JSilver

I've also had this unsettling experience, though not recently.

Once in an ACBL tourney, a player opened 2♥, alerting it as Flannery. His partner then lost his connection. When the TD inserted a sub, the player wasted no time in telling the sub the meaning of his bid. I mentioned this to the director, who said "I saw that, but surely you don't object...?" So I didn't. :D It seems there is some lattitude, then, for at least explaining conventional agreements.

I know this is an old topic, but today in the USBC, Zia held ♠Kxxx ♥AKT9xx, ♦xx, ♣x, opposite Rosenberg's strong 1nt. Zia bid 2♣, then 3♥ over partner's 2♦, then corrected 3NT to 4♥. No one summoned the director, and Zia was permitted to finish the match. Some of the vugraph commentators suggested that it could be right to ignore the spade suit. Others offered the opinion that a slam in spades was posssible and should be explored.

Getting back to the original question, I think North's bidding was emminently reasonable. Give South something like ♠KQxx and ♣Axx with the same holdings in the red suits, and you'd like to be in 7♠. Why rush into 4♥? That contract will still be there after you hear partner's response. Booting a player from a tournament (or for that matter, calling the director) because you disagree with his bidding decisions is absurdly irresponsible. If bids should be chosen automatically, we may as well have the software do it for us.

Indeed, 2♦ is game forcing in France. ;) To those who wondered if we had an understanding about my bid: We had an understanding that opening bids in 3rd seat can be light, and that 1M could be a 4-card suit. We had never discussed 3rd-seat weak twos, nor do I recall ever opening one with 12 points (or a side 4-card major) with this partner. Of course, we have now had a discussion. In future we will tell opponents that 3rd-seat weak twos are "undisciplined." (Would "wide-ranging" be a better term?) Unfortunately, "undisciplined" won't fit on the cc, so we inserted "lattitude." I'm now left wondering whether that additional information would've influenced West's decision to reopen or East's decison to pass. :)

Well, I still don't really understand. if you trumped with the ♦T, Doesn't that leave East with 98xx of trump, and you with AKQx (and the J and T gone)? They should still get another trick. Did he attempt to ruff the third heart and you ruffed with the dT? And to answer Jillybean's question: The tournament director should have ruled "There was no misinformation, so no adjustments will take place", or something of the sort. After 9 tricks I had ♦AKQ and a ♥. Dummy had ♦ Txx. East was all trump. So he was forced to underruff.

Well, it went like this: West ducked the heart to my K, and I led another. East won and led the ♠J, West overtaking and continuing. I ruffed, finessed in clubs, cashed the ♣A and ruffed a club. Now I led a heart. East ruffed with the jack, but that was the last defensive trick, since the ♦T took care of the last heart. Somewhere in there, I suppose East should've led trump.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s54hk954dakq63c32&w=skt93haq762dcjt84&e=sqj7hj3dj9872ck65&s=sa862ht8dt54caq97]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] As North, after two passes, I decided to open 2♦, which we play as weak, thinking to preempt the opponents out of a possible spade fit. Call it a psych, if you wish--I consider it a judgment bid. I was asked to explain and I said "preemptive." After two more passes, West reopened with a double, which ended the auction. East led the ♠Q; I won and led a ♥ and eventually took 10 tricks. Alleging misinformation, East summoned the ACBL director, who agreed with him. The director stated, "First of all you should have opened 1♦." I said I can open however I please. The director agreed with this, adding "but you can't misinform the opponents." I said I told them what our agreement was, in accordance with what I understand to be the requirements. I asked what I should have explained instead, but got no response. The director adjusted the board to average- for us, average+ for the opponents. Do you agree with the ruling? If so, what should I have responded to the opponents' query?

How do you play it?

Ok, I suppose you're right that the answer choices present a bias. I was trying to have a little fun with this. But I really do want honest answers. Thanks for yours.

Just wondering

The wording seems a bit vague. I think it could be construed to mean that methods can vary as long as he convention card explains them. But that's probably not what was intended. Anyway, thanks for the most authoritative answer available.

