gordontd

My law book doesn't have a L40B3 f or g.

Strong jump overcalls are not pre-emptive, any more than strong-two opening bids are pre-emptive.

Err, no :lol:

The name Michaels is used for any two-suiter in much of Europe.

It would be a hard act to follow :)

4♣ now.

What's the advantage of these over an immediate 5♣?

Do you have the auction the wrong way up? No, that doesn't make sense either, but there's clearly some confusion here.

http://www.bridgehands.com/P/ & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_c...ct_bridge_terms appear to take opposite sides on the question.

Is it not permitted to ask for a control in the opponents' suit unless you have a solid suit yourself?

It's an established principle, in bridge law as in other laws, that we don't guess what the authors intended but instead we follow what was written. If they got it wrong, they need to correct it.

If you have two sets of pre-duplicated boards you can play a Bowman without worrying where you position Table 11. If you have Bridgemates you don't have to worry about entering the scores into the travellers in the correct place.

Where does Kaplan-Sheinwold (or even kaplan-Sheinwold) come into all this?

Yes, it's quite common to include such a result. Obviously if you gave a large enough % to such results you could end up with a position where the NOS would be better without the adjustment - which would be another way of saying that they weren't damaged.

I'm far from convinced that West would double 4♦, but even if we accept that I can't see East doubling 5♦. 5♦ could easily be cold - swap a major suit card in each NS hand, and move the ♣10 to the North hand.

I am worried that partner will play me for a better hand if I bid Michaels then take another free bid. I think 2NT then bidding clubs just shows extra distribution - this hand in fact. To show strength one would need to cue-bid or double on the next round.

I thought custom & practice suggested that they should, unless there has been an outside agency (eg the director, or players from another table) involved.

The trouble is that "directly at fault" & "partly at fault" are not mutually exclusive categories.

Essentially you are right, but it's not surprising that you couldn't find it in the book, because it's in L17D2 under "The Auction Period"!

I agree with your outcome, Sven, but I'm not sure about your methodology: you seem to be ruling under L27B1b, whereas I think it is covered by L27B1a and so there's no need to look to L27B1b. I agree that L27D does not come into play.

The first sequence shows support. If you didn't have support you could bid a new suit which would be forcing. The second sequence does not show support. Partner's bid was only a one round force, and so a simple rebid would not be forcing. Because of this we need to be able to use the cuebid to show a hand with extra strength but no clear direction, without bypassing 3NT. The third sequence does not show support. A change of suit by advancer at the two level is not absolutely forcing, and so you need to cuebid to create a force, whether or not you have support for partner.

Particularly since they do not easily divulge their agreement (if it's the same pair I've encountered), instead saying that they play them as random, and only when pressed do they reluctantly give away the algorithm.

L12C2a If both sides are at fault they must both be partly at fault - it can't be completely one side's fault and completely the other side's fault.

I can see no reason why L27B3 should not apply.

Partner's range (and aims in bidding 4♥ ) are even more wide-ranging. Partner knows what I have better than I know what partner has. Perhaps I should have opened 3♥ if I'm not content to pass now?