rmnka447

I'd start with contacting the ACBL tournament directors. You can get their e-mail address by going to the ACBL website (acbl.org). Then use the About ACBL button. Then to Contact Us button. Then an overall directory will appear. In the Service Directory Section, find Rulings(Get One,Ask About One). That should be the address to get to the TDs.

I'm no expert either, but items allowed by the GCC are playable in virtually all tournaments(Sectionals, Regionals, Nationals [North American Bridge Championships {NABC}]) and club games. Midchart items are typically only allowed in unlimited MP events at the nationals, regionally rated Flight A (unlimited MP) events at the nationals, and, at the discretion of the organizers in regionals in the top KO brackets or Flight A (unlimited MP) events. For instance, we played in a KO top bracket final a couple years at a regional tournament, our opponents were playing Multi 2 ♦. They had to pre-alert it before the round started providing a written explanation and written suggested defenses. My partner and I were allowed to choose one of the defenses and refer to the write ups during the auction. Likewise, in January, we played against a pair in a KO 2nd Bracket (approx. 1500-2500 MP per player average) and they were playing a complicated bidding system based on a Strong ♣ with Strong 2 ♣, 2 ♦ for major hands and varying NT ranges. They also provided a pre-alert on what they were playing although I don't recall if they had any defenses laid out. Basically, the ACBL will allow more unusual bidding agreements against better players with proper explanations/awareness of those methods. But they want to protect newer and more modestly talented players from having those methods sprung upon them. If you're unsure exactly what will be required, you could contact the ACBL and ask if they are allowed, when they can played, and what is required to play them. They are usually pretty responsive to those kinds of requests. It probably wouldn't hurt to reconfirm what's allowed and required when you get to the events that you want to play in with the TDs. Club games have pretty wide latitude as what they will allow. Depending on the club, you might or might not be allowed to play any Midchart methods.

After trick one, ask yourself how do we defeat this contract? And consider what the ♣ situation must be in view of your doubleton. After thinking things out, I found a 4th best 3 ♦ at trick 2 (or 3rd/5th if that's your agreement).

I'm also a 4 ♠ bidder. It seems the most likely plus score. After a preempt, it's better to get to a good spot than the perfect spot.

I've certainly forgot on occasion that we were playing Flannery because I play with a number of partners. Each plays something different, so there's no common bidding agreements. And then there was the time, I looked at my hand with 5 ♠, 4 ♥ and had a brain short circuit that came up with "That's a Flannery hand". So I bid 2 ♦ and had to table my hand when partner ended up playing 2 ♥ on a 4-3 fit instead of 2 ♠ on a 5-3 fit. As long as forgetting the agreements is an honest memory lapse, it's hard to penalize it. Just like if you erroneously pullout 3 NT instead of 3 ♠ raising partner and don't realize you've done it fast enough to correct. If it happens that 3 NT and 4 ♠ both make 4, that's a rub of the green situation as is 4 ♠ making 4 and 3 NT going down 3.

Partner ought to have lots of ♠. You can't know if 4 ♠ is a make or not. If partner has something like a stiff ♥ and ♠ A, 4 ♠ ought to make. From the look of your hand, your probably not taking many ♠ tricks. 4 ♥ looks like it may make unless you can take 3 ♣ tricks or partner can come up with a second trick. So if 4 ♠ doesn't make, it's best to make them guess what to do immediately and potentially drive them to an unmakeable 5 ♥.

I agree that the issue isn't psyching a Flannery bid but more likely opponents forgetting that Flannery is being played. Since psyching an artificial bid is verboten, anyone who does so is not only risking not only adjustment of the hand in question, but further disciplinary penalties. That's enough to make such a psyche a virtual non-starter.