I'm pretty sure that I've read, probably in the ACBL Bulletin, that varying your no trump openers according to which partner is bidding is prohibited. I speculate that it's considered unsporting for the very reason you were using it, i.e. it systemically gives the partners an unequal burden in declaring hands. I was wondering, however, if any such variation in methods is illegal. The example I suggested has no systemic effect on who declares; it merely allows each partner to use his preferred method.

Is it permissible for a partnership to vary its agreements depending on which member is bidding? For example, one member likes control-showing responses to 2C, while the other prefers 2D waiting. Can they legally agree to use a different method depending on which one opens?

North: AJ98, Kxx, K, KQJxx South: KQT, xx, A987x, xxx At our table, with the opponents silent, the auction went (starting with north) 1C-1D-1S-P. One spade made 5 with less than best defense. The majority of the field was in 3NT making 3 or 4, though we had some company. It seems there are a lot of different ways to bid these hands, none of them entirely satisfactory. Should south ignore diamonds in favor of 1NT? Should north jump to 2S or 2NT over 1D? (South would probably bypass diamonds with a minimum and a 4-card major.) As the auction went, what should south do on the second round?

If you do play NMF or checkback, then 2H is clearly the wrong bid. If you don't, then I still think it's wrong, because it's not forcing. Since Opener rebid NT, I don't think there can be any confusion with 3H. It should be forcing, showing at least 5-4 in the majors.

Since you asked, here are the hands (both vul, partner passed in first seat): Opener, KTxxx, x, xx, AKQJx. Me: 98, AJT8xxx, 9, Txx. LHO: AQx, K9x, AQT8xx, x. On a diamond lead, 6S can be made with careful play, and on any other lead, it's easy. Only 1 pair actually reached that spot; most stopped in 4. 3H could go -3. Looking back, I agree that opener shouldn't pass 4D. But I can't blame him for wanting to.

This appeals to me as a clear, simple agreement to have. On the other hand, making a high reverse in a 3-card suit (3C on the second round) seems like an invitation to confusion. Assuming we sort this one out, next time, I'll be 5-4 or 5-5 in the blacks with partner 6-4 in the minors, and we'll miss a club slam.

An hour or so after reading this thread, I preempted 3H over a 1C opening. LHO, who was 3-3-6-1, bid 4D and played there. Opener was 5-5 in the blacks and 4S was an easy make.

In the auction 1D-1S-2D, how can responder show strong diamonds, a stiff heart and slam interest? On this particular hand, opener held xxx, AKT, AT9xxx, x, while responder held AKJT8, x, KQxx, QJ9. Clearly, if you change the heart king to the spade queen, 6D is an excellent contract, while on the actual hand it's around even money.

To begin with, I'd say the point is not to assign blame but to determine what went wrong. On the first hand, if North judged his hand was worth a game-forcing bid, then part of that evaluation had to be based on a trump fit and distibutional values. Therefore, as North, I would not have considered 3NT as a possible contract, particulary in light of the lack of entries to the club suit. I probably shouldn't offer an opinion on the second hand, since I'm not experienced with DONT. But offhand, I'd say both players made dubious decisions. What went worng, however, was apparently the lack of a shared understanding of what South should have for his 2D bid.

I realize that partner doesn't see the alert. However, my concern is that if I tell the opponents that 2S is artificial, and partner then bids NT, won't they assume that partner has spades stopped? Meanwhile, partner may be relying on me for a stopper, and my alert will have served only to deceive the opponents. :-/

I'd like opinions on whether an alert is appropriate in the following circumstances: Playing IMP pairs with a regular internet partner (whom I've never met face to face), I held Q9, 532, AKQ75, AJ8 in third chair. With the opponents silent, partner opened 1C, I bid 1D, and partner bid 1H. We play 2/1, including fourth suit forcing, but have never discussed this sequence. Unsure where the hand belonged, I decided to probe with 2S. Partner, who held S1084, along with HAKQJ and CKxx, bid 2NT and I raised to 3, ending the auction. My RHO, who held SKJ752 and H10984, led the H10, allowing partner to take 11 tricks, whereas a low spade lead would set the contract. When dummy came down, he complained that 2S should have been alerted. (He left the table when the hand was over.) :-[ I didn't alert because (1) we had no agreement about what 2S meant and (2) consequently, I wouldn't know how to explain the bid if asked, since I couldn't tell how partner would interpret it. What do others think? Should I have alerted?