CamHenry

The advantage of a double is that it tells your partner you have some values - you may have a big hand with the minors, but I think 3H (cue) and then bidding a minor shows that better. Another advantage of doubling here is that, if 2S _is_ a psych, partner will have spades as well - and can pass for penalties even if you've agreed it is a takeout double. If they run away, you know partner's got spades, and you've got spades, so you can take a shot at a spade contract.

I agree that leading questions rarely get the best answers, but I have to disagree with the other part of this statement. Just about every textbook defines an Acol 2 as "a hand of power and quality", and the EBU's Orange Book explains what is actually meant by a "strong" hand. As a TD, I would rule MI on this occasion. I'm not sure what adjustment, if any, I would give; but I would explain to EW that they need to give a better explanation in future.

I'm 27, and have been playing bridge for 5 years, duplicate for 3. When I first learnt to play bridge, it was because my girlfriend and her sister and mother wanted to learn, having been on a cruise where there were bridge classes, but father didn't have the time/inclination. I read through Goren's Bridge Complete (1974 edition, I think), and made crib-sheets for the bidding systems. We started off by bidding everything along the lines of "1 heart: that means I've got 13+ points and 5 hearts"; after a rubber or two we ditched the explanations. I grew up, however, playing card games with my own family. Simple things, but I knew how to follow suit, how to take tricks in a trump contract, and that you should "always" use the lowest card possible to win a trick. This early training gave me a significant advantage in beginning declarer play, which meant I could concentrate on the new and (to me) more difficult aspect: the bidding. These days I play any system I can get my hands on; by choice a highly-artificial strong diamond thing, but in a natural context I'll play Acol, 2/1, SAYC, EHAA etc. with about the same limited level of success. I wouldn't stop playing bridge because of system regulations, but I would probably be looking for the edge cases in whatever regulations existed. In England (at least) there's a game used in teaching called "Minibridge". As I understand it, each of the three players announces the point count of their hand; the one with the highest total has a look at the dummy and nominates the contract. You then play as normal. I think this could be a good introduction for many!

I must confess, I'm passing 3H. I've told partner I've got a maximum; if I didn't want to accept his decision I should have opened at the 1-level.

At our table I held the N hand on this board; we had an uninspiring auction to 6S by E, which I doubled as N (largely because the auction was ridiculous). Partner led the DK, which I overtook and returned another diamond; declarer ruffed small and then played for the drop in clubs - so 6SX-2, when our teammates scored 4H+2. Best board of the day!

Partner and I play this quite simply - if doubler's partner has shown values (by passing if responder passes, or by making a different call over responder's call), doubles are all penalty and passes are all forcing. If doubler's partner has pulled the double (i.e. 1NT-X-P-2suit), doubles are penalty again, but doubler needs a particularly suitable hand (i.e. you don't double just because you had a penalty double the first time around!). Doubles are takeout by the first doubler's partner (e.g. 1NT-X-2D-X where 2D is natural), and show values (not specific about suit) where responder's call is artificial. In both these cases, subsequent doubles are penalties. If responder redoubles, a pass shows enough to penalise, while bidding is weak.

I agree with you to this point, but not about N being on lead or about the H lead being guaranteed. I'm suspecting E will be declarer, so I'm going to imagine S leads something. If it's a non-heart, declarer can make 6S in comfort by drawing trump, and banging down the top two diamonds then giving one up if necessary; the losing H goes on a long diamond. If S does find a H lead (the only one to make life difficult), declarer will probably run this to the Q, falling back on guessing the diamonds if it fails. On the layout it wins, so 12 tricks. I'm adjusting to 6S= for both sides (as going off in 6S looks to be distinctly related to the infraction). I'm giving NS a PP about the use of UI; a warning if it's their first offense or if they're beginners, but 3IMPs/0.5VPs if they should know better, and more if they make a habit of this sort of thing. As for the gloating - I'm assuming this happened after the TD didn't adjust the score, as they'd be more likely to be whining, grousing or grumbling after I did :) In that case, I start off with DPs - 1VP, then 2, then I evict them. If people walk out, then I look at the local regulations in force - sorry, I don't know Indian regulations. If there are no regulations, I use the White Book because I know that better. If the event has been advertised as all-play-all, I cancel the rounds already played and treat the offending teams as no-play; otherwise I award average+ for those deprived of opponents. The difficulty arises when two teams depart; it seems unfortunate to have two triangles or two sitouts, but simply pairing the unoccupied teams against each other may lead to rematches. I don't know for sure.

