Siegmund

Three aces is a bit odd for a 2H opening - it makes it hard for partner to evaluate his side kings and queens. In terms of tricks, it's barely adequate -- I expect 6 1/2 or 7 winners for a 4th seat two-bid (7 1/2 or 8 for a 3-bid etc.) For me Kx AQJxxxx xxx x or xxx AKJxxx AQx x is more typical. I think the posted hand is a simple 1H-then-2H for me.

Tired from lack of sleep, for me - whether it's from flying on the redeye or driving since 6am to get to the tournament, or from having to get up too early to play a morning session, or from staying up until 3am doesn't make much difference. Missing from the poll is an explicit option for alcohol. I don't drink during a tournament and won't play with a partner that does -- I am amazed how much damage even a single drink at dinner will do to an otherwise solid player. (There are people sufficiently good that they can still win on autopilot after drinking - I've known exactly one in my life - but there are far more people who think they can but can't.)

I think it's worth a game try, but am surprised to see everybody trying with diamonds rather than spades. You'd much rather see partner upgrade his SQ and SJ than his DQ and DJ.

As Stephen noted, you're going to get two basic answers -- "first auction shows 3 hearts second auction shows 2 hearts" (and no long minor), and an alternative where a number of subminimum and/or 4333 hands go through 1NT first. My personal experience is that the former is a Westernism and the latter an Easternism, within the ACBL, but that's not an absolute fact. [edited to correct a typo that reversed my meaning]

Seconding (okay, tenthing) that bidding has come a long way and has a long way to go. Seconding (really seconding) that Roman Blackwood was their invention, (non-Roman) Keycard Blackwood was somebody else's, and I don't know off the top of my head who combined the two or led the rush to the hybrid. Incidentally, I actually have one partner with whom I play Roman Gerber, though I've never played Roman Blackwood. We're at a time when in some limited contexts -- for instance, an uncontested auction after a fit and a game force is established -- that it's imaginable we can find a theoretically optimal system. We are in no danger of finding optimal approaches to competitive auctions, and I think there's very little chance of our current methods being close to right. Re 4 vs 5 card majors: Let us not forget that there is a substantial body of, shall we say, "experimental bidding systems," almost everything in the TOSR/MOSCITO family for instance, that is 4-card-major based, and it's still an open question how good those systems are and how best to defend them. The fact that there is a flourishing struggle between 1CF-1M promising 4 and promising 5 is perhaps evidence there's room for the same struggle with the opening bids themselves.

4S is a bit of a stretch, but isn't quite insane, in a context where you expect the 3S bid to always show a 6th spade. (Not that I'm sure that we are in such a context.) Interesting. Of course the people at the table have a much clearer view of the body language etc. that we can get on the forum reading about it -- but what I "saw" in CSGibson's post was opener saying "you jackass, forcing me to take another bid when I don't have anything worth bidding again... should I bid 3N with a half-stopper or repeat my ugly spades or bid a Kxx minor, or what?" and (until I saw the results of the poll) might have been willing to rule against anyone who passed because of the UI.

Two things. One, let's make sure we don't confuse terms. The sponsor of the event (at the club level, the club manager) can set whatever conventions policy he wishes. The director enforces whatever the event sponsor's policy is. (In other words, no, a director cannot on his own initiative choose to allow midchart conventions -- but in some clubs the director and the club manager might happen to be the same person.) At the club level that can be just about anything, from anything-goes to no-Stayman. The sponsor of a higher-level ACBL tournament is required to allow at least the GCC in all the non-novice games. Completely separate from the above, the director has the authority to enforce the disclosure rules. Usually that consists of adjusting for damage or giving PPs for non-disclosure. Since properly disclosing an agreement is a requirement for all agreements, "either properly disclose it or take it off your card, your choice" is a perfectly legitimate demand for the director to make. At one time, the standard ACBL policy for not having a convention card in a tournament was that you were obligated to play only items on the Limited Convention Chart until such time as you were displaying a pair of properly filled out cards. I only ever saw it enforced once (at a sectional in Helena, MT in 1997). I don't know if the regulation is still on the books -- but it shows there is a precedent for refusing to allow an otherwise legal convention because of not properly disclosing it.

The possibilities opened up by the internet and by computer analysis are intriguing... though here again it feels to me like this is helping the development of bidding methods the most and declarer play the least (that was the one aspect of the game that was tractable by pencil-and-paper methods.) ...in contrast to bridge, where the pool is much shallower now than it was 50 years ago (except apparently in Poland.) At the elite level this won't make much difference as long as the pool isn't incredibly tiny. (Some pools, like the ones for the college championship, have grown from incredibly tiny to merely small in the last 15 years, with a corresponding big increase in quality.) At the club level it does -- and all the clubs I've been to the past several years, the quality of play has plummeted compared to what it was when I started in the early 90s, the experienced players who died having been replaced by 'life novices' who years ago would have played bridge socially with friends rather than being dragged to the club.

