KingCovert

Well, if you'd like to hitch your wagon to the position that the player was trying to cheat. I welcome you to do so. I think that most reasonable people will agree that the player was possibly lazy in providing proper disclosure or uninformed as to their obligation to provide their agreement and not their intended meaning. Hence why I said you'd have an impossible time defending that statement. But, I understand, this was simply an opportunity for you to be snarky. Classy.

Well, it's more dubious if we believe that they decided the meaning to be penalty because their partner passed. (In fact that's downright cheating) It's a lot less dubious if that was simply the intended meaning, and they explained it honestly. I'd certainly agree with those that think that West could have done a better job conveying that they had no explicit agreement, but that their intention was penalty as StevenG suggested. But... Declarer has clearly made multiple serious errors and their complaint is far more dubious than the potential offense by East/West. They're not complaining because they felt mislead by the agreement, they're complaining because their interpretation of penalty did not match West's interpretation of penalty and they made a faulty assumption. I think a good question is: Had East/West had an explicit agreement that this bid was penalty, do you think Declarer would have complained? Because, everyone here knows they would have. How? Well.... That was their understanding when they complained. What's the difference? If Declarer had played the hand without making serious error, I'd be far more inclined to favour them, but, they absolutely butchered the hand. (assume I'm restating all my comments about meta-agreements and implicit agreements)

At no point was that description of the meaning of the bids provided, that would certainly change a lot of things. Describing 4♠ as a sub-minimum and 3♠ as others is just dishonesty at it's finest.

I think we're passing each other somewhat on this point. I agree that few serious partnerships do, or should, use the old Jacoby 2NT structure. But, seemingly, the partnership in this thread did. I'm not endorsing it, and agree with all your commentary around how other agreements would result in more rational auctions. I definitely believe that 5♠ can be in danger when Responder has hands that would choose to stop in 5♠. There seems to be some weird group think here that Responder is somehow holding something close to a minimum for this sequence, and that's just nonsense. South's 3♠ bid shows an intermediate or better (15+) hand in the old Jacoby 2NT structure, obviously upgrades are allowed. Responder would be negligent not to show slam interest with a hand that had something like an average 14 HCP. And, I think such a hand would struggle to stop below 5♠. And, the hand that does stop in 5♠ is going to be a worse hand than this one, and the contract will face similar odds of success due to that decrease in quality. As it turns out, this hand is a 4333 17 HCP hand, which in my mind is an immediate downgrade due to the shape. Furthermore, the Q♠ is wasted, not that Responder knows that. So, this hand probably turns out to be worth something like 13.5 HCP. But, again, Responder cannot know that until Opener bids 5♠ showing the extra spade length. And here comes the problem, now it's an absolute guess for Responder. Is Responder really to believe that Opener upgraded their hand this much based solely on trump length? Why can't Opener have just one extra card like the J♦ (or more!) that this hand needs to have good play? 3♠ has completely over sold this hand at this point. In fact, I think it's negligent for Responder to allow the partnership to stop below 6♠ once 3♠ has been bid. The only problem with bidding 6♠ immediately in response with a hand like this are the grands that you could be missing. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, it feels like peoples' thoughts are being polluted by the fact that with different agreements you'd have non-minimal responses available. I think this reality is polluting peoples' ideas of a minimum within the old style structure, which is the EXACT problem with the old style structure. The reason that structure sucks is precisely because of hands like this. Even in this post, you are still calling to other structures that support how this hand can stop below 6♠, but make no attempt to comment on the actual structure that was available. In this structure, Responder is sometimes going to put down hands that are a full king worse than this hand, with marginally better shape. Those hands are going to have no play if you're bidding 3♠ on hands like this. I'm absolutely not the type of analyst who looks at all the cards when commentating, I've always supported your criticism of those that do so on these forums. It's my perception that there is a bit of a fantasy narrative going on here that Responder is ever stopping below 6♠ after Opener bids 3♠ with this hand and this set of agreements. Rather, I'd say that either peoples' thoughts are being polluted as I mentioned above, or those justifying 3♠ here given the actual agreements are the ones justifying the bidding while looking at all the cards. The suggestion that this 9 HCP hand is an automatic upgrade to a hand with intermediate playing strength in this sequence really comes across as a rather disingenuous one. I think the vast majority of players would grit their teeth and bid either 3♣ (despite it's problems in devaluing Responder's club honours) or 4♠. Does anyone seriously believe that 90% of people are bidding 3♠ as Lamford's poll claims? It seems far more likely that those players like to perform analysis while looking at 52 cards.

