Rebound

As you stated, it was EW who called the TD themselves. NOT NS. If, in post-play chat, I ask the opponents about their bid, maybe I'm wrongly suspicious, but it's not wrong to ask. Even sarcasm "Interesting bid there with only 4 spades" or whatever, sure I'm wrong, but I haven't been insulting or complained to the TD. EW could have been silent, or replied, or whatever. Instead, east chose to call the director. So if anyone should be punished for a wrong TD call, it's EW. Who were "punished", with an adjustment against them... :D It was EW who called the TD "against themselves" so to speak. Might the TD have perceived that as a tacit admission by east that west's bid was questionable? To take an extreme hypothetical example, let's say a TD is called to a table and a player says "My bad, I made a psychic bid in violation of the rules by bidding a 4-card major, opponents deserve an adjustment". Now, I think that's silly/stupid, but I probably won't spend too much time in a free tournament arguing with someone who wants to blame him or herself. I disagree with this. It is not E/W fault that their TD didn't know what he was doing. I applaud their behaviour since it is the Law. The director should be called immediately after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. If I'm hosting a tournament, the last thing I want is my players getting into arguments at the table instead of just calling me to resolve the issue. Mind you, I agree that frivolous td calls should be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly ;-)

Righto. thank you.

Call me wimpy, but no one ever got shot for passing with a weak hand. ;-)

Oops. I clearly mistook the meaning of double on this auction. (I suppose I should be embarrassed to admit it but oh well lol)

I chose 2♠, but I believe it is an underbid and am very interested to see what the panel suggests as an alternative

Sorry, I was imprecise. I'm can't argue the text-book definition of a weak jump-shift, but each time I've seen it bid by a partner or opponent on BBO, it has always been with a much weaker hand. To me, your post implies I have basically reversed the meanings of 1♠ and 2♠ over 1♣ as described in my previous post. Answering this and such other questions as whether 3♠ would be forcing or what have you by consensus are what these quizzes are all about if you ask me.

FWIW I voted pass also.

Well you have a little company. I also voted 3♣.

Oh, great....sigh Now we need a poll to determine what kinds of hands people bid wjs on. Some play it like a mini-weak 2, about 3-7 with 6-bagger, some play it as weaker and less disciplined. Isn't it nice to know that there is such a thing as Standard? lolololololololololol Forgive me if this was intended as a joke and I'm just being a pedantic dud, but I believe one of the stated purposes of the quizes is to reach a consensus about BBO Advanced and such treatments. Suspect this in large part the reason for selection of this particular problem.

RW: I admit I know little about weak jump shifts. I prefer to avoid them at all costs. However, since they are part of BBO Adv., depending on style, I feel the following may apply: Perhaps partner passes 1♣ holding a very weak 1-suited hand that is not good enough for a jump to 2♠. Further, ♠/♦ 2-suiters with more than a total bust would bid 2NT/2♥. With a weak ♠/♦ 2-suiter, it would be Pass or 3♣ /2♥ since Kxxxx opposite x will not play well in 2♠. So that leaves 1-suited spade hands that are too good for 2♠ directly over 1♣ IMHO such as ♠AK10xxx ♥xx ♦Jxx ♣xxx. If this reasoning is sound, it is therefore unnecessary to bid 3♠/2♥ to show a game invitational or better values. 3♠ can now indicate slam interest paving the way for serious 3NT continuation. I have long subscribed to the view that free bids show extras. I realize that is becoming more and more uncommon, but I find it works for me. All that having been said, Fred has quite correctly pointed out more than once that we lesser players take lightly the wisdom of such undeniably expert and phenomenally experienced players as yourself to our detriment more often than not. So I ask your considered opinion. Am I totally out in left field?

I guess that is the key point, isn't it? With what range of hands will partner respond 2♠ on this auction. I don't believe it's happening on Kxxxx. To me this should show a 6-card suit so I believe 5♦ to eminently reasonable. But then, I've been known to be wrong about such things :-)

I chose 5♦, EKB for spades. There are really only 3 cards I care about at this point. If partner shows AK of ♠ I have room to ask about the ♠ Q. That should be enough for the grand.

Who started this lovely excursion Into limericks and other diversions? Not that I mind, Seems perfectly fine, Humorously casting apersions. So, if someone should call you an ape, Oh, don't you get bent out of shape. It's all in good fun, Like a really bad pun. Besides, your knuckles are beginning to scrape.

I see no prob with the 2♦ response. Personally, I don't like 2♠ here not showing extras, but so be it, I know many like this treatment so on we go. I agree 4♥ is best over 2♠ with an aceless hand. Maybe change the KQ of ♣ to the AK or AQ and 2♠-3♥-4♦ may make more sense. However, I don't think that even after 4♦ on the given hand you have any other bid than 4♥. South has no business initiating Blackwood of any flavor with no controls.