I experimented with a bridge variant in which the auction consisted of either passing or exposing a card from your hand (e.g., exposing the ♥3 is a bid to take 3 tricks with hearts as trump, exposing the ♠Q is a bid to take 12 tricks with spades as trump). Each bid still had to outrank all previous bids (♣A lowest, [sK] highest, no notrump bids) but you were limited to the 13 choices of contract you had been dealt. It was fun, in its way, but it wasn't particularly much like bridge. The preferred 3-handed version of bridge in these parts is: deal out 4 hands face-down; if the dealer has more than 10 HCP he must spread it face up on the table and takes the fourth hand as his own. Otherwise the next player to his left does the same, otherwise the third player; if nobody has 10 points, the fourth hand is faced. Then you bid in turn for the right to have the exposed hand as your dummy against the other two players. It's a spectacularly good exercise in planning the play, since you get to estimate how many tricks you'll make before you bid, and get to incorporate some extra information from your opponents' bids. But it's not much fun for players of widely different skill levels - the beginners get slaughtered far faster than in 4-person bridge.

If you literally gave me one minute to agree on something with my regular partner, I think I would say "1-level overcalls are natural, higher overcalls are what they would mean in our 1NT/2C/2NT defense" and I'd just be pleased that we would have a lot more uncontested auctions than usual. If you gave me a few more minutes we'd discuss in further detail which hands overcall over 1C/1D immediately and which hands wait for the second round to come back in. I'd need quite a lot longer than that to think about how best to adjust the rest of our system to deal with e.g. overcalls. But in the meantime - it's a fine example of why having some meta-agreements about how to cope with an unexpected convention is important. (My reg p and I have a set of them, based just on 1) is it strong, 2) is there a known 5-card suit, and 3) is it forcing.) I might also invite them over for some modest stakes Chicago style after the session.

Against sound overcallers (more or less anyone who can be trusted to have 6 spades) and talented declarers, doubling 2S is a loser. Not having a full spade trick in my hand that was a stretch. It's something to only do against 2/3 of the field in a club game and 1/3 of the field in a regional pairs, and only if your partner is someone you have a good defensive rapport with. Whatever I may think of your posts on bidding, you, personally, happen to be a better declarer than I am, in respect of which I will wait for an extra half-trick or so in my hand before I double you :)

I am used to being seen on the forum as oldfashioned so that part doesnt disturb me. :) I think awm summed it up well with his assessment about the mix of triumphs and disasters switching to takeout at the 2-level involves. And, replying briefly to jlall: Yes, at the 3-level I do play them, and I think they've been the majority treatment for a long time. (Not that I'm necessarily happy about it - but the loss of 4-4 major fits would be too high a price to pay to seek the penalties more actively.) I was a little surprised by a few of the claims in this thread though. For instance, jdonn's: The hands where responder has a big stack you can punish playing either kind of double, just like negative doubles over suit openings, yes. The much more numerous hands were responder has a flat 5-8 and was going to pass 1NT are the ones you lose. And you don't get those back playing takeout doubles. I don't get "lets you compete a whole lot more often" either. If responder has a 5-card suit, he can still bid it. If he has values and a 4-card major, he can still choose between 3N and 4M. If he has a big hand he can choose between a penalty and bidding game (playing takeout X he has to just bid the game.) The only hands where responder WANTS to compete but can't playing penalty doubles are the weak hands with shortness in overcaller's suit - sort of like Garbage stayman hands only the shortness isn't clubs. I wonder if it's another IMP vs MP thing. Give responder Jxx KJx Jxxx xxx or xxxx Kxx xx Kxxx, for instance. A crystal clear penalty double of a natural 2H overcall at MPs, which will work about 80% of the time. (The first is a dead minimum penalty double of a natural 2S overcall too, but that will only work maybe 60% of the time.) The times it doesn't work are mostly times partner has xx in hearts and would reopen if you were playing takeout (and you won't make 2S or 3D, either, though if you don't get doubled you'll likely show a modest profit, -50 or -100 instead of -110 for staying in 2H.) Does the IMP-specialist crowd have "never double for a one-trick set" drilled so deeply into their brains they pass this hand at MPs? Gerben said Funny, that. I can't remember the last time I saw a hand where I wished I had a takeout double available after 1NT-2M (though I do remember a small number of hands where I doubled for penalty and gave up 470 or more.) But I see a heck of a lot of "I told you so" hands where responder has a clear penalty and can't inflict it -- admittedly this is in part because at club games there are people overcalling 2M over 1NT on the same quality of hands they'd bid 1M over 1C.

