avoscill

Thank you for your offer Phil. It is not so much for the result, but, upon listening at some opinions in our club and in this forum, I really got interested in what bid the majority of players would choose at this point in the auction. If you post this problem, please specify that the scoring was IMPs. Since EW are vulnerable, East should bid games with probabilities of success much less then 50%. In addition, there is the question of NS heart game, and they too are vulnerable. It seams to me that the mathematics here is pretty clear.

I (East) truly thought we had an agreement. Since we have never had the occasion to use it, I wasn't sure my partner will remember it, but I regard my intended meaning of the jump cuebid so logical that I hoped he will get it right. After all, it was just a matter of bidding 3NT with a heart stopper. I've never seen another use for this bid. True, most people require that all the remaining suits be stopped, but at the table I was somewhat disposed towards gambling. And yes, I did try, as declarer, to explain them what my bid shows, but again South was very swift in putting his lead on the table, and again North prevented any explanation on my part. I am well aware that knowing that pard didn't understand my bid was UI. But does it matters here? My hand was anyway very close to a 5♣ opener (one club card less, one ace more). To me, bidding 5♣ on this auction is automatic.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj62h9642da5c754&w=s95hat8dkt6432ct9&n=sqt87hkq753dqj9c6&e=sa43hjd87cakqj832&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1h3h4hpp5cppp]399|300[/hv] This board was played yesterday, at our local tournment, in Pula, Croatia. When asked about the meaning of partner jump cuebid, West said it was not defined in their system. Nevertheless, he took considerable time before passing. Perhaps I should add that South raised to 4♥ quite hastily, and that it was North who did the asking (before West's pass). East tought there was no logical alternative to bidding 5♣, especially at IMPs, so he bid. North, on the other side, thought that East was helped by partner's excessive thinking in his decision. South led a heart, so East made his contract, and North, thinking their side has been damaged, called the director. However, we are a small club, and don't have a director. One of the partecipants has been choosen to take a decision when such situations arise, but he would much appreciate some advice from this forum. Thank you.

Your Moscito example is not appropriate here. We also use (rarely) some relay sequences to find out specific high cards in partner's hand, which he shows in a codified manner, but it never occurred to me to explain to the opponents just the rules he uses. Of course I name to them whatever aces, kings and queens I found partner holds. But when an experienced player asks me to calculate the results of simple subtractions like 25 - 11 or 25 - 5, well, I find this is not Proper. As I said, it is a question of principle...

With exception of a few, people here seems to not being able to differentiate between "making inferences available to the opponents" and "telling one's own inferences to the opponents". Nowhere I said that I hide (or want to) information to the opponents, yet everybody implies I do it (or would like to find excuses for doing it). To Karlson I say: we open 4♠-6♦ hands in spades, and yes, we inform our opponents about this treatment. Arturo Franco states that one of the principles upon which is based the Blue Team Club bidding system is: Don’t tell the opponents how to play the hand. In the ♠opening - 1NT overcall - 3♦ rebid example, West led a spade, and when he later had to decide the continuation, he felt he had the right to know the exact number of my spades, and therefore to know whether he can play a spade for East to ruff. Sorry West, but we like to follow the above Blue Team Club precept. I must conclude that in this forum the prevailing view is just the opposite: you are obliged by the Law to tell the opponents how to play the hand. I you don't need to define a bid (because partner don't need this information), never mind, you still must define it, because the opponents may need this information. But maybe we are playing different games (or speaking different languages). Since I have exhausted my arguments (much cited, but not rebuted), greeting to all.

This phrase comes as a good example of one of the two main points in the present discussion. If someone were to ask me what did you mean with this words, "full disclosure" should not compel me to answer: there is enough for anybody to make the correct inferences! The second point, which seems to have escaped the attention of many here, is the following: if you can make a bid which drives your partner to the correct action without giving away much of your hand, well, that is a good bid. The same holds when you know enough of partner's hand to be able to place the contract. Such sequences happen also in standard bidding. When you hear from the opponents the simple action 2♠-4♠, you know almost nothing about responder's hand, yet nobody complains. I understand that a bidding system where such sequences happen frequently may make you feel uncomfortably. In the USA they solve the problem by simply banning such systems from competitions, and this is not fair.