Thanks, Fred. I was beginning to think I am a bit of a freak as far as this hand goes. I wouldn't open this hand at the one level. I guess Roland and I are at odds here. I disagree that 2-level openings should not be constructive - I think this hand makes a fine 2♥ call. With my precision partners, our weak 2's are disciplined in all but 3rd seat and this hand is about at maximum for that. Admittedly, with a pickup partner who would not anticipate this sort of hand, I would likely pass in order to avoid deceiving partner if I open 1or 2♥. I think this hand is too lacking in quick tricks for a 1♥ opening, even playing 11-15 or 10-14.

Here here! I personally have a great dislike for weak jump-shifts. 4♣ is out anyway. It depends a great deal on the quality of the club suit and whether you held any cards in the majors I think. 3NT, 5♣ are both possibilites, but unless you play 2♣ as non-forcing over 1♦ I would likely just bid that and walk the dog a bit. The opponents might compete in the majors, so be it.

Just my 2 cents - I love the treatment described by Inquiry and if I could be sure partner was playing it too then 4♦ would be the perfect call. However, with my regular partners, playing serious 3NT or not, they will know that a cuebid is practically mandatory after 1♠-2♥-2♠-3♠, and isn't that what you want?

I think I must take exception to this statement. I have a particular knack for learning new systems, conventions, etc. But I don't think I will ever be a superior card player. Perhaps I am an exception to the rule. I presume most people who gravitate toward bridge are card players first, and bidders second. But I have no aptitude for it. I seem to have a mental block when it comes to picturing the composition of the other hands at the table (-any advice gratefully accepted.) What meager card play skills I possess were from hard labor. My point is simply that there is a certain amount of talent involved. This is not to say I disagree with Fred. Just the opposite, in fact. Since I feel I can play virtually any system, I now prefer to keep it simple and work even harder on judgement and card play.

I think it depends on how you interpret taking a free bid after 2♠. Since to me it implies extras, I'll bid 3♣. Partner has room to right-side 3NT with a 3♠ call and I'd like to let him know about the extra length in the club suit. In other words, I expect partner to pass on auctions like this if there is nothing new to say about his/her hand.

Just my 2 cents: I think on hands like this it is a good idea to decide the level right away as with any pre-empt and just bid it then keep silent thereafter. I'd go for 5♥.

IMO the scoring system is fine. I am curious as to why there has not been more support for allowing both participants to be on the panel in the event of a tie. I was under the impression that the composition of the panel is more or less dynamic in any event. It makes sense to break ties if they are a frequent ocurrence, but are they? Just wondering really.

This morning I entered the vugraph area near the end of the Hungarian match. It wasn't quite over, however, after a moment at one of the tables, the cards disappeared and a message popped up saying that it was the end of the prepared deals and that further deals would be random with an OK button. I clicked it off, then it repeated itself and kept on doing so until I was able to back out from the table during a pause in the flow of messages. It was very odd.

My brain tells me to pass and my heart tells me to double. :-) So if it's IMPs, I pass, at MPs, I double. By this I mean I let my agressive nature come out more at MPs.

I am abstaining from the voting (not that as a non-expert my vote would carry a lot of wieght) principally because I only just recently read here and elsewhere what it is. Fred's articles have been most informative and make a great deal of sense. Come to that, while I wish Fred good luck in his current endeavour, I'm wishin' he was around now to tell us what he thinks of using Serious 3NT in the situation that came up in the poll. All that having been said, I do have an opinion on the matter FWIW. First, I'm big on having bids in similar situations mean the same thing for consistancy's sake. So, it seems to me that if the basic requirements are met, i.e. 8-card fit, game forcing auction, unlimited hands, S-3NT should be on in competition as well. I know the 3♥ bid in the given hand was not a GF, but it is so close to fulfilling the requirements for S-3NT I would include it given it so closely fits in philosophically with the reason for using it. I know that the argument against losing 3NT as a natural call is stronger in competition, but I am still inclined to agree with Fred that whether or not you get to play in 3NT on such hands is the least of your worries, since the whole point appears to be avoiding bad slam tries. I personally can handle never playing 3NT with an 8-card major suit fit again (I very rarely do anyway) if it means never again going down 1 at the 5-level in a freely bid major suit contract. Re: LTTC - No clue. I need to play Serious 3NT for a while and learn the nuances of the various cue bids but it seems like a great idea to me. I hope you don't mind my unlearned ramblings. But I figure it's the best way to get feedback on my thinking about this. TIA

Thanks for your replies. It seems debateable, but not totally unreasonable to bid 3NT. Now for the the rest of the hand and my other question: [hv=d=e&v=e&n=sa6hak92d732ck742&w=s74hqj1053d1084cj95&e=sqj852h864dca10863&s=sk1093h7dakqj965cq]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After 3NT, partner bid 4NT. (In the style of this particular partner,) I judged this to be for aces only and bid 5♦. By this time, partner was rather confused and elected to sign off in 5NT by way of a 5♠ bid (which was doubled by east.) We played it there for a poor score. So, opinions please. Was partner's 4NT justified? If a slam try is called for, is there a better call than 4NT? 4♠ maybe? Further, I would be interested in opinions regarding handling this hand versus a strong balanced hand of the type that might bid 3NT naturally on the given auction. Clearly, if you could bid 3NT with either hand, partner needs some way to distinquish between them. Could you use 4♠ over 3NT as a sort of Last Train bid ?