Opening 1 NT with the South hand ♠ AJxx ♥ AK ♦ xxx ♣ AJxx is normal now. At one time in the distant past, it was recommended to only open 1 NT with stoppers in each suit. But the problem was how to rebid hands without a stopper (like the one you posed) that you didn't open 1 NT. There was no satisfactory solution for accurately describing what you held. In practice, it was only rarely found that opening 1 NT without a stopper hurt in any way. So, people migrated to opening 1 NT when holding the right HCP and distribution without regard for stoppers. After a simple transfer (i.e., no interference), players vary in how they respond. Some experts have recommended super accepting (here 3 ♠)when holding 4 card support and a maximum. Marty Bergen is one who advocates super accepting with any 4 card support hand maximum or not. The thinking is that known 9+ card fits are more valuable and should be bid aggressively. The downside is when responder has a horrendous hand and you end up playing 3 ♠ instead of 2 ♠. However, some players stick to just taking the transfer with 4 card support to avoid that problem. But hiding the 9+ card fit loses when it precludes responder from bidding on with certain hands. OTOH, it does save some bidding space on certain hands. After 1 NT - 2 ♥(transfer) 2 ♠ - ? Some have suggested 2 NT or 3 NT as a continuation. But some bidders might also bid 3 ♣ to show the ♣ feature and emphasize to opener the potential shortness in the red suits. If opener holds, say ♠ AJ ♥ AKxx ♦ xxx ♣ AJxx, you might avoid a disastrous 3 NT after 3 ♣.

You have a minimum hand with good ♦ support. I have no problem with 3 ♦ or pass depending on your bidding agreements after 2 ♠. 3 ♠ by partner asks about a ♠ stopper. With a stopper, partner could bid 3 NT directly. Without a ♠ stopper, you can't bid 3 NT. So your choices, after the double, are to bid something else or pass. Since it's available, I think pass stands out. You've already bid your hand -- opener, ♥ suit, ♦ fit. There's nothing left to tell, you've described your hand -- no need to retell your story. A further free bid/call over the double ought to be something extra that you need to tell partner about. So the pass says, there's nothing extra to tell you about and lets partner decide what to do.

Once 1 ♦ is bid and an inverted strong raise of 2 ♦ is made, 5 ♦ is the better contract. It only requires a 2-2 ♦ break (40%) or a stiff ♦ Q (12.5%) to make. There's no preference at IMPs to settle in NT as in matchpoints. You're better off in the "best" game contract. 3 NT has no play on a ♣ lead unless there's some weird ♣ blockage. 5 ♦ is 52.5% a priori and can't be defeated off the top without an unlikely void some place. I've seen many IMP matches decided where finding a good 5 ♦ contract wins over an iffy 3 NT. Once 3 NT is found after a ♦ fit is established, a ♣ lead may come more into view. The preference is usually for a major lead, but a lead of the other minor is often an alternative if a major lead is unattractive. So it's scientific for me reaching 5 ♦. Unfortunately, with my favorite partner, we'd be in 3 NT. But the auction would be 1 NT (weak NT) - 3 NT.

I'm passing.

4 ♠ is limited by the bottom limit for hands where South would bid 4 ♣ over the double. If partner finds a 4 ♣ bid I'm thinking of 6 ♠ as the minimum contract and worrying more about how to find if 7 ♠ is there. After a 4 ♠ bid, I'm more worried initially about staying out of bad 6 ♠ contracts than bidding a Grand. Partner can be bidding 4 ♠ on some pretty modest values especially with lots of ♠. So I'm starting with 5 ♣ which IMO ought to agree ♠ and show a ♣ control. Yes, it is a bit ambiguous, but the main concern is whether there are 2 ♦ losers, or, possibly a ♠ and ♦ loser. If partner can find a 5 ♦ control bid, then at least 6 ♠ is a good bet and now my thoughts would turn toward a possible 7 ♠ grand. If partner bids 5 ♠ over 5 ♣, I sit. With presumably 7+ ♣ with RHO, it seems like vacant places make any ♦ finesse something like 2/1 to fail. After a 5 ♦ control bid, I think I'm continuing with 5 ♥ followed by 6 ♥ over 5 ♠. Over 5 ♦, I think 5 NT is still GSF, when you can count 13 tricks if partner has ♠ AQ. 5 ♥/6 ♥ is a more subtle grand slam try. With 5 ♦ only implying a 2nd round control possibly a stiff, it suggests some uncertainty about a 13th trick, but implies 1st round controls in the side suits and the ♥ K. I think it also implies a high ♠ honor. With ♠ Qxxx(x..) and another possible loser, I think you settle for 6 ♠. With ♠ Jxxx(x..), I don't think you can try for 7 after partner bids only 4 ♠. So, I think it asks partner to use his/her judgement when holding a stiff and the missing high ♠ honors.

