David Stevenson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No, not really. If this was in a tournament where there is a director then the opposition can decline the claim and if they feel he takes any advantage from the claim being declined they can ask the director to adjust the score which he will do so if he feels that such an advantage was taken.
if you are playing a friendly game with no director then in effect it is the rubber bridge laws rather than the duplicate laws which apply. These are much vaguer and in effect the claimer follows his line or the opposition can object. Contested claims don’t work well at rubber and are probably worse on BBO!
It is a tricky hand. Perhaps you should put it in the Ask Julian forum to get his opinion.
I assume that you play 1C 1H 1N as a range that does not include this hand since the 1N rebid looks best otherwise? Assuming that 1C 1H 2C looks best. After that 3C looks best. The trouble with looking at two hands is it is easy to find a sequence but at the table many would bid 3N now and go off. But a possible sequence is1C 1H
2C 3C
3D 3H
3S 4C
?
3D shows D strength, 3H shows extra length, 3S asks for S help, 4C denies it. Opener now has to choose between P, 4H, 5C with my preference being in that order.
As to the 1S overcall the suit is not very good. Nowadays a number of players treat an overcall like an opening bid, not worrying about suit quality just strength. I also know some players who would not overcall because of the lack of opening points! Personally I think it is a borderline overcall because of the suit quality: change the S3 into the ST and now it is an automatic overcall.If a defender touches the cards I suggest calling the director. Defenders may not touch any cards in someone else’s hand without permission.
The red black red requirement is only reasonable because of eyesight problems which should be explained. In general it is dummy’s job and only dummy’s to look after dummy’s cards and so long as it is done so legally other players should not get involved.No-one has any right to ask dummy to change the order of suits. It would be normal to accede to such a request if there was a sensible reason for it. I used to play against a lady who said that because of her poor eyesight she always wanted suits to alternate colour in the dummy and of course we acceded to that request. Since you apparently had put the red suits together and the request meant they finish up black red black red perhaps the request was for the same reason, but it would be normal to give such a reason rather than just request it without saying why.
Whether 3S is forcing or not is really a matter of partnership agreement. The old-fashioned approach was to play it as a signoff which is useful since people often reply with a six card suit and around four points. However the modern approach is to play it as forcing which simplifies some sequences and loses out when responder has the really weak hand – it is very sad going off in a 4-1 club fit when 3S is making!
I am not advocating the Wolff signoff which is for scientific types like myself. But I do note that played properly it includes a slam try in opener’s suit.
I would pass 2S.
I play 3C as a game try suggesting help in clubs would be a good idea. On rare occasions I might be fishing for a slam, or I could be considering 3N. It is thus completely forcing.You could play it as a hand such as the one given in which case it is not forcing, but this is an unusual agreement and to be honest, I have never known anyone play it.
Of course the simple answer as you have noticed is that the scoring table says it is so.
But it seems entirely fair to me that 4C*+1 should outscore 5C*. 4C* is not a part score, it is a game contract. The opponents have doubled 4C into game. Furthermore the judgement to double 4C when 11 tricks are available is worse than a judgement to double 5C. It seems reasonable that the poorer judgement should get a worse score.The second question is the easy one to answer. Despite learning bridge with lots of rules we must always remember that it is competitive and doing something that will help you get a better score is definitely within spirit of bridge laws so long as it is legal.
It is certainly legal to make a natural overcall on any suit and any strength. Doing so on a very weak hand has two major risks, one that you will be doubled and go for a lot, two that your partner will overbid and take you too high. The latter risk is far less likely once your partner has passed initially which is why players often bid on very weak hands opposite a passed partner.
But there is also the question of misinformation. If this pair regularly overcall 2S on a very weak hand with a four card suit then that is part of their system and they should be telling you so. So if this was a normal overcall for this pair then it is possible that you were damaged by misinformation if they did not tell you so. It appears from what you have written that you asked the meaning of 2S and were just told natural. If they have an agreement to bid this weak then that explanation was insufficient and perhaps you should have an adjustment.On the other hand if 2S generally shows the sort of hand you expect for an overcall but the player decided on this occasion to make what in effect was a psyche by bidding on this weak a hand, that is legal. Psyches are a part of the game even though they are quite rare these days.
No, the EBU who decide on alerting rules have decided that a preemptive raise of a major from one to three is only alertable if the opponent passes. To clarify, if 3H is preemptive:
1H (P) 3H is alertable
1H (Dbl) 3H is not alertable
1H (2C) 3H is not alertableOf course when playing online with self alerting it does not hurt to put in more explanations than you have to.
1H (Dbl) 2N: traditionally this showed a raise to 3H, so I would describe it thus: “Raise to 3H”. A lot of people play it as a raise to 3H or better, so should describe it thus: “Raise to 3H or better”.A large number of players who generally play that an overcall shows five cards would still overcall with Brian’s example (I might, myself). However there are people who regularly overcall with much poorer four card suits.
It is important to realise that while a majority of players in one area or one club or who have been taught by one teacher all play much the same things there is no need whatever for other people to play similarly. In many ways it is a pity that the game has become very standardised: people who experiment in the bidding have a lot of fun doing so and there is no real agreement as to what is best. To play four card overcalls is perfectly legal and while it has gone out of fashion there are a number of people who play them. Whether it is a good idea or not is more a matter for Ask Julian.
As for your reference to fielding the term fielding refers to illegally allowing for something partner does which is itself of doubtful legality. Since four card overcalls are perfectly legal there can be no question of fielding them: partner has a perfect right to allow for them.
I am not sure what your difficulty is with opponents who overcall on four cards but if you think it makes a difference you have a perfect right to ask them what is the minimum number of cards they need to overcall.
Not necessarily. Players who direct accept that it costs them time, trouble and possibly positions and masterpoints. It is a pretty thankless job and some clubs (amazingly) do not even give them a free go. People who are not directing that night do not always want to be involved. Furthermore when something happens what do you do when the only other director is in the middle of a hand?
It is like a lot of problems: at first sight there seems an obvious solution but when you come down to it it is often an impractical solution. Furthermore when you talk of this problem you do have to realise there are so many different things that could have happened and some are much easier to deal with than others. I think a rule to always involve another director is unfair and impractical. If you trust the director let him do what he thinks is best.
For those of use who do not play Julian’s 2N response a natural 2N seems the perfect bid on the actual hand which overcaller would raise to 3N.
These days there seems to be a lot of players who worry about opening one of a suit with a fairly strong hand. The hand given seems to be a 1H opening playing Acol Twos or Benjamin Twos! But having opened one or the other no player with six points should stay out of game. Perhaps because people open Acol or Benjamin Twos on unsuitable hands is why responders do not go to game.
Ross: Acol is a developing system but the only difference between Benji and Acol is the opening two bids. These days the majority of people play 1H-1S-2D not forcing and 1H-2C-2D as forcing.
