Walddk

LAW 76, SPECTATORS 3. Mannerisms or Remarks During the round, a spectator must refrain from mannerisms or remarks of any kind (including conversation with a player). .... Law 76 doesn't specify that spectators on the internet are not included. Roland

Excellent idea. Do as Ben suggests or sign your posts like others do. Roland

Everyone's entitled to his/her opinion, but if you think that a deviation of one card is a gross misstatement (which must be the case for it to be a psyche), then you and I interpret "gross" differently. Polarisation is perhaps more appropriate than "different". Pray tell, if this is a gross misstatement in your view, what would it have been if responder had bid 1♥? As far as 1♠ is concerned, I would use "deviation" and lean towards "minor deviation" rather than "gross misstatement". Roland

Strangely enough, we had that exact issue in the Danish Appeals Committee not so long ago. A player responded 1♥ to a natural 1♣ on ♥832. The AC concluded (unanimously): "This is a deviation because the partnership agreement is that responder should have 4 or more cards in hearts. However, it is not considered as a gross misstatement and therefore not a psychic bid." I am not saying that this is the correct interpretation of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, but I believe it is, and as you see above it's the same interpretation the ACBL Laws Commission comes up with as a general rule. Roland

Let me quote from The ACBL Laws Commission: "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge define a psychic call as "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." "The key word is gross. If you forget the meaning of a call, that is not a psyche. If you make a call with 12 points when your partnership agreement calls for a maximum of 11, that is not a psyche -- it is not a gross misstatement. If you are playing five-card majors and open the bidding with one spade on a four-card holding, that is not a psyche. In general your call is a gross misstatement, and therefore is considered a psyche, if the call varies by at least two points in strength or two cards in length from your agreement." .... Then there is no ambiguity, is there? The call here, 1♠, doesn't differ two cards in length from your agreement (as responder you promise 4+, and you have 3). Consequently, 1♠ is not a psychic bid. 1♥ on a singleton would have been a psyche. Roland

What is your partner supposed to do if he has the jack? You want him to encourage if the lead is from KQ10x, but he must discourage if it's from AKxx. Roland

No surprise: some reverse this method after double. Recently, twice in the same set on vugraph from Italy, we saw 2♥ (bad spade raise) on Jxx xx Jxxxx xxx I play my bad raises as 0-5 (obviously not zero when vulnerable), so my partner wouldn't expect more for my 2♥ ... or 2♠ if you prefer that to be your weak raise. Roland

you have two places to play with 5-3 or 4-3 in your examples, haven´t you? No, I have one: hearts. I have two places to play with xx AQxx QJxx xxx but since I only have 3 diamonds in my examples above, I do not offer that suit as a place to play unless opener has 5. The idea is that you have a fit if opener has 4 cards as well. Then you have a fit. 4-3 is not a fit although it doesn't violate Burn's Law of Total Trumps. Fits start with 8 cards between the two. Roland

Do I think 1♠ is permitted? Yes. Do I think 1♠ is a psyche? No. Do I think 1♠ is alertable? Yes, if you have a partnership *understanding* that a 1♠ response can be 3; otherwise not. Do I think that 1♠ is a good bid? No. As others have pointed out, the tournament directors can set their own rules. BBO will not interfere with their decisions, so it's (at best) a waste of time to lodge a complaint. Roland

Pass; I am not even going to think about it. If he has overcalled 1♠ on 9xxxx AKQx Jx Qx he'd better change his style if he wants our partnership to continue. And I don't follow Adam when he claims that we have another 7-card fit. Can't he have a 5-1-3-4 shape? Right, we have 7 clubs between us. Do you want to play there? Finally, why can't he be 6-1-3-3 with spades breaking 5-0? You certainly don't want to play anywhere else if he has. Roland

You have too much defence. In my opinion, a weak 2 can't have 2 aces in 1st and 2nd seats. In 3rd I can live with 2♦. Let me add that it's not ideal to have 3-3 in the majors when you open 2♦. Pre-empts should be made with hands that are suitable for that particular suit only, and not on hands that make an excellent dummy in two other strains. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s54hkqj873dq62ca8&s=saqj72hadk85ckj65]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] Yes, you want to be in slam, but only because ♥J is there. Without it, the slam is very poor. Scores at the 7 tables: 3 x 4♥ +2 1 x 3NT +3 1 x 6♥ = 1 x 6NT = 1 x 7♥ -1 Roland