There's two situations here. One is where you're calling before them; the other is where they make an opening bid. If your side deals, make an opening bid on the slightest provocation. They appear not to be able to make a penalty double; 4-card weak 2s may be your friend if NV. If they deal and open, make a 4-card overcall unless they KNOW when doubles are penalties. If they deal and pass, keep the weak openings sound-ish in second, but do shade them a little. Shade one-level openings as well, particularly 1M. If you're in third seat, open normally with a good hand but psych as high as you dare with dross. This seems to be a system that cries out to have you take up a level of bidding. They don't seem to be able to make penalty doubles very often; that's likely to mean you just have to bid once to kill their auction. I suspect they'll have trouble playing in good partscores; just hope the cards are reasonably flat and partscore boards are the order of the day.

It depends on how they're playing "short diamonds" - if these hands always have 4 spades, for example, then they're clearly out of BS range.

Good morning! Matt Johnson and I play this: http://matthew.ath.cx/misc/bridge (see http://matthew.ath.cx/misc/systemnotes.pdf for the full system notes), which was largely designed to be EBU-limit-testing. It's a strong diamond system; 1D shows 16+ but not GF. GF single- or two-suited hands open at the 2 or 3 level; we use two-way transfer preempts at the 3-level and multis at the 2-level. It's quite possible there's more merit available than this, but it's fun.

I'm 27. Do I count? I started playing bridge because my girlfriend at the time wanted me to; she and her family had been on a cruise and had enjoyed the basic bridge lessons. Father wasn't keen, but mother, sister and she were, and I was drafted in as a fourth. We put together some crib sheets from Goren's Complete (1979 edition), and learnt with 4-card majors and a strong NT. I keep playing bridge because I find it diverting (if played casually) and fascinating (when I have time to think about it). I also enjoy experimenting with systems, and have two systems on the go at the moment - one is highly artificial, pushing (nearly) every boundary of what is permitted by the EBU, and the other has all-natural bidding including intermediate-to-strong, non-forcing 2-level openers.

Yes, you can change your call - if your LHO accepts it. Law 25B says: Note that this refers to intended calls that you now wish to change. For example, suppose I've just passed as dealer, but then I find another ace. I can call the director, explain that I want to change my call, and my LHO will be given the option to accept my new call. It's probably best for my partner to leave the table at this stage; he's already got UI that I've changed my mind, but he doesn't know what I was planning to bid. Of course, LHO is perfectly within his rights to say "I want your first call to stand".

I don't know what strength opponents you play against; I'm a middling club player myself and only rarely play against anyone any good. The 9-11 NT that we play is a big winner against the weaker opps, and still gains against the intermediate/advanced players. If you have weak opponents, I'd recommend it!

I'd say yes, there is, and the UI is that partner did not have an automatic action. Whether or not it is clear from the UI what the alternatives to his selected action were is a different matter, and therefore we come to the "demonstrably suggested" test. For example, suppose partner deals, and takes a good 35-40s to pass. It's likely that he was considering opening, and therefore either has a long suit or some values. This demonstrably suggests opening on marginal hands. On the other hand, suppose he deals, and makes a very slow weak 2. It could be that his hand is so poor that he suspects this may be a bad idea, but it could equally be that his hand is almost good enough for a 1-bid. The UI does not demonstrably suggest any action.

I play it as showing a desire to defend. This means that the XX is not a "get out of double free" card, as you can actually leave it in. Of course, if you believe the frequency of penalty passes in this auction is low, you could play the pass as "no preference, no values". That does sound too much like "hey, opps, partner's come into the auction when he shouldn't and you should double us to collect some money".

