shyams

At the table, South played ♦5, North won with the Ace and tried to cash the ♣K before leading the 4th heart. Obviously, South knew that the club was not cashable and was quite upset with North for not playing the remaining ♥ to promote the setting trick [hv=n=s4h8765dat9632ck4&w=s82hakqj9dkj8ca86&e=skqt9763ht3dq7c93&s=saj5h42d54cqjt752]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] I was North. I realise both of us made mistakes but I could see no hurry from South's side as long as he held the trump ace. I felt the club lead by South could not hurt at all -- but partner thought it was a weak excuse because it was highly unlikely declarer bid a 6-card trump suit at the 3-level

How about this: - Win ♦A, ruff a ♦ in dummy, cross to ♥K, ruff another ♦ in dummy, cash ♠A, cash ♥A (throw 4th ♦), then start playing clubs ending in dummy - If clubs break 3-3, play a low spade towards hand at trick 10 intending to put up ♠Q if East follows a. If East shows out, we duck (instead of playing ♠Q) and endplay West to score one more trump (makes 10 exact) b. If trumps were 4-1 on the right, play 13th club after winning ♠Q (makes 11 tricks) c. If trumps are 3-2, and King is doubleton on the left, we make 11 tricks d. In other 3-2s, we could make either 11 or 12 tricks depending on the distribution - If clubs are 4-2, some good things can still happen (e.g. the person with xx in clubs also has Kx in spades) but mostly opps will score their three trumps separately while we make our 10 tricks However, I'm not sure how many times this gains vs. loses in MPs. I think manudude03's line offers much better odds for overtricks.

I think this is very tough for a B/I problem. And I think (hidden)

I'd choose 5♥ at this vulnerability. I have no way of trying for a slam.

[hv=d=n&v=n&w=s82hakqj9dkj8ca86&s=saj5h42d54cqjt752]266|200|Scoring: MP Partner (North) deals and passes East opens 3♠ and West carries on to 4♠[/hv] Your opening lead is ♣Q and the play goes as below: 1. ♣Q - ♣A - ♣4 - ♣3 2. ♥A - ♥7 - ♥3 - ♥2 3. ♥K - ♥5 - ♥T - ♥4 4. ♥Q - ♥6 - ♣9 - ♠5 After ruffing, this particular South hand had a choice of leading either ♣J or ♦5. He chose one -- and it did not work one. After the deal (and then after the session), the N/S pair had a prolonged disagreement on which of the two leads is obvious/superior. Both were stubbornly refusing to see the logic of the other person's position. Assuming N/S are not experts, which is the better continuation at trick 5? Is this obvious? Any help or advise welcome. (yes, we we N/S and got a poor score on this one) Note: We do not play secondary signals etc so apart from showing an even count, there is not much to read in North's play of heart cards. South deliberately did not signal even count (if it matters)

The voting clearly favours not bidding 2NT At the table, I chose 2NT. Partner had enough to raise to 3 -- I think he had all three Kings Unfortunately, hearts were 5-4 and the Ace was over dummy's King. Down 2 before I gained the lead. If partner declares 3NT from his side, we have 9 top tricks + the natural opening lead would have given us the 10th trick

Though this sounds intuitively right, I think it is due to spring movements. If we tried this in real life, some of the springs would be in a state of motion (vibration). When springs vibrate, a part of the stack is accelerating / decelerating. This adds to or counteracts the earth's gravitational force. In fact, when such a stack has springs that are vibrating outwards (i.e. the stack is expanding), the topmost scale would also register a weight reading (despite it being empty) If we achieved a stable system where none of the springs vibrate, then the laws of physics would require that the every one of the scales would show the correct calculated weights

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sakqht9dq5caqj963]133|100|Scoring: MP East South West North Pass - 1♣ - Pass - 1♦ Pass - ??[/hv]

Win the ♥A and play the second spade. I think our only hope is to play declarer for 2-1-7-3 distribution. Partner's switch to clubs was correct because he did not know which of South or West held the ♣K.