If I show to my partner a narrow strength range + a 5-card suit, and he raises my suit, what might be more relevant than saying that he has support and invites me to undertake same action (some normal action, not a codified one) with a maximum? In fact I can't see anything relevant at all except this, and this is the whole point of my post. Zel didn't say that my 3♦ rebid was consistent with all that shapes, he simply said that my partner should probably know a little bit more than my opponents with which shapes I would make such a bid. While he's right about this point, my contention is that questions of style are not relevant here. If partner is broke, the only action he can undertake at all is a pass/correct action, so it is my responsibility to hold a hand which could bear such action. If one of my suits were substantially longer than the other, I would simply bid differently. The main difficulty with this hand is to convey to partner the invitational character of a suit jump rebid. If partner is keen enough to notice that, if I wanted to force to (some) game, I could start with an obviously artificial 2NT, we'll be on the right track.

I don't agree. I think a good bidding system (if it is to be played by humans, not machines) is one with plenty undiscussed situations. Ideally, every board should quickly fallback to an "undiscussed" bidding situation... undiscussed, but manaegable by sheer logics and general rules. It is much more interesting and challenging to play from your head than from a one-hundred pages bunch of system notes. The undiscussed situation I gave above (opener's rebid ofter LHO's 1NT overcall) remains undiscussed. I just pointed out to my partner (who doesn't know natural or any other bidding system, and therefore is not good at what Eugenio Chiaradia used to call "normal" bridge) that the natural, normal meaning of a jump in the balancing position is that it conveys strength. The aim of the the bidding process is not (or should not be) to exchange information, but to arrive at the correct contract.

It is permitted, we play twice a year at an open tournement in our city, Pula, Croatia. Nobody has ever complained, since it is a pretty simple method. Here in Europe, when an opening bid shows a strain, even if technically is artificial (being a transfer), is not considered Highly Unusual. Our 1 bids are simply two-under transfers (of course forcing, as is forcing any artificial bid), so any general agreement about dealing with transfers will do. I can tell you that most average polish pairs which come to play in Pula, when we open e.g. 1♦, showing spades, use 1♠ as take-out without any problem. Anyway, in the front of our convention card we propose this defense for the opponents, and this is the only additional agreement they may need after any opening by our side. I am not annoyed in the least. As I said, I simply find illogical being asked what shows an asking bid. And, as someone noted in the posts above, it may even not be correct to give to the opponents a non-agreed information. I personally would not like that the my opponents instructs me how to make inferences. Regarding our "heavily artificial bidding method", it is so simple that could be described in a few sentences, without ever mentioning a suit, since it is all built upon one general rule. But surely it is unusual, since most people play quite complex systems, which they happily call natural (e.g. here in Croatia the club opening promises 2 club cards, while our club opening promises 5 of them). Wrong again! For one thing, we are, for many years by now, getting very poor results. And since we play a long time this method with the same people, they are quite well acquainted with it. My partner is an eternal beginner, so the very same opponent which harass him with what I consider irregular questions, a very good player, often understands my bid better then my partner (e.g. in the last example I gave, my partner didn't understand the invitational nature of my 3♦ bid, so he left me there). With this post I simply wanted to ascertain whether it is lawfull to request information which has not been agreed upon by a partnership. Here I learned it is. At least, it is generally considered desirable, so I am going to conform, without any annoyances. What is the problem? Maybe that the ACBL and similar organizations think that only experts like to devise bidding systems, obviously abstruse, and besides, with the only aim of confusing the opponents. To me, this attitude is not in the spirit of the game.

