gordontd

When I played Precision, we used 2NT for all 4441 positives, which allowed us to keep the original meanings for 2♥, 2♠, 3♣, 3♦. After a 2NT response, 3♣ asked for the suit-below-the-singleton, after which a bid of a suit set that suit and asked for controls.

Kaplan? Endicott?

The problem I have is in finding these authorities' interpretations written down. I've had a look in the White Book and can't seem to find anything there. I know that's what we're taught in the EBU, but there was a lot of discussion about it at Brighton last year, in the context of a player who was awoken to his misbid by his partner's announcement, but chose not to make a L25A change. I have the impression there's a degree of uncertainty about this, and it could usefully be looked at again.

My guess is that your partner is a sounder opener than mine are :P

No 4♥ though. :rolleyes:

Seems to me like a straight choice between Pass & 3♥, and I choose Pass. I can't imagine anyone choosing the other options.

Well, most movements vary a bit between the even-table & odd-table form, and this one doesn't seem to really change its character: from a player's perspective web movements have a standard player progression, but the high-numbered tables play board-sets in reverse order. All that differs between the odd-table & even-table variants is where that division needs to be. The alternative would be to say that webs only exist as even-table movements, except for the possibility of the addition of a rover table which you have already noted is not very elegant - although it does allow you to take in a couple of late pairs if necessary.

I'll be interested in views as to the different meanings of 5♣ & 5♥ (after a 4♠ response to 4♦).

I would have thought 4♦ is the obvious first step, but there may well be a number of views as to what the best bid is on the next round after the expected 4♠ rebid by partner.

May I direct you to my recent article about Web Movements at http://www.ebu.co.uk/newsletters/?id=7&page=8 where you will see that there is a "proper" solution to running web movements for odd numbers of tables, and that a Bowman is indeed a special case of this.

I wonder why he wouldn't/didn't respond 2♣ with such a hand, following up with spades afterwards.

This seems unlikely in the extreme, since the East card would have had to skip over the West cards to get to the South hand. However, if this did happen it would mean that no-one at the original table was at fault, and the only player at fault would have been the South player at the second table.

And yet I think this is the basis for the standard practice of scoring an unplayable misboarded hand as AV+/AV-. WB7.1 does also include the phrase "...the recipient, who is required to count his cards, and is considered at fault if he looks at them when the number is wrong", so it does seem to address the question of who is offending. The latter sentence makes sense, but let's not forget that at the original table both South and East put back hands without the correct number of cards. Only the actions of the South at the second table, in failing to count accurately before looking, made the hand unplayable.

I remember consulting with you about a hand a couple of years ago in the Brighton Teams finals when the auction had gone: 1♥-1NT 2♣*-2♥ 4♥ They had agreed to play transfer rebids, so that the 2♣ rebid showed diamonds; they had also agreed to play that a 3♣ rebid was natural and game-forcing. They had no agreement as to what to do with weaker hands with clubs and the player (a professional playing his partner's system) chose to rebid 2♣ with a 2524 17-count. We ruled that the defending side had been mis-informed because they were entitled to know of the gap in the system for hands with clubs that were not strong enough for a 3♣ rebid. However, we also ruled that the misinformation had not damaged them because the opening bidder had effectively changed his mind and continued the auction as though he had a game-forcing hand (even though he had not), and so the information that we thought the defenders were entitled to would not have led them to conclude on this auction that he might have a hand with clubs rather than diamonds.

Do you take the view that WB 7.1 is only relevant to the matter of PPs, not to artificial assigned scores?

13D2b?

The other law that might be relevant (depending on what the hands where, and whether 5♦ was a normal result or an exceptional one) is L86D.

It's usual to consider the player who failed to (accurately) count their hand as being at fault. Had South counted correctly, the board would not have been unplayable.

I carefully split up Phil's post and responded to each bit separately. You've taken one of my responses and put it beneath something from an entirely different post, as though I had been responding to that.

That's why we're not considering taking the finesse the other way Shouldn't you only be considering half of 2-2 breaks, since those with Jx in North will have been revealed at the moment of decision? You can pick up all 2-2 breaks, but only if you know they're breaking 2-2. You can also pick up all 3-1 breaks with a singleton in South, but you still need to make a decision. I thought you shouldn't take unknown suits into account to calculate vacant spaces. Whether I'm write or wrong about that, it was clearly the view shared by nearly all those I asked how they would play it, which is why I concluded that it was "likely" (ie above 50%) that the finesse would be taken. I don't think anyone has posted anything in contradiction of that. I'd have expected more than intuition for a claim of that magnitude.

I think you have answered your own question correctly. It's much the same as when you forget you have an agreement - you can't alert or explain something you have forgotten, but you are of course still responsible for the failure to alert or explain it, and subject to an adjusted score for any damage it causes.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise (not that I accept your premise - who was that author whose players at Ann Arbor bridge club seemed to endlessly bid four-card majors with a six-card minor on the side?) What about 1-4-4-4, 1-4-3-5?

Let's also not forget that he told us he couldn't bid 2NT because it was non-forcing.... so he bid 3H which was non-forcing.

I know several people who routinely do just that.

...and for movement nerds, an odd-table Bowman is identical to the Web movement for the same number of tables :D