More constraints appreciated! This is presumably a natural 1H, but is it limited? If 1H is 10-15, the implications are very different from if it's 11+. How do you open 5=4 H/S hands that aren't worth a reverse? If 1S is possible canape, so 1H promises longer H, that's different again from 1H being possible canape, and again it's different if you play Flannery or similar so H is known to be your longest suit. Let's assume 1H is 10-15 (so a strong minor system), and guarantees H as the longest suit. It could have a spade suit, but with equal length you open 1S. 1H denies a balanced hand, and promises 5H. If you play 1H-1S to show a balanced hand, you gain all round: - 1H-1S-2x shows something unsuitable for NT, usually 5-5 or more, or with very concentrated strength. - 1H-1S-1NT shows a semi-balanced hand, possibly with values in a doubleton/singleton, and is a suggestion that NT may be a good strain. You can play 2C here as checkback, asking for a 6th heart or a 4+ card spade suit. - 1H-1S-3x shows a maximum, very shapely, and is something that's almost but not quite good enough for your strong opening. Responder can also play a split-range 1S: it could be 6-9 balanced, intending to pass 1NT or give simple preference, or it could be 15+ and wanting to force to game. Bidding again over 1H-1S-1NT would show the strong option; with an intermediate-strength balanced hand you'd make some other bid. Now let's consider 1H-1NT, where 1NT shows spades. This is presumably forcing, unless you're going to play 1H-2S to show a forcing hand with spades. That means that you lose a fair few chances to play 1NT when it's right to do so. At matchpoints in particular, YUCK. This is the only real disadvantage - 1NT should be exactly as forcing as your natural 1H-1S would be, but opener is left without a good rebid on a 1=5=4-3 hand where the 4-card minor is weak. You may end up playing a 4-3 minor fit without many honours, or rebidding 2NT without any significant values, neither of which appeals. Overall, I'd say the benefit outweighs the cost if your 1H opening is limited, but if your 1H opening is potentially strong (as in SAYC, for example) the ambiguity after 1H-1NT is going to hurt you too much. One caveat: I've assumed both responses are permitted agreements in your jurisdiction. They are in the EBU (at all levels), but I don't know about other organisations. EDIT: I've not played this sort of structure, so I'm going on analysis rather than experience. I've played 1H possible canape with any suit, after which 1S is an enquiry asking for 4+ spades. I can provide details of that if you like.

Surely this is what the laws are for? If you feel there has been damage caused by the lack of, or incorrect, information, you call the director. The director determines in as neutral a fashion as possible whether you are correct or not, and does his best to restore equity.

As North thinks that East holds five diamonds he can play west for the ten or queen singleton. Playing him for the singleton ten is better of course, but is playing him for the singleton queen so bad as to deny North redress? Good point. He'd have to start with the A, K or (from the N hand) J. (Apparently I can't count outstanding cards; let's hope I improve before I play this evening!)

Not so sure about that. Declarer in 3♥ can ruff two clubs in hand, swapping two club losers for one heart loser (after that he's swapping one club loser for one heart loser, so there's no further benefit). This is a worse result than the table result, so we don't include it in any weighted ruling (as we prevent EW gaining by the infraction). It is plausible (but remote, IMO) that 3♥ will fail by 1 trick. South's argument about diamonds does not hold water - he's playing for E to have 5 diamonds, so if he's playing for the drop then he's playing for W to hold specifically Qx of diamonds, and small to the K then finesse is equally valid. The only time I'd give any weighting to this would be if he'd played DA, DJ, hoping for Tx with W. Given that it is plausible that 4♠ would be reached with correct information, we can include it in a weighted score - so I award something like 70% of table result and 30% of 3♥-1, though I'm quite aware this one could go to committee.

The revoke is established, so we apply rectification or restore equity. The offending side one one trick after the revoke, and did not win the revoke trick, so one trick is transferred. This means that declarer makes the rest of the tricks. That is therefore the ruling - tricks won by the defense before the revoke are never transferred.

Even on a diamond lead, declarer can ruff clubs good and only lose two diamonds. He has to be careful with entries (overtake a heart with the K) but that shouldn't be too hard. Just don't put the king up at trick one, and even I'd get that right!

I don't have time to look up the reference right now, but "... inferences drawn from a variation in tempo, inter alia, may be used at the player's own risk". There's no rectification for N being put off acting by the hesitation. As to the BIT by W, there's the potential of "... may not attempt to deceive ... by variations in tempo, mannerism, etc. ", and some PP or other rectification (Law 12, "no rectification specified"?).

Note that you can cook the hands if you want to, for a party or "fun game" where people want more wild & crazy hands, but this is no longer bridge,

This is a Law 70E1 case: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. The key here is whether failing to take the heart finesse is irrational or not. For a world-class player, I think it is irrational. For a novice/intermediate, I'd probably rule it's careless but not irrational - the finesse is somewhat marked, but not in big glowing neon letters. Of course, this is why I always say which finesses I'm claiming on :-) If declarer is truly world-class, I give him 3 tricks; if he isn't, I give him 2. Jurisdiction does not affect my decision.

This is what Matt and I do. In short rounds (1-6 boards), we cannot play 1NT as "sometimes artificial, sometimes natural", so we play: NV: 9-11 1st/2nd, 9-15 3rd, 12-15 4th. V: 14-16 1st/2nd, 12-15 3rd/4th. Our nebulous minor opening includes the other sub-16HCP balanced range in 1st/2nd, and is never a balanced hand in 3rd/4th. Passed-hand responses to 1NT are weak takeout.