shyams

Ravens - to reach SB XLVI

I agree with Free's concern. If his post is edited, why are the other posts not a problem?

I agree. Also, the poster talks about "lots of love" about their own post and "too much aggression" about others. But in my opinion, the faux love and the passive-aggresion make these posts more unbearable than the occasional flame wars between (other) posters.

[hv=pc=n&s=s64hqj8763dt65ca3&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c(better%20minor)1sd(agree%20with%20neg%20x%3F)p1n2c(natural%21)]133|200[/hv] I'd like to hear what you'd do here. Partner and I were playing a standard 2/1 type system. FYI: This is the last board of the round, and opps appear to be overbidders. 1. Do you agree with the negative dbl? 2. What action do you take now? Thanks

I don't profess to be A/E but my partner would routinely respond 1♦ with this hand

Although I had no strong opinions about the Ian Bell incident (I watched it live on TV), I thought the BBC TV summary shown in the 10 pm News and the BBC Breakfast sports bulletins was very biased -- especially in their choice of words describing the incident. The BBC commentary implied that India had done a massive blunder in dismissing Bell in that fashion, and re-instating Bell atoned for their action + embellished the view of Cricket as a gentleman's game. In stark contrast, the Sky commentators thought it was almost entirely Bell's fault and he deserved to be given out. In fact, Shane Warne said that if Australia were asked to withdraw an appeal in such a situation, he (Warne) would have voted against it.

Your reading of the laws is flawed. 45D speaks not of "played" cards, but of cards "placed in the played position". OK. If the situation is as I described (dummy puts down only the ♠K) AND a. ...in a "played" position (i.e. longer edge facing dummy) which led to the 3rd player playing the ♠A, it seems reasonable that 45D will apply. BUT a. ... in a "normal" position (i.e. shorter edge facing dummy) followed by the 3rd player playing the ♠A, do you think 45D still applies? IMHO, Law 45F also cannot apply because this can apply "After dummy's hand is faced" which appears not to have happened in the situation described in the OP. At the risk of derailing the discussion, say opening lead was ♠2, followed by dummy putting down his cards in this order: place ♠K, pause 0.2 sec, then place 5 trumps, pause 0.2 sec, then place 4 card minor, pause 0.2 sec, then place singleton in other minor, then place two more ♠ cards on top of ♠K. And while this jokey display is underway and declarer has said nothing, the third hand assumes ♠K as singleton and follows with the ♠A, would you rule 45D as well?

IMHO, the ♠A should be deemed a played card (played out of turn?). So, declarer should ask dummy to put all his 13 cards down and then can choose to play any spade but the ♠A is deemed to be played. IMHO, Law 45D does not apply because the card put down by dummy was not a played card (maybe dummy thought he was participating in a game where all 4 players play their own cards). In any case, after dummy has put 1 of his 13 cards down, if the 3rd player plays, he/she does so in haste. Whether dummy deserves a PP for what happened is another matter. I will leave that part of the discussion to the TDs

There used to be a game in "Whose line is it anyway?" where all sentences had to end as a question. Wouldn't it be fun to reply to a question with an associated question?

I have a related question. What's the weakest hand partner can hold for a negative dbl? Would x Qxxx QT9 xxxxx qualify? I ask because one of (not very regular) partner and I tend to use neg x with 4+ card major and even 4-5 HCP. And that's why I wrote that declarer probably is 5422

What?

If I were to infer, I'd say partner does not have 4 card ♥. So declarer must be 5-4-2-2. I play a top ♣

East had doubleton in hearts, discarded first and chose a club.

IMO, playing a fifth round of ♥ makes sense now. Our only hope would be if West began with ♠xx ♥xxx ♦QJx ♣QJTxx and masterminded his opening lead. East's discard of one♣ and one ♦ would then make sense.

The OP says "Declarer takes a couple of tricks" and then describes declarer's next few actions and words. If the first line of the post was meant to suggest only two tricks have been played, then I fail to understand how the showing of AKJ of one suit constitutes a claim. If it wasn't, then I'd appreciate if we can get a clarification on how many cards remained when the claim was made. I like the point introduced in bluejak's post that declarer may have been trying to shorten the game. If declarer says "I am playing the AKJ of trumps next" and shows those three cards from his hand, would he be claiming? I don't think so. He is probably trying to shorten the game by telling opps to follow to 3 rounds of trumps or identify suitable discards. It may be illegal for the declarer to say or do that but it still doesn't mean declarer has made a claim. (Edit: added "doesn't" - erroneously missed typing it earlier)

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp Although a great read, this story is fake.

If partner has a 6-card ♥ suit, I am definitely bidding 3♥.

Quote from Blindsight, a novel by Peter Watts "Maybe the Singularity happened years ago. We just don't want to admit we were left behind."

In the context of 2/1 GF where opener's hand is fairly wide range, I was wondering: 1. What is the typical minumum for a F 1NT response to 1M opening? I have three specific hands where I'd appreciate hearing your views: Partner opens 1♠, next person passes and you hold 9xxx Txx Qxx xxx. Partner opens 1♠, next person passes and you hold Qxx xxx xxxx Jxx Partner opens 1♥, next person passes and you hold xxxx xx QJxx Qxx 2. If your opps have agreed to play forcing 1NT for hands above (esp. when NV), would you expect to be specially alerted or pre-alerted on ranges? (Although this is not the laws portion of the forum), does your regulating body (ACBL, EBU etc) prohibit or restrict such responses? 3. Assuming it is allowed, how can opener determine if responder has a very poor hand? e.g. it becomes risky to jump rebids showing extras. Is there a standard control or relay sequence to protect? Thanks in advance

Declarer could easily have held 3-1-0-9 with the ♠Q and decided to play for the ♣K to drop on the way back. Now a -500 gets converted to -200 and could lose the match. I don't think the if's and but's help much here. I would tend to go with mrdct's opinion that this was a pretty serious error.

(1) Disagree

Does no one play fit jumps by passed hand? I knew some people who'd bid 3♦ with North hand showing good ♦ suit with 3-card trump. In fact, I am currently writing some notes for my partnership where I have added this type of bid.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt4hkjt876daq3cj&w=sj76h3dkj976cqt74&n=s8haq9dt542cak983&e=sak9532h542d8c652]399|300[/hv] This was the full hand. As you can see, RKCB does not help because partner's 5♠ response endplays you into 6♥ again. I wonder if the situation would improve for partner if he cues 5♣ and I bid 5♥. I think he would pass and make it. At the table, prtner decided he had enough info and leaped to 6♥ :angry: !

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt4hkjt876daq3cj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c2s(preempt%20with%206-card)3h3s4hp]133|200[/hv] At MPs, you hold this hand and watch partner open and opponents interfere. Due to the competition, partner's raise to 4♥ can be 3-card or 4-card suit (He knows your 3♥ showed at least 5 cards) If you ask LHO, she confirms that East is most likely a 6-card ♠ suit. We play 4NT as RKCB (we play 14-30 if it matters). We also have an agreement to cue 1st/2nd round controls. Do you try for slam? If yes, do you choose 4NT or plan to cue bid?

Here's another one -- again easy to find the flaw. We start by saying: -20 = -20 This is the same as: 16 - 36 = 25 - 45 Add in (81/4): 16 - 36 + 81/4 = 25 - 45 + 81/4 Re-state as: (4 + 9/2)^2 = (5 + 9/2)^2 Take sq roots: 4 + 9/2 = 5 + 9/2 Eliminate 9/2 from both: 4 = 5