TimG

I did submit that defense to a 1H transfer opening. The 1H transfer opening was defined as a standard American 1S opening bid (5+ spades 11-21 HCP, etc.). It was approved, but not without questions and not without the stipulation that the 1H opening was forcing for a round. Nor was it enough to say "higher = whatever the pair plays now over a 1S opening", I had to describe what something like a 2D overcall would show. Though I did get away with "use methods as after a Standard American (1H)-2C" after stating that the 2C overcall was "natural and limited". The description of the method and defense as approved ran over 2 pages in length and the defense was approved for events with rounds of 12+ boards only. It was considered "experimental". My intention was to change the method slightly and resubmit the same defense for each modification. 1st would be standard with 4-card major suit openings instead of 5-card major suit openings. Next would be 5-card majors in a limited opening bid framework. Next 4-card majors in a limited opening bid framework. Etc. I did not make it a secret that this was my intention. Shortly after the single transfer opening defense was approved, the C&C Committee put a moratorium on new methods. I followed the minutes of the C&C Committee for a couple of years after this. At some point, the C&C Committee removed some methods that had been approved and this was one of the casualties. I received no notice (and in fact the defense remained online for about a year after the Committee revoked the approval). As Richard states, the Committee was never going to approve any defense to a MOSCITO style transfer opening (I was cc'ed on some e-mails that may have been intended for Committee members only that made their views clear). How close they were going to get was never ascertained because they dragged their feet and then instituted the moratorium. They effectively waited until I got bored. I did once have a real desire to play a method where one of the minor suit openings showed exactly 4 spades, not quite a transfer opening, but something for which a defense to a transfer opening could have been easily adapted. Alas, I never put the method into play because of the resistance I knew I would receive from the C&C Committee.

As we've learned recently from another thread, support doubles do not apply when opener cannot bid two our responder's major.

In ACBLland there really aren't that many different systems being played. A vast majority of players are playing some sort of Eastern Scientific or 2/1. The exceptions are generally a weak NT of some sort or a strong club of some sort. These are things that any partnership that isn't playing for the first time will have already discussed. Really, the exchanging of CC would be mostly a waste of time here.

oops

What time is the match?

In my experience with the C&C Committee, I have found that they want to see short and simple defenses that employ commonly accepted approaches. They would not look favorably at a defense that used transfers in defense to an opening bid even if most (including committee members) would consider them theoretically better, for instance. They are looking for defenses that can be used without much thought or study.

In my opinion, this alone is insufficient disclosure. The description should at least include minimum suit lengths. Something like: 5+/5+; or 5+/4+; or 5+/5+ or 5+/4+ plus a singleton or void; or 4+/4+; etc. It is not enough to say "two-suited". I would be only mildly surprised if any convention regulations used "two-suited" without further description of suit lengths. If they do, shame on those who wrote the regulation and on those who approved the regulation.

Upon what is the committee supposed to be ruling?

Didn't the auction effectively go 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♦; 3♦ in standard methods? Doesn't a jump in the 4th suit show an invitational hand? I wouldn't expect 3♦ instead of 2♦ to be a splinter. 3♠ by responder now shows GF with 4-card spade support. Opener has shown some diamond length, but no real stopper, with 3♦. I would expect 3N by responder here to show similar in diamonds, xxx probably being sufficient for NT opposite what opener has shown.

The way that question was worded does make it an allegation of cheating. If you want to take the matter into your own hands, there are more polite and less accusatory ways of doing it.

Two that come to mind are an immediate 5D and going slow by establish diamonds as trumps before bidding 7S. The second is probably pretty obvious, so I think I'd opt for exclusion.

But, when East plays small to the second trick, there is no more spot for West to have an original holding of 9x, the only cards outstanding are the Queen and Ten.

When I next lead the Seven and East follows low, the important holdings are: A) 9 QT62 (2.8%) B) T9 Q62 (3.4%) C) Q9 T62 (3.4%) With A you want to run the Seven; with B you want to play the Jack; with C you want to play the Ace. With B, West will play the T on the first round some of the time, reducing the 3.4% (in theory to 1.7%). Since C is more likely than A, the second round play from hand should be the Ace. When the hearts are known to be 6-3, the odds change to: A) 9 QT62 (4.8%) B) T9 Q62 (4.1%) C) Q9 T62 (4.1%) So, now running the Seven is the winner. I used Pavliceck's Suit Break Calculator, I don't know how to adjust for empty spaces like this without an aid.

Might the ♦8 be better? I think pounding away at trumps is probably right. But, I'll lead the Eight.

Not real crazy in my book, but a bit conservative. I would like to have been able to bid an invitational 4N over 3N. But, I suspect it would have been RKC for Spades.

Could opener have patterned out over 3♠ (by bidding 4♥ with this hand)? I know this isn't a HCP max, but it sure is a good hand for "12-14" which just says to me "minimum opening bid".

How about this example: Your partner opens a 12-14 NT and you respond 2D (transfer to hearts) intending to signoff in 2H, but partner does not announce/alert. Your LHO pass, as does partner. RHO doubles! You have UI that partner may not know you hoped to signoff in hearts. Are there conditions under which you can/cannot now bid 2H?

Yes. And it is the fact that partner is unaware of your spade support, not the failure to alert, that suggests you tell him about your support. Pedantic of me, I suppose, but I think it's important to correctly identify the I in UI cases. Maybe I wasn't careful enough. The UI is that partner may be unaware that you have spade support. I don't think it is fact that partner is unaware, though for the purposes of the Laws and UI, we might have to treat it as fact. Last weekend (ACBL), my partner forgot to announce the range when I opened 1NT. Over the years, I have played more 1NT ranges with this partner than you have probably played in your lifetime, but there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that he knew what NT range we were currently playing.

I'm sure if I played Drury I would have an agreement about the pass of 2♥. I suspect it would mean that I have a sub-minimum hand with perhaps only 4 spades. I also assume that 2♣ can be a 3-card raise. In that light, I don't think that opener's pass over 2♥ is forcing. Perhaps I am wrong, but it would be good to know what agreements are in play. If I am right about the pass of 2♥, I would think that passing is a LA whenever responder holds three spades and that bidding 2♠ is suggested by the failure to alert. The UI is not that you have spade support. The UI is that partner is unaware that you have spade support.

Is there a way to play 3♣ if the opponents do not help? I'd expect clubs plus some tolerance for hearts. Maybe the tolerance is implied from the pass of 2♥. But, I'd still expect that 3♣ here is an offer to play clubs if opener is suitable, otherwise opener is free to retreat to 3♥.

The best team possible; not the best possible team.

Whether you will apologize or not, your question is inappropriate. I admit I have asked a similar question. But, I do regret it.

I think your advice is spot on except that you didn't go quite far enough with this bit. The accuser should apologize for the public accusation whether or not there is any evidence to back it up. If the accusation was made such that people other than the accuser and accused were made aware, I think sanctions are also in order (should the club or national bylaws/disciplinary code provide for such).

I think it has some merit, though not quite for the reason your partner put forth. When I open 4♥, I am hoping the space I have taken away was critical to the opponents to judge where they should play (or whether it is their hand in the first place) -- I'm not hoping to shut them out, I'm hoping to cause the opponents to misjudge. The opponents are more likely to misjudge if my preempts are wide range (or contain distributional or defensive surprises). Like others, I suspect that this particular preempt is more likely to cause my side to misjudge (maybe we already have). But, that doesn't mean it has no merit.

Millions of potential USPS customers watch the Tour de France? It's a seldom televised event (in the US) which I doubt regularly draws an audience in the multiple millions.