sfi

My recommendation is to decide what to do beforehand and then do it consistently. Knowing what you will do in these situations helps to take the stress away from working out how to behave. I have a standard (very boring and non-bridge related) topic I contemplate in these positions, so I'm doing my best to not give information away by mannerisms.

So once again I ask: Given the only reason I mentioned any meaning to 3D is to determine whether pass is a logical alternative, how does the meaning you attach to it affect West's actions? And it was clear they were beginners from the start - my original post assumed (and stated) that.

So what do you propose it is and what actions does it suggest to West? I have a hard time believing it says that West should pass.

From the description, we know both East and West have UI. Let's consider West first. If you're West and transfer into hearts, what does 3D mean? To many people it shows a heart fit and a reasonable hand, regardless of specific agreements. Given how strong West is, I have a hard time seeing 3H as a logical alternative, with 6H, 4H, 4C, and 4D all seeming like possibilities. Since it's clearly not an experienced partnership, I would rule out 4D as a cue bid and consider the others. 4H appears to be suggested by the UI - it's likely to wake partner up and is clearly going to be a reasonable spot. What would happen after 4C? It's not clear, but any bidding misunderstanding appears to lead them to 6H. Given that 6H is cold, there appears to be no damage from the UI to West, even though IMO West did not consider their ethical obligations appropriately. How about East? If partner bids diamonds (presumably forcing?) and then hearts, a raise looks normal. So no issues here. In summary, I disagree with the reasoning for 'table result stands', but get to that conclusion anyway. I would have a discussion with East and West about how to handle UI situations (away from the table, since it's pretty clear they are new players). Passing 3D looks crazy. The directors who suggested that have missed the mark - West still knows their own hand and that partner opened 1NT.

Passing this hand is not common anywhere, not just forums. And would have gotten you yelled at decades ago. If this is my hand, I pass 1H-x in the knowledge that this is likely to be a normal-ish result around the room.

Use of the stop card is unheard of in Australia.

I presume 2H wouldn't be fit-showing?

That too, but if I just needed a sub-optimal heart lead I'd be willing to play 3NT. :)

3NT looks like it needs the singleton QC to have good play. If you pick up clubs for no losers in any other way, you only have 4 tricks and need to rely on the spade finesse. Double looks normal.

All well and good, but partner has the right to do something to stop him from facing a card during the auction. How would you suggest his partner does that? Not really sure how this is relevant to this situation. It's also fairly innocuous.

Would it help if his partner had said "the auction isn't over yet", "not unless you pass" or something similar? It seems to me that partner's question is neutral and entirely reasonable. In fact, had he led (face down), I would find it normal for partner to confirm that he had in fact intended to pass. The other way he could believe the auction is over is if he thought there had been at least three passes and wasn't really paying attention. So, the auction continues with his call.

One reason to bid 3D is that 3H is more likely to be raised to the four level. This is only useful if you can rely on partner to have classic shape, of course.

Sure, it can go wrong. But I'm not overly worried about them bidding and making 3S when both opponents have had a chance to bid, including RHO being able to make a takeout double showing the blacks over 1H. I'm more concerned about our own constructive bidding here. FWIW, I am bidding 3D over the re-opening double, so LHO has to have the hand to compete further anyway to make the 2D call a loser in your scenario. But 3D can go wrong as well, and I can carefully construct hands to show that. They would include moderate values but lack of quick tricks. The truth is that I wouldn't complain too much if a partner bid 3D and it didn't work out. We might discuss what 2D and 3D should look like, but neither is a dreadful choice. Other things to factor into the discussion is preempt style (1D vs. 2D or 3D) and soundness of minor openings (what hands do you pass on). Both of these would affect expectations for your rebids. Without these discussions, my tendency is to bid 2D though. I like quick tricks.

Original poster will be playing in the Bermuda Bowl later this year, so definitely an expert. 2D for me as well. If partner moves, they will either have good values or aces. With neither of those I would prefer not to be in game.

Come on in, the water's warm. If you think that playing takeout doubles means you're less likely to be penalised, you're very much mistaken.

I agree - WTP? If masterpoints attract more people to tournaments, I'm all for them. We all know they are a poor measure of skill, but they are the product our national organisations produce.

