lexlogan

It has long been my practice (as dummy at notrump) to avoid placing a suit in the trump position that might be mistaken for trumps. That includes my own long suit or suits partner has bid. Often, but not invariably, I select the suit led. It never occurred to me I might be providing a memory aid regarding the opening lead. I have to agree that would be illegal -- and unfair, if the defenders were not aware of the practice. As it would be difficult to police this practice I think the ACBL should adopt a clear policy.

"Het is spelers toegestaan aantekening te houden van het contract, de leider, het resultaat, de score en de uitkomst. Deze aantekeningen mogen niet zichtbaar zijn voor spelers die het spel nog moeten spelen." An automated translation: "It is allowed to keep players tally of the contract, the leader, the result, the score and the outcome. These notes may not be visible to players still have to play the game."

Our local directors have been attending some training by a retired lady that used to direct our ACBL Sectional tournaments. I assume she has a regional or national rating as director. Anyway, she informed them that the practice of placing the suit led against notrump on the right (where trumps would normally go) constitutes an illegal memory aid. I think this is an absurd perversion of a law that is intended to prevent a player from, for example writing down the cards everyone has played. Does anyone agree with her interpretation? Let it be noted that the common practice of keeping the bidding cards on the table during the auction likewise provides an aid to memory; we could force players to pick up their bids after displaying them briefly, simulating spoken bidding. Given that the suits must be placed in some order and the Laws specify what to do when there is a trump suit and are conspicuously silent about notrump contracts, I'm not buying this interpretation. I doubt it was what the lawmakers intended.

I prefer 2♣-2♥/2♠ to be forcing. Forcing bids cover a much wider range of hands. Now and then responder will pass 2♣ when standard bidders would find their major suit fit, but that is more than offset by the excellent results from opening the descriptive and semi-preemptive 2♣.

Another variant is 1S-1NT-2C showing either 6+ spades or strong; 1S-1NT-2S is 5+ spades 4+ clubs, not strong. This makes the sequence 1S-1NT; 2C-2S equivalent to "I would have passed 2S", not promising any spades at all. Any thoughts on this versus normal gazilli or the hearts variant? Note that the same scheme applies with a heart opening: 1H-1NT-2C is either 6+ hearts or strong, and it would seem normal to extend it to 1H-1S-2C as well.

Double promised both minors, or six diamonds but not strong enough to bid 2♦ immediately; note that "2/1" does not really aplly over competition. 5♣ shows clubs. Opener is therefore showing a very strong raise of diamonds, suggesting slam.

Maybe not so silly. What do you assume opener rebid with x AQxx Q10xxx Axx ? There's no good way to get to 2♣, and 1NT rates to be better than either 2♦ or 2♠. I prefer to rebid 1NT with that sort of hand, so I would not rebid 2S with your example.

There does not appear to be any hand type that needs to bid a natural 3♠ here, unlike the sequence 1NT-2♣; 2♥-2♠ where the standard interpretation is a semi-invitational hand with five spades and a five card minor -- about 6-8 hcp opposite 15-17, allowing game interest opposite four card support but not really worth a 2NT rebid. I play "3 other major slam try" over 1NT and "other major slam try" over 2NT, so the "illogical" 3♠ bid shows a heart fit and slam interest. 4♣ or 4♦ would be natural and forcing with slam interest but no fit for hearts; likewise 4NT would be a quantitative slam try without a heart fit. But I would never bid 3♠ at the table without discussion.

If you assume partner tends to open 1NT on 15-17, then when partner rebids 2♦ it is less likely that he has that range. Sure, I never open 1NT with 5-4 where the long suit is a major, but I think it is best not to assume 10 hcp requires a game invitation. I would've taken a preference to 2♥, especially considering the weak diamonds. Then I'd be happy to accept any game invitation. On today's hand partner continues with 2♠, showing a hand too strong for an immediate raise but with only three card support. This suggests some duplication of club values; you could pass or continue with 2NT or 3♦ or 3♠. With 26 hcp reaching game seems normal and 3NT actually looks reasonable, so 1♥-1♠; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-2NT; 3NT should not score badly. A club lead is only somewhat less likely after 1NT-2♣; 2♥-3NT but that is an advantage of opening 1NT.

I'm really on the fence between 1♥ and 1NT on this one. This looks like it will play well in a suit, and odds favor partner having three or more hearts. This qualifies under the "two flaws" theory of avoiding 1NT: five card major AND weak doubleton. However, with exactly 16 hcp we can't rebid accurately if the bidding starts 1H-1NT -- 2NT will often be an overbid, and when it isn't partner's 3NT may well be; but if we rebid 2D we must guess after partner's preference back to 2H. After 1H-1S, we can try 2D and then 2S if partner returns to 2H; the big risk is partner passes with 1-4 or even 1-3 in the red suits. Forced to decide at the table, I'll open 1♥ and rebid 2♦ or make a game try (2♠) should partner raise; if that's a constructive raise (8-10) I'll simply bid game.

When I open 2C, I expect to be in game opposite an Ace, a King, or two Queens. If I need more than that, I assume partner would respond to 1S and then I could force to game. So this is a 1♠ bid for me. Move the Queen to either black suit and I'd open 2♣.

The problem with 2H is there is no defined way to reveal 4-card spade support later, so I voted for 4♦. But on reflection the Q♥ would be a huge card, and diamond values might be useful to dispose of a club, so perhaps 2♥ is better.

Pass.

3♣ for me. I'd like 4♦ to promise four card support. I'll follow with 4♥, suggesting this sort of hand.

Neither count has been shown to be an improvement over hcp for notrump bidding, but we can take it that even in a suit contract this isn't outside the specified 20-22 range. No need to upgrade.