nigel_k

1. Heart J or 10 according to system. A diamond would be ok but is not necessarily safe and needs more from partner. 2. 2♦. I tend to agree that 2♣ will be the best contract we can reach more than 50% of the time. But the spot cards persuade me to move as the field will keep bidding on this so playing 2♣ could be a bottom if wrong.

73F appears to have six elements: 1. A violation of the proprieties described in law 73 2. Damage to an innocent player 3. The opponent took an action other than a call or play (eg a BIT) 4. The innocent player drew a false inference from this action 5. There was no demonstrable bridge reason for the action 6. The opponent could have known that the action would work to his benefit If all of these are present the director adjusts the score. Elements 2 through 6 are fine and I think would be ok as necessary and sufficient conditions for an adjustment without element 1. The problem is that 73F requires element 1 in addition. If there is no 'attempt to mislead' under 73D2 then the only way to satisfy element 1 is through 73D1. So the question is what constitutes, under 73D1, a violation of proprieties? Let me quote the full text of 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." Parsing the second and third sentences I think we get three scenarios: 1. An intentional variation in tempo is an infraction 2. An unintentional variation in tempo without being 'particularly careful' is an infraction 3. An unintentional variation in tempo while being 'particularly careful' is not an infraction Every BIT is in some sense intentional so I'm going to assume the word 'unintentionally' in the third sentence refers to all situations where there is no intent to mislead, to distinguish this from 73D2. Therefore the 'violation of proprieties' required in order to rule under 73F will exist if and only if the BIT player was not 'particularly careful'. Now it would be tempting to argue that a hesitation cannot be 'particularly careful' when there is no demonstrable bridge reason for doing so. The problem with this is it makes 73D1 redundant as a law along with the first part of 73F. An adjustment will always be in order when elements 2 through 6 of 73F are met. Sorry if this seems a bit pedantic but I think it's good to start by assuming that all the words in the laws are there for a reason.

But what about 73D? IMO it cannot be covered under 73D2 as an 'attempt to mislead an opponent' is not supported by the facts and the 'could have known' language is not in there. As for 73D1, I'm not entirely sure what it means or even if there is any rule at all being described there. The words 'should be particularly careful' are vague about what is really required of the player. I could be wrong but I would have difficulty ever finding an infraction based on 73D1 alone. Anyway my understanding of 73F is that an opponent who draws a wrong inference from a BIT needs to establish the requirements of 73F in order to get an adjustment even if there is a breach of proprieties according to one of the other sections. I suppose you could fall back on 12A1 when 73F fails but I would not do that when 73F seems intended to handle this specific situation.

The problem with a sim is that it will always find a missing queen or handle things like Jxxx of diamonds under partner's KQx. Won't any diamond holding other than KQx or KQJ make grand anti-percentage? The closest is KQJx KQJx Kx KQx which is 20 HCP. Removing a jack or changing ♣Q to ♣J and there are only 12 tricks though you'd still have chances for 13.

It is unfortunate if the slow pass had some of the same benefits of raising without the risk but I agree with the others that there should be no adjustment, The polling shows there is a demonstrable bridge reason for considering whether to pass or bid 3♠ so the requirements of 73F cannot be met.

4♣ always Gerber is fairly common in New Zealand among weak to average players. You can laugh all you want but if the only slam investigation tool you know how to use is asking for aces, you may as well choose the lowest ranking one. I'll bet the pair in question would do as well or better with 4♣ ace asking after the double than with 4♣ natural. I want to clarify what blackshoe and bluejak said about 12A1. Law 23 covers a situation where 'an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side'. I would not infer from this that you cannot adjust if the offender could not have been aware. So falling back to 12A1 would not be 'I'm gonna adjust the score, whatever the law says'. In any case, 12A1 does appear to give a broad power to adjust a score any time there has been an infraction leading to a result the director thinks is unfair and the other laws don't provide a remedy. If this is wrong I would be interested to know when 12A1 should be used.

I was going to say 4♣ for reasons similar to gnasher's but jdonn has convinced me 3NT is better.

2♠. Pass is the second choice but not close. Bidding again (eg over partner's 1NT) should show a full opening bid otherwise it is just too hard to bid constructively.

Actually Blackwood's book on opening leads is still pretty good if you can find it anywhere.

I assume the offending side are nonvul so have conceded 100 (instead of 140). I would apply law 23: "Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity". I think the phrase 'an offender could have been aware' is intended to allow an adjustment without any suggestion of dishonesty by the actual player. Here, an (hypothetical dishonest) offender could have been aware that this was his only way to get to play 4C. So you can adjust even if you are 100% certain the 3♣ bid was an innocent mistake in the actual case. You would need to see the hands to work out whether the probable alternative outcome is -140, -150 in 5C, -500 in 5CX or something else. I would use 12A1 only in situations where 23 does not apply.

I played this for a while before switching to transfer openings. It was 20 years ago and I don't remember much from last week, but anyway: You certainly don't have to start with 1♥ on any GF. 1♠ should be natural and forcing and you may choose between continuations that assume less than GF and standard ones that don't assume that. 1D-1S-1N could be semi-natural (stiff spade or 2-2 majors) even if not balanced. Since the opening bid is always 2 or 3 suited you could also play that 1NT is always both minors (but not forcing) and 2♣/♦ is always 5 of that minor plus hearts. The 1♦-1♥ sequence is somewhat vulnerable to preemption but you have more useful inferences than with a nebulous 1♦. The advantages of relays make it worthwhile IMO. You could also play that 1♦-1NT shows hearts so 1♥ is always relay. This means you have to respond 2♣ on balanced hands with no major but that is not so bad as you're guaranteed an eight card fit in one of the minors.

