lmilne

Is there any procedure for what a director should do when the opponents can't agree what the final contract was? Law 85, or is there something better? In this case it was whether the final contract was doubled or not.

Imagine you hold ♠ KJ543 ♥ A43 ♦ Q87 ♣ Q2. You open 1♠, next hand overcalls 4♥, and partner bids: a) 5♥ b) 5♠. Similarly, imagine you hold ♠ KQ543 ♥ A4 ♦ K872 ♣ A2. You open 1♠, next hand overcalls 4♥, and partner bids: a) 5♥ b) 5♠. Interested in discussion of what partner's bids mean, what your continuations mean, and the general concepts involved.

One issue is that partner might pass opposite 3♣ but raise 1♠ to 2. I hear the scoffing already, but showing our major suit can get us to games that 3♣ misses. I have some (albeit somewhat disgusted) sympathy for a 2♠ bid though!

Without stating my view on this hand, I don't think pass is automatic with the above hand opposite a vulnerable 3♠ overcall. I would at least think about raising at the table.

Imagine your LHO opens 1♥, your partner doubles, next hand passes and: A) you bid 1♠, LHO bids 2♥, pass, pass, you bid 3♣ B) you bid 2♣, LHO bids 2♥, pass, pass, you bid 2♠. What does each sequence show about relative suit lengths, and which (if either) shows a stronger hand? P.S. this conversation was sparked by the hand ♠Qxxx ♥QTx ♦void ♣KT8xxx. How would you respond to partner's double?

[hv=pc=n&n=saj3h8742da93ck82&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=3dppdp]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&e=skq976432hk94dq5c&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=3d]133|200[/hv]

Not a bidding or play problem this time, but rather a more general question. [hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2d(Weak%20two%20in%20either%20major)p3h(Pass%2FCorrect)p3sppdp4dp4h]133|100[/hv] (A) What would you think partner was doing, if you were in a pick-up expert partnership? (what's "standard"?) (B) What would you prefer to play this 4♥ bid as, with your regular partner?

These are both from Kate McCallum's partnership checklist. "Partner leads your unbid 5-cd suit vs. 3NT and you win the 1st trick (His view is that you could have only three.) Which card do you return?" "Partner is ruffing & declarer is over-ruffing. Partner doesn’t know it. Which-card do you lead?"

A common standard agreement is that doubling and rebidding a suit shows a( hand too good to overcall, e.g. (1♥)-Dbl-(2♥)-P-(P)-2♠ is stronger than whatever the strongest hand you can overcall 1♠ with is. What about at a higher level? Does this still apply, in your partnership, or does this show a different sort of hand-type? Some example auctions: 1. (3♦)-P-(P)-Dbl; (P)-3♥-(P)-....3♠/4♣ 2. (4♥)-Dbl-(P)-4♠-(P)-...5♣/5♦

Let's say you agree with your partner to play redouble of 3NT showing doubt. In what situations would you simply bid straight away rather than redouble (i.e. redouble shows some doubt, but also some interest in playing 3NT)? In what situations would redouble be natural, rather than showing doubt?

I found a couple of holes in our notes leading up to the Bowl. Help me out with what you think is expert standard: What system do you play after (3♠)-3NT? What about after (3♣)-3NT?

A defender makes a lead out of turn, on opening lead, faced upwards. Declarer does not accept the lead and requires the defender's partner to lead the suit his partner led out of turn. Law 50D, 2. d) states I'm sure everyone knows the answer to this one, but the wording seems ambiguous. Clearly if the lead of the suit is prohibited, a defender cannot cash a side-suit and switch back to the wrongly led suit. But what if the lead of the wrongly led suit is REQUIRED by declarer, and the defender cashes the Ace of that suit? Is he required to continue with another round, or can he switch? Basically, does the "for as long as he retains the lead" apply to both parts of the sentence, or only the second part?

These sorts of problems aren't normally won by argument. Both sides will usually take more than words to be convinced. Or am I being too cynical? A side point - perhaps in these sorts of problems a simple way of answering is more valuable. Something along the lines of "bid/pass - feel strongly about this"/"bid/pass - but not clear"/"could go either way"? At the table, bidding 4♠ runs into ♠AKQx on your left. More interestingly, at all vulnerable, 4♠ is still right, going for 500 against 620. A few of the top players in my country (Australia) are bidders - the canon seemed to be pass, however. Thanks everyone for your comments.

[hv=pc=n&s=s842h4dk85432ck62&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1h1s4h]133|200[/hv] What would you do: a) with everyone vulnerable? b) with just your side vulnerable? And why?