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?

After we agree a trump suit and use RKC, sometimes we want to bid a suit at the 6-level to play, or at least as an offer to play. An example might be something like 1♣-1♠; 2♠-2NT* (art. GF ask); 3♥-3♠; 4♣*-4NT; 5♥-6♣. If opener has shown 3415 shape, responder may well prefer to play in clubs, especially with weak trumps. Other situations include picking a 4-4 fit over a 5-3 fit and using the 5-card suit for discards. However, using 6-level bids as asking bids in that suit, e.g. asking for third round control, can be very useful when looking for a grand slam. What are some good rules to avoid disasters in this area? When should 6x be natural, and when should it be an asking bid?

You're right. My system is not designed to avoid bidding games after one hand has shown 20+ points, it is designed to make slam bidding more accurately. Every system has its trade-offs. This is a truism, but making a system effective involves examining the frequency of trade-offs. The partnership I currently play in has judged that avoiding playing 4M-1 against 3M= when we have a 5-3 fit is not a priority, whereas showing identifying major suit fits immediately so that we can show responder's shortage IS a priority. You may think differently.

I play it as values in my partnership but I would assume clubs with an expert, if not discussed.

I play 3M shows 2, 3M+1 shows 3+, others super-accepts. I just bid 3M+2 with all 4+ support super-accepts, although I think the trick sources idea is a good one. Cues are a waste of time, IMO, even though they are standard. Natural second suit. This is fairly standard and necessary unless you play 3M guarantees a fit. Over our 3M+1 bid showing a fit, we have 4 steps (e.g. 2NT-3D-3S, we have 3NT/4C/4D/4H available) below game. We use 4D as a re-transfer and all the other bids show shortages in whatever way you can remember. Balanced slam try re-transfers and invites with 5M or cue-bids or keycards. Easy to remember and isolates the main factor for deciding on a tight slam with a major suit fit (shortages in the transferrer's hand), while leaving maximum amount of room for natural bidding after opener shows no fit. Allows slam decisions by responder immediately rather than wondering whether opener's accept contains a fit for M or not. I play 3 different notrump ranges and the 2NT opening changes accordingly. I don't play a different system over each one and I think doing so is inviting disaster. Being a 19-21 or a 20-21+ doesn't really affect the auction much although obviously responder must be a little stronger for slam investigations.

I was first given this hand by Ash as well! The version he gave me had the A/K of diamonds divided so less squeezes work. I put the AK in dummy to tempt people into the double trump squeeze, glad I trapped a few people lol!

Dammit Justin. You were supposed to go for the double trump squeeze! It's an "isolate the throw-in card" rather than an "isolate the menace" hand. My brain at the time was obsessed with squeezes but I think I'm thinking about all the possibilities more logically these days :)

I found this one in an old chat with my friend Andy Hung. I didn't get it at the time but 2 years later my brain somehow clicked! Give it a try. [hv=pc=n&s=sak7654hd7654ca54&n=sq832hkt2dak32ck2]133|200[/hv] ♥Queen led. You play the ♠Ace, all follow.

(3♥): 4♥ = Michaels, 5♠/5m 4NT = minors, wide range (3♠): 4♠ = Michaels, 5♥/5m, very strong hand. Responses: 4NT asks minor or to play 5♥, 5m to play, 5♥ slam try 4NT = minors, wide range (4m): 4NT = "unusual", 5♥/5om, very strong hand. 5m = "Michaels", 5/5 majors, very strong hand. (4M): 4NT = minors, wide range 5M = "Michaels", 5/5, very strong hand. 5NT = pick a slam, any two-suiter We mainly play this because it's an agreement that's easy to remember for a rare situation.

3X/4X : cue-bid, jump to 4NT, cue-bid at five-level, jump to 5NT... I'm sure there is a standard way to play all of these, but we don't have a solid agreement yet. Although it's just a matter of preference, I'd like defences that don't include NLM (as I'm a big believer in being able to overcall naturally at the lowest level) but I may yet become a convert! This is what we currently play. Very simple. Looking for other ideas! Perhaps something to show specific suits.

I too am surprised by the near unanimity of opening 4♠ on this hand. In the circle of players I talk with/play with, most would not consider 4♠ an option, because we don't pre-empt with opening values. I am interested in the Pavlicek data, but like Justin, I worry about the analysis and would want to clean the data some more before running the numbers. 3rd/4th seat openings are not even in the same ballpark. Also, I agree that double after opening 4♠ does not show this hand, or a different hand with defence. For my partnerships, these hands are opened at the 1-level. Double shows a desire to bid 5♠, i.e. "unexpected extra offense". Double after making a pre-empt facing a passed hand is different, showing "unexpected extra values" - convertible values that are useful on defence or offence.