gordontd

Do we use them for Swiss teams? I think they have been used for Swiss Teams, but not much. The scoring programmes can certainly do it and they may well be used a bit more for Swiss Teams in the future. The reason I've held back from using them is because of the danger of mis-matches if there are scoring errors.

When I worked at the first club in England to introduce Bridgemates, we had an octogenarian member who told me she had hoped to get through life without ever touching a computer. By the second week she was showing her partner how to use the Bridgemate.

(1♣) - P - (1♥) - P (1♠) - (X) - (XX) - P X = takeout of ♠ XX = support Does the final pass in this auction show a desire to defend 1S, or does it show no preference among the other suits?

When I used to teach I would look out for deals in play that illustrated points I wished to make and then re-use them.

Some 2/1 players (the majority I think) play that reverses after 2/1 response do not show extra. This allows them to bid out their shape, and it allows them to insist on six-card suits when opener rebids their suit. However, it also makes it harder for them to divine when opener has extra values. Others play that reverses & high reverses in 2/1 auctions do show extra. They find it easier to assess extra strength, but they have to allow simple rebids on five-card suits and/or 2NT rebids on imperfect hands. One (minority) way to try to have your cake & eat it is to reverse the meanings of 2NT & 2M rebids in 2/1 auctions: a 2NT rebid shows a 6+ card suit, and a 2M rebid shows a 5 card suit in a balanced hand or in an unbalanced hand without extras.

I don't think there's any suggestion that you should routinely disbelieve such a statement, but nor should you just accept it without further enquiry.

The same standard does apply, but here we do have some evidence - in the form of the system card and the assertions of the two players. The question is what weight to give to that evidence, and probably the director at the table is in the best position to decide that.

Did East say why he led low? My guess is because the fourth highest was a high-ish card, in which case their true agreement seems to be that they lead low whenever the fourth highest card is high-ish, not just from 6/7 card suits. That would suggest a degree of misinformation, but I'm not sure that Declarer would often play differently with the correct information. Was this Matchpoints or IMPs?

If we accept what East has said, there has been no misinformation and East has just made a deceptive lead. But I'd be reluctant to accept this without any further evidence. What did West say?

In the first case, as has been stated by other posters, L27B1a allows a replacement bid of 2NT. In the second case I think we need to look to L27B1b and ask the recommended question "Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?” If we are satisfied that all hands that would have bid 2NT after 1S (2D) would also have started by responding 1NT in an uncontested auction, then we can allow the replacement bid of 2NT. Since most jurisdictions are now, at the WBF's suggestion, taking a more liberal approach to these decisions, I would have thought it likely that it would be allowed.

No, he's correct. From the paper given by the Chief TD of the WBF to the EBL and to EBU directors, when the 2007 laws came in to effect:

I think we'd need to find out more what "4th/low" means. When do they lead 4th, when do they lead low?

That's not correct. We can include results that are worse than the table result, but if the final outcome of all our weighting is worse than the table result we conclude that the NOS were not damaged by the infraction.

Actually the word used in the Law is "artificial", not "conventional".

Unless you open 1NT on all balanced 12-14s with a five-card major, you also need a rebid for balanced 12-14s. If you don't need that, then it makes more sense for the 2NT rebid to be 15-17 & the 3NT rebid to be 18-20 (forcing to 4NT) than the other way around.

His answer was:

Actually it was Kojak, not Ton.

How about 1C - 2H as a slam try :(

I play a 2NT response as weak, defined as a hand too weak to play 3NT opposite a strong balanced opener. That way it doesn't wrong-side. Then 3m is constuctive and 2m is limit+. The problem comes in a 2/1 system of how to show a balanced 11-12 (if you can't respond 2C to 1D).

It sounds a dreadful club. If the TD is competent then it is time he started issuing DPs to get the players to behave. In a decent club calling the TD implies no slur and players accept that, and calls are reasonable and accepted without problem. What an odd little outburst, that doesn't seem justified by the post which provoked it. No, it's not a dreadful club, and there's a consistent stance there of encouraging TD calls (without any implied slur) whenever it would be helpful. But it would be a dreadful club if the TDs started issuing DPs to those who are reluctant to claim, rather than explaining to them in a friendly manner when and why to claim.

Even strong players can find something new about a problem when they consult.

Sally Brock in "Double Trouble" - she agrees with you as far as I remember.

Who talked of taking a card from another table?

Well, if you add another card you are "using another pack". But more to the point, I'm not clear why it's more of a problem if the missing card turns up when you've added one replacement card than it is if you've replaced the pack.

I'm not sure I understand this David - can you explain it a bit more?