nullve

From the first segment of the 2022 Bermuda Bowl final between the Netherlands and Switzerland: Open room: [hv=pc=n&sn=Brink&s=sa9haj7djt9ct8532&wn=van Lankveld&w=st7653h32d3caqj64&nn=Drijver&n=skj84hkqt865d7ck7&en=van den Bos&e=sq2h94dakq86542c9&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1h3h4h5dppdppp]399|300[/hv] Closed room: [hv=pc=n&sn=Muller&s=sa9haj7djt9ct8532&wn=Piedra&w=st7653h32d3caqj64&nn=de Wijs&n=skj84hkqt865d7ck7&en=Zimmermann&e=sq2h94dakq86542c9&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1h3hx4c4h5d5hppp]399|300[/hv] EW convention cards: Piedra - Zimmermann van den Bos - van Lankveld

1♥

1. No, I'd double, setting up a forcing pass situation. 2. 2♣ (intending to set diamonds as trumps next) 3. 4♦ (cue agreeing spades) 4. 6♣. 7♣ is tempting, but I already know partner has a different idea about the meaning of 5♠ than that I do. 6♣ might easily be the limit due to bad breaks, anyway. 5. Pass. Two reasons: 1) Technically harder for opps to get us in 2♠ (likely 5-1 fit) than 3♣ (likely 5-2 fit). 2) If 2♠ gets doubled, I can bid 2N asking partner to choose between the minors.

You seem to borrow from Woolsey and play 2♦-[3M-2]*; ?: * INV+, 5+ M 3M-1 = 0-1 M 3M = 2 M 3M+1 = 3 M other = long M, but then you're gambling that knowing whether Opener is MIN or MAX is unimportant, aren't you? I mean, if the bidding goes 2♦-3♣* 3♥**, * INV+, 5+ H ** 2 H doesn't Responder sometimes want to be in game opposite only opposite a MAX opener?

Bidding INV+ hands with the opposite major is tricky, to say the least, in simple versions of Multi, such as the one just given by 2♦-?: 2M = P/C 2N = INV+ relay ...3♣ = MAX Weak Two ......3♦ = GF relay .........3OM = MAX Weak 2M ...3M-1 = MIN Weak 2M that I based the OP structure on. I'm not sure which sequence(s) "risk getting passed" refer to, but it seems that you'd like to know how Responder is supposed to bid hands like a) x AQJxxx AKx AQT (GF hand, 6-2 or 6-3 H fit possible) b) x AQJxx AKxx QTxx (INV hand, 5-3 H fit possible) as well. Although I didn't focus on this type of problem at all when starting the thread, my solution in the context of a 5-6c Multi, and one that should work at least as well here, is actually to respond 2♥ with b) and maybe a) as well, depending on which tools are available with GF hands. So 2♦-2♥ = P/C (as in the OP) OR INV(+), 5+H(2)1-S (and, more generally, 2♦-2M = P/C (as in the OP) OR INV(+), 5+M(2)1-OM) and then over 2♦-2♥; 2♠ Responder is theoretically in a better position than over a Weak 2♠ opening. I will update the OP structure.

Yes, the Law level would be reached opposite the weak hand only after 2♦-3♣; 3M or 2♦-3♣; 3M-4M. Maybe it would better to do as Cyberyeti and respond 3N with the < SI 4S4H hands. That would be Law-ful but also wrong-side NT opposite 2-3S2-3H. I don't think so. Note that with < INV and 4H3S the response to 2♦ is 3♠, which explains why this hand type is not shown after 2♦-3♣; 3♦.

Responder could start with 2♥, now either P/C OR INV w/ 6+H1-S. (See edit.) I do something similar in my own (5-6c) Multi.