The rationale for a 4th best lead pertains to the defense's strategy versus NT. With the declaring side having 25+ points, you aren't likely to beat the contract by taking high cards. Rather the objective of the defense is to set up and take long suit tricks before declarer can set up and cash 9 tricks. That depends on a couple things. First, you need a suit that has prospects of being set up. Second, you need an entry to be able to cash the long tricks. Unfortunately, this approach to NT defense is rarely explicitly laid out to newer players. Instead, they are taught a hierarchy of leads starting with honor sequences, inner sequences, and leading down to 4th best and top of nothing. For more than a few players, the opening lead against no trump then simply gets down to running through this hierarchy and choosing the highest category of lead available in their hand. Often, it is 4th best. A better approach for the opening leader is to ask "Whose suit are we trying to set up? My suit or partners?" as part of the process of deciding what to lead. To answer the question requires a little analysis. First, opening leader can calculate partner's highest possible HCP by adding 25 to the points in his/her hand and subtracting from 40. The answer may tell if you are likely to be hit a suit which can be set up and if their might be an entry. Here, opening leader has 5 HCP, so partner has 9 or possibly 10 HCP at most. That's not a lot but enough to possibly have something in a suit and a side entry. Second, if opening leader has a suit, opener needs to ask "Can my suit be set up? Do I have a potential entry?" Here again, the answer is ♠ Q might be an entry, but it'll take any awful lot to set up the ♣ suit. Third, analyze the auction for clues as to what partner might hold. Sometimes what the opponents bid and don't bid can be very edifying. Here again the opponents are bidding the majors, so it seems like a minor suit lead should be made. Putting it together, your best hope is to try hit partner with a ♦ suit and entry and lead the ♦ Q. There is ONE BIG EXCEPTION. When the opponents have a "tortured" auction, find no fit and barely get to game, then you need to think about making a passive lead which gives away the least. Example - Opponents auction - 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ - 1 NT - 2 ♥ - 2 NT - 3 NT and you hold ♠ K432 ♥ 109 ♦ Q83♣ J962. They've barely limped into 3 NT with no great fit. What do you know about the hand from the auction. Well, partner has to have 4 ♥ - responder has 4 and opener 3 from his delayed raise. What lead potentially gives away the least? I found the ♥ 10 reasoning that with 4 ♥ to an honor it might help partner and probably wouldn't give much away. As it turned out partner held ♥ KJxx over Qxxx in dummy and helped us score 3 ♥, ♠ K and another to beat 3 NT. One final example - opponents auction 1 NT - 2 ♣ - 2 ♥ - 3 NT and you hold ♠ 9 ♥ 1063 ♦ Q7643 ♣ J952. What do you know? With 3 HCP, partner can hold as many 11-12. My suits aren't likely to be set up and more importantly there's no entry. So, it looks like we need to find partner's suit. From the auction, responder has 4 ♠ and opener probably 3 at most. That gives partner at least 5 ♠. It wasn't going to be my suit, so I led ♠ 9 partner's known suit. (So much for not leading stiffs at NT.) Partner actually held 6 ♠ and 11 points and with the ♠ lead became able to beat 3 NT by 2 tricks. Any other lead would let opener make.

It's hard to say what to do without knowing a little more about your agreements over a takeout double. Some people play that redouble is the only bid with a strong hand, so that free bids at the 2 level are non-forcing. Others play 2 level bids are forcing, redoubles implying no fit but values. What you do with either set of agreements will be entirely different. It seems from your comments that you are playing transfer responses over TOx. If so, and they're non-forcing, you might consider bidding a 1 NT transfer to 2 ♣. Likewise, with the other example hand, you might consider a 2 ♣ transfer to 2 ♦. If you're playing the transfers as forcing, then you have to pass with both hands. But there are a couple other things to consider. First of all, you have a stiff in opener's suit. You already know the hand is a bit of a misfit. Second, if RHO's TOx is typical, then RHO advertises length in the suits you have and relative shortness in opener's suit also confirming the potential misfit nature of the hand. If partner has a fit in your suit or tolerance for it, partner will likely take the transfer. But if partner is short or void in your suit, partner may be forced to simply rebid 2 ♠ even with just 5 ♠ and not be in a good place. OTOH, if you pass, you might lose the opportunity to compete in your suit or deprive opener of some useful information for defending. Pay your money and take your choice. But another consideration is that after a pass, partner might be able to compete further or the opponents might get to a bad spot. After 1 ♠-(DBL)-PASS-2 ♦- 2 ♠, you can be comfortable passing as partner surely has 6 ♠ to bid them freely. After 1 ♠-(DBL)-PASS-2 ♥-DBL-(PASS), you can bid 3 ♣ fairly confident partner has some sort of fit. And occasionally, after 1 ♠-(DBL)-PASS-2 ♣-PASS/DBL-PASS, you can pass knowing the opponents are in a bad place (advancer likely has something like xxx Axx Kxx xxxx). Personally, I'd prefer pass with the stated hands because of the misfit potential. Give your hand longer ♣ or a doubleton ♠ (tolerance for ♠) and I'd be much more apt to act.

