paulg

3♥

3♥ in both first and third positions at this vulnerability.

DavidKok is probably a Robson & Segal disciple, like me :)

Eric Kokish, legendary coach and one of the best players produced in Canada. I didn't know him but we had a few chats at the Nationals over the years, as you do at these affairs. Many tributes to him on BridgeWinners, including https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-late-eric-kokish/

Law 16B1a says "Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized" and lists some examples. In this case it is an expected alert, there was no explanation and there has been no suggestion of any other extraneous information, so Law 16B1 does not apply. jillybean may do what she likes in this case, although I agree with your examples where there has been extraneous information.

I think it is authorised information as the alert is presumably required by the alerting regulations (Law 16.A1( c )). With screens, each player alerts both their own and their partner's alertable calls to their screen mate. Alert cards are not passed with the tray, so it is possible for a call to be alerted on one side of the screen and not the other: this is not necessarily an infraction.

It was very sad news but reported more on Facebook than these forums or BridgeWinners. Simon Cope wrote a fitting tribute on https://www.bridgewebs.com/bbcba/. As I said on Facebook, I only knew Richard through bridge but we played a lot in the English Premier League. We were always opponents, since our respective teammates did not want to be at the same time as any of us, but we liked the arrangement and always had a great time. Richard would greet me as a long-lost friend, despite not really knowing me, although we'd been on the same circuit for a considerable time. It is still very sad.

It's always good to hear positive experiences of this setup. It has been discussed for a few years but I guess the pandemic has reduced a lot of the original negative feelings towards it. For our virtual online club we do put robots in to prevent a sitout but remove them from the results (using BBO Extractor). This keeps everyone fairly happy that the robots are not beating too many pairs and that they are not an influence on all the club competitions: it also means that those more familiar with the robots are not gaining an unfair advantage. If we did implement this scheme for f2f bridge, I expect we'd do the same so that there is no compunction to play 'online' at a f2f event and that the results will not matter. The bots always assume that their opponents are playing the same 2/1 system that they do, so playing them in a Benj Acol world with four-card majors, weak no trump and strong 2♦ does randomise things.

We play that 2M/3M are pass or correct. Pass says that we want to play in 2♦ doubled if the opener has 3+ diamonds; this is Kit Woolsey's method. If the opener has 0-2 diamonds, then they bid 2♥ with hearts and redoubles with spades, in case responder wants to play in 2♥ rather than 2♠. We play redouble shows that responder has their own suit, so opener just puppets to 2♥. We play 2NT as a transfer to clubs, 3♣ is a transfer to diamonds and 3♦ in an invite in both majors. The transfers show suits that are less good than a redouble. To be honest, the most important agreement is the pass that invites the opener to pass 2♦ with 3+ diamonds.

The tricky auctions are where you do not have the space to use both, for example when the auction starts with a weak two. (2♠) - 3♥ - (Pass) - ? I think experienced pairs would initially play 3♠ as asking for a stop for no trump here: if they have heart support, then they continue after partner's response.

We are just coming to the end of our first cashless season. At the start of the season we gave members the option of how much to pay in advance. At the end of the season the treasurer will reconcile how much everyone has played with how much they paid. At the end of the season we will be owed around £200 so we are quite happy with the situation. We also considered using a card reader: there are a number available and some are used by local clubs. Our concern was the time taken to collect the money, especially as everyone would want to pay at the start, although you can do it at any time during the evening. These solutions are cheap but take some small percentage of your turnover.

At the end of the auction East should tell the opponents that West should have alerted 2♠. I would call the tournament director for them but would not say anything else as the auction may be re-opened by the TD. West must take care not to take advantage of the unauthorised information (being told they have misbid). This means continuing to bid as if they'd opened a weak 2♦. I suspect most pairs play 2♠ as natural and either forcing or constructive. So it depends what West would do opposite such a hand. If West has spade support but has rebid 3♦ denying such support, this is very likely to be changed and may incur a PP. However if West's normal call is 3♦ then it will be fine. Probably not but the TD should investigate. The problem with regular partnerships is that they often read partner's behaviour correctly in these situations: the fact that 3♦ is anti-systemic gives them 'proof' of the misbid. However this never happens when 2♠ is correctly alerted but 3♦ is bid: now they argue that partner has an unexpected version of the 2♦. So I always sceptical about such arguments when it benefits the offending pair.

♦8 Given how poorly all the cards seem to lie for declarer, I will make the most passive lead I can find. Second (distant) choice would be a club, but you often find declarer has a partial club fit but does not want to go past three no trump.

I think most directors would rule no damage as they would think your logic is too nuanced. Which is a polite director's way of saying that they think you should do the same against both methods.