nigel_k

South is fixed by the methods but North should definitely double non-vul at matchpoints. North's hand has actually improved because he has nothing in hearts and there was no support double, and he has nothing wasted in clubs. If you don't have an eight card fit somewhere, partner likely has a penalty pass.

I wouldn't say this is 'attempting to conceal a revoke'. There is no suggestion of any attempt to deceive and the words 'concealing a card involved in a revoke' IMO refer to a defender concealing the card(s) he ought to have played to make it seem as if there was no revoke. The infraction is simply the failure to leave the club on the table as a penalty card. However, I've always been a little uncertain about the reason that dummy cannot call the director. The comments in this thread suggest that, in any case where dummy is prevented from calling the director if they notice an irregularity, they can call the director at the end of the hand instead. The practical effect of this is the director still gets called, except that some of the information is no longer available, and some of the opportunities for rectification are no longer possible. Can this really be what the lawmakers intended?

I also agree with pass showing a stopper but have no idea if it's standard. In these situations I like to be able to get them because people double on all kinds of garbage and you don't have to give up much in order to keep 2♣XX as an option. In any case, partner's clubs are not good enough to redouble and he almost certainly has a diamond suit so I'll guess to play 2♦.

i) The second sequence doesn't really show clubs at all because you have few forcing bids. All partner really knows is that you have a good hand without four hearts. ii) You don't want to invite preference to a four card major at the three level , e.g. xxx Kx AJTxxx Ax opposite AQxx xxx Qx KQxx will struggle to reach 3NT from the right side after starting with 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣. iii) In the first auction, partner is unlikely to insist on clubs after failing to raise them initially so the fact you have four rather than five is not such an issue.

If you have a hand such as AQxx xxx Qx KQxx there is a strong case for responding 2♣ to 1♦ rather than 1♠. You are in much better shape after 1♦-2♣-2♦-2♠ than after 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣. In any case I much prefer the 2♣ response to 1♦ to be a one round force only. Having to leap to 2NT or 3♣ with invitational strength doesn't appeal to me and the gain from the 2/1 response being GF is less than when responding to a major.

Fairly competitive club game, hopefully the questions are self-explanatory.

The structure of the provision suggests that the first one is a better interpretation. But you certainly can't expect an opponent to explain something that is not a matter of partnership understanding, so the practical effect is that the second applies. I'm not sure why substituted 'can ask about' for 'is entitled to know about'. A player may ask about lots of things, since he doesn't know beforehand whether there is a partnership understanding or not.

I play 2♣ forcing here but I understand that is non-standard, at least in North America. You have to choose between redouble and 2NT. I prefer to play that 2NT is more offensively oriented and will usually have four trumps, and redouble followed by support is more defensively oriented and will usually have three trumps. Unless your world revolves around your trump length, I think it is ok to bid 2NT here - I would definitely prefer it if the hand was AJx AKx x JTxxxx.

The outcome of many actions is randomly distributed - whether throwing a football or hitting a tennis ball or a golf ball. Being good just means your random distribtion has a smaller standard deviation. But whether or not you hit the target (receiver, inside of the court or fairway/green) is still going to be largely a result of luck.

Exactly what Stephen said. 2♥ is not forcing and will lead to the hand being played in either 2♥ or 2♠. If you do the simulation again comparing a 1NT contract with either a 2♥ or 2♠ contract, I'll bet you find that bidding 2♥ is better.

Maybe 2♠ is better but I can see how pass is tempting and I would do that if they were vulnerable. The hand is difficult to defend because you have to force declarer to some extent to prevent him cashing hearts. But at the same time, you cannot let declarer ruff diamonds in dummy so you have to ruff high in front of dummy and lead trumps. If you force declarer too much he will eventually make all the clubs in his hand and one of dummy's will be high as well. It's actually quite an interesting expert level defensive problem if you start with ♠A, low spade ruffed by declarer and he leads a diamond.

