gartinmale

Nothing on their system card. I was declarer, not dummy, so fortunately the asking would have been for my benefit. Let's say they hadn't discussed anything. Would I have been allowed to ask what defense(s) they play to a strong club? To a strong club and a negative response?

Yesterday in an ACBL Swiss, sitting South, the following auction occurred: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d(art.%2016+%20any)p1h(art.%200-7)dppp]133|100[/hv] Partner opened a strong artificial 1♦, West doubled an artificial 1♥, and nobody saw any reason to disturb it (particularly not me, as I held Kxxxx of hearts). West led the heart T. When dummy hit I noted that we had an eight card heart fit missing the QT9, and that West had helpfully picked up the suit for me. It was clear when East showed up with the heart Q and both followed to two rounds of trump that West did not intend the double to show hearts. They had briefly discussed their defenses before the match and so had an agreement about the double, although it wasn't clear to me what that was. It was also barely possible that our counterparts would be in 4H at the other table. To maximize the potential for overtricks it seemed necessary to figure out exactly what West's double showed - I suspected either 'the "unbid" suits' or 'suction: spades OR both minors', since they had discussed suction overcalls before the match, but it could have been something else as well - say, takeout of hearts. 1) In a situation like this, is it legal/ethical to ask East questions until he remembers their agreement? (At the table I refrained). 2) Similarly, I remember reading about a situation in a national pairs where Kit Woolsey opened a precision 1D, his partner bid 1H, and his RHO overcalled 2D (or some analogous auction - my memory isn't terrific). The point is that Kit's responses depended upon whether or not 2D was natural or artificial. His LHO remembered they had an agreement but did not remember what it was. Eventually the director sent LHO away from the table and had RHO announce to Kit and his partner what meaning he intended. If this is appropriate during the bidding, why not the play?

mike777: the question is the one with the question mark after it ("is 1♠ not a psychic bid?") I admit that it's stupid because it seems pretty stupid - I doubt anyone would ever call the director to report such a psych. Nevertheless, one of the fascinating things about this forum to me is the number of things that are debated that don't come up at the table. gnasher: I didn't feel like constructing a hand, given how silly this question is to begin with, but the misdefense - or someone getting into the auction when they wouldn't over a SJS - is what I had in mind. I've never seen this ACBL quote anywhere but their webpage on psychic bidding, so I don't know if it's a regulation or recommendation. I do know that despite calling the director afterwards in the (can count on one hand) few times I've psyched, no one has ever recorded it.

Anywhere in ACBL-land; this is a (admittedly stupid) theoretical question. You have agreed to play strong jump shifts with your partner, with the idea that something like 18+ total points and a good, at least 5-card suit are required for such bids. Not showing a strong jump shift at your first opportunity consequently denies a hand with 18+ total points and a good suit. For example, over an opening bid of 1♣, the hand (A) ♠ AKQxx ♥ KQx ♦ Qxx ♣ Kx is clearly defined in your notes as a strong jump shift (2♠) in your partnership, and there exist weaker hands that would make the same call. Now, suppose partner deals and opens 1♣, passed to you, and you hold (B) ♠ AKQJxxxx ♥ A ♦ A ♣ KQx Fully aware of your agreement, you nevertheless elect to respond 1♠, for whatever reason. Perhaps you are afraid partner will forget your strong jump shift agreements, or you are hoping lefty will stick his nose into the auction. The ACBL defines a psychic bid to be "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." Given that a response of 1♠ denies hand (A), and given that hand (B) is both longer in spades and greater in honor strength, is 1♠ not a psychic bid? Note also the ACBL's treatment of the reporting of psychic bids, cf. this link. "2. SUGGESTED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. All psychs should be reported twice — once by the psycher and once by the side psyched against. Penalties should be assessed if the psycher fails to report a psych."

Again, there is no getting fielded to death on this hand - there is only the other table, and they are playing 2/1. 1NT 10-12 may be terrific nonvulnerable at matchpoints; I lack the experience to know, because we play this system only at IMPs. 1NT may be atrocious vulnerable at matchpoints; see the previous note. As for putting ourselves in this position, it's likely that different NT ranges would serve us better in different seats and vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, in first seat at all vulnerabilities we have agreed that it will be 10-12. So, yeah, I do wish I hadn't been in this position. That's why this hand is being posted here, and not one where I had an additional queen. If there is no interference at the other table, is it possible you will get to the same place as them by bidding? If partner has a full opener, presumably their auction will go 1m - 1S - 2S - 4S or 1m - 1S - 1NT - 3NT since we are red at IMPs. What if partner has 10-11? Maybe he will refuse an invite, and so will the other table? For the bidders - suppose you were playing your vulnerability treatments and it was all white, or white on red. If you're bidding then, isn't that an argument for bidding red?