Partner almost certainly holds ♠ KQJxxx and not much else. But holding 6 trumps, you know they can't have a ♠ loser. Bid 5 ♠ immediately to make them make a decision with limited information. Most of the time they will go, but occasionally the opponent's resources will be divided so that bidding the slam looks uncertain. That's where the "preempt" may profit you. (Yes, I do recall a similar preempt situation in a KO match where two 10,000+ MP players couldn't push on to a slam while our partners bid it. [And against good players, making them make some tough decisions may get them out of their comfort zone which can only be good for you as the match progresses.]) Once they bid 6 ♥, I subside. On a bad day, we could be going down 1700 or pushing them into a makeable grand they might not bid on their own. The time to sac further is when you know its unlikely they will be able to penalize you enough to gain. That ultimately means complementary distribution in your hand. I'd be more apt to bid on with something like 10xxxxx x xxxxx x where 1400 looks to be the limit of the penalty, but it will often be much less.

As others have stated, the double usually shows 4 ♠ here in the US. The only exception might be a hand with long ♣ that's too weak to bid 2 ♣ directly but too strong to pass. 1 ♠, then guarantees 5+ ♠ here. Opener holding 3 or 4 ♠ has more clarity about whether to raise ♠ directly or not. Over 1 ♠, there's no problem raising with 3 ♠. Over a double opener will normally only raise with 4 unless holding some hand where raising with 3 and possibly playing a 4-3 fit seems like the right thing to do.

I don't believe RHO 2 ♥ bid. If that hand is 5-6 or 4-6 why wouldn't that hand just pass 2 ♥x. The weak 2 bidder has shown some tolerance for ♥ by passing the double. If RHO has 5-6 or 4-6 and can't preference back to ♦ then partner has to have a pile of ♦. If partner wants to defend 3 ♦ I don't think a double can be made directly over 3 ♦ as it's still for TO IMO. So I'm bidding 3 ♥ to expose RHO's psyche if he's made one. If partner can't sit for 3 ♥, He'll probably bid 4 ♣ which will be fine.

I assume lacking any mention of inverted minors that 2 ♦ raise is 5-9 and at least 4 ♦. The hand's too strong to pass -- 17 HCP that are working and 4 losers. So, I think 2 ♠ reverse is right at this point. After a 2 ♦ raise, 2 NT has to show the 15-17 balanced hand. The only minimum range hands you'd open 1 ♦ are unbalanced, so NT can't be a minimum. If you hold the 18-19 balanced, then 3 NT would be the appropriate rebid over 2 ♦. Pass over 2 ♦ certainly shows minimum unbalanced. I'm not so sure what a 3 ♦ rebid would be. 2 ♠ isn't really a try to play in ♠ because the initial 2 ♦ response should deny a 4 card major. It's showing a stopper and should also carry the message that ♦ are a real suit. But over 2 ♠, the questions are "What are the positive bids?" and "What is the sign off?". That could vary pair to pair.

I probably would have opened the hand with 2 ♣ as you have a very solid 3 loser hand. The problem I see with opening 1 ♦ is that partner will never be able to figure out you're as strong as you are even if you jump shift. But with the actual auction, I think the choices are between 6 ♥ and pass. Lacking any firm agreements, it seems like responder has to have a pretty good hand to bid 3 ♠ over 3 ♣. Otherwise, a preference or simple ♥ rebid could be made. Partner's 4 ♥ bid should show 4-6 in the majors. How good are partner's majors? You can't know the answer to that completely. It would seem like they ought to be decent. With 4 bad ♠ (say 10xxx), responder might well forget about ♠ and simply rebid ♥ initially. But there's just no way to know if you can keep major losers to only 1 trick if you bid on. Without that knowledge, I'd pass 5 ♥. For those who would bid 6, I would pose that it's equally likely that responder could hold ♠ K10xx ♥ AQJ109x ♦ x ♣ xx and 6 ♥ depends on finding ♥ K doubleton onside to make. If you don't know, then you can't go.