Recently I was surprised to see the above statement, printed in huge letters, displayed prominently on the wall of the bridge club alongside such classics as lead K from KQ. Our local Easybridge presenter was drilling this advice into her pupils' heads (the Easybridgers meet the 2 hours before one of our regular club games.) I questioned her as to where she had gotten this idea, and she said "it's in the book." I didn't believe her until she showed me the list of recommended opening leads in the Easybridge II book. It's deemed important enough to be repeated THREE TIMES WITH AN EXCLAMATION POINT. Does anyone have a reaction to that particular piece of advice?

The only book I'm aware of that spends much time on the subject is Kleinman's Notrump Zone. In particular he has some sensible advice as to which responding hands should bid immediately vs. which should wait for the 2nd round when the overcall is artificial, as well as a suggestion for "something better than systems on" over 1NT-2C. Personally I've been very happy with playing penalty doubles by responder, and I'm not sure I'd be happy with any of the alternatives to them -- though this is level-dependent; at anything short of expert level you run into a lot of idiots routinely offering up 800s overcalling on unsuitable hands.

I actually held such a hand at the club Friday. Partner opened a 15-17 notrump and I had AQx KQxxx Axx Tx; it felt like 2D then 3N wasn't enough, but the alternatives, rebidding a 4-card side suit I didnt have or leaping to 4N, didn't appeal either. If partner had a way to show a max with heart support and AKx clubs or KQx diamonds I would have felt a lot better about a 3N rebid. But neither p nor I had ever considered the idea before.

Have no fear of Facebook interfering with your bridge. There is plenty of time to check it when you're dummy, if you've cultivated the fine art of dumping partner in tough contracts.

3N looks reasonable here, since we're vul at IMPs. I think I sit for the double; if partner gets scared and runs (spade void or something), that's OK too. At pairs, or with any of a large number of habitual light overcallers as my partner, it'd be a pass.

I like splinters here, and it's what I'd assume the majority treatment was / what I'd expect if a strong unknown who I knew played 'normal' splinters produced this sequences with prior discussion. It's not the only possible agreement, as we've seen. There is no law against playing 1X-1Y-1Z-3X natural and forcing, and putting the invitations through FSF, either. It deserves more consideration than most people give it these days. (Yes, I know it's a minority view, and not what I'd expect playing 2/1 without discussion. It's one of my first questions in a discussion with a new SA partner.)

They also stipulate calling the director immediately after attention is drawn to an irregularity, and warn that failure to do so may cost the non-offending side their right to redress. Given the version of facts we've heard in this thread, I can at least imagine a director interpreting Meckwell's non-objection at the start of the round as an acceptance of their opponents' system, and refusing him satisfaction beyond obtaining a copy of the defence when the incident arose.

In the mid- to late-90s, the "any defense to 1NT allowed" exception became very popular out west, and was for a time used in every western district except D19. (I was on the D19 board at the time, and was outvoted 2-9 for adopting that exception; I also floated a proposal to designate one 2-session pairs game at a regional as a mid-chart event, and that also got voted down 2-9. The rationale was that it would decrease attendance -- this after I brought with me to the board meeting written statements from several folk outside our district who said they'd come to the whole regional if we offered the event.) It has since been "de-adopted" by some of them - perhaps at the same time D20 left the Western Conference, I don't know. I do remember busting Jade Barrett for using a midchart defense against me, on a Saturday afternoon at a D19 regional, which he had apparently been playing all week. (I am not surprised; I once played CRASH for an entire regional without receiving any complaints.) He handled it decidedly badly: something like explaining his partner's alert, and then, when reminded he was in district 19, attempted to deny he'd been playing the illegal convention despite the fact it was on his CC. We weren't damaged, so no score adjustment, but I admit I did enjoy seeing him get an earful.

If responder has values, that makes double obvious. (More obvious than it already is, that is.) Opposite a preempt there is at least some chance of us getting only 500 instead of 650 r/w. You could convince me 5S was an LA, only at r/w and only if 3C is preemptive. Not sure you could convince me to actually bid it. You could not convince me passing was an LA no matter what the agreements and vulnerability were.

It's not a common method in my neck of the woods but it sounds reasonable. I'd recommend just about anything over Lavinthal, but I am not convinced this suggestion is better than good old standard discards.

I open 1♠. I understand the passers. I can't understand anything else. I wonder what Part 2 is...

One more vote for "pass is pretty obvious", especially with them vul and us not. I'd hate to choose among 1NT, 2C, and 3C if you forbade me to pass - they are pretty scary.

Not yet mentioned as a possibility in the thread (maybe it wasnt a possibility at the table since the director wasnt called in a timely fashion)... if East and only East has UI about the board, it's reasonable to have him attempt to finish the auction as ethically as he can; but anytime this auction ends with East as declarer, I am moving West over to play the hand, so the play won't be affected by the UI. Whether or not that could have saved this board, I don't know.