Walddk

for chrissake if someone younger than you has a different opinion is it always because of the gap in age? Perhaps when you cannot logically reply to arguments, you resort to "well you're entitled to your opinion, but mine is better, and you can't see that because you're 19." Consider prior precendece in similar cases Roland. A player bids 2D with the majors, his pard alerts as DONT. Later, when the director is called, they say it was not misinformation, they actually play DONT so it was a misbid. Do you just automatically believe them? No, of course not, saying it was a misbid is completely self-serving, they must provide some kind of evidence that it actually was a misbid, otherwise MI is assumed. Consider a dispute about whether there is a break in tempo. EW claims north broke tempo, and south took action based on this. NS claims there was no break in tempo. To resolve this, committees actually LOOK AT THE HAND. Shocking, I know. If north had a spade void and 12 points and passed a 4S opener, the committee will assume there was in fact a break in tempo. Failure to alert is similar to MI. It is assumed X is standard when it was not alerted, so it is the same as saying it's a takeout X. The hand indicates it was not, south's pass indicates it was not. And yet they say it was. Given this it is their problem to prove there was no break in tempo. Disagree with me all you want, I could easily be wrong. But PLEASE try doing so with facts and logical arguments as opposed to "maybe its the gap in age..." and "I think I will get further in life..." because it is really tiresome. I have replied more than once, but I'll gladly do it again, since you don't seem to understand. The double is for take-out, also to this pair. It is perfectly legitimate that you treat the North hand as too strong for anything else. An 18+ hand can double with any shape as most people play it. I believe you do too. If so, why is the double a penalty double as you see it? So South didn't take the double out. I would never pass, you would never pass, but that particular South decided to take a view, so he passed a take-out double. Is that a crime? No! It's definitely not recommendable, but it's not a violation of any law. I claim that it was an accident (= he took a view), you claim that it was intentional (= he intentionally did not alert partner's penalty double). You don't have enough evidence for your interpretation in my opinion. I want to see it once more before I believe that it's more than a coincidence. We disagree. End of story. Roland

You think it's intentional, I think it's coincidental until I see the same thing happening again. I think I will get further in life using my approach, but you are entitled to use yours of course. Maybe it's the gap of age that makes the difference between yours and mine. Roland

Yes we are if it's an one-off occurence! Accidents happen. If it happens again, however, it's no longer an accident or coincidence. Your approach is wrong, Justin. You want NS to prove that they are not guilty. That's the wrong way of doing things. YOU prove that THEY are guilty, and you don't have enough evidence for that in my opinion. Roland

Must be your individual agreement with your favourite partner. I don't know anyone who plays 2♠ (or any new suit for that matter) as game forcing after an overcall. One round force, yes, or even non-forcing if you play "negative free bids". Roland

Reminds me of one of my students (an elderly lady) many years ago. This is a true story. She held: Ax AKQJ10xxxx x x Heard her partner open 1♣, and she responded 1♥ (well done!). Partner rebid 2♣, and now she ........ PASSED!!! 1♣ - 1♥ 2♣ - pass!!?? After she tabled dummy, her partner gave it a close look. She was visibly in shock, with all the nice hearts almost landing on her lap, and stuttered: "Butttttt Inger, whyyyyy didn't youuuuu rebiddd your hhhhhhearts"????? "Well, you didn't support them, did you", was Inger's laconic reply. Roland

I do (who did I just marry??). Partner is at least 6-5 in the minors for his jump to 5♣, perhaps even 6-6. I expect one of these hands: x x AKxxxx AQxxx x void AKxxxx Axxxxx On a bad day it's on a finesse, when he has ♦QJ instead of the king. On a very good day we miss a grand slam, when he is void in spades rather than hearts. And on a very bad day, we go down when he has xx void AKxxxx AQxxx That would be very unlucky, would it not? Anyway, my partner has gone down before, so he is kind of used to it :) Roland

I'm surprised and a little disappointed to see Justin stating, and consequently implying, that NS had an undisclosed agreement by looking at just one example. As I said earlier, I choose to believe that South got lucky when he passed. I also added that it's a completely different ballgame if it happens again. One chance is no chance, so give them the benefit of the doubt. You have no evidence as to cheating. Justin's "witten documentation" is not valid here. This is a tourney at BBO, not the World Championships. Roland

South got lucky, what more can you say? There is absolutely no evidence of cheating. Table result stands. If it happens again? Now, that's a completely different story. Roland

