You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have seen and occasionally played this treatment after an “unbalanced 1” opening.

Its the same/similar to what Phillip Martin espouses above.
Jan. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play the same system in both seats (its been on my things to discuss with partner list for about 2 years) so the below is less experience based and more hypothetical (mostly stolen from a top international partnership):

vs Weak NT:
In 2nd seat, your range for overcalls is narrower so you play a more shape-based defence
In 4th seat, your range for overcalls is wider so you play a value-based defence

e.g
In 2nd seat 2 = 6M, 2M = 5M-4+m
In 4th seat 2 = Trash Multi, 2M = Constructive

vs Strong NT:
In 2nd seat there is probably still some use for a penalty double especially as you will be on lead (I know this is debatable)
In 4th seat the need for that penalty shrinks so you play the double as artificial in some form of DONT/Meckwell
Nov. 23, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some people play 3 as . I personally in this situation would play it as natural offering 4.

Obviously if there was less space 1NT-2-2-3 then 3 becomes more logical as .

As a sidenote, A big junior craze around 4-5 years ago which I never played but had some logic behind it was to “switch” 3M and 4m over. Thus after 1N-2-2-3: 3 = Nat, 3 = , 4m =
Nov. 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So firstly let me just check that my basics are correct:

Without screens: You inform the opps as to a misexplanation at the end of the auction if you are the declaring side, and at the end of play if defending to prevent UI.

With screens: You are not entitled to information from the other side of the screen until the end of the play.

I am reasonably certain of the above but am checking this as at least one international player has previously advised me that in a situation where the opps bidding “doesn’t add up” to clarify what the explanations were on your partner's side of the screen after the lead but before the play begins so that the play isn’t affected. This was over 5 years ago and I cannot remember the specifics but I think the players in question were NOT entitled to redress on the basis they should have protected themselves and asked/checked in the play period (rules may have changed also).

Query 1: Is the above correct? Is the International player correct/incorrect?

……………………………………….

Scenario derived from Norman’s above:

1-2*
3*-4

Opener explains this incorrectly as 2 = limit raise and 3 = game-try
Responder correctly explains 2 = GF raise and 3 = 0-1

So as I understand it the player with incorrect information leads singleton club and doesn’t get the ruff they were expecting as their partner thinks declarer is short.

Ruling as I understand it = No adjustment as the player with the decision to make was given correct information.

But if there had been no screens the player in question would likely have been aware of the ambiguity (due to the incorrect/corrected statements before lead) and may well have beaten the contract or at least had the chance to. Similarly, if they were allowed to check the explanations written down on the other side of the screen they would have a chance at protecting their equity.

Query 2: Is this just a tough lines scenario for the non-offending side or have I missed an aspect of the rules that I should be aware of? Would be a horrible way to lose a match (Rulings generally are though).

Query 3 (somewhat meta): If the player with incorrect info has an auto lead (singleton club) but has an alternative lead that makes it easier for their partner to beat it. As in both leads beat it but Lead 1 = obvious but makes partner's life impossible, Lead 2 = unlikely but makes partner's life easy). Does the ruling remain the same or change?

Thanks in advance btw, I appreciate this is a long post/set of queries :-)
Oct. 19, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Enough has been said about who should have said what etc. I personally prefer to focus on the bridge. With that in mind:

1. West might have put back the Q instead of the K to try and obscure East's HCP. Similarly East maybe should encourage to paint a false picture (They might have done, depends on their signals).

2. North should duck the K. Then they can set up a 3 card ending where the show up squeeze saves them from making any guesses about how solid East's 2 bids are as a passed hand.
Sept. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Disclaimer 1: This may be just my experience of these spots.
Disclaimer 2: I hate the fact I am backing pass

Whenever partner has the hand where the “sac” works perfectly they raise me to 6. This combined with the pass over 3 doesn't fill me with hope.
Sept. 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Mike S: 1NT+3 looks cold to me (yet to see a killing defence) so i don’t think it matters what South does at this (or any) point.
Sept. 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard. Say West switches to a Spade. We can now set up this ending:

Q
x
-
W
<>
-
Kx
x
-

This is a really good position to be in. Definitely far better than most other options.

Hence a is clearly a more dangerous return from LHO
Aug. 29, 2019
Will Roper edited this comment Aug. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Richard imo, the T is better then a heart and a diamond to the T as it gives LHO the opportunity not to return another heart (not good for us).

Assuming we do play the T and they do return a heart (and hearts are 5=2 as it isn't a problem if they aren't), we now should cash a 3rd and play a diamond to the Ace.

We now have the classic finesse or squeeze guess developing!
Aug. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If break what we do at T2 is “mostly” irrelevant.

If we cash and have one club loser then we go for this position:

AQx
-
-
-
<>
x
x
x
-

For this to work RHO cannot have:
a) K
b) 4+ and 4+

If we lead a first takes us down lots of murky avenues with a lot of guessing likely to be involved. It might be better than a (I cba to work out all the options as it is messy), but it is a lot less clear cut and I doubt the %s add up.
Aug. 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was a national pairs session several years ago where my partner and I averaged 29% for the first 12 boards and 77% for the second 12.
July 22, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whilst I like 3=3 (see below) this argument feels redundant to me.

If I have 5-4 then we have a definite major fit after partner bids 3. Why not just bid 4m.
June 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
3 = I have 3.

Power Acol!

Imagine you have 3415 with a 7 count. You want to offer partner the choice of contracts. Good hands can cue 4m.
June 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Worth knowing what

P-1-2
P-1-3

are. Regardless I think 1NT is probably automatic and the more interesting decision is going to be on the next round over say 3.
June 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Only if you know East is going to cover the 2 with the 5. But an interesting point. If I think that being 4-0 is a reasonable inference then that inference maybe equally available to the defence. I definitely don't think the room would put the J up but that is my gut feel rather than based on anything concrete.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Craig,

“The only difference is that by playing the A at trick 1, you give West an early opportunity to err by pitching a from 5.“

If West has 5305, you also now have given East a chance to insert the J at T4 and beat the contract legitimately regardless of what you ditch on the A which somewhat ruins the hand.

“And when the K is onside, W will often be able to play a club back at you after winning the A

That really isn’t a problem as you now have trump control. Going down now would be a travesty if you didn’t pitch the A.

If you do ditch the A and West returns a rounded suit at T3 and the K was onside all along then West will be caught in a squeeze. I am no good at names but will take a wild guess at a progressive triple squeeze. I do concede you will go down when are 3-3 and the J is offside though.

Pretty though and I hadn't noticed it previously so thanks :)
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have posted my (unfortunately lengthy) thoughts on the hand and the actual results here:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-hand-of-many-stories-analysis/

The first and hopefully last hand I feel compelled to write a thesis about.
June 3, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partner and I play a lot of transfers in these spots but simplify them down. This is slightly less optimal for various reasons (mainly when raising partner) but we get far more usage out of it and have 1 symmetrical system for lots of spots.

Atm we play transfers after
1. 1any-(1any)
2. 1any-(2any)
3. (1any)-1any-(1any) (treat like 1)
4. (1any)-1any-(2any) treat like 2)
June 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Steve :)

What about a small diamond at T2?
June 2, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top