I agree that it helps to have a way to show minimums that aren't horrible minimums. I think where we disagree is that, in a structure like this, I think 3♠ over-represents this hand. This hand is not improved by partner bidding Jacoby 2NT, as paradoxical as that may seem. If I'm remembering correctly that it shows shortness, I'd sooner consider 3♣ and an additional cue-bid of clubs before I seriously bid 3♠ on this hand. You're basically stating that this hand has about 5% odds to make, and if Responder had a King less, they should still try for slams opposite a 3♠ bid in my mind. You won't play 6♠, but you will play 5♠, and again you're going to have 5% odds to make. 3♠ confines you to playing one level too high on every auction with a hand like this. I never want to be a result merchant, but, if almost every time you bid a hand like this in such a way you get to a contract that has no play, then it's really not resulting at that point, your reasoning behind the methodology/approach must simply be flawed. And, if you have to start playing your partner for literally five or six specific cards in order for your contract to have play, clearly the reasoning sucks. This hand apparently, according to commentary in this thread, needs Responder to hold exactly the K♠, AK♥, A♦ and the J♦ or better... Fundamentally, 7 trump is not worth what it seems on this auction. I'd actually rather Responder have Kx♠ and AJxxx of diamonds. That hand would help me take more tricks in spades on average than the hand partner has. It's got 2 less spades and one less high card point, and it's substantially better support for the hand I'm holding as South. I just don't need 11 trump, and partner is never going to know to devalue KQxx♠. The hand has 6 losers, but, they're the kind of losers that need partner to deliver 5 winners. South is bringing absolutely no help in creating those winners in the red suits, which is the problem. This hand looks prettier than it actually is, which is fundamentally why it makes 5-10% of the time. So, I'm happy to be against the majority of experts that get this wrong 90-95% of the time. Seems they're out of touch.

I'd suggest your evaluation of "expert" players is probably rather generous then. Either these players are long past their prime, or severely overrated. There is simply no legitimate justification for bidding 3♠ with this hand, given the agreements on the meanings. As I stated in my initial post, and Crapdown has reinforced in their most recent post, you used the trump length to upgrade this to a 1♠ opener, it's been spent. You can't spend it again. There are no extra values in this hand, add a King and sure 3♠ is legitimate. You keep talking about "If card X was this card instead", if you think your partner needs to worry about WHICH 17 HCP hand they have when they make a slam try in this sequence, you're being unreasonable. EVERY 17 HCP hand should make slam tries in this sequence, you're supposed to have your 3♠ bid. So, let's stop deflecting with, "Partner could have had this allocation of values and it's cold" and let's have some semblance of objectivity. I'm sure slam is cold if you have the king your bids promised, but that your hand is missing. If you feel like your Jacoby 2NT agreements are not conducive to opening 1♠ with hands like these, and leave you stuck for a bid, change your agreements.

