Tramticket

Why wouldn't you alert? Your opponents are entitled to know your methods.

I am a little surprised that a single-winner movement was used for a Cross-IMPs competition. I'm not a director, but I thought that a two-winner movement was more usual for this form of scoring?

Nice trump coup to recover from the 5-0 break Nigel. Yes, the cards sat where you needed them to be, but still rather elegant.

3D for me. No need to mention the hearts when diamonds are two cards longer.

This is a problem for a weak NT system. The 6-10 range is surely too wide. As an Acol player the range is 6 up to a poor 9 and this still feels too wide at times. Opener will pass with a balanced 15, invited with 17-18, but 16 is a difficult case. Most of the time I pass with 16, but that is risky if playing teams and vulnerable! Note that a 1NT response has different problems if responder hold a balanced 6-9 and you play 1NT as forcing or (the linguistically challenged) semi-forcing. There are no choices that can solve all of the hand-types. Opening 1D with 4441 and a singleton club is one of those theoretical problems, which never seems to be a problem in real life. I open 1D and very occasionally I rebid 2D on a 4-card suit, but the auction never seems to end there. Maybe one day I will have to play 2D on a 4-2 (Or even 4-1!) fit and when that happens, I will just have to take my medicine. It will be a small, part-score disaster.

I agree with the comments above, this hand is worth more than 21-22 - particularly in a suit contract. K&R is much more accurate for suit contracts. But, imagine if partner doesn't have a spade fit, but does have a random three-count - 3NT still needs a good lie of the cards. I wish my 2NT were 21-22, but if playing OP methods, it is close.

What strength does the 1NT rebid show? Do you play Ang form of Check-back? New Minor Forcing? Or similar?

You can play Match-point teams matches - Sometimes called Point a Board (UK) or Board a Match (US).

I value this as a middle of the road 14. I love the diamond suit but dislike the isolated honours in the other suits. 1NT is such a powerful opening bid, denying bidding space to the opponents. I want quite a bit more to open 1D.

I have 20 HCPs. Partner has 15-17 HCPs. Opponents have 3-5 HCPs. South doesn't have a lot for the 4♥ bid, but it is most likely that any points are in hearts. I expect a Grand Slam to make. 4NT should probably show the minors, but why give partner that problem? There is a lot to be said for a simple 7♦ bid. You may even get a trump lead. But 5♥ is forcing and smerriman's plan seems as good as any.

I agree that an alert says that you might want to ask what this call means. Unfortunately if the unalerted bid - the "default condition" - is ill defined, you are left with no better knowledge than when the call is unalerted. So a lack of alert also says "you may want to ask what this call means". In other words, we are no better informed, whether there is an alert or no alert. There are some jurisdictions (e.g. Scotland), where there is no requirement to alert any double. This would be preferable to the EBU position since at least it is clear to everyone that we have no information and need to ask. Things are worse than this though. Because similar wording is used when defining what to write on a system card, you will not even find out anything meaningful when you consult the system card.

I agree, if only because an "aggressive" overcall is nevertheless a natural bid. The term natural bid is well defined by the EBU. But a take-out double is the bid defined by the EBU as the bid not requiring an alert - akin to a natural bid. Unfortunately, the definition of a take-out double is so fuzzy that any alert, or lack of alert carries no useful information.

In most areas, I would agree with you that the EBU rules are well written. But compare the previous Blue Book: with the current wording:

But the strange thing is that they are playing by the EBU rules and they can (and do) continue to do this in external competitions. A course in rules and ethics will be ineffective if the rules are poorly drafted.

I am prepared to accept these numbers. But ... I suggest that they ought to lose more than 5. But they never seem to end in the ridiculous contract because their partner always seems to have a justification not to bid 4M, despite holding a five-card suit. They might be "life novices", but they do know what type of hand partner will hold and bid on that assumption. Is it unreasonable that we should also know? Most of their two gains will occur when they don't win the auction, declarer makes a plan based on the likely suit distribution. The plan would be different if properly informed.

I don't buy this argument that the EBU can't regulate because: "they don't know any better". Players who open a Benji 2C on an 8-card suit headed by AKQJ and nothing else also don't know what they're doing, but the EBU is determined to twist and turn into all sorts of ridiculous contortions to ban this practice. It is far easier to define a take-out double than a Benji 2C and they could require an alert - if they had the will. Maybe these players would have a better understanding if their national body gave a clearer direction.

This ought to be so. But in England, the EBU has completely watered down the regulation. You don't need to alert take out doubles and there is no shape requirement for a take-out double - just the requirement that the doubler wishes to compete and partner is expected to bid but might pass. You can expect no sympathy from an English director when an opponent makes one of these bizarre doubles.

I was thinking like Nige1. Anyone else honest enough to admit they might be playing in two diamond doubled by West?!

Perhaps North has seen his partner's weak jump over-calls before and wasn't expecting him to hold the ace of clubs as well as a Jack in each major?

I have often sat at a table where declarer has (say) failed to make 4♠ because they didn't drop my singleton king of trumps. Dummy stares at the Bridgemate and chastises partner: "You should have made it". I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what a double dummy solver is and no, it should not be used as the "par" for assessing an individual hand. But aggregate data can be interesting. If you know and understand how to use a utility like Bridgesolver, it can be an incredibly powerful tool for walking through a hand.

I used to play Extended Stayman. This was back in the days before we played transfers. These days, we play Stayman then 3♦ shows five diamonds and a four-card major. With six diamonds and a four-card major we transfer to diamonds and then bid the major. You do need to know how to show 5-5 though. We never open 1NT with a doubleton in each major (I don't think that there is any need to do this in a weak NT context). For us, the choices are: 1NT-2♥-2♠-4♥ but some play this as a splinter in support of spades. 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥-3NT-4♥ this must be at least 5-5 I have also played 1NT-4♣ to show 5-5 in the majors (more useful than Gerbil). My old Acol text book also has the sequence 1NT-2♣-2♥-3♦ as "Stayman-in-Doubt" = Four-card heart support in exactly 3433 shape. Must be the daftest convention ever! The sequence 1NT-2♣-2♦-3♣ would have been a weak sign-off in clubs of course.

Playing Lebensohl, there are two ways of reaching 3NT: (1) Directly: 1NT-(2♠)-3NT or (2) through the Lebensohl sequence: 1NT-(2♠)-2NT-3♣-3NT. These two sequences should shown different hand types and it is common to play that one shows a stop and one denies a stop, but there is no universal agreement as to which is which! In this instance North was playing that 3NT shows the values for game and denies a spade stop.

A little thought might save you from leading out of turn! :)

I would assume natural without discussion. And it wouldn't be high on my priority list to discuss with a new partner - it is not a high frequency bid. But I agree that the meaning in the OP us more useful.