But I actually have that agreement, and I think it's a good one too. Opener has at least 9 cards in the majors; therefore it's rather pointless to let 4♣ be natural on an auction like this. Roland

Yes, that's funny &Æ=ÆT¤¤#"Øø! Roland

The advantage of letting 4♣ be the slam try agreeing hearts ("last train") is that it leaves room for opener to cue bid or not cue bid 4♦. If he does not, responder signs off in 4♥, and if he does, responder now jumps to 5♥, which must show a hand similar to this. 5 trumps, no control in either black suit. Roland

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s82hqj873dq973c52&s=skq763hak62dacak8]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Well spotted Mike, Justin and others. In real life the bidding went: 2♣ - 2♦* 2♠ - 3♣** 3♥ - 4♥*** 5♥ - 6♥ pass * Waiting ** Negative *** Significant hesitation Now, you guessed that I posted opener's hand in one thread and responder's (in disguise) in another, but what you did not guess was that North paused before bidding 4♥. I agree that opener has a clear pass and that his decision to bid on was influenced by partner's hesitation. Opener found an ideal dummy, and there was nothing to the play. For all South knows, 4♥ could have been as bad as x xxx xxxxx xxxx What else but 4♥ could he have bid with a hand like that? However, with the actual hand I don't think 5♥ is the best bid available if you want to make a move towards slam (which you have plenty for). I think 4♣ is the expert bid! That must surely agree hearts and serve as a slam try. But doesn't that show a club control? I don't think so. In my opinion 4♣ is the only bid responder has to show a maximum for his negative (3♣). Kind of "last train" if you like. What about if responder has a long club suit, you may argue. Well, if it's really that long, he must jump to 5♣, or if it's not long enough, he should give preference to either spades or hearts. Roland

Yes, but it's supposed to be a serious tournament, our contact in Moscow tells me. I believe him, because why else would a pair like Balicki-Zmudzinski from Poland participate? Roland

Can happen, but bear in mind that 6♦ denies any club control, so one would assume that partner knows what she's doing if she bids the grand now. Roland

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s82hqj873dq973c52]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Responder, IMPs, vulnerable. 2♣ - 2♦* 2♠ - 2N** 3♥ - ?? * Waiting ** Negative What now? Roland

1♠. Hope it's not an overbid. Roland

2NT. It doesn't promise a club stopper in my methods, merely a description of my hand pattern with a doubleton spade. If responder is strong enough to bid on, he can ask about my notrump seriousness by rebidding 3♣. Then we still have plenty of room to investigate. Roland

1. No. 2. No. 1. The suit quality is rotten, and I have one heart less than I should have. It's definitely not my style to open a weak 2 with that. 2. Double is for take-out, so why wouldn't I take it out? Roland

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skq763hak62dacak8]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You are dealer, and the auction is this: 2♣ - 2♦* 2♠ - 3♣** 3♥ - 4♥ ?? * Waiting. ** Negative. Do you pass or do you make a slam try, and if yes, which action do you take? Can you help with deciding a bet? Roland

Easy to bid the grand on paper, not that clearcut at the table. However, I think North should have shown his diamond control over 5♠. The 3♥ overcall was somewhat light in high cards, yes, but the playing strength is great, so he has nothing to be ashamed of. It's a little tame to sign off in 6♥ looking at a void in a suit below trumps. I am pretty sure that you would have bid 7♥ if North had co-operated with a 6♦ cue bid. Roland

Aerdna Ittarub, Italian 3-star player: Diamonds break badly in Tenerife. Roland

David Burn's Law of Total Trumps: As declarer, it is usually best that your side has more trumps than the opponents. Roland

David Burn's Law of 8: Take the number of aces the opponents have from 8, and do NOT play at that level! Roland

Not sure what "basic" is, but no one I know can play in 2♣ if they want to check back after a 1NT rebid by opener. If you don't want that gadget on your cc, 2♣ will obviously be natural on an auction like: 1♣ - 1♥ 1N - 2♣ I don't know anyone who plays 2♣ as natural here. If you do, jb, then "pleased to meet you" :lol: And if you don't, I will be even happier :) Roland

Right, you can't play in 2♣ if you play some kind of check back - just like you can't play 2♣ when your partner opens 1NT. That's the sacrifice you will have to accept. Cheapest stop in clubs is 3♣. Different approaches to get there, one of which is: 1♣ - 1♠ 1N - 3♣ = sign off Could be a hand like this: Kxxx x xx QJxxxx Roland