Double seems right with this hand. With so many major cards, you want to be able to find a major fit if one exists. You do have 3+ in each major. If LHO would have passed, 1 ♠ would show say 0-7 HCP and presumably 4 ♠. 2 ♠ would show about 8-10 HCP and at least 4 ♠ -- the topside limiting factor being exactly what you play as the bottom limit on advancer's 2 ♦ cue. With LHO bidding, the only thing that changes is that partner isn't forced to bid, so the bottom end of the uncontested 1 ♠ response disappears and a 1 ♠ now guarantees 4+ ♠ and something like 4-7 HCP. 2 ♦ still shows a big hand, presumably GF hand. 2 ♣ shows an overcall hand too strong for a simple overcall with the emphasis on the ♣ suit -- Ax Kxx xx AKQ10xx. With something like AQx xx xxx AKQ10x, you stuck for a bid as you'd be uncomfortable doubling and rebidding ♣ at possibly the 3 level, so you bid 2 ♣ and hope to be able to show your extras later. You can't assume that partner necessarily has 5 ♠, but with your extras should probably raise anyhow with 3. But in doing so, it doesn't hurt to consider how a 4-3 (Moysian) fit might play. The overriding factor is whether the opponents can force the long trump (4 card) hand to trump and lost control of the trump suit/hand. Here you've got a stiff ♦ enabling short trump hand ruffs and plenty of ♥ honors, so forcing the long trump hand is unlikely.

Pass. If 1 NT is forcing, it is folly to jump into the auction without a strong source of tricks. The reason is that the 1 NT response isn't necessarily a weak bid at this point. By bidding, you could be just jumping into the inferno. Your hand has 9 losers. You might be looking at taking only 3-4 tricks yourself in a 2 level contract. Change your hand to something like Axx xx xx KQJxxx and you can compete. The quality and length of your long suit increases the number of tricks you can take and reduces any potential penalty. The point is that when coming in after a forcing NT with neither opposing bidder limited, you need to have something good to compete. I guess my comments are colored by an experience I had decades ago. On a similar auction, I overcalled with a decent ( KQ10xx ) suit and 12 good points against a top pair in a tournament. -1100 later, I had learned a lifetime lesson that has kept me in good stead since when the itch to jump in pops up.

Double, the hand looks like 4 ♥ is a probable make, but 5 ♣ probably won't. The hand doesn't have the ♣ shortness to pull to 5 ♥. If partner has ♣ shortness and decides to pull the double, chances are that your cards are right to make 5 ♥. OTOH, if 4 ♥ is allowed to make at the other table, you need to extract as big a penalty as possible to offset the potential swing.

Neither method of cueing is foolproof. Both methods have some advantages and disadvantages. Both methods will miss some slams that the other method can find. For the first round controls first approach, there may be some hands where it is difficult to ascertain all the required controls for slam are available because of the order in which controls need to be bid. Then again, there will be hands where knowing the controls shown are 1st round controls are sufficient to allow bidding slam. For the bid any mixed control approach, be aware that you'll often have to use RKCB to verify that you have sufficient 1st round controls to bid slam. That requirement sometimes makes it difficult to find some slams. OTOH, being able to cheaply show a 2nd round control may allow initiating slam exploration with certain hands that you couldn't with a first round controls first approach. It also seems that there are more nuances to what each control bid may mean when using this approach.

+1 for ggwhiz's comments.

Opener should ask "What do I need to know to make slam a good bet?" Two pieces of information are required -- knowing you have enough KCs and knowing that you don't have a ♦ loser. Then opener should ask "Is there anyway I find out that information?" By jumping to RKCB, the answer to the first question can be found, but not the answer to the second question (♦ controls). Normally, finding a specific control is done by cueing. Thinking along those lines, should possibly lead opener to a 4 ♣ cue over 3 ♥. Now, if responder can't find a 4 ♦ cue, opener will know there's a probable ♦ loser and not bid slam when a KC is missing.