KingCovert

So, because you assert that the competition was strong, we must take your word for it? If no one competed over that sequence when afforded the opportunity at the one level, sounds like they aren't strong players. Or... You got some rather fortunate deals. Regardless, since you're so certain that people in this thread are focusing on the wrong things, you've surely identified the right things for us to discuss? That was oddly missing from your post. Curious. I'm sorry that some people have attacked your precious agreement, but that might be because it's actually rather bad. Negative bids that show no shape are borderline stupid. We're not opening at the two level, we have the room to spend on shape. You know what auctions need room? Auctions that have slam aspirations or need to find the right game need bidding room. The three best things about 1D GF are simple. The first is that you leave room to pattern out and start cuebidding at a very low level. The second is that when your opponents do interfere, stupidly, you know that you have the vast majority of the points and can compete/penalize with ease. The last is that it frees all your other responses from showing GF values, and can instead focus on specifying more exactly the strength and shape of an otherwise significantly below average hand. These are real and tangible benefits.

My partner and I play the following after 1♣ (Not always the case, but let's assume 17+): 1♦: GF Openers rebids are: 1NT: 17-19 Balanced. Systems on. 2NT: 23+ Balanced. Systems on. Jump shift: Shows a singleton in the suit below the suit bid Otherwise, opener rebids as if playing Canape. Responder introduces 5-card suits, and otherwise raises when agreeing 8+card fits, a direct raise shows a keycard in the suit, a jump shift agrees the suit and shows the Ace in that suit. a Double jump in the suit shows no keycards. Otherwise, NT denies a 5-card suit and primary support for the bid suit, the cheaper the NT bid, the better the hand. 1♥: Negative, Not single-suited or Two-suited. IE: No more than 8 cards in our two longest suits. So, 5332, 4441, 4432, 4333. Never 6331/6332/5431/5422 etc... 1♠: Negative, 4♣ and a longer suit OR 6+♣ with no other 4-card suit. 1N: Negative, 4♦ and a longer suit OR 6+♦ with no other 4-card suit. 2♣: Negative, 4♥ and a longer suit OR 6+♥ with no other 4-card suit. 2♦: Negative, 4♠ and a longer suit OR 6+♠ with no other 4-card suit. These four bids are all negative, they are all patterned out as if playing Canape (Shorter suit, and then longer suit), and never includes 5-5 or better (see below), maybe (6+)-4, but not 5-5. The "anchor" suit is the suit described by increasing two steps. So, 1♠ --> 1N --> 2♣, and 1♠ always shows clubs in some form. This gap of two steps is intentional, we play the intermediate bid as an artificial force. It requires responder to pattern out their shape, either a long single suiter, or to reveal their second suit. 2NT shows maximum values and a single suiter. Otherwise opener's other bids are not-forcing and natural. Responder should continue with the upper end of the range, something like a good 5 to 7. For responses to 1♥, notice the two step gap still exists here too, after the artificial force (1♠), 1NT is a minimum, 2NT is a maximum without shortness. 2X is a maximum with shortness in that suit. We consider a doubleton shortness, but, If your doubleton is like AJ or better... Well, that doubleton is your whole hand, so, we bid as if we don't have shortness. 2♥: Negative, 5-5 or better, without ♥. 2♠: Negative, 5-5 or better, with ♥, without ♠. Aka, Hearts and a Minor. 2N: Negative, 5-5 or better, with ♥, with ♠. Aka, both Majors. Our philosophy in responding to these 5-5 two suiters is something like this: If responder bids 2♥, denying hearts, 3♣ shows a preference for clubs over diamonds, but ultimately, says, I LOVE spades. Bypassing the cheapest suit shows a strong willingness to play in it, if there are multiple suits still available, above that cheapest suit, then, you're taking preference between them. This works because responder has a two suiter from within 3 suits. Also, we bid to the level we'd like to play at, so, 3♠ is stronger than 2♠. One can probably make their own agreement around bidding 3♥ in this situation, where hearts are denied. Seems forcing. There's more to it, but that's the basics. It's very effective in my opinion. Negative bids that can effectively show single or two suiters as these do are quite nice, you can keep the level low, and find part scores when necessary, or otherwise, safe landing spots.