Australia hands out masterpoints for each match (round) in a Swiss Pairs or for any match in a teams event (round robin, Swiss, etc.), as well as overall awards. For other pair events (or for the occasional Point-a-board), masterpoints are handed out per session in addition to the overalls. One ramification is that everyone wins masterpoints in a Swiss, while in a Mitchell-movement event you may play the entire tournament and not win any. This is why matchpoint events are almost non-existent at a national level. We have one 5-session event and one other major Swiss Pairs which is MP converted to VP. Everything else is essentially Swiss Pairs and Teams. With all the results computerised, this could be fixed by simply handing out 0.02 MP for each board where a pair scores above average in a Howell or Mitchell movement. We also don't have the concept of stratified events in the masterpoint system. That is another way we may be able to fix the problems and increase diversity of events.

The big issue with the Swiss format is that the rounds don't contribute equally to the final placings. If you look at a 10 round event, I would estimate the first round has maybe 1% influence on the outcome (more than one person has told me I'm overestimating this), the last round around 30%, with an increasing percentage for each round in the middle. Luck of the final round draw plays a huge role in the event, and the more seeds you play early in the event, the better your chances. It may be a reasonable way to determine a winner, but Swiss is pretty dreadful at sorting out the rest of the field. The reason so much Swiss Pairs is played in Australia is that everyone wins masterpoints, and that's what keeps people coming to the tournaments. So that's a good thing I suppose.

What's the plan? That's the question I want to ask South in the bidding. I can't see how 1S will accomplish anything useful compared to bidding the hand in a normal way. On the face of it, the bid is really bad if you can't suggest 3NT after a raise.

No. From the information you have provided, there is no evidence that West has any unauthorised information. Since your partner did not call, there is actually evidence that there was no noticeable break in tempo from South-West's point of view. Without UI, West is free to choose any call they like, logical or not. Remember, it's a lot harder to tell who caused a break in tempo behind screens, and why it occurred. It could easily have been you who was thinking about your call, including asking about the meaning of 3S and other possible actions West might have taken. Saying that the only reason for the delay is East's hesitation over 4D is simply not accurate in this auction.

Score stands, and on this evidence I would be very surprised if any appeal were not ruled frivolous. I can't access the WBF screen regulations at the moment, but point 2 seems the most important playing with screens - the side receiving the UI relating to slow calls is the one to call the director. Here there is no reason for West to assume that partner was slow, so West's actions are unconstrained. On a side note, point 1 is a ridiculous point for the director to make. Your 4D provides an opportunity for them to bid game, but it doesn't force them to. Edit: Good to see the regulations quoted above support my statement. :)

I'm pretty sure it's right for them to bid 4S over 4H. I'm pretty sure it's right for them to double 6H. Over 5H it's not clear what's right, so that's what I'm choosing.

You're right. My partner had a blind spot and led a diamond. Now the defence can set up and cash a club in addition to their red suit tricks. If you lead a heart you may actually be cold, but you're certainly very close to 100%. The reason I find this hand interesting is that it reminds me of a concept from chess - that of the forced move (apologies to anyone that actually plays chess, since I may have the name wrong). If you play the heart, the defence are forced to cash their diamonds immediately or lose one of them. But this sets up the discards you need for your clubs. This hand isn't quite the same as a simple issue of tempo, since when you play a heart you're not setting up a winner to discard your fourth loser. It's related, but there seems to be a separate general principle that you should make the play that constrains the opponents' actions. Does anyone have other examples along the same lines?

First the hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sakjt72hqd95cak84&n=s854hk7dqjt4c9632&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1c(strong)p1d(weak)p1sp2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] Not a good game, but the play is the point. This isn't really that difficult a hand, but a couple of expert players didn't recognise what was going on and I haven't ever noticed the key theme before. I'm curious if I've just been missing a crucial part of declarer play all these years. West leads the C5 and the first trick goes 5-2-T-A. You play two rounds of trump and everyone follows. Now what, and what do you need to make the hand? More general thoughts in a bit.

Given the typical quality of post-mortems, I would take that as a challenge and bid 3NT anyway. ;)