I'm hesitant to even address such a moronic statement that really can only serve the purpose of inducing a response... It speaks volumes about your character and integrity. So, I'll just take that cheap shot at you and say this: "those that wilfully and deliberately mislead their opponents" I think you'll have an impossible time defending those words. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the definitions of willfully and deliberately. (Perhaps the spelling too)

Bridge law is objectively terrible. It's far too open to interpretation, and every serious gamer who has played games that are actually popular competitively knows that good competitive games have laws that are entirely the opposite of this. It's bridge's most serious flaw. It certainly doesn't help that while directors may well be educated in the content of the laws, far too many are woefully insufficient in their education on how to properly enforce laws. The positions that I see too many directors take are far too often based on some construct in their mind, and how they want to see the game enforced, and hardly on the laws. I think it takes a collaborative and community oriented spirit to want to spend your time directing instead of playing, and that's commendable. The problem is this very nature of directors can lead to some directors trying too hard to stand in defense of those that they perceive to be aggrieved, often in defiance of the laws.

I don't think this sort of approach is valid. It seems rather reductionist. You're essentially claiming that declarer should be considered reasonable for deciding what the final three cards look like based solely on one bid in the auction, but, can be absolved for ignoring EVERY other bid in the auction for the prior 10 tricks. On top of that, declarer has decided that they also want to ignore every card played in the prior 10 tricks as well. Declarer has no idea how many high card points the 1NT opener has revealed so far. It's not a detailed analysis to count the high card points of a NT opener, it's honestly one single step beyond beginner bridge. Thus I do think that declarer is absolutely hopeless from a skill perspective... I think it's far more fair to look at the entire line of play by declarer, where declarer plays West for absolutely every card in the deck, this is not justifiable.

Hmmm, hard to say how I'd play it just yet.... But... 3♠ is a gross overbid. That's a massive double-dip on the trump length. To make small slam you basically need partner to have the right 17 HCP. I'd like to think that parnter would try to play slam over 4♠ with such a hand.

Pretty much exactly what David said. Both players have taken bids that are certainly not forcing. 3♥ is a sincere attempt to make progress within that context. Given the fact that neither player has values to force, taking 11 tricks is going to be hard. You may be able to do it on an absolutely magic fit between the two hands. But, 4♥ could easily be the best contract. If I were to add anything, I'd say that moving forward Responder does have some opportunities now to cue-bid aces looking to catch the perfect fit of winners opposite shortage. Sometimes these hands just make 12 tricks.

:P :P :P A bit harsh, I'll admit.... But... If a player can't develop a plan for declaration that takes into account a 1NT opener, or worse, doesn't consider that during the auction. They can't possibly be a strong declarer. (Which is not a rules violation I know. <_< ) Can't see how it's not a serious error of the highest order to literally play a 1NT opener for half the value of an opening hand though.

This is how I interpreted it. Perhaps that wasn't the intended meaning, but that's definitely what was written. As I said earlier in the thread, there may be a distinction between describing your intended meaning of a bid instead of describing your agreement in a self-alerting situation. I could see an argument that if declarer was aware that the agreement was "No Agreement", and that East chose to leave it in under those pretenses, that they may have been more likely to suspect a different type of holding from both players. I don't agree with that argument, because, well, it's somewhat unclear if that's "misinformation". Also, I wouldn't trust South to make 10 tricks in a cold grand.

So, my first thought was to cross in diamond and play clubs from the East. There does seem to be some squeeze potential, by trying to squeeze the majors and convert an extra spade trick or perhaps promote our 10♥. I dismissed it for a few reasons. 1) I don't think it's likely that I can successfully duck a club and draw the A♣, meaning I'm likely creating 2 club losers now and conceding the contract on the spot. 2) I didn't have a clear answer to North holding the A♣ and winning it over our J♣ and promoting the defending team's 3rd round diamond trick. I think there is still squeeze potential here, but, 3) It seems like I'm really forced to play high clubs out of West's hand given #1, and I don't really see a point in creating potential weaknesses in diamonds. I'm not the strongest with visualizing squeezes though. So, it's entirely possible that this reasoning is rather flawed.