That's why we don't play this system at matchpoints. The spots are really good, but passing seems very reasonable (and not insane). What is the minimum change necessary to make the hand worth a call?

IMPs, short matches. Good opposition. All red. [hv=pc=n&s=saq95haqtd9ct8752&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(10-12)p]133|200[/hv] Partner's 1NT is 10-12, balanced. He could have a five-card major. If he has a four-card major he does not have a five-card minor. The methods are not great, but they're lots of fun and have been doing well. Your 2♣ would be non-game-forcing Stayman. Partner will bid a major at the 2-level if he has one. If he bids 2♦, a bid of either major by you shows exactly 5 and is invitational. If he bids 2♥, a bid of 2♠ by you is 4-5 spades, invitational. If you bid 3♣ over any Stayman response it is invitational in clubs. Pass is, of course, what it is. Which will it be?

I sort of sympathize with West on this point, actually - this sort of thing probably happens to him more than occasionally (people not alerting/announcing NT ranges, transfers, fourth suit forcing, etc.), and his partner is the type who will ask about everything. So he's thinking what he missed was something like "Oh sorry! That's a transfer", not the uncommon "Natural, *not* a transfer". I guess you could make the argument that the 10-12 NT is sufficiently nonstandard for a club game that West should be more on the ball, but it must suck to keep asking and slowing down the game when most of the time the bid is what you thought it was.

North America, club team game, IMPs, short matches. The auction proceeded: [hv=d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(10-12)p2h(to%20play)d(takeout%20of%20hearts)p3h]133|100[/hv] When North bid 2♥, South said nothing, so East asked what it meant. South explained it (correctly) as "natural and to play - it is *not* a transfer". West is hard of hearing and only heard "transfer", thus interpreting East's call as lead-directing. West then bid 3♥, natural. North inquired about 3♥ (to decide whether he should double as an anti-lead-director, but that's not relevant) and received the reply "Undiscussed - but since you've shown hearts, in similar auctions it would ask for a stop." At this point West called the director. West admitted he could tell the explanation was longer than "transfer", but didn't ask because everyone plays transfers. The director allowed West to change his bid to 2♠. East asked what was authorized information to him and received the answer "Only that West bid 2♠ over your double". East objected and stated that he would bid 3NT if he could take partner for some heart length. The director told East to stop talking during the auction, and East elected to pass out 2♠. 2♠ just makes. 3NT is iffy, but might make if South leads a heart. So... 1. Is West's attempted bid of 3♥ authorized to East? 2. Is West's attempted bid of 3♥ authorized to North/South? If so, South will probably make his natural non-heart lead, which will definitely set 3NT. (For full disclosure, I was South. I spoke to the director privately after the round because I felt like E/W had been damaged on this hand (I could have simply said "natural" instead of giving a longer explanation, for one thing. I felt I had spoken loudly enough and had looked at both opponents, but you never know). She reconsidered and looked at the hand but ruled that the result stood). What's going on?

Aguahombre, I think partner played it the best he could on the 6-1 trump break :). I don't really consider it that unlucky; the 8 on a 12 top is compensated by the story! Yes, that's a good point. It's supported by my own experience too; my partnerships have played and made 3NTxx, 4♥xx, and 4♠xx. Transfer bids can be doubled and redoubled too. Maybe 1♣xx and 1♦xx are slightly more likely than 1♥xx and 1♠xx because the strong club players can have similar auctions? I know there are partnerships out there for whom a double of a strong club shows clubs. So perhaps in practice, something like Not unusual: 4M, 5m, 3NT, 1NT (redoubled for blood at teams) Opportunistic: 2♣, 2♦, 2♥: (Stayman, checkback, or transfers redoubled) Medium-rare: 1m, 1M (as in the above discussion) Rare: 6/7-level contracts (speculative/Lightner doubles redoubled for blood) That still leaves 2♠, 2NT, 3m, 3M, 4m, 5M, and 5NT. I think if I'm ever in 5NTx, I shall have to redouble just because of this thread. Maybe we should start pre-alerting that.

Not trying to necro this thread (self-necro? sorry!) but this past Thursday at the club partner made 1Hxx with an overtrick and it was actually sensible: partner opened 1H in third seat white on red, righty had a completely normal double, I had a completely normal redouble, passed back to righty, who correctly gauged that any bid (even 1S!) was going for more than we could get in 1Hxx. Indeed, our +720 was only 8 on a 12 top. So I stand corrected. 1Hxx is entirely possible to score up in a reasonable manner, even at matchpoints. Hopefully in another six months I'll be writing about 1Cxx, just in.

