Leaderboard

And that is why I love "potentially unexpected" Alert requirements. It caused all kinds of this kind of issue in the 20 years we had it - and to give the writers credit, they admitted it would be a problem right there in the Procedures - and it's been removed in the new one, in exchange for a bunch of "why should we have to Alert this" and a bunch of "wow, it can be a zero count and they aren't supposed to tell us?" Which have not been sufficiently exercised in practice for the world to have learned to deal with/the C&CC having been convinced to (attempt to) change to match what the complainers consider "totally unexpected" (in their area) and the bidders consider "normal, all the A players do this" (in theirs). And, of course, the reason for the First Post. Not criticizing anybody here - everybody has a valid point. For the EBU, sending it to L&E to get a ruling, which should be reflected in the next BlueBook update one way or the other, seems the correct path. In the ACBL,...?

It’s not, despite my sarcastic reply to Tyler, that I think that 2N is perfect or that 3D is awful. As I suggested, I think neither is great but that 2N has more going for it, despite the flaws of short spades and weak stopper (although I’d give long odds that RHO doesn’t hold a high club honour….either LHO has AK or partner holds a club honour) But 4S is silly. Give you xx AQxxx Kxx KJx what does he think you should bid and how does he think 4S will play? No, he made a terrible bid and is seeking to do anything rather than admit that he erred. It’s a very common human response and one that is difficult to avoid. I’ve seen myself do this on occasion, which is why, in my main partnership, we never discuss things at the table, other than a very occasional ‘sorry’ after a glaring error, but we review every hand a day or two later, searching for things either of us could/should have done better. It’s easier to recognize/admit poor decisions after a little space between error and discussion. Your ‘Fluffy’ quote is apposite.

In that case I don't like opening 2♣ on a number of three-suited hands on what will frequently be only a 4-card suit and may even be a 3-card suit. The narrow range helps (though it does mean you'll have to pass, say, ♠AKxx, ♥KTx, ♦x, ♣Jxxxx) but promising one or both majors without specifying which means responder might be stuck. Do you fish for a good major suit fit or give up on game? I'm also worried that you won't have enough space to describe opener's hand over that opening bid. The rest looks quite playable. The huge balanced range in 1♣ has me a bit worried, but presumably that's an aspect you're prepared to handle.

I suggest ditching that agreement that double shows 14+. It’s of no use to opener at all. Opener can’t know what to do based solely on hcp. Say opener has 6 hearts and 6 points. 2D (3C) x (P). Does opener pass or bid? On many hands the answer is: it doesn’t matter, we’re getting a bad board anyway because 3C is cold and we are going for 150 or more in 3H. On other hands, the answer is that we should pass because 3C is failing and either 3H fails or scores worse than passing On other hands, the answer is that we should bid because 3H scores better than 3C making or down one (if they are nv) Points don’t take tricks! Points are a tool that is used with the other important tool, distribution, to assess the likely trick taking potential of the two hands being described. Neither tool is of much use by itself outside of quantitative notrump bidding, where (to a reasonable approximation) hcp is dominant most of the time. They are not the only tools. Honour location, suit texture, controls are other tools. Having an agreement as simplistic as ‘over our weak bid, a double of an overcall shows 14+ points’ is, imo, not a good idea. Over our weak only multi, if they overcall 2M, double says ‘pass if they’ve bid your major (it does happen) but if not, I want to compete in yours’. If they overcall 3m, double says they’re going down. Obviously doubler has strength, but the most salient points about his hand are: He thinks defending, and beating, 3m will score better than declaring. He will usually be short in at least one major, and will assume (usually but not always correctly) that that is your suit. He also thinks that he can handle any run out by 4th seat, but he expects opener to feel free to double such runout if holding a useful hand in context.

Horrible, rather than routine imo. Without the 2♣ overcall, in the auction 1♥ - 1♠ - I am bidding 2♦ but in the actual auction 3♦ suggests better shape and maybe extras. I think we are headed for a bad contract whatever, but 2NT keeps things low, and now if partner bids 3♣ we can now bid 3♦. I do not like 2NT but I prefer it to 3♦. Can we pass? Of course not but it might be the best action to try to get a plus score on the hand. At white/red that 2♣ overcaller is bound to have a good suit and an outside entry. My guess is our hands are fitting badly already, but 2♠ is forcing so it is a question of picking not so much the best bid as the least worst one imo.

Struggling to count to 23+ total points (max. 20) so not a 2♣ opening? I'm not sure the robot can count either if the description is correct A 1♠ opening for most ending in 4♠

1NT followed by hearts if I can. This is the rare hand where I'm prepared to lose the spade suit unless partner bids it again.

I was told not to attend one local club (average age nearing 80) if I was going to play a particular system, without ever going there. At the time system regs were held in the orange book, so we decided to devise something thet pushed those regs as far as they could be pushed while still getting a playable system. What emerged was 1m both ♣/♦/bal 1♣ unlimited and forcing, with possible canapes, 1M potential canape unless both majors, 1N big and always unbalanced. We called it Clockwork orange. It caused the county captain to literally fall off his chair when he found out it was actually legal at the level of system regs playable in clubs which was more restrictive than what was allowed in tournaments.