Although Responder cannot preempt as aggressively opposite a Multi 2♦ if it contains a strong balanced option, I doubt a response structure has to be as ineffective as several posters have claimed recently. For example, over a 6c Multi with a (not too weak) strong BAL option, once could (in theory) play something like P: allowed (e.g. with xxx x Jxxxx Txxx or maybe AKx --- AJxxxx Qxxx) 2♥ = P/C w/ either 1- H or 2H3+S OR (optionally) INV w/ 5+H(2?)1-S 2♠ = P/C w/ 2-S2+H OR (optionally) INV(+?) w/ 5+S(2?)1-H 2N = relay, either 5+S4+H or INV+ (wrong-sides NT with 5S4H opposite 2S2-3H, unfortunately) ...3♣ = MAX Weak 2M OR BAL, unwilling to agree H opposite 5+S4H ......3♦ = GF relay .........3OM = MAX 2M ............3N/4M = to play .........3N(+) = BAL ......3♥ = was < INV, 5+S4H (no danger of wrong-siding H) .........3♠ = BAL, 3-5 S (agrees S) .........3N = BAL, 2S2-3H .........4M = Weak 2M ......3♠ = ? ......3N = was < INV, 5+S5+H .........4M-2 = BAL, agrees M ............4M-1 = right-siding puppet to 4M ............(...) .........4M = Weak 2M ...3M-1 = MIN Weak 2M ......3M/3N/4M = to play ...3♠+ = BAL, 4-5 H (agrees H) ......(...) ......4♦ = right-siding puppet to 4♥ ......(...) 3♣ = < INV, either 3-4S3H or 4S4H ...3♦ = BAL, 4 M ......3♥ = 4S3H .........3♠ = 4 S (agrees S) .........3N = 4H3-S ......3♠ = 3S3H (right-siding puppet to 3N) ......3N = 4S4H, NF .........4M-2 = 4 M ............4M-1 = right-siding puppet to 4M ............(...) ...3M = Weak 2M ...3N = BAL, no major ...4M-2 = BAL, 5 M ......4M-1 = right-siding puppet to 4M ......(...) 3♦ = < INV, 5+H3-4S ...3♥ = BAL, either 3-5 H or 4 S ......3♠ = 5+H3S .........3N = 4S2H .........4♣+ = 3-5 H (agrees H) ......3N = 5+H4S (F) ...3♠ = Weak 2♠ ...3N = BAL, 2(3)H2-3S ...4♣ = BAL, 5S2H (agrees S) ......(...) ......4♥ = right-siding puppet to 4♠ ......(...) 3♥ = < INV, 5+S3H ...P = Weak 2♥ ...3♠ = BAL, 3-5 S ...3N = BAL, 2(3)S2-4H ...4♣ = BAL, 5H2S (agrees H) 3♠ = < INV, 4H3S ...3N = BAL, 2-4S2-3H ...4♣ = BAL, 4-5 H (agrees H) ......4♦ = right-siding puppet to 4♥ ...4♦ = BAL, 5 S (agrees S) ...4♥ = Weak 2♥ 3N+: as in more standard Multi 2♦ structures, perhaps gambling that Opener doesn't have the strong BAL option (I will correct errors when I find them. Note that the 3♣ and 3R responses bear some resemblance to Puppet Stayman and Jacoby transfers, respectively.) I'm sure structures that are both simpler and more effective are possible. Thoughts?

1♣-1♠ 2♣-2♦ 2♥-2♠ 3♥

From West's perspective, a crocodile coup was necessary because the only two-card ending consistent with the bidding and play so far was [hv=pc=n&s=sqhd2c&w=shdj9c&n=s8hd8c&e=sjhdtc]399|300[/hv] .

It looks like partner is patterning out, although he could have bid 2N with 5134 (my choice even without anything resembling a heart stopper) and chosen the cheaper route 1♠-1N; 2♦-2♠; 3♣ with 5044. I'm bidding 3♠ now.

Assuming 2/1: 1. Yes. 2. No. 3♦ is just a "courtesy raise", not a strong invite like 2N or 3♠ would be. 3. Debatable.

That a hand with 5134 shape would pass 2♠ but even as much as invite over 2♥, makes no sense to me. 2♠ doesn't show a weak raise.

