Rebound

Mind you, declaring is a whole lotta fun when when you happen to get it right. :)

I derive great enjoyment from any slight improvement I gain in each of those skills. However, while I am far from having mastered it, defense, for me, provides the biggest thrill. Sometimes the combination of the visible cards - i.e. my hand and dummy's - and my partner's carding, give me such a complete picture of partner's hand that I can ensure taking the maximum number of tricks available. Often, one must wait and see as the hand unfolds, but when I get the entire picture early, I can't help but play with great confidence. Especially when I know we're going to stomp all over the contract, heh heh ;-)

We could say that it isn't in our agreement, but only before the first time it happens. After that it seems to me that it will be an implicit agreement even though we may never bother to discuss it. So, am I allowed to do it only once in a partnership, or what? I have the nagging feeling that this issue has been beaten to death, but I am still ignorant about it. Petko The basic rule is this: you may make any bid you like, with any hand you like, without informing the opponents that you have deviated from your partnership agreement, provided your partner is as much in the dark as they are. For example, let us say that subsequent to the given hand, you and your partner agree explicitly not to open nt with a singleton, then you do not need to include this possibility in your explanation of the call - even if one of you should elect to do it again many sessions later, since it woud be unexpected - thereafter I believe it should be included in the explanation. Any more frequently than that, it becomes a partnership agreement, and the opponents are entitled to know. Note that this applies also to calls for which you have no agreement. You need not tell the opponents anything other than "no agreement". Mind you, with such strictly defined calls such as 1NT, from an Active Ethics standpoint, I concur that it might as well be considered an agreement right now. It's a lot like trying not to think of an elephant. I think you got boned. The Laws are there for all the online world to see at http://web2.acbl.org/laws/index.html among other places, I'm sure. Further, I agree with your assertion that it appears unlikely this information would have affected the outcome. Typically, no damage = no penalty.

And when I have, I have. I.e. I vote pass.

In terms of partner's holding, I have always felt that his/her double on auctions such as this should contain the option to pass for penalty when holding the enemy suit. Or, to put it another way, you shouldn't double for takeout unless you're prepared for it to be left in. If that is the case, surely this holding qualifies for a pass.

I believe I went with 5♦, just for the record, but i'm easily convinced double is theoretically better.

I agree with you, Justin, which is why I want to axe this contract. Mirrored distribution is, I'm sure you'll agree, generally a bad thing offensively. We should be able to set this on power after A-x trump lead.

Well, it looks like I'm in left field. I voted for pass.

I guess I've missed the point. Partner has invited game with a balanced hand and around 10 hcp. I have an ok hand for a 2-level vulnerable overcall, but not much more than a miminum for that call IMHO so I disagree that it is sufficient to make any kind of forcing call such as 3♦, or 3♥. With the given hand but only 5 clubs I pass. With the 6th club, 3♣. WTP?

I must admit that there is something about this statement I don't understand. The treatment in use with my current partner allows for both 4-way transfers and natural invite to 2NT. We treat 2♠ as showing clubs and 3♣ as showing diamonds with 2NT remaining natural. Very basic, and I am sure it has its flaws but it works well for us.

I happen to really like precision. 'They' can knock it if they want. I don't care. It works for me. I feel much more in control of the bidding (I mean from the standpoint of knowing what is going) when playing precision compared with, say, 2/1.

I feel much less qualified to comment than those above, however, my opinion, fwiw, is that I have bid my values. The rest is up to partner. It has always been my experience that when once you have shown your hand, free bids will sink you. I agree that this is far more of an issue with weaker players whose judgement is less well developed than that of the expert player, but I feel it is a marvellous method of developing trust in any partnership.

This is what I thought also. 1♦ rather than 1NT obviously shows a hand unsuited for NT. 3♣ over 1NT must be weaker than 1♣-2♣. So to me it must be invitational with 5-4.

An alternative precision auction I suggest: 1♣ - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♥ 3♣* - 3♥** 3♠** - 3NT 4NT*** - 5♥ 6♣ *My policy here is to support clubs as soon as partner does not support ♦ **cuebid. ***With my regular precision partner, this is keycard for clubs. But it's ugly and I don't like it lol... I agree it would not be easy to bid. Finding a slam with a long suit opposite a void is always going to be difficult because the person holding the void will be constantly devaluing partner's cards.

It was my understanding that, when using the serious 3NT structure, there should be no cuebids at the 5-level since its purpose is to prepare for RKB. Of course, you're entitled to do anything you like. I am just going by Fred's description of it. Opinions?

Thanks for the replies. Frankly I was just curious to see if any of the top players would bid 6 with this hand. I passed and it worked out but I don't think I would fault anyone for bidding the slam with my hand.

Thank you as always for the helpful and lucid analysis. To be honest, I did have NMF available but I was truly pooped at the time and, in fact, didn't even think of it until I read your replies. Still, your answers are interesting in any event and I appreciate it.

Guess I'm just old-fashioned. To me, opening with 10 or 11 HCP is opening light. :)

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=saq953hkq10dkq94cj]133|100|Scoring: IMP How do you respond to 1♦ from partner?[/hv] It turns out I elected to call 1♠ (although I am now sure 2♠ is better, to which partner responded 1NT. What now? Well I couldn't think of anything better so I cracked out 6♦. What do you think?

So, you pick up ♠ xx ♥ Qxxx ♦ QJxx ♣ AJx After a 4♠ opening by LHO then 5♥ by partner and pass to you, what do you do? Incidentally, it's IMPs, white on red.

I admit I got it wrong. Thanks for this post, it's always good to learn something new.

I don't know if this particular question has been answered clearly, but regarding the differences in the way the 2 situations described by the original poster are handled: It is important to understand that you must ensure that your opponents are properly informed of the agreed meaning of your calls but that your hand can deviate from that agreed meaning at any time provided your partner is in the dark as much as the opponents are. In the event you misinform the opponents of your agreements, the director must determine if they have been damaged by the misinformation. No damage = no penalty. It is reasonable to conclude there has been damage in this case so an adjusted score is permitted. But as stated by others, no, it should never be automatic.

To me, in the absence of an explanation to the contrary, a pass of 2♥X (were I the 2♥ bidder) would show equal length in the unbid suits and offering a choice. There is a non-zero chance the 2♥ bidder was off-shape for the bid and might prefer to play in the minor when partner is equal. Therefore, according to Law 75, I would bid 2♠ anyway so there is no problem.

That's for sure. Talk about poker faced. I'm not good enough for the ploy to work on me though lol.

Hey, I'm on the first line of defense right on the atlantic coast of Canada in Halifax. If you're going to attack you'll have to go through me LOL :) Course, if you wanna drop by for a game, that's a different story heh heh.