nigel_k

I would have bid 3♠ last time, planning to continue with 4♣ over partner's 3NT. I will bid 4♠ now. Diamonds could easily be a better trump suit if partner is 5134 or even 5044 with bad clubs, but he could also have AQJxx xx AQ KQJx and anything beyond 5♣ is too much. There is still a chance for either us or partner to bid 5NT choice of slam later.

And I assumed it was something to do with the US election. Anyway, how about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara

Without any special agreement I would splinter and continue with 5♣ if partner signs off. He can bid slam if he wants to after that.

In New Zealand we normally play 26 board sessions. I'm not sure whether this is due to being in the southern hemisphere or is related to the exchange rate. Maybe gwnn has an explanation from number theory but I doubt it will be as simple as the 24 board one.

Maybe there is some logic in turning everything upside down because we are in a force, but I find it so much less confusing to just bid normally, i.e. double is for takeout and a bid is stronger than a pass.

You and your partner can't do it by yourselves. You will need the help and advice of stronger players and you need to seek them out. Ask lots of questions. This forum is one place to do that. Mycroft's advice about counting is good, but I would extend that and say try to build up a picture of the unseen hands. Counting is obviously a big part of doing this, but drawing correct inferences from the bidding and play is also important. You should start building this mental picture of the hand during the bidding and be continually updating it as play progresses. The ability to analyze a hand is really important and is a skill that takes a lot of practice to develop. When playing, there are multiple possible layouts where different plays will work, and in order to choose the play that will work most often you need to be able to identify and analyze those possible layouts without taking too much time and effort. When practicing, use drills to develop agreements and judgment, not just bidding lots of random hands. For example, generate 50 hands where South has a 3♣ opening and bid the E/W cards.

Re disadvantage 1, the opponent in second seat is in a worse position with transfers because he has to act without knowing responder's strength. The opponent in fourth seat will get two chances, but the first chance is also versus an unlimited responder and the second chance may not be at the two level even if responder is weak. Re disadvantage 3, you are losing the 2♦ bid and gaining the 2♠ bid. Obviously you may play 2♠ as a transfer as well, but you are gaining a bid somewhere in exchange for giving up 2♦, and the more transfers you play, the more extra sequences are unlocked. The ability to make a lead directing double is not an unmitigated disadvantage for the opening side either. Apart from the ability to redouble and play there sometimes, there are extra sequences available after the double. In the end, what matters is the weight of the various advantages and disadvantages, not the quantity. My view is that the disadvantages are really quite small and easily outweighed by advantage 1 alone.

Walsh is non-obvious, but once you have adopted Walsh it seems pretty obvious to use the two lowest ranking bids for the two most common responses. Probably Walsh would have done this himself if he wasn't concerned about the method being legal in the US and achieving broad acceptance.

I think gnasher's suggestion is an improvement. Though you would need a way to handle the case where the next player calls after the insufficient bid, e.g. 1♠-(1♣)-1♥. If there is no option to accept the insufficient bid then you cannot let the auction continue, but would need to clarify what information is and is not authorised info for each side after the auction is rolled back. Seems like it could get a little messy. Actually I would go further than gnasher, possibly a lot further, and just have a blanket provision that allows the director to adjust the score whenever the outcome of applying other laws is clearly inequitable - for either side, offender or non-offender. This would fix revokes and other crazy outcomes all in one go.

If 2♥ is a constructive raise, I would not do it with the East hand because it's such a pile. But certainly West is worth at most a game try, and even just a competitive 3♥ would not be clearly wrong. I suspect this is another in a long line of bad results attributable to Larry Cohen and Marty Bergen telling people that just adding up your trump length is better than the judgment of even a top expert.

West 75%. I would have opened with East but West's 3♥ instead of 4♥ was the worst call and contributed most directly to the bad result. A new suit at the three level by responder is forcing to game, except that by a passed hand it is a one round force only.

5♣ for me too. There is some risk that nobody makes anything, but 4♣ is not enough unless your style is quite conservative.