The better question is, if the auction had gone: 1♦-P-P-X-2♦-P-P-2NT. Are systems on now? How do you sign off in clubs? What about if opener was bidding hearts? Systems on just seems like a very strange agreement in sequences like this. If you can't bid freely over the double, your hand has nothing to say except, "I have this suit and no values". If your hand is balanced, your job is to stay quiet. Your partner shouldn't bid 2NT with hands that can't stomach such a reality, especially being in front of the opener. A POTENTIAL 4-4 major suit fit is not enough justification to gamble here with a garbage hand. On hands like this, it's totally okay for the weaker hand to declare, if shapely. You hide their shape. Also, the primary reason that people play transfers is because the transfer is forcing. It allows responder to show multiple types of hands due to the fact that the transfer bid cannot be passed. You can sign off in a major, invite in a major, invite in no-trump, make a mild slam try by bidding game in the major... etc... Any hand that wants to bid here, but couldn't bid over the double is a bad hand. You're better off just simply setting the contract. It's not confusing, and it provides Advancer with more natural bids.

Is it considered "detailed analysis" to assess that a 1NT opener needs to have opening values? I don't think it's normal to play a 1NT opener to have 9 HCP points, much less 7.

Well, it seems like I must lose 3 hearts and the A♣. Hearts should be breaking 4-4. It's a little unclear to me which player should hold two honours. I can't imagine that South underlead KQJx♥, but, I think, to this auction, they could have underlead pretty much any combination of two of those honours, or simply just Qxxx or Kxxx. Luckily for us, we don't really have to guess. 1) A♥. 2) K♣. If opponents win the A♣, then they should now draw hearts revealing the honour situation. I will now pay attention to which player had the A♣ and see if they have two heart honours. If so, I'll play the other player for the Q♠. If not, I'll play the player with the doubleton diamonds for the Q♠. If the opponents don't win the A♣. Then: Q♣, and much the same logic. If the opponents don't win either of the first two club tricks. Then: I will play to take 9 tricks off the top. Cash the AK♦ checking to see if someone has QJ♦ double-ton. Probably not the case. I'll play the player with the doubleton diamonds for the Q♠ and try to collect the spade suit for 0 losers. I think it's likely spades are breaking 3-3. I may have to reconsider this assumption if I have the opportunity to play 3 rounds of clubs at some point (I won't have it if I can't draw the A♣ in the first two rounds of clubs) and someone shows out on the third round. Now it's a guarantee that spades are breaking 4-2, but, the player with 5♣ will have the doubleton spade. (Provided that the hearts are 4-4, which *seems* certain)

I think over 1♦ it can become a bit more difficult to find the right fit when responder has both majors? Not impossible or anything, but, more difficult than you're leading on. Especially if you want to do so at the appropriate level and in order to preserve room for slam investigations etc. I may well be wrong, but, the descriptions you've posted don't inspire confidence in this scenario as described.

I sort of broke down my thinking earlier, but, yeah. K♦ is the pragmatic lead. I think the A♣ can never be right. Whenever the A♣ is right, so is a small club. But, the opposite isn't true. It's the psychological game, playing the K♣ on top of a low club is only right if I've under-lead my ace. No one is under-leading AQ♣. And, most don't under-lead aces against slams. I suppose, if declarer plays the K♣, it's a sign of either how poor a player they are, or how much they respect you as a player. Hahaha

So, if I'm understanding this correctly: 1) West makes a lead directing double of clubs (probably) 2) West makes a penalty double of hearts. 3) East passes the double. 4) West, when asked, explains the meaning of their bid (but not necessarily their agreement). 5) South fails to count the high card points of the hand. 6) South makes a faulty assumption about the heart situation. 7) South complains that their assumption wasn't right. Clearly my recounting of the events is somewhat skewed in one favour... But, I really don't see how South thinks they have an argument here. Is it so unreasonable for West to think their double is penalty here? If South didn't request an explanation and made an assumption, what assumption would they make? It could easily be the case that West thinks that, while they may not have an explicit agreement, they have an implicit agreement or meta-agreements that would dictate that this double is penalty. The bid was described as penalty, functioned as a penalty double, was intended as penalty, and has enough values to justify a penalty double. I'm not really sure how an accurate description of the intended meaning of the bid can cause harm here. I've read no law obligating that penalty doubles show length in the trump suit, when doubling a suit contract. Far more consequentially, the club switch at trick two clearly marks West for the A♣ or K♣, subsequent play in clubs confirms that it's the A♣, which isn't shocking given the whole lead directing double thing. East cannot possibly have enough values for their 1NT opener without holding both heart honours. But... South cannot count high card points and bungled the hand. The description of South's thinking show that they made a faulty assumption that simply doesn't have to be true, and in fact can never be true, and upon exposure of that faulty reasoning, they're seeking to run to the director (or review board). I'm not a big fan of this sort of behaviour.