I thought careless or irrational was supposed to be based on the class of player. If West "regularly plays for the county first team", would he really make such a silly mistake at this stage? I am not convinced. If you were placed into the West seat after trick 9 was turned over and only told: a. HA has been cashed (no one showed out) but HK is still in play b. South has two more trump winners, to be played on tricks 10 and 11 would you not find the two heart discards on the remaining two rounds of trumps? If the answer is yes, then E/W deserve a trick

A. Can we ask the OP for an assessment of the standard of all players? 1. Clearly East can count and knows what is going on. 2. Normally such players play with people of equal caliber (esp. if this is a regular partnership). If yes, I would give E/W one trick regardless of what happened. B. Did the TD ask the table why they were delayed for the round? 3. IMHO, as part of the investigation, the TD should check if South (or N/S) were responsible for the time over-run in this round. If they have been almost fully responsible, I would hope the TD does not even give a PP to East for trying to speed up the play. 4. If there is no clear side responsible for the delay, the TD should warn or give a PP to East -- TD's judgement C. Is there any "history" between these two pairs? 5. The idea of invoking the slow play penalty would be relevant only if the TD finds that South was trying to annoy E/W in any way or there is a history between these pairs.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=saqt643hqdj7cjt73]133|100|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] In fourth seat, None Vul, you hear this auction: West North East South 2♥ - pass - 2NT - ??? (2♥ is weak, usually 6 cards; 2NT = forcing query) Do you act with the South hand? If you choose to pass, the bidding continues (hidden) What do you do now?

Agree with nigel_k 1. Partner's hesitation is more likely because he was thinking about a double. 2. While I think pass is a logical alternative (I would consider passing with the hand), the 4♦ bid is not suggested by the slow pass.

1. I suspect your side got a bottom not due to either North or South's inaction but due to East's pass. Did many E/Ws play in 4♥ -1? 2. Switch the ♠3 and ♣3 between the East and West hands and now 4♥ is cold but 4♠ is down.

My club duplicate sessions are 24 or 26 boards. Boards in play are Law 2 compliant and sequential from 1 to 26 etc... Now comes the hypothetical bit A. Tomorrow's session at the club will be 24 boards long. What's different is the boards in play will be #1 thru #12; then #17 thru #28. In other words, boards # 13 (N dealer, Both Vul), #14 (E dealer, None Vul), #15 (S dealer, NS Vul), #16 (W dealer, EW Vul) will not be in play at all - Is such a tournament legal? - Does it violate any EBU rules making the session ineligible for master points, rankings etc? B. Same hypothetical situation as above -- this time, we are playing 26/27 boards. The choice is #1 thru #13 (or #14 if we play 27 boards); then #16 thru #29 - Is this any different from Situation A. above in terms of legality, EBU eligibility etc Thank you for your advice and opinions

Herein lies the problem. You have too many trumps in the South hand to reach this position at trick 10

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skt962hajdkjtcj54]133|100|Scoring: MP Dealer passes and partner opens 1♥. RHO overcalls 1♠. Now what? Additional question: If partner bids 2X instead of a re-opening double, what hand would you expect for partner?[/hv]

This: there is nothing in the Laws to the effect that the result on a mis-marked board cannot stand. Indeed, the Laws expressly say that such a result shall stand, with the players using the (incorrect) markings on the actual board to determine the score rather than what the (correct) markings should have been. Therefore, if I understand correctly, the TD should have ruled something along these lines (based on TD's judgement of correct contracts) * At bluejak's table: 4♥ = vs. a hypothetical 4♥ -1: which is + 470 (or 10 IMPs) to Bluejak * At the other table: 3♠ +2 vs. a hypothetical 4♠ =: which is -220 (or -6 IMPs) to Bluejak's team-mates Result for Board 8: Net +4 IMPs for bluejak's team

IMHO, there is nothing to stop application of Law 86D. But wouldn't the Director be required to change the result at your table (4♥ making) to what he believes to be a fair result? Law 86D reads: Excerpts from the OP 1. Clearly the table result that needs adjustment is the one where your side scored 4♥ making 10 tricks. The board was mismarked. Therefore, that result cannot stand. 2. See my highlight in the Law above. In this case, there are no offending sides in the actual incident and Director may not use this clause to give your side bigger +ve score What did I get wrong?

1. Pass 2. I'd prefer 2NT, the downside is that I become declarer :lol: 3. Pass 4. At the table, I'd probably have passed. After reading the expert views above, I am convinced 3♠ is a proper bid

Actually, the answer is obvious. Batman always wins!

We need a third option called Catch-22

I'd lead the Club Ace. I know it can cost, but a good look at dummy (and partner's carding to trick 1) would help direct the attack better. Who knows, clubs may be 4-3-3-3 and I may need to establish a second trick right away?

?? Event description ??

Having read all the messages subsequent to jallerton's original question (Was the X of 1♦ alerted?), it is still not clear to me. Do EBU rules require the X of 1♦ to be alerted if the meaning is as described in this case?