WellSpyder

It wasn't my opposition claiming this right, but some of the most respected TDs on this forum (or maybe a predecessor forum on laws issues - I can't remember how long ago it was now) claiming the right on behalf of my opposition.

I agree. I remember once asking a related question about not passing until I had decided what to lead, in order to avoid providing UI (to partner) and AI (to opponents) that my lead wasn't clear-cut. I was told clearly that oppo were entitled to know that I was thinking about my lead not my call if that was the case, so I should not combine the two periods.

Reminds me of a hand I had last week: [hv=pc=n&n=st3hqj9654dat65c7]133|100[/hv] LHO dealt and opened a weak 2♠. I protected with 3♥ and we bid up to 5♥ with no further opposition bidding. My ♣ singleton was less useful than expected when it turned out to be facing a ♣ void in partner's hand....

Pity there were so many small trumps with them. Otherwise declarer would have found himself facing the unusual dilemma of a 2-way finesse against the K.....

I decided early in the life of this thread that I wouldn't bother reading it since it didn't seem to be addressing a very interesting question, or at least not in a way that added anything. Today I noticed that it had got quite long and thought perhaps people had found something of interest after all, so I took another look. Oh well, it won't be the only mistake I make today, I guess. :(

One of my partners does this a lot. I think he sees it as a fairly light-hearted way of keeping me on my toes....

I agree, with double looking a reasonably clear choice to me on the second round as well as the first.

Sorry - duplicate. (I see now how easy it is to do this when the system hangs or times out.)

In England, where at least some players try to follow the stop bid regulations, I regularly turn at the end of the auction to players whose partners have passed or bid immediately after a stop bid and ask whether they agree that their partner did not wait before calling (my partners all leave out the stop card for at least a few seconds, so these are all before the stop card has been removed). It is just like establishing any other break in tempo really, and I would be happy to do the equivalent of asking "do you agree your partner showed that they weren't thinking during the pause?". I don't think I have yet called a TD at the end of the hand to ask for a ruling about the UI conveyed by a failure to pause before passing, but I have certainly considered it.

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hkt43dkjcq75432&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1dd4s]133|200[/hv] Vul vs NV, Imps. 1♦=4+ (Oppo are playing Acol with 4M, 12-14NT)

Well done, mikeh. [hv=pc=n&s=skjt98h5dk652caj8&w=s6hjtd943ckqt6432&n=saq32hakq62dq8c75&e=s754h98743dajt7c9]399|300[/hv] Most suggestions work. You can draw one round of trumps, then play on ♥ to discard the ♣losers, continue ♦ and cross-ruff. You can play a ♦straight away since East has ♦A and the defence cannot cash a ♣. However, in a recent county A teams of 8 match we lost a large swing on this hand since both our pairs bid the slam and went off, while neither of the oppo's pairs bid it - more than enough to reverse the result of the match. In practice, both declarers drew 2 rounds of trumps, since they were reluctant to give up on the chance of trumps 2-2. Then both played 3 rounds of ♥ to discard the ♣ losers, planning to ruff out the ♥s if the suit broke 4-3. Unfortunately neither declarer saw the advantage of ruffing the ♣ loser at this point, and whether they ruffed a ♥ and then played a ♦ or played a ♦ straight away, East made no mistake and returned his last trump after winning ♦A. Sigh....

I was thinking more of an XX rating - only to be seen by consenting adults in private. (It is certainly not suitable for viewing by all the family...)

Neither do I. But perhaps the reality is that the only time what we think of as a multiple teams format is ever used in the US is actually for a BAM event? Perhaps any teams event that uses imp scoring is either a KO or run on Swiss lines?? To us, of course, it is entirely normal that if several teams are competing in an event then one way to run it is to play a small number of boards against lots of other teams, and this applies completely independently of how the event is scored.

"Bid up, partner", is my partner's usual comment in these circumstances. I can live with it (though I don't see the need for it!) when the un-bid game or slam makes because of an extremely lucky lie of the cards. I don't think it really helps people enjoy the game when it is the result of incompetent defence, however...

I think this is an extraordinarily unnecessary post. I, for one, appreciate MrAce's consideration in writing in English so that I don't need to use Google Translate.

Has SB become SoB?

I'm certainly not convinced by this part of the analysis, which does seem rather important for the whole argument. In fact I would have been less surprised to see two of these hands presented by the defence as evidence that the allegations where false.

Also if N has 2 trumps and 2 hearts? If you play a trump at T2, both follow....

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt98h5dk652caj8&n=saq32hakq62dq8c75&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1s4c5sp6sppp]266|200[/hv] (Imps, NS Vul) 1♠ was Precision (max 15 points). Any better ideas for North's bidding? What is the best line in 6♠ after West leads ♣K? (East plays ♣9, standard count - or a singleton, of course).

Fair comment, perhaps - as someone said to me, pass is the bid you would make in a bidding quiz. In practice, though, both 1♥ and double were chosen in a recent county A team match, so perhaps some people find it more difficult to pass in practice than they do in theory?

Nor, as I recall it, was there any cheating in the way that a duplicate player thinks of the term - just a failure to make clear to the other participants in the game an agreement between two players to share winnings/losses.

You're worried? I read the thread on "Correct procedure" immediately after this one and found myself agreeing with you on two consecutive threads! As gwnn said in his post on awful clichés, are there pills for this?

[hv=pc=n&e=sq3haq62d874cak86&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d]133|200[/hv] Vul vs NV, imps. 1♦ shows 4+ (4-card majors, weak NT). What's your call? Is it close?

Not a bad play problem for the N/B forum, either.

This is only effective if you only do it very occasionally, of course - I have probably only done it 4 or 5 times in my life. But I saw it done once by a Norwegian international playing with only a semi-regular partner when we were playing against them in the English Spring 4s (a very tough KO event that attracts lots of international teams). They had one of those auctions where one showed a strong balanced hand, the other made an artificial bid, my partner doubled to show the suit, opener redoubled and the auction suddenly ended right there. Dummy put down a singleton A of trumps, and the reaction must have been everything he was hoping for, before he eventually produced the Q and a few little ones as well. The context, which made a misunderstanding in the auction quite plausible, made the incident hilarious for the whole table, despite being something of a cliché. (And yes, of course, declarer was able to make the contract for a big score.)