I mostly asked those questions because you expressed the possibility of an ambiguity as to how many diamonds Opener holds when bidding 2♦, but, this ambiguity seems to have little consequence since Responder's diamond holding is limited by other agreements. Not that you need my seal of approval, but, that constraint is definitely key in raising the quality of these agreements. Yeah, it's always best to accurately communicate your hand, both explicitly through the calls you make, and implicitly through the calls you don't make. Captaincy only really seems to be relevant to me when there are hands where the description of one player's hand is far more relevant than the other, or establishing some captaincy makes handling the situation much easier/effective. Thanks for breaking down your agreements, they seem like they would work well. I often create my own structures/conventions depending on how tailored the system I play is, and it's nice to get some insight into the usage of a waiting bid in this sort of scenario. I can easily find myself recalling this when designing something else... Who knows, I may just decide to play it.

I see. Okay, so, this is one of those hands that you catch with 2♦. Fair enough. I agree that it's not too consequential to muddy the waters with the 2♦ bid, it seems like most hands bidding 2♦ would benefit from seizing captaincy and having Responder describe their hand further. Out of curiosity, can Responder have 4-card diamond support with your agreements? I'm wondering if you play Inverted Minors, and how you'd treat a 2=2=4=5 hand let's say. Does 2♣ deny 4-card support? Certainly the 1♦ opener can hold clubs, so, it wouldn't be the weirdest thing to bid 2♣ while holding diamonds I guess. I'm wondering what the auction 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦ would show? Seems like it shows a hesitancy to play 3NT, and I'm unclear on how much diamond support it shows. Is this still a game force?

This may have something to do with whether players are used to playing a Strong NT or a Weak NT. When playing 2/1, I've held the same position as you for a long time. I take it to a bit more of an extreme. If my hand cannot reverse, I open 1♦ with all hands that have 4♦ and no 5-card major. I suppose on the odd occassion where I have some x=y=4=7 hand with a club holding that needs to be spoken for, I would deviate, but, otherwise it's just simply better. (Edit: And, honestly, I'd be pretty comfortable reversing with such a hand if I didn't want to bury the diamonds) For those that aren't convinced. I think there is more value having 2♣ as a rebid and allowing partner to take preference between the minors. Also, the value of the inferences on 1♣ opening bids when you know partner must hold either reversing values or 3-♦ is incredibly useful. This makes sense to me, and is identical to how I treat similar sequences in a vastly different system, but, I wonder what you'd bid with a hand that was 2=4=4=3 with two small spades? 2NT anyways? Should your partner be offering a major suit contract on their way to 3NT? I guess my point is, it's not clear to me that bidding a major really does show 4=5 shape in your two suits? Although, it often will, I'd agree.

I would assume that systems are off. How do you play in 3♦ if they are on? Your partner clearly can't have the values for a constructive auction, so, your partner would only seek to bid in order to sign off in a suit contract. I'm really struggling to think of a hand that wants to bid stayman (for example) from a gambling on fit / values perspective that passes 2♣.

The only intermediate jump over calls I have played are against Two over One 1♣ and 1♦ opening bids. I guess, I'd have some questions for you if I were to provide any feedback. Are your jump overcalls intended to be single suited? What do you do with a 16 HCP hand with 2 suits? Double?