WGF_Flame

my bid is same as semeai's. This is standard 2/1. An interesting question is what would we have done if spades were hearts and hearts were spades on both hands. In such a case standard bidding might have fail which is a case for some less standard ideas.

1S-2H 3C-3H 3S-4H 4NT-5S 5NT-6D 7H/7NT I don't think 4D as suggested before is correct, not sure we should force to H yet over NT. If on 3S partner has only 6Hs and a stopper in D, he will bid 3NT, and i'll invite with 4NT.

I think it depend on the vul, I would pass for sure if I'm vul, but if not vul, I am close to bidding (give me the 98 of heart and i'd bid 1H with confident)

3C because this is what I got.

I'm happy that I'm wrong here, so basically you agree that it wasn't OK not to alert, but because it wasn't on purpose then we don't have to do anything about it. I'm happy to hear that.

Basically you are right,(although we only assume he forgot) but I think the directors here would give the same ruling if it turned out he didn't give alert on purpose.

Hi, When you know you play inverted minors and partner bid 2C you should alert it. Very simple. If he had done that the result would have been better for E/W. So failure to do the correct thing which the law and regulations asks you had result in damaging your opps score. Today I found myself on the other side, explaining to people why there shouldn't be a compensation. I told them this story: a guy come to his friend house, after a while he see 100$ on the sofa, he decide to steal it. He put it in his pants. it turned out that the friend had this meeting video, and when he watch it he see the friend action and go to the police with the vid. The police call the stealer and he admit stealing. However the guy was very lucky because when they carefully watch the begging of the vid they see that the 100$ dropped from the stealer paints and he actually took his own money. His friend claimed that he lost 2 days of work, and wanted compensation, but the law is simple, there was no stealing and no compensation. next deal... I don't like it, but I think its ok.

Hi Richard, I will explain my logic: The law say to give alert when partner's bid is a special agreement but since we cannot use anything other then our memory to remember our agreements then practically this mean when the bid is as far as I know an agreement I have to alert. If we agree that this is what the law tell me to do (alert when partner make a bid that in my brain database is stored as an agreement). Then we both agree that the player who didn't do that, didn't follow the law. Since not following of the law has caused the opponents to get a bad score, they should get a compensation.

Btw blackshoe and others, I thank you for your responses, true I'm still not 100% convinced but I'm much closer to be. Thanks

What i want the player in question to do is the obvious thing you and I and every player is doing every time our partner bid something we think that should be alert. We alert it. Don't understand how you can say its not true. I have lots of bridge experience and I'm a director myself and I understand the law pretty good. So yes I might be wrong, I brought the question to hear other opinions and learn something, but I haven't been convinced yet.

What I want him to do is what I would have done. I would have alerted 2C, then they would ask and I would explain as inverted, then before the lead my partner would have corrected the explanation, then if after all this its possible that the director would have compensate my opponents if they prove that the initial explanation hurt them. This is the regular procedure this is what I would have done and I believe this is what the law tell us to do. We all sometimes forget our system, but this doesn't mean we don't have to alert and explain it according to our knowledge. Please notice that the way I suggested it which is as I see it the normal way any fair player do, the opponents do in fact get more information that with the player who forgot to alert. Do we want to give him a prize for not alerting ?

blackshoe - I don't think it makes any different whether they asked or not, not giving alert practicably equal to explaining its a normal simple raise. I don't want a player to give his hand. I want a player to explain the system as he know it, and alert it and explain when they asked as he know it. (which again is a must but not enough)

Hello CampBuy, He didn't alert 2C because he forgot to alert. I am not saying you should tell what you got, or that its enough to say that you think is your system. What I am saying is that the correct precedure is to alert and tell the opponents our agrement as it is stored in my brain, if this is not exactly the agrement its not enough, but still this is a must. So in fact playing by the correct precedure we give 2 peaces of information (which sometime are the same) first we say what we think is our agrement, and then if this is not true dummy (before lead) can correct it, and if this isn't enough then the law will adjust the score. So basically playing by correct procedure give more then not giving alert as the guy did here, and this cannot be right.

Hello, we have a debate about disclosure and will be happy to hear you're view. North deals and the bidding goes as follows with silence opponents and no alerts 1C-2C 2S-3C 3NT The hand: [hv=pc=n&s=s732h976d52cat642&n=saq54hjt3dkqtcq97]133|200[/hv] responder bid a normal 2C while opener thought it meant to be inverted minors. (he confirmed it after the board was played.) The defense was damage because they expected more from opener hand. The CC explain that they don't play inverted minor. This mean the explanations were according to the agrement and no problem. Yet I think this is wrong, true the law say we should explain our agrements, but what this actually mean in real life is that we should explain what we think is our agreement. of cource its not enough and if a player explain his agreement wrong, be punished by the game law, yet a player first duty is to explain what he think the agreement is. The opener in this example failed to do that, he thought he is playing inverted but failed to tell this to his opponents, and if this caused them to misdefense , they deserve a compensation. Am I totally wrong ? edited: where we play its obvious that non alert 2c is normal raise and inverted minor has to be alerted.

The bids you gave: 1D-1S-2C and 1D-1S-2H, shows exactly the same hands as in acol, therefore any system you know in acol for these sequences you can play in sayc. I do however think that most do play that 2NT over the second position shows a weak hand, in sayc and probably in acol.

First I agree with you that its a good slam. Yet the cross ruff is not as simple as it might seem. West is discarding clubs on each diamond you ruff and this might lead to some problems.

Slam is not so bad here, but not so great either, so I think being in slam is ok, but being out of it is also fine.

very easy pass. partner's 3H promise nothing (after 2 over 1 by the opponents), id pass with 2 more aces.

2S for me, and its not a super max for the bid.

you mean unless its some kind of nebulous diamond right ? I mean you dont mind it to be better minor 1 diamond.

does opener really bids 4D here ? I think its wrong to bypass 3NT, as 3d isnt a slam try.

looks like 7D will be an average as everyone here easily bid it :) now seriously, we would have bid something like this: 1d-1h 2c-3d GF 4c-4nt 5s-5nt 6c-.... I don't think i would have bid 7D here,at mp I'd probably bid 6NT.

I didn't claim that pass isn't LA, i claimed that the hesitation didn't give any additional information to the 5S bid without the hesitation. the hesitation information was "I had to check wather we had slam, it wasn't a clear to me without thinking about it that we can only make 5. bidding 5S in tempo when we have 4 of the 5 key card gives exactly the same message. if you think not, show me a hand that can ask for keycard and then will not consider slam. the only extra information the hesitation gives is that the player was not thinking fast, might be tired, and didn't think of the bid before the 4NT, but this isn't relevent information.

This is not true, I would even claim that the hesitation suggested passing. If partner bids 5S fast it would be obvious he play simply that when showing 1/4 as a rule you don't assume 4 and therefore partner always continue with 4. The hesitation might mean that partner set down and seriously calculated the slam odds vs the know 4 key cards and decided against bidding the slam.

Funny I was looking the net for you're old forum to ask the same question, only now I saw you're here :)