Walddk

Maybe you are the one in 4th seat with the powerhouse. Then I can understand :unsure: Roland

How do you like this agreement? In 3rd seat non vulnerable against vulnerable a pre-empt (usually at the 3-level) can be most anything. Natural perhaps, but also very unusual. I have the agreement with my favourite partners that we are NOT allowed to join the auction unless we have 7-card support for the "suit". So 3♦ in this position could be x xxxx QJ10xxx xx as well as Ax Qx Axxxxxx Kx or xxx xxx Jxxxx Qx Needless to say, partner always alerts the pre-empt and explains properly: "Either a standard pre-empt, perhaps wide ranging, or any weak hand, usually 5-cards in the suit. I am not allowed to bid". Roland

I have a problem bidding 4♠ with that hand. I think 4-level pre-empts should be disciplined (yes, it's been a long time since I was a junior). This hand is one trick short, or has one loser too many if you like. But as we well know, we have the 2-3-junior pre-empt rule. If 4♠ can have any number of losers, it's impossible for responder to judge. Roland

4NT, good old Blackie, or RKC if you prefer. Partner promises 7 tricks at this vulnerability. Am I likely to have 5? I think yes. ♠K, ♥A, ♣A, at least one diamond ruff (good chance that partner has more than 2 diamonds though), and if not, there is always the club finesse(s). Since I have all side suits stopped, there is no need to cue. If I get 1 Key Card, slam is surely with the odds. No ♠Q needed, because we have 11+ trumps. Yes, I know, heart lead through dummy's ace, and I am on a guess. Let it ride or set up clubs. That will depend on my LHO. Is (s)he known never to lead away from a king against a slam, or does (s)he usually prefer aggressive leads. I can't tell unless I am at the table to see if I know him/her and determine what his/her style is. On the internet it makes life more difficult. A priori it's obviously with the odds to play low from dummy, because you need more than a bit of luck to get clubs going for 2 heart pitches. Roland

Could you translate this from Computerish into English please Andreas ;) Roland

1NT. I don't care much about a diamond stopper or not when I rebid 1NT. Raising to 2♥ with the actual hand gives responder a problem with KQxx AJxx xxx xx Then I would like to be in 4♠, but we won't get there. Roland

1♠. If I raise to 2♥ I deny 4 spades. If partner rebids 1NT, I will pull to 2♥ (denies extras from 1- to 2-level in my methods). This will promise a medium opener though: 1♦ - 1♥ 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ With the hand in Winston's example and extras (16-18). I will still rebid 1♠ and bid 2♦ over 1NT, natural or a 3-card heart raise, forcing for 1 round. Responder is supposed to bid 2♥/3♥ with 5, otherwise 2NT/3NT. Over 2♥/3♥ I follow up with 2NT/3NT if I have a 4-0-4-5 hand. Roland

I agree with everything Ben says on both accounts, except one thing: I give both 100%! Perfect partnership ;) Roland

The problem with 1♠ Gerben is that you will feel very uncomfortable about sitting for a double of a diamond contract at any level. I understand that you will bid spades a few times, but your hand, on defence, will be a major disappointment for partner. At least you don't promise anything on defence when you open 4♠. Then you will feel ok if partner doubles 5♦. Roland

4♠ seems about right. I don't like to pre-empt with a void, but I don't like any alternative either. A 5 loser hand according to my method, so perhaps one trick too many for my pre-empt. I would also have opened 4♠ vulnerable. I have Namyats (4♦) available on my cc, but this hand doesn't qualify for it. My requirements are at least 2 of 5 aces and control in at least two side suits. Nothing fits in with my hand. Roland

Of course, but this case is about *ONE* incident where North deviated from the norm of a weak 2. My point was perhaps too well hidden between the lines: Why do you think most TD's are TD's? As Luis pointed out: TD's are not supposed to concentrate on bridge related matters, only matters that relate to the laws. Why is that do you think? So telling JSilver that he should have opened 1♦ with his hand is not only none of the TD's business, it is also insolent. Roland

The AC's ruling in Pittsburgh is correct, because they established the fact that EW had an explicit agreement that was not explained to NS. The foundation for the ruling was therefore completely different from the ruling that was made by our TD in the case JSilver presents. If JSilver's version is to believed, and I can't see why we should not, the NS pair did not have an explicit agreement. As a consequence, there has not been an infraction, and the table result must stand. Roland