There is obviously a flaw when you lead the queen. As Stephen points out, partner won't know if the 10 is enough to encourage. It won't help to reverse it so that ace asks for unblock and king for attitude. Then the problem arises when the king is led. In my view, the best method is to lead high from any honour combination. Ace promises the king, the king shows the queen, and so on. Now, if partner has the honour I "promise", he unblocks. Otherwise he gives count as clearly as possible. The added advantage is that it's easy to remember. What about giving count then? Isn't that to dificult to read? Sometimes it is, but very often partner will be able to read the length if you play this method: From 2 and 5: play smallest. From 3: play highest. From 4: play 3rd highest. Nothing is 100%, but this is the best I have come across, and I have tried almost everything. Finally, if you prefer to play Garozzo's method (A and Q for attitude and K for unblock), it seems sensible to do it the way Woolsey suggests: jack from QJ and 10 from J10. Roland

Beginners have enough problems with having three options to one question. Q: Do you have a 4-card major? A1: No. A2: Yes, and maybe also .... A3: Yes, but not .... Then add that in the old days people reversed the 2♥ and 2♠ responses ... well, we reversed the responses rather. As I'm sure most of you recall, it used to be: A2: Yes, but not .... A3: Yes, and maybe also ... If you introduced Klinger's method, you would surely make all beginners (and intermediates too for that matter) give up. Roland

True, but I can't see how responder is in a position to judge whether we should play 1NT or 3NT when he holds an 8 or 9 count. I am not a subscriber to the theory that we should discard invitational sequences. Roland

Indeed, ♥J makes all the difference. How on earth can we tell if he has that card or not? Now, if you are heading towards slam, will you consider 6NT as an option? Roland

Welcome to the forums, Rob! The default in Baron is that a 2NT response to 1 of a major is game forcing with support, but as far as I recall, you can choose any system you like. So if you want your programme to play 2NT as 11-12 balanced without support, you had better switch to Acol. Because that is what 2NT shows in that system. However, this also means that you must play 4-card majors, and I have a feeling that you don't want to do that. I am not sure if you can combine the two, and I don't know enough about Baron to determine if all this is possible. If it isn't, it should be! The programme is expensive enough as it is. Roland

He doesn't have clubs; one-suiter with hearts. So over your 3NT he bids 4♥. Take it from there. Do you pass or do you move on? If so, how? Roland

Tell that to all those who play 4-way transfers. They won't agree with you (I am one of those). Roland

4♣, assuming that this is a cue bid for hearts. Is it, or must he bid 4♥? If the latter, it takes a lot of room away. I expect you to say that 4♣ sets hearts and that we have an easy 4♦ now. But even so, how can he do any more than 4♥ after that? Roland

Many will disagree with you. Two camps: 1N - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ Forcing with 4 spades. ..... 1N - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ Invitational *without* 4 spades. I prefer the latter and let 2NT be invitational *with* 4 spades. This way opener will always be declarer. Roland

As to the immediate jump to 4♥ and 2♠ followed by 3NT and a pull to 4♥, I am merely telling you what happened at 2 tables. I agree that 2NT is the correct rebid over 2♠ by advancer. I also agree with Mike when he says that 2NT will likely lead to 3♥ by advancer. Care to tell us what you will do next, then? You are all welcome to join of course. Roland

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=saqj72hadk85ckj65]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1. Pairs, vul against not. RHO opens 1♠, you decide to double (1NT is perhaps an alternative), pass from LHO and partner jumps to 4♥. What do you expect opposite and what is your action now? 2. Same hand. This time partner doesn't jump to 4♥ over your double. He bids 2♠ and you rebid 3NT (I suppose). Partner pulls to 4♥. What do you expect opposite this time and what is your action now? Roland

I have probably been inattentive, but why is it that we don't have the BPO any more? Whatever the reason is, would it not be a good idea to get it back? (Sorry, I don't have time to be the moderator if that's an issue). Roland

1N - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♥ as 4-4 in the majors, weak (pass or correct with 3-2) is part of Benito Garozzo's NT system. I have never heard the term "Crawling Stayman". It's probably an americanised translation of something Garozzo never said :) Roland