing with a TD call was fun.

Even a one point downgrade is too much.

I think the IBLF forum needs an off-topic discussion section, and the moderators would need to move any flamewars or discussion not relevant to the original question into the off-topic forum.

If you actually want to get it considered as a law change then you probably want to contact the appropriate people at the WBF, which is one of the reasons there isn't such a forum here, people miight expect that posting a desired change here constitutes an official request to the WBF laws and ethics committee I understand this is probably correct as things are, but I don't think this is a terribly productive state of affairs. I do think it is very important what bridge players, especially top bridge players, think about the laws, what they think is fair, and what they think is ethical or unethical. Enforcing the spirit of bridge laws is a pretty much impossible task for even the best TD - unless the players actively participate ("active ethics"). This can only possibly work when the law and the consensus opinion of what is ethical are in tune. Wouldn't this be helped tremendously if there was a better way of communication between opinions of experts at bridge and opinions of experts at bridge law? I know there is an overlap between these two, but more communication and public discussion can only help. A public discussion forum on the merits or problems of laws that gets noticed by the members of the relevant WBF committees could be a good start for that. (Then again, maybe it wouldn't be, given some of the discussions in the other thread.)

Well it does work if you guess right at trick 8. You have ♠x ♥Kxx ♣Ax left. If LHO has only two hearts left, you lead a heart. If he has no diamonds left, you lead your last trump. And of course he has to keep 3 clubs.

When is the last time you played an ACBL tournament, Wayne?

You always bid your 4-card side suit if you can below 2S. You would only rebid 2S with a 5-card suit when you are balanced and don't want to bid 2N, e.g. you are 5323 or 5233 with no stopper in the doubleton.

The biggest joke though was "Jeff Sessions, the defender against racial bias".

The analogy between steroid use in baseball and sex on TV had not been brought to my attention before.

Spades. Surprised there is controversy about it.

but he didnt have a pass

Did you mean ♣AQ tight onside, or did you assume a misdefense?

This is true. All I'm saying is you know he doesn't have diamonds. But I never stated that you could differentiate between one major and two; all I (meant to anyway) imply for Adam's problem is that you know something is awry. Agreed. I should also say that there is nothing wrong with guessing that partner forgot. However, if you have any extraneous clues that might help you doing so, then you should let opponents know about them. In your Namyats example, I would probably say s.th. like "we agreed to play Namyats, but its the first time it comes up" if opponents asked about my alert.

Phil, I don't think the comparison with Namyats holds. If your opponent opens 4♣, alerted and explained at Namyats, and you are looking at 7 hearts, you know he has a club preempt. If your RHO overcalls 2♦, explained as natural, and you look at 8 diamonds, you don't know whether he has both majors or just one.

If you are able to guess that partner has both majors, rather than, say, one major (a very popular agreement in NA), then that is an implicit partnership agreement. Just my opinion, but it's a strong one :) I really can't understand how one could see this differently.

In how many partnership do you play 3♣ as non-forcing? I haven't discussed this auction with anyone (since it can't occur in what I play with Han). But I do think it is better to play it as non-forcing, and would even guess that's the natural assumption without discussion - when there is a cuebid, there is less need for other bids to be artificial or forcing.

I would always pass in second seat, otherwise the same for me.

- Your partner's 3NT was a huge overbid. 3NT is typically a balanced 19 count (but not with a small doubleton!), or the hand-type The_Hog is suggesting. (In fact, The_Hog's agreement is probably superior, with a balanced 19 count you can still bid 2N and pass in case partner raises to 3N.) - Never pass 3NT with a small doubleton. Probably neither with an Ax doubleton. - Probably never pass 3NT with 5332 - at least I can't think of any hands where I would. - With 4-3-3-3, you are most likely to pass. With that shape and an honor in every suit, I would always pass.

Yes, but only if it is, in fact, a spade. Doesn't the term "Maximal Overcall Double" refer to a double by an unlimited hand, showing a game try? For example: 1♠ pass 2♠ 3♦ dbl Whatever the double in the original post shows, it certainly isn't a game try. Hey Andy, need some coffee? :P :) (Peachy was referring to the auction in Helene's post, not in the original post.)

The 2NT (Lebensohl) does not SHOW any hand or hand type; only the followup after the forced 3C does the showing. I think a simple "forces partner to bid 3C" is fine and if opponents ask "what type of hand would he have to use the Lebensohl 2NT" then the answer is going to be a long one and still does not inform the opponents what hand type the 2NT is showing because the possibilities are numerous and in fact, again, it is not SHOWING anything, it is making a command to partner to bid 3C without even looking at his hand. Sorry, but in my opinion you fail to understand the word 'agreement'. Due to your agreement, the 2NT bidder can only have a couple of specific hand types. That is an agreement, and you should explain it as it may be important for opponents. (Just assume for a second that you haven't discussed the follow-up auction 2NT (3S) P (P) X I suppose the partner of the 2NT bidder will have a guess what kind of hands double shows. And that's because you have an agreement about what 2NT showed.)