I must say, your hand looks awfully bare for a 2♦ raise. Playing with a new partner, that's also a novice, this doesn't really describe your hand at all. This usually shows some defense. That being said, not sure I really want to raise 3♦ with such a flat hand, so I understand your problem. Seems that, given the results at the other tables, bidding 2♦ was probably the only way to lose this hand so dramatically. Doesn't mean it was wrong though, to be fair.

That's a really stupid law. It's completely inequitable. If you have a reservation with a defender breaking tempo to misrepresent their hand, then surely you have an issue with a declarer changing their line of play based on a legitimate break in tempo? If the situation really was AXX opposite TX, could defender's have called the director? If defender's were to call the director, and there was such a law to provide them with recourse, you'd have to somehow prove that declarer intended to play the 9. Good luck proving that. This is getting too deep into the realm of intent, and as any sports fan will tell you, rules that require proof of intent are always garbage and improperly officiated. Setting aside whether you would personally do it, I know I don't, but, a break in tempo with a holding that doesn't justify it is simply gamesmanship. If you allow yourself to get duped by it, well, that's the way things go sometimes. If you think this sounds bad, well, it sounds no worse than reading into a break in tempo. If you break tempo and opponent makes a decision after the break in tempo that they wouldn't make without the BIT, and it's the only way to make the contract, that's also the way things go sometimes. It's not like declarer was forced to take any decisions here. If you choose to assume that the BIT shows the ace, then, you do so at your own peril. And so, your last post is irrelevant in my mind. Percentages that assume the Ace is in a seat, are percentages based on an exposed card I suppose. Since, that's the only way you'll be certain. To even start rationalizing with such an argument is to support taking an inference from the BIT. A subjective moral position with no objective superiority though.

While I must admit, I'm not particularly familiar with any of the laws surrounding this issue. As a player, I do think it's somewhat ridiculous to consider it unethical to think when making a decision. Sometimes players considering whether they should be giving count, or preference.. etc.. Rather, it's clear to me, that the most unethical player at the table is the one who chooses to read into a break in tempo, and changes their course of action intending to run to the director if they've guessed wrong. It's shameful. If this player had absolutely no conceivable decision, I understand, but it's trick 2, and decisions at trick 2 can have significant relevance to defeating a contract. While I agree that this decision is straight forward, and may well mark the 10 to their partner, this is identical to when a defender is thinking with the King of a suit on the table, does anyone doubt whether they have the Ace? Are they now obligated to play it?

Fair enough, I'm sorry for the dramatic nature of the post. But, we always seem to have these disagreements while agreeing. No doubt you know what you're talking about, which is why I always find these immaterial disagreements sort of confounding... I guess there's only so much time in the day and none of us have enough time to dedicate to ensure that every post is perfect. I'll raise my hand to committing that mistake on a near daily basis.

Well, to be fair, I was just describing how a hand that reverses in the given sequence, with fit for your spades, can have really good play for 6 even with a sub-minimum for the sequence. I certainly wasn't suggesting that the hand that I provided should reverse, and wasn't even addressing whether some 2245/2254 hands should open 1NT. Dont see how this hurts the point though, since your points now combine to say that this sequence should show such a good hand when partner can support spades that playing small slam is borderline mandatory now. Dont take this the wrong way Mikeh, but very often you disagree even when you agree. You often bring straw men into discussions such as this so that you can contribute something more than "I agree" and a plus reputation. Edit: I'll remove the overdramatic nonsense! lol... Can you imagine something more overdramatic than the previous paragraph?

I think you should actually read my post. Because, 3 spades, 3 diamonds, 2 clubs and 1 heart is most certainly not 8.