Double. I think 5♠ could be just about any hand that expects to make 6♥. Maybe partner could bid grand himself with three aces after I do that that. He might be worried somewhat about his bad trumps, but would I bid this strongly off three aces and a high trump?

Agree with 4♠ rather than 3♠. Even if 3♠ is 18-19 it does not follow that either we bid 3♠ or we should have opened 2NT. We had quite a good 19 to begin with and it has improved after partner bid spades and because are playing a suit rather than NT.

It's an awkward situation. There will be hands where the best choice is to bid 3♥ with a five card suit, but I would try to avoid that if you can. Partner should also try to avoid rebidding 3♦ with three card support.

I don't mind the 3♦ rebid, though 2♣ might be better. North should probably bid 3NT over 3♥ because of the trick source, two entries, and the spades are well on the way to being a double stop. But I definitely prefer 3NT to 3♥ with South - partner's values have to be somewhere.

Someone named Kurt Godel should be able to do the mathematics himself.

I'm sure you opened with worse than that North hand playing with me. Anyway I think it's borderline and pass is ok. It's difficult to comment about the rest of the auction without knowing the methods but I think responder should prefer to play in spades rather than NT, i.e. bid 3♠ over 3♥ to set trumps. Not so much to facilitate slam investigation but mainly just to be in the best game. After that you can probably cue bid to 6♠ but I wouldn't get any higher. Every card is working and it's still only around 70%, plus they might stop in game at the other table.

On the first one definitely a club. It is no less dangerous than anything else and has much more upside. On the second one, I tend not to believe people's description of a game try unless I have interrogated them for a while first. What if they don't have a long/strong side suit? But in this case they have probably talked me out of the club lead regardless. I don't know which red suit is better but would go with a heart probably.

Does a brown sticker convention cause the team to lose seating rights in Australia?

Agree 100%. Being fit and healthy in general may give you a minor advantage, but getting exercise during the event will not help, especially if it is not what you normally do. Eat what you want during the event and just go for a walk or something now and then. It sounds like you just needed to play a lot more boards before the event. If playing 60 boards a day, prepare by playing 80 boards a day. Even if you just log in to BBO and play with randoms, you are still thinking and counting and getting your brain used to that extended period of bridge activity. Obviously have a break for a few days before the event starts though.

Agreements such as strong 2♣ or weak two bids are for opening bids. These only apply when the opponents have not bid yet (but they may have passed). After they open 1♠, your 2♣, 2♦ or 2♥ bid is an overcall (not an opening bid) and is completely natural, i.e. 2♣ would show clubs. There is no rule about the exact requirements but it is more about playing strength than high card points, and also depends on vulnerability.

Slam bidding is hard, and you definitely can't do it with a rule-based method such as HCP or LTC. Think about different hands partner can hold that are consistent with the bidding: the worst possible hand, a minimum but perfectly fitting hand, an average hand, the best possible hand, etc. Then evaluate the chances of making slam opposite all of those. You will need well developed analysis skills to do this, but it is what experts do at the table. Somebody (Terence Reese?) once suggested you should invite slam if it will be laydown opposite a perfect minimum. Definitely read Lawrence rather than Klinger. Klinger's books are for bad players looking for simplistic approaches that will help them be slightly less bad. It sounds like your ambitions are higher than that.

I actually do lead 5th from a six card suit. I agree 3rd is better but in New Zealand nobody does that and I've chosen to fight other battles rather than try to convince people to change.

I would have doubled for takeout with the first hand which would probably have avoided the problem. My understanding of the double of 4♠ is that partner is expected to nearly always pull with a shortage. So that call is clearly wrong, as others have explained, and should get at least 75% of the blame.

Opening 1♦ or treating as balanced are both fine. But don't downgrade. If partner has as little as Kxxx in spades, there are nine tricks before even taking a finesse. If there is a nine card fit anywhere your hand is huge. It is closer to an upgrade than a downgrade.