gordontd

??? He has two aces!

Yes :rolleyes: Partner will have to rebid 3NT on some misfitting minimum hands, so you must be strong enough to support that. I haven't heard the question asked, even in England, for more than twenty years!

The only problem with this explanation is that the opening post gives the impression that the auction ended at 4♠ ;)

My guess is that they were 7411/6412 opposite 1165. Not that I think that's what that auction should show.

I'll worry about that hand while getting to the best spot with my minor two-suiters.

I'd expect 4NT to be the minors: any hand that wants to Blackwood can start with a takeout double.

...unless partner might be void.

It's not so dangerous if the people overcalling on 20 counts are not the same people as those overcalling on 7 counts. Of course you could get passed out in 1♥, but there's no guarantee that you'll have missed game if you do. In practice I've rarely been passed out when I've made a strong overcall like this, and I'm fairly sure I've never missed game when I have. No doubt it could happen.

I'd probably have overcalled 1♥ and then followed with two doubles. I don't mind a first-round double, but would have next bid 2♥ and could now double again. Two doubles on the first two rounds have left me badly placed now. I guess I'll double again.

The last time I led the queen from that holding, it paid unexpected dividends when partner had a stiff J and I was able to clear the suit before getting back in with my single outside entry.

I didn't think this thread was just about teams, but the answer to your question is that players can pass information to their team-mates by failing to sort an occasional hand - for example to warn of bad breaks and suggest caution, or to announce things sitting well and suggest bidding more. It's easy to notice that your opponent sorts a hand when s/he hasn't previously.

It's hard to pass information by sorting your hand in a particular way if you aren't expected to sort your hand in any way.

Easier to pass information too - which was one reason why they deliberately didn't say you should sort.

12C1f

Read them L16C, and read the culprit L7C, in tones dependent on the circumstances. I remember being quite robust on the most recent occasion, but can't remember any other details about it.

My estimate is that I've been called about this somewhere between ten and twenty times since the new laws came in.

It says:

<pedantry> No, X is not a bid </pedantry>

This is odd. The minutes of the WBF Laws Committee meeting on 12th October 2010 say: And yet it has not been.

We have case law that when an RKCB 5♥ response was explained as "two key-cards", an opponent was entitled to ask whether it denied the trump queen even though he held that card. Now we can consider whether or not we think this case is the same :)

I'd want to have been there to make that decision. That's why I carefully avoided giving a definite answer!

Deciding whether to play the 10 or another spade in this situation is a demonstrable bridge reason. If we're satisfied that's what the pause was about, there's no reason to adjust. If we're satisfied the pause wasn't for a demonstrable bridge reason, then we need to consider the other conditions for an adjustment - did it damage an innocent opponent, and could he have known at the time that it could work to his benefit?

Not necessarily. What would 1S-(2D)-2NT show? 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop? And how would you show 11-12 balanced with a diamond stop in an uncontested auction? By way of a forcing NT. So I think it would be likely to be allowed under L27B1b, especially under the recent more liberal interpretation.

I'm sure I was asked to be a time monitor this year, possibly more than once.

That's certainly not how it was presented. Though I do agree that this part of the discussion is a bit of a red herring.