From my perspective, I think 2♠ is clear. I'd consider it mandatory, but, I can appreciate how others might differ. While I do agree with Felicity that agreeing a fit is important, I don't really see this as one of those auctions. While rebidding spades doesn't promise 6+♠, it's highly suggestive of it. And, it's a guarantee if you ever agree clubs later if partner doesn't happen to support your spades. Knowing that you have 6♠ might be the difference between a part score and game, or game and slam, in clubs. So, while Mikeh would bid 3♣ with only 5♠ and a known 8+card fit in ♣, I think that changes when you actually have a truly rebiddable suit. And, this is about as rebiddable as a suit can get. I'm not just willing, but happy to play 4♠ in a 6-1 fit over 3NT. There are so many ways that 3NT is going down when I have no entries to cash this spade suit. And, I will take a spade slam over a club slam every day of the week with this holding when partner has big values and 2 card support. It's not even close. To illustrate the value of this hand, if partner had something like: [hv=pc=n&s=saqjt93ht9d5ct752&n=s42ha2dat32ckqj43]133|200[/hv] then this hand would be making slam on a spade finesse and a non-heart lead. And, that's not enough value for a reverse. And there's no reason to suppose that partner has a minimum when opponents are silent. It's clear to you that they have a stack of hearts, and they aren't bidding. Why are spades maybe better than clubs? Because partner's club suit might be rather poor, AXXXX♣ with some pretty solid diamonds for you to pitch your club losers on is still a good situation. Sometimes clubs will be right, but, you don't lose the ability to agree clubs later. I disagree on this point, I think 5♣ as your next bid clearly shows minimum-ish values and much better than suit preference over whatever partner bids.

The nine seems best. I really don't want West to hold ATXXX. That would defeat this contract if I play the Jack. I can afford to lose 2 hearts, and 2 diamonds. Taking, hopefully, 2-3 diamonds. 2 clubs, 3 spades, and 1-2 hearts. Depending on the play of diamonds and hearts. So, if I lose this finesse to the stiff 10, fine, I'll pay to that. Otherwise, the break won't be 5-1, I'll pick up the suit for 2 losers and be happy. If the finesse works, I'll usually pick up the suit for 1 loser. At match points, well, that may change things. But, at teams, the 9 is just correct I think. The tough part is going to be getting opponents to break hearts for you. Or, making them pitch enough hearts that they are forced to play the onside A/K, such that you don't have to finesse the 10. Hopefully the discards on the diamonds will help.

At least a king above average? But, the average hand in bridge is something like a balanced 9.5 HCP hand... Yikes.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was assuming that: 1) Declarer called for a card from dummy (while declarer is on lead). An irregularity 2) Dummy informs declarer (illegally) that declarer has played from the wrong hand 3) Declarer then plays from their hand without calling the director. Another irregularity. If defender's call the director now, you stated that: Were you only talking about if RHO had played to the trick, and then they called the director? Or did you mean if the director was called in the situation that I've provided? Maybe I misunderstood your premise.

I can't believe that this would be the "correct' course of action given what I'm reading here. What am I getting wrong? As I understand it: 1) Leading off of dummy is an irregularity, one that can be accepted by defenders 2) Declarer "correcting" their irregularity, without consulting the director, is yet another irregularity, and it's a lead that can be accepted by defenders. Which is to say, they can choose whether to allow declarer to make such a correction after having seen the card. This sucks for declarer, but they had no right to correct the irregularity without calling the director. 3) 9C and 9D combine to say that if any person now calls the director here, defenders cannot lose either of these two rights. So, it seems to me that the only fair resolution is to allow defenders to select either lead to accept, but if the lead out of dummy is accepted then declarer's card is now a card played out of turn. Where am I wrong?

With my partner: 1♣: 15+ (in 1st/2nd seat) 1♦: Game-Forcing (a good 9 or better) 2♣: 4+♣ (possible Canape) 2♥: 5+♥ (denies 4-card support of ♣) 2♠: ♠ > ♣ 2N: Showing extra values (denies 3-card ♠ support) 3♣: Showing extra club length, hence 6+♠-5+♣. ♠ > ♣ 3♠: Agreeing spades. I think it's pretty trivial from here. There are a ton of lines. 4♣: Ace of ♣ 4♦: 1st round control of ♦ 4♥: 1st round control of ♥ (aka Void) 4N: 1430 5♠: 2 with the Q♠ 5N: Specific Kings 6♣: K♣ 7♠: Transfer to 7N. (Okay, that's a joke!) :) In a 2/1 auction, I actually prefer the start 1♠-2♥-2♠. I see no reason why in a game forcing auction that 2♠ should promise a minimum whatsoever, this seems the best way to pattern out, and preserve the bidding room. Introduce clubs later, and it'll end much the same. I hope.

That's just a silly overstatement. What heart holding is declarer bidding 3NT with here? AQX(X)? AKX(X)? KQXX? Those are your choices. That's it. Realistically, you're only finessing partner here. You've actually got too many good spots in your solid run of hearts to believe that this is cashing for any meaningful number of tricks. If you can free partner of their spade honour early. You can save them from squeezing themselves out of confusion.

