Pict

Looks like an illegal opening and a systemic fielding arrangement. Of course it could all be a coincidence, and I'm buying a lottery ticket.

It is not against the rules to have sub-optimal agreements. It's not even against the rules to ignore your agreements when an unforeseen situation arises. So if opponents have an agreement (written) that they must bid on with 3 over a potential sign-off, that's their choice. It has become a more common agreement lately in EBU-land because of discussion about hesitation Blackwood.

A lot of argument has relied on the high level of the relevant competition. That doesn't fit with childish talk of insanity.

I just wonder: Was the relevant player insane or mentally deficient in some way. How did he get on in the rest of the competition. Did he have to leave and go under care. I suspect not. I agree with the judgements reported but not with the childish reactions to someone calling a Director, or appealing, which I think is their right.

Thanks Aqua We finally moved from the 'natural and forcing' to: 'I am strong with diamonds and I want you to do the following'... If that is really your (or anyone's/everyones's) definition of 'natural and forcing' that's completely OK with me, once you tell me... and tell me the meaning of the 'following' bids.

Suggest first look at the hand you opened 3S with, then refer to Gnasher's suggested follow-ups --which seem as good as any for the high level of the auction. Or, maybe you were implying that Gnasher was other than a strong player :angry: Aqua - I failed to find the relevant Gnasher post (why would it matter if it were a Gnasher post? This is a rare situation: do you have an agreement?.. does Gnasher?) I could understand (eg): 4H control 4S nothing 5C control 5D A/K non-single But then I wouldn't say 4D was natural - would you? But then how do I know as opener whether I am answering a hand that can play spades or only diamonds?

Interesting conversation, but I still feel short-changed by the strong players. I've opened 3S and pard bids 4D (Natural and forcing). What do I do now and why?

So guys, Does 'Forcing natural' mean you have no agreements about openers rebid? Or what is your expectation and why not mention it instead of pointlessly attacking Campboy.

I believe a claim ends the play. Hilarious idea that you could claim 'at least n tricks' with no fascinating accompanying analysis. You are almost certain to achieve your minimum.

I also know players who intentionally and intently stare at opponents. I don't know why they do it: it is mildly strange. Of course they would gain no advantage from any players on this forum (super whatevers that we all are). Gnasher is right about the meaning of intent(ion), as quite distinct from intently, or intentionally, or even with extreme attention. I thought his French example was already unnecessary, but maybe required to convince people with limited English.

Many auctions can be reduced to examples of agreements ('ideals'?). But the attraction of Bridge is in part to be taken by surprise. Implementation of the Laws should not be designed to penalise surprise by assuming everything is predictable and can be decided in two seconds.

Ace of Spades - this time and next whether or not it works.

I'd say, as I implied before. There is clearly no common sense link to Law 57. But dburn says 'yes there is a link' - it is a nonsense link that no-one want's to pursue, but there is a link. Well, for this one time I have to agree with Bluejak, dburn is retailing nonsense.

It rarely makes sense to contribute to a very technical question if you are not an expert in the Laws. However, it seems that a natural interpretation is that any 'penalty' is paid when the hand is passed out. There remains UI from the lead, ignorant of the the double. So if declarer felt damaged by that, there are remedies for damage not covered adequately by other Laws.

Apologies Gwnn. Opponent says 10-12 NT and I guess he will play 9-12 (so z=1). So easy to make things difficult for people and deflect them from any meaningful point.

Personally I never downgrade. I've noticed several discussions on the Expert forum where world class players say 'never downgrade'. Yet, I have twice in the last ten years miscounted, or misremembered who I was playing with, whatever, and found myself looking at 15 points after opening a 12-14 NT. As it happens I don't upgrade. I can recall 20 years ago at a strong club, being the idiot dburn mentions, counting a hand down to the last jack and the NT opener a point short at eleven. I don't have to tell you how it ended. I might have to tell you I didn't feel inclined to call the Director. I've played internationals who say their NT is x-y, and I immediately know it's really x-z to y. (Especially if it is 10-12). My remaining puzzle. If someone tells me his NT is 12-14 (and maybe sniggers up his sleeve). Then it turns out 12-14 was a reasonable approximation in 'my' world of his arcane calculation. Why do I care? Why does dburn care? Why does Jeremy care?. Why is Nick so excited about it?

There is some remarkable 'logic' being applied here. 1. Is an insufficient bid an irregularity? I believe the answer is yes. 2. Can I modify my agreements following the insufficient bid. Depends. 3. Can I pretend that if I accept the insufficient bid by making a call, that it never happened and I evade any relevant rules, and my bids can mean anything bizarre I like. Get a life guys.

I've played Acol weak NT, absolutely standard 44 up the line, like it. I've tried same with 4-card major first, doesn't work for me, hated it. The spades are 5 seems pointless to me. Played 5CM strong NT - pleasant enough. Played 5CM and 5D (except 4441) strong NT - pleasant enough. My experience is it depends on your partner, your ambition, the culture you are playing in. Place your bets.

Interesting that being part of the appeals process is so onerous and tedious as to generate these revenge phantasies in relation to the unfortunate serfs who disagree with TDs.

1) 2 2) 0 3) 2 4) 1 5) 1 6) 2 7) 1 8) 1 9) 0 10)2 11)1 12)2 13)2 14) 1 15)2 16) 1

Seems very simple. If partner could ever want to play at the five level after your reply, you have to pass. You can tell yourself you 'really knew' immediately after your misbid that you misbid, but nobody is listening once pard has tanked - tough luck. Unless: You could literally never pass out below slam on your hand. Edit - just seen Bluejak's contribution. I'd like to see the full hand - so hard to make these up.

On your first point, it's good they have a convention card, and I don't know how much better/worse it is than other USA experts. On your second point, I hope that generalisations that help their opponents would not be given any special weight by Directors.

As currently written Law 20F refers to 16B and the fact that questions about the auction can convey UI, especially questions about individual bids. It is not ideal that a 'lawful procedure' such as seeking disclosure should be intertwined with UI. However that is the way it is, and phan's example, perhaps, shows the difficulty of removing the UI caveat from the right to question.

Slight mess, but IMO result stands. We will hear that North denied good spades with his pause and South should have passed the double. I just don't buy any of it. High level auction, tough decisions. I am (fairly) tired of hearing that people can't play Bridge because their partner chooses to think in a thinking game.

Apologies if I have misunderstood. It seemed to me that you were subscribing to the notion that a player who opened 1♥ could not have a slam try facing a raise to 2♥. If you were instead ridiculing it, then more power to you. Of course, as Fred correctly observes, such a player would bid something other than 4♥ after responder's discouraging 3♥. But that auction is not the real problem. The real problem is this auction: 1♥-2♥-3♦-4♥-6♥. Now, ever since (and very probably before) Zia published the concept of the "sting" cue bid or trial bid in Bridge My Way, an expert player might be trying to do one of (at least) two things: show a real "help suit try" to elicit cooperation, or make a fake cue / trial bid in order to inhibit a diamond lead. The issue is: if North-South have some partnership experience based on history rather than explicit discussion, are East-West entitled to knowledge of that experience? Is redress due to a non-expert West who, let us say, leads a spade from ♠QJ10x rather than a diamond from ♦QJ10x and says later "3♦ wasn't alerted, so I had no way of telling that it could be two or three low in a slam-going hand - I thought both my opponents had something in diamonds"? This captures part of the dilemma of the game as it is now. It seems that if I ask about this auction, I might be told 'lead a diamond, he was probably trying to put you off the best lead.' (or words to that rough effect). I don't want that information and I dont want to claim after the event, that I did want that information. I want to work it out for myself.