I must admit I'm quite surprised by the general standpoint expressed by all these posts. I rather expected the opposite. Never mind, I will certainly follow your advise about giving my opponents their beloved numbers, being carefull to start with "about" of course. However, there exists another kind of bidding situations which present me with an "explanation" problem. Last time it happened at this point in the auction:[hv=pc=n&s=s9ht862dj73cj9874&w=sakqt6h53dat965ca&n=sj8543hakjdk2cq65&e=s72hq974dq84ckt32&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1d1npp3d]399|300[/hv] I was the dealer, as West, and opened 1♦, which shows 4+ spades and 26+ ZAR points (no upper limit). North overcalled 1NT, 15-17, and I found myself in the passout position with such a good hand. My partner denied, by passing, 9+ HCP (with which he would have doubled), and also a weaker unbalanced hand (he could have bid any 5-card suit naturally, or supported spades). We don't have any agreement here, we just have a generic one saying that, in a not discussed situation, any bid should be considered natural. I didn't find anything better to express my hand, then jumping into my second suit. The problem arose when North asked may partner what 3♦ meant, and was simply told that it was natural. North, who is generally interested in precise point count (but only for the opponents, as can infer from his present overcall!), this time wanted to know the exact length of my suits, and got quite upset when my pard could'nt satisfy him (simply because he didn't know). My question is: Is it regular to say "I don't know" when there is no agreed meaning for a bid? However, East is going to make some decision, so he has to make some assumptions (e.g. that partner possesses a fifth spade, based on the fact that the spade game is the most probable one). Should he tell them what he assumes too?

Here is a typical sequence where I am having problems (with one pair in our club): [hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1sp1n]133|100[/hv] 1♥ is artificial, just showing a balanced hands without 4-card majors, 12+ HCP; 1♠ is also artificial, showing either a negative (0-5) or a limit hand (about 9-11), any shape; 1NT is to play in front the a negative and balanced responder (if the weak responder has a 5+card suit, he will have the means to place the contract there). How many points does opener have at his point? The lower limit is still 12, but he may be as strong as 20 HCP. In fact he may be even stronger. With a flat 22-count like AQx AQx AQxx KJxx, he may well judge that even if partner contribute with some 4-5 HCP, prospects for game in notrump would be poor. My opponents would like to hear me name explicitly the upper limit of opener's hand. I don't bother about that upper limit, and our convention card doesn't specify it. This problem regards exclusively the opener. If 1NT comes to an opponent in the protective position, he disposes of all the information he is entitled to about opener's hand. Say reponder doesn't pass but bids 2♦ instead, showing 5+ diamonds and 24-28 ZAR points (about 9-11 HCP). If opener raises to 3D, I explain this as invitational, but again my opponents want to hear the number of his HCPs. This time I find it even more difficulty in determining that number, for he may aim at the notrump game (satisfied to play in a 4♦ partial with an unstopped major) as well as at game in diamonds (e.g. holding four or five trumps and a small doubleton). I repeat, I feel somewhat uneasy in having to speculate about what shows a bid which is in reality a requirement given to partner: I order you to pass if 0-5 balanced (1NT) Pass with a minimum, go ahead with a maximum (3♦)

We play an unusual system where responder is able to quickly delimit his hand, on which opener often gives a signoff or an invitation. When the opponents ask me, as reponder, to explain opener's bid, I simply answer that his bid is to play (or invitational, depending on the auction), but a few players, at our local tournements, are not satisfied with that answer. They insist that I should tell them exactly how many points has the opener shown. Now, it is true that I may infer, from what I have shown to him, the strength range he should have for his bid, but so can they. But why should I do the arithmetics for my opponents? Not to speak of the fact, known to every bridge player, that HCPs are not the only factor determining a hand's evaluation. Since responder, being a "slave" at this point of the auction, doesn't have to know opener's strength, and opener obviously sees all of his cards - this data is undefined in principle. As I see it, the above described situations are perfectly equivalent to this simple invitational sequence, common in standard bidding systems: [hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2sp3s]133|100[/hv] I am pretty confident that, after hearing that 3♠ is invitational, nobody would dream about enquiring about opener's strength. Opener's 3♠ bid was not meant to show anything; it simply gave instructions to the responder, namely to pass with a minimum, bid game with a maximum. When I point out this to them, they argue that, since they are thrown in uncommon bidding situations, they have the right to be given this data. I am aware mine is just a question of principle, but please help me settle it by indicating how it would be ruled by the bridge Laws.