I'm a moron. I thought that this was a live table situation. Ignore me.

It's a nice, fun auction! :) You really should just run the 9 of spades though. If spades are breaking 3-2, you'll get out for 1 loser anyways as you'd just cash AK in the 2nd and 3rd tricks. You'd know whether to cash the king based on whether both opponents follow on the 2nd trick of spades. If they don't, you can take the finesse up to your Ace Ten. You're always losing to QJXX offside.

Now, that's what I would have said if they were asking questions prior to leading, but, you're still in a live auction. So, first of all, you don't explain your own bids in a live auction. Your partner should be explaining what you've agreed that your bids should show. Obviously, there is always lee-way for discretion. As I recently read someone quote on these forums: Basically, you explain what your bids should show, as you've agreed, but you don't guarantee that your agreements perfectly reflect your actual holding on this hand. Not that this necessarily applies in this situation. I can't really imagine why the player left the table. If you've properly explained your agreements in a situation, and fulfilled your responsibilities, your opponent has no recourse unless you've committed some sort of infraction. Of course, you should welcome questions, but at some point, they've got to move along or you're going to call the director to make them do so.

I'll refrain from stating the correct course of action with such an agreement, I'm not a qualified director. I only got involved in the thread due to the mention of Canape... But, it would seem to me that such an agreement is described as 12-14 balanced, and says absolutely nothing in particular about clubs, and has clear and obvious implications about the other suits. You're not willing to play clubs unless partner has a stack, and transfer responses give your partner a drop dead sequence with any hand, even 0 HCP. It feels like you're being intentionally daft with this example, this is obviously not natural.

Of course it does. It contains the information that "I may have 2 clubs, and if I have 2 clubs, I have exactly 4432 shape". Hence, the announce.

Alright, if that's the agreement then that would seem clearly alertable. Strange agreement though, can't imagine that it's effective. That's besides the point though.

The statement was, "denies 4♠". It says nothing about 5+♠. Furthermore, he states "could be canape". As someone who plays Canape rather proficiently, firstly, 1♥ openings shouldn't deny even 4♠. But, if that's their partnership agreement or understanding, that's what it is. However, it just would not be canape whatsoever to open 5♠ and 4♥ with 1♠. You may be right, and 1♥ may completely deny spades entirely, but then the statement "could be canape" is just incorrect. This is why I'm calling attention to this, because this discussion is being had on an incorrect understanding somewhere.

I'd just like to call attention to a potential incorrect explanation of the 1♥ opening bid here. This does not deny 5+♠. Canape openings will open the shorter suit of a two suited hand, and thus, do not deny a longer suit. This is pre-alertable (in the ACBL at least). However, the 1♥ opening bid is not alerted. It is natural, it shows at least 4-cards, it shows a willingness to play in the suit. The introduction of a SECOND suit, which is confirmed to be no shorter (and usually longer) than the first suit, that bid must be alerted. Take the sequence: 1♥ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠. 1♥ shows 4+♥. Not alerted. 1NT is usually not-forcing (but still constructive) in Canape systems. 2♠ promises 5+ ♠ (in this sequence). This bid is alerted. Due to the possibility of a 2♠ bid showing 5+♠, or a 2♣ bid showing 5+♣ (same for diamonds), the pre-alert is necessary to inform your opponents that the unbid suits may not break in a very friendly way, but more importantly, that the team playing Canape will almost certainly have little issue communicating this.

I agree with Nigel on the third hand, we need to cut down on entries to dummy. Partner has a heart stop, because if partner doesn't have a heart stop this hand is over. So, partner has a heart stop. Let's not burn it at trick 1. A heart lead is just never right here. EDIT: It could be right, but never correct. That's probably a better way to phrase this.

It's tough holding that A♥. 4♠ should deny any outside aces, but, it doesn't inherently mean that the hand is completely hopelessly weak. You could just have 3 tricks on defense. If that A♥ was a K♥, I'd probably bid 5♠ even if North had passed. The opponents are surely making slam then with such high probability, I'll pay the price of being wrong... And, of course, I may now have telegraphed that slam is making. But, maybe they play in the wrong suit if they have to start competing at 5♠.