That is the easy solution, and I suspect that this is how it's done on many occasions. I am sure that time is an important factor, because a TD on the internet has to deal with many other things - not least getting substitutes for disconnected players. Another reason is that many players scream for an adjustment after they run out of time. This case is very easy though. It shouldn't have taken the TD long to rule that the table result stands. Roland

Yes, that would indeed be a complete explanation of what the bid means, but as you may know, there is not enough room in the explanation box for all that. Anyway, that is beside the point because JSilver actually did explain that it was pre-emptive. It was according to their partnership agreement. What he actually had does not matter. He must tell the opponents about the agreement, but not about what his holding is. It is quite simple really. Roland

I dare say! Unfortunately too many TDs have very little knowledge of bridge. They may be in a position to interpret the laws, but that doesn't make them good bridge players. Roland

I recommend that you read "I Fought The Law of Total Tricks" by Mike Lawrence and Anders Wirgren. That may make you change your mind about LOTT. Anyway, I think that "Law" has been wildly exaggerated for much too long. Roland

Very kind of you, but the bottom line is that the opponents are not entitled to all that info. "Weak (2)", "pre-emptive" is adequate. You are not supposed to write a novel about what you may hold! The only thing the TD has to do is to find out what the partnership agreement is. If that is "weak 2", that is the end of it. If I have agreed to play a 12-14 NT and I open 1NT with a 16 count, I do not need the TD to tell me that I should have opened 1 of a suit. I am entitled to open 1NT as I see fit, so long as it is not based upon a partnership understanding. Roland

I lost all respect for that TD when he/she said: "You should have opened 1♦". It is completely beside the point what the TD would have bid; the only thing that matters is what 2♦ is according to the NS agreement. That was explained. Case closed. Roland

On a scale from 1-10: 2♠: 10. 1N: 6. 2♦: 2. Roland

The ruling is wrong. You explained what 2♦ was according to your partnership agreement. You are not supposed to tell what you actually have in your hand. Does anyone really think that you should have said: "According to our methods it's a weak 2 in diamonds, but not this time. Now I have a 12 count with 2452 shape". The opponents are not entitled to get that info. EW took a chance and were punished. They can't claim damage, because the explanation was correct. I am very surprised, to put it diplomatically, that an ACBL director made a ruling like this. Roland

Not the DVD, but I am pretty sure that it relates to the broadcasts on Sky Sports (British) in December. Was it 5 or 6 programmes? David Burn was our man then, and he did a marvellous job. If that is it, I recommend it wholeheartedly. If you need further info, you can e-mail me to get David's e-mail address. Mine is on my BBO profile (Walddk2). Roland

Clear penalty double. You should have 4 spades, even a good 4-card suit, because you are sitting under the spade suit. You have been out of the bidding until now because you had too many spades, but a good hand (at least 14 hcp). Your partner also knows that you have a good hand, and his 2♦ was based upon that. Now the decision is up to you. Do you want to let them play 2♠ undoubled, 2♠ doubled, or do you prefer to raise to 3♦. If 3♦ makes, 2♠ is likely to go down, so 3♦ is not an option for me. I would double at pairs and pass at IMPs, provided that I have the hand I think you should have: relatively balanced, 4 spades, at least 14 hcp. The more diamonds you have, the stronger you must be. If 2♠X makes, oh well, it won't be my first bottom. Then 3♦ will surely go down, maybe even 2, and -300 wouldn't have been better. Was there a problem with your spade holding perhaps? I do not double with any 4-card suit. It must be very good, because your spade suit is positionally wrong for the defence. There is nothing optional about your double, however. Partner must pass now. Roland

I am not against off-shape 1NT openings as a principle, but I don't understand why one would open 1NT with a hand that has a natural rebid available. It's completely different with 2452, 2425 and a 15-16 count, or 1-4-5-3, 1-4-3-5 with a stiff spade ace or king (16). Roland

3♣, the ♣10 makes the difference between 2 and 3. I recommend that responder ignores the double and proceeds as he would have with no interference. That hand is a wee bit too good for 2♣ imo. Roland

Very unfair of you to bid to the top spot! :) How can you expect anyone to sit down and play against you?? B) Roland