Your partner's hand is a limit raise. But you still have the problem of hands with four card support that are in between a pre-emptive raise and a limit raise. I wouldn't feel comfortable just raising to 2♠ on a slightly weaker variation of your partner's hand such as Axxx xx KJxx Tx. But you could play this way. Or play Bergen on after a double. What I prefer is just to put more hands into the 2NT bid so the above example would qualify for 2NT and opener can make a game try if they need full limit raise values.

Pass. If we are mirrored and opposite something like AKxx x KQxxx AKx then I expect partner to double as he has no extra shape. If he bids he will have more shape than this and we probably want to declare.

I would normally balance with East. I have balanced people into game before and will again. Sometimes the hand contains warning signs but this is a pretty ordinary reopening double (not 2♣). Quite often a player in South's situation will reveal their discomfort in some way after North passes. If I picked up anything like that I would pass. Not possible playing online though. Definitely prefer a 2♣ opening to 1♥. It could be inconvenient after a 2♣ opening if they compete, but I can cue bid their minor if available or just bid 4♥. Also, three passes is a much bigger risk when you have both majors. Contrast this with a hand like AKQTx - Ax KJTxxx (same strength and shape). Then I would open 1♣ because I could have a big problem if they compete over 2♣, and three passes over 1♣ are much less likely.

South has UI from the failure to alert but I don't think passing 3♣X is a logical alternative. Is South supposed to conclude that North psyched a 1♠ opening with a long club suit when South also has four clubs and East a penalty double?

The director was wrong to make them play 3♣. They should have played 3♠X and the director adjust to E/W +500 at the end if he wishes. On the substantive issue: The director should rule mistaken explanation, unless there is evidence indicating a mistaken call. I don't think there is evidence of that here, unless the evidence is that very few people play that Bergen is on after a double. But N/S would have to make that case specifically, not just effectively say that there was no firm agreement therefore they can bid 3♣ on any hand and it will always be mistaken bid. Probably East could and should have figured out for himself what had happened. But I don't think this is so clear that East can be denied redress. So I agree with +500 to E/W.

1. Pass. I have no shortage or other reason to want to play at the five level. 2. 2♦. Would not consider double or anything else. I assume 2/1 GF is off in competition but even if 2♦ was GF I would still do it. 3. Depends on agreement. It's not just a French thing that a reverse requires extras. But it's less than what you need for a reverse after a 1/1. KQTxx Kxx - ATxxx has pretty good values, shape and intermediates and is actually quite a lot better than a minimum opening bid so I would bid 3♣. 2♠ is ok though. 4. I would definitely accept the invite. You can bid 6♦ in case partner prefers that, otherwise 6NT.

I agree with paulg. I think Michaels is standard, but it's slightly better to bid 2NT with the Michaels hand and cue bid with both minors (even more so if their suit is spades).

The laws come originally from rubber bridge where there was no director to decide what is an equitable outcome. So there were fixed rules covering this kind of thing. In the duplicate laws, some of the rubber bridge rules have been replaced with ones designed to restore equity. The revoke law isn't one of those.

I would have doubled last time but definitely pass now. I've done enough.

2♠. Passing the double could work but most of the field will be too high with our cards going for numbers of varying sizes so I am happy just playing a quiet 2♠.

I have no idea why more young people don't play, though I suspect the fact that many of them are unaware the game even exists could be relevant. But it does seem as though these threads tend to take the form of: "The reason more young people don't play is [insert whatever the poster doen't like about the way the game is administered]".

Looks fine to me. You guys nitpick too much. It isn't efficient, but that's irrelevant when the time cost of operations and number of hands to deal is so small.

Presumably 3M is takeout for people who play double as lead directing. Gains from using double as takeout are: - Assuming opener rebids 3M, partner can make a responsive double which they obviously cannot do if you bid 3M for takeout and opener passes. - You are not committed to playing the hand so they cannot nail you as easily as they can if you bid 3M for takeout - You get to use 3M for something else such as a Michaels type hand The main loss from using double as takeout is the ability to direct a lead. I actually think there are quite a lot of hands that would like a club lead but cannot bid clubs on their own and this could outweigh all of the above advantages. But I don't have a strong view about which is better.