We indeed play that 2NT shows the lowest unbid suits. So, he could have bid it, thus saving me from future "shifting" problems :rolleyes: . Even at favourable vulnerability, he probably judged his 7 hcp hand too light. And, yes, seeing the♥Q in dummy, I should have shown more thrust in the quality of his overcalls, instead of punishing him for his thoughtless signalling.

[hv=pc=n&w=s9843hk6dak6cj976&n=sthqt32dj42cakqt2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c1h4sppp]266|200[/hv] I have been heavily critisized by my team-mates for a defensive play which they decidingly judged as an error that only a beginner could make. We were playing IMPs, against opponents unknown to me. I led the ♦A, and, on my partner's encouraging high spot, the nine, I continued with the ♦K. With dummy's menacing club suit, I was clearly in a cash-out situation. It remainded to spot where our winners were. I decided to believe partner and played my last diamond - ruffed by declarer. They said I ougth to know that the ♥A was with East: South would not simply jump to game holding a side ace, they argued, and partner did overcall in hearts. On the other side, I reasoned, our fourth trick could well be a natural trump trick, if only East had any singleton spade honour, in which case I had hurridly to play a diamond to partner's queen. Was my reasoning so faulty? Shouldn't my partner give me a discouraging signal, since he could see that declared held two diamond cards (from bare AK, we lead the king)?

What I said is that I would fall back to a meaning of 1NT that would conform the regulations: some types of strong hands or a regular, but limited, club opening. So the only question that could arise would be: am I permitted to make a light opening in clubs (possibly with just 9 HCP), and pass a balanced hand of 11 HCP? Since people are doing this all the time, whatever their bidding system, I have concluded that the regulations don't speak just the hcp language. A problem with the regulations however remains, in the sense that they may achieve precisely the opposite of what they were meant for in the first place. Consider my position now: 1. I want to express a weak two in clubs with the 1NT bid, for a series of reasons (pragmatical, logical, aestethical, and so on) 2. I can't do that, for the regulation says I need at least 8 HCP for a level 1 opening (sadly, the law doesn't bother that mine is, logically, a level 2 opening) 3. I try to remedy by defining the club weak two as promising 5 clubs and 8-11 hcp - an opening more akin to the Fantunes two-bids, just a bit weaker 4. This would satisfy me, but, alas, the regulation says also that an opening bid at the one level may not be weaker than pass. 5. As it happens I am able to steal one more bid from my "true" level one openings 6. Therefore, I set up to use 1♠ for the balanced 8-11 hcp hands. I do not deem such hands worth to be opened, it is the Regulation that pushes me to do it. 7. OK, now my pass is 0-7 hcp, weakest then any of the level one openings, and the regulation should not complain Or could it? At the bottom I'm left with an inescapable opening bid, which in its turm must be tested for regularity. The 1♥ opening, pushed in the corner by my acrobatic attempts to comform to the regulation, must be defined in the following negative terms: it promises opening strength (26+ zar points) and denies 4+-card majors. It is a brave heart indeed, but the bidding vocabulary does permit the auction to develop normally. The point is whether the Regulation permits it. For, while not making direct statements about suits, it is implied that hands so opened may be, among other hand-types, one-suiters in ether clubs or diamonds. May this contraddict article 2.2.e, which says that when "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another", then it is HUM?