If GIB isn't capable of getting to 6♣ when, say, opener loves his hand, why have it bid 3♣ at all? It just gives the opponents more information.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqjt42hj6d83c74&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(15-17)p]133|200[/hv] Okay, so one could Texas transfer to spades. Or, if feeling adventurous, one could Jacoby transfer to spades and then bid 4S, which for my partnership is a mild slam try without shortness. Partner won't like his spades, but if he has a ton of controls... Is there any form of scoring (matchpoints, BAM) at which you would consider playing 3NT? If you do decide you might want to play 3NT, do you blast it or go some other route?

All of them have played the board already. I suppose in a perfect world that doesn't matter.

Having played EHAA in the ACBL (albeit never in a serious event*), we always pre-alert as follows: "We can, will, and even frequently must open and overcall extremely undisciplined weak twos, with no requirements on strength nor length save 5 cards in the suit and 6-12 points". We also tell people that 1NT is 10-12, that our 1-level overcalls are stronger than they might expect, and that we have no forcing opening bid, although these things are not pre-alertable. We also alert non-forcing responses when we're supposed to. We've occasionally gotten pretty annoyed when we overcall 1X and one of our opponents says "Now remember, partner, that's 13+ points", but other than that have had no problems. *Okay, we played EHAA while our teammates played Phantom Club in a pretty reasonable one-session BAM once. It, uh, didn't work out very well.

Yikes. Fixed: Jx of diamonds.

Matchpoints, North America. You hold ♠ ATx ♥ AJ98x ♦ Jx ♣ T9x in fourth seat and lefty opens 2♣, alerted as EHAA - 5+ clubs, 6-12 points. Two passes to you. Righty could have bid 2X nonforcing (except for X=NT) if he wanted to try to improve the contract. Do you balance at unfavorable? If not, what needs to get better about your hand? Would you balance at all red? All white? Favorable? My regular partners and I don't come up against EHAA too often - I'd say maybe once in 30 sessions - but we do come up against a Precision 2♣ often enough, and it struck me that while I probably wouldn't balance with this at unfavorable against a Precision 2♣, I hadn't really thought about it at all. What do you need to balance over intermediate 2s (or EHAA) in fourth?

I was South. East had ♠ - ♥ KQJTxxxx ♦ Qxx ♣ xx East thought for about a minute before opening 3♥ and for longer over 4♠. The East/West partnership has no agreement on preempting style, and their card is not marked. East said he was initially trying to choose between 3♥, 4♥, and 5♥, and was thinking about both the vulnerability and how likely we were to double him compared to other tables. Everyone agreed that there was a hesitation. West claimed that (1) 5♥ is automatic, and (2) His partner's hesitation implies a distributional hand, and that N/S can therefore make both 4♠ and 5♠; hence bidding on, giving us the fielder's choice of doubling 5♥ when it is right or bidding a making contract when it is not, is the action not suggested by the UI. In practice, 5♠ does make, losing a heart and a diamond, and 5♥ is one away, losing two clubs and the diamond king. We objected to (1) because we thought it was false, and (2) because we thought it was, well, very false. Every other table had played the hand already, but most of them opened East's hand and were never quite in this mess. At the club, with no one to poll, how would you go about ruling on the hand?

No. But despite my misuse of language earlier, I don't think I've claimed that the jettison is percentage.

Agreed. They still have to mess up, and you need the spade and heart positions to be favorable, because your entry to dummy is a heart ruff. And I don't think the line is percentage. But since the other line led to instant down one (for everyone - nobody made the hand), I thought the jettison was worth posting since I'd never seen something like it in actual play before. I probably should have said "If you want to have a chance of making the hand", not "If you want to make the hand".

Okay, I guess this one isn't that interesting. I took the above line, which seemed reasonable, and quietly went down one, losing two hearts, the spade king offside, and a club ruff. Opening leader had JT sixth of clubs. If you want to make the hand, you need to win in dummy and at tricks 2 and 3 jettison the AK of clubs on the AK of diamonds. I actually thought about doing this briefly at the table but discarded it because it seemed flashy and I would catch so much hell if it wasn't right.

1. Penalty. Is there a super-penalty double? 2. Do-something-intelligent-partner (usually, pass). So penalty-oriented, I guess, according to the official ACBL double gradient chart.

Not by a mile. No offense to West. Okay, maybe small offense to West.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq963hjt743dcak8&n=st74h96dakt94cq65]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints, in a club game of varying strength. You bid your way to 4♠, South declaring, with the opponents silent, via the unsophisticated auction 1♠ - 2♠ - 4♠. Lefty leads the J♣, showing the T♣ or shortness. Plan the play.

Matchpoints, North America. Club game of varying strength. Here's the auction. [hv=pc=n&w=s74ha6daj963cq863&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp3h3sp4spp]133|200[/hv] Do you bid? If you would have bid 4♥ directly over 3♠, lefty would still have bid 4♠, and it would still be passed around to you.