Not true. [hv=pc=n&s=s93ha5dak532caqjt&w=s6hjtdt874ck98762&n=skj87542hq2dj6c43&e=saqthk987643dq9c5&d=s&a=1d3cpp3np4sppp]399|300[/hv] As you can see by pressing the 'GiB' button, 4♠ is only down 1, on a club lead. Edit: Corrected the auction.

I play the switch, but it wouldn't help me here the way I play it, since after 1♠-2♦; 2♥ (weakest rebid), P = ~ 7-9, 6+H2-S 2♠ = INV, 5+H2S, NF 2N+ = GF .

3N

2♠ (over 1♠-1N; 2♣)

1N

Yes, but you can find out in time by leading the ♥7 from hand early.

Failure to lead diamonds / restricted choice?

1) I was already catering to Opener being 4144. 2) I thought it was MPs. :( 3) Doesn't LOTT suggest that both selling out to 2♥ and competing to 3♦ are ok in this situation? Then competing would be rather pointless (well, actually dangerous) against perfect opponents, of course, but fortunately they don't exist and competing might induce real opponents to make a costly mistake. I don't play penalty-oriented doubles (I'm not even sure I understand what they are), but DavidKok did with this partner.

If partner is looking at four hearts and knows that I would have competed with 0-1 hearts (LoTT), then he also knows that opps are in a 7c fit at best. That would make a penalty double more understandable on some hands, especially now that we need a good board. I hope that's what's going on. So Pass.

Me: You have agreed to play 2/1 GF and you hold the folllowing hand as South: Spades: A84 Hearts: QT3 Diamonds: KQT Clubs: K876 West is dealer, with none vulnerable, and the bidding goes 4C-P-P-X; P-5C-P to you. It's your turn, so what do you do? ChatGPT: Based on the bidding so far, it appears that your opponents may be in a slam try in clubs, and your partner may have a good hand with support in one of the majors. With that in mind, you should consider bidding 5NT (quantitative), indicating that you have a strong hand and asking your partner to bid 7NT with maximum strength or to pass with minimum strength. Alternatively, you could bid 6D, which would show a good diamond suit and allow your partner to choose between bidding 7D or 7NT, depending on their own holding. However, this bid may not give your partner enough information about the overall strength of your hand. Ultimately, your decision should depend on your partnership agreements and your assessment of your own hand and the auction. If in doubt, it's always a good idea to ask your partner for clarification or guidance. Me: You have to choose a call with the South hand based on the information I gave you. ChatGPT: My apologies for misunderstanding the question. Given the auction so far, and assuming that you and your partner are playing a strong artificial 2/1 system, the most appropriate call for you as South is 5D, which is a cue bid showing first or second round control in diamonds and asking partner to bid a slam if they have a maximum hand with club control. Since your partner has bid 5C, it's possible that they have a good club suit and are interested in exploring slam possibilities in clubs. Your 5D cue bid will convey your strength and diamond control, which could be useful for your partner to decide whether to bid 6C or 7C. If your partner does not have club control or has a minimum hand, they may choose to sign off in 6D or 6NT, respectively. However, by making the 5D cue bid, you are giving your partnership the best chance to reach the optimal contract if your partner has the right cards to bid slam. --------- ChatGPT - GiB 1-0

I've had agreements close to 1♣-1♦*-(2♦)-?: * 4+ hearts (...) X = takeout (so 3 H if MIN, but could for example also be 5+C4+S2-H too strong for 2♠) 2♠ = a good MIN to a bad classical reverse, 5+C4+S2-H, NF ...P = < INV, S PREF ...2N+ = Ingberman (...), although I realise now that classical Ingberman with e.g. 1♣-1♦*-(2♦); 2♠-3♣ = NAT GF (with C SUPP) doesn't really work, since Opener would not know what to do with MAX over 1♣-1♦*-(2♦); 2♠-2N. A partial solution could be to play 1♣-1♦*-(2♦); 2♠-2N = lebensohl-like, never exactly INV if C PREF 1♣-1♦*-(2♦); 2♠-3♣ = NAT INV (with C PREF) .

Asking about what?