The best choice of lead depends a lot on the auction. The cards in your hand are a secondary consideration. A passive lead is fine if the auctions calls for it (eg opponents have no long suits, bare minimum values or the strength is concenrated in one hand) but more often an attacking lead is best even at matchpoints.

These situations are a problem because 2♠ suggests reversing strength but you want to bid with 6-5 and the normal continuations after a reverse aren't available because the auction is higher. I would bid 3♦ even if 3♥ is forcing because the hand is well suited to playing in other strains. Over 3♠ you can bid 4♣ and give partner a last chance to support hearts. Having chosen 3♥ instead of 3♦ East should probably just bid 5♣ over 3♠ unless certain that 4♣ is forcing.

Pass. Partner could have something like xx Qxx Qxxxx Kxx and we make 5♦ or maybe 3NT. But it's more likely they can outbid us in hearts. Of course if LHO has psyched and partner has a trap pass this could be a spectacular failure. If the vulnerability and opponent made psyching a decent possibility I might try 2♦.

Economic Left/Right: 5.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.13

If you open 1♣ with any strong hand the 2♣ opening as a weak hand is not exactly free. You will still need to deal with hands where the auction starts 1♣-1♦ and you have a club suit. Using a 2♣ opening as something like 11-15 with single suited clubs will improve your constructive bidding and still have some preemptive value as well.

I would definitely have the agreement that passing a redouble is always for penalty unless discussed. I have never discussed doing anything else here with any of my partners but it probably makes sense to believe the redoubler because it is such a dangerous psych. So, if you wanted to, you could have some kind of agreement such as bidding the lower of 2 suits and pass forcing 2♣ with a one suiter. In the absence of any agreement like that I don't see any advantage in playing pass as other than penalty.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I think 'suggested' ought to be interpreted as meaning that the action is made more attractive than it would be without the UI. It would be unusual, if not impossible, for UI to make both bidding and not bidding more attractive. Certainly there are situations where partner's slow pass could have been made on a hand where bidding on will succeed, and could also have been made on a hand where bidding on will not succeed. But the slow pass can 'suggest' at most one of those actions.

I'm not sure that the slow pass demonstrably suggests bidding 5♣. 5♣ is a good contract only because North has so much in clubs and just an ace outside. West having no club to lead and being unable to reach his partner also helps. There are lots of other hands where North might think before passing and 5♣ would be very poor. I don't agree that he was likely thinking of raising clubs.

It's correct that there is no remedy for this now. However I don't think a specific cure has been proposed yet. What has been suggested so far is really just that the game would be better if people knew their system and we should do more to bring that about. Which is about the same as Miss Universe contestants saying they want world peace. You have to have a specific plan. I suspect that any specific action in that direction would go some way towards achieving the objective and would also have unpleasant side effects. Also like trying to achieve world peace. CD could apply to just conventions or to all agreements. or maybe only bidding. Or perhaps things that affect opponents bidding, so not RKCB accidents. Except maybe if that affects the defence. Possibly it also includes opening leads but not signals. or maybe not. Or maybe only if they admit they forgot but not if they say it was a deliberate departure. At that level of vagueness, of course you can swat away objections by claiming that any harmful side effect will not eventuate. But how about proposing an actual regulation with precise wording so we can have a real discussion?

I'm not clear on exactly what rule Fred and Justin are advocating here. Three questions: 1. Would this cover deliberate departures from system as well as accidental ones? If not, is the director supposed to ask the player which it was and believe them, or just form his own opinion? 2. If it extends to play as well as bidding as in Justin's example could our good result be taken away because I gave suit preference in a situation my partner thought was count? Or even if I knew it was count and just decided to throw out random small cards so as not to help declarer? Remember that directors are not always blessed with the finest bridge judgment and there's a good chance they will just apply the letter of the law. 3. Is it a procedural penalty or an adjusted score? Are people supposed to call the director every time opponents make a system error?

I think 3 of a minor will be best more than half the time even if the weak hand is 6322 and the 1NT opener becomes dummy. Plus you make them start bidding their majors at the three level. If there is an occasional hand where it's correct to pass 1NT rather than take out to the minor, you'll know it when you see it e.g. Qx Qx Qxx xxxxxx. Even then 3♣ could easily be better.

Double. If double is not penalty, pass and hope partner doubles. You didn't give the conditions but I might do this even vul vs not at matchpoints.

How you use the analysis depends on the real-life problem you are trying to solve. The 'at least 7 tricks' condition assumes the decision is whether to play 1NT or 2S, but this requires a system where you can discover the lack of an eight card fit and less than game values without going past 1NT. If the decision is whether to play 2NT or 2S, then: Spades makes more tricks 2749 times Notrump makes more tricks 918 times Same number of tricks, and at least 8 tricks 1813 times Same number of tricks, and less than 8 tricks 372 times Notrump wins 2731 times to spades winning 2749 times and a push 372 times. The advantage of 2S is that you have a plus more often which has many more ways to gain as jdonn pointed out. 20% of the sample makes 2S and not 2NT. However a big advantage of NT at matchpoints is that you go with the field. This kind of hand will swing tricks in the play and i expect the field to mostly bid 2NT over 2H. So I would be concerned about taking a view to go against them.

In general you have to take into account the probability of partner holding various hands in deciding whether an action is demonstrably suggested by a hesitiation. If it's a situation where he might pass, sacrifice or make a Lightner double, there are some auctions where a sacrifice is so unlikely that an unusual lead is demonstrably suggested by a slow pass and some where a sacrifice would be common and the slow pass would not suggest any particular lead was desired. But in your pass, invite, or bid game scenario, I'm having trouble thinking of an example where the slow invite would demonstrably suggest one or the other,