Echognome

Seems a clear 1♠. I believe in the school that bids 2♣ with a balanced game forcing hand with 4♠'s, but certainly not with 5♠.

1♥ - 1NT; 2♠ - 3♣; 3♦ - 3NT; Pass Edit: when I bid it with Ch00, it went slightly different: 1♥ - 1NT; 3♦ - 3NT; Pass But the responder hand becomes a lot more awkward.

In the EBU, if I recall correctly, you are allowed to change your methods against pairs in a pairs game. At the time, my partner and I played a strong club, light opening system with relays. Against one pair at our local club, who we felt were highly unethical (e.g. after a 5 or 6 round auction one would ask "was that 3♦ bid natural?" and then pass at his final turn, only to have his partner incredibly find a diamond lead!) we would play a different system. The system we played against them was "If it's alertable, we don't play it!" At that time, things like Stayman were alertable, so we played 1NT - 2♣ as a weak takeout in clubs. We also played "random leads" against them, where we would shuffle our cards in front of them and lead.

I like this I hate it. If you bid this way with this hand how do you bid when you have 18-20 HCP and six spades. I thought it was 'standard' that 1♠-1NT-4♠ is showing long ♠ and 11-14 pts? So again I ask, what do you do with real game values? Wayne, You have 2NT and 3NT rebids as well as jump shifts to minors, which *gasp* will sometimes be short if no other convenient bid is available. Suppose you hold: ♠ AQJxxx ♥ Axx ♦ x ♣ AKx And the bidding goes 1♠ - 1NT; ? I would happily rebid 3♣. You may dislike the style, but I think it's pretty common in a lot of places (even if it's not popular where you play).

1. 4♥. We have landed. 2. Seems like the old joke, "What do you call an 8 card suit?" "Trump" I'm sure it will be very unpopular, but I would have opened 5♣. Edit: Missed we were in 2nd seat. Then I like opening (2♣ in this case, 1♣ in std) and rebidding 5♣.

Congrats to all BBFers. Han was also in Bobby Wolff's bridge column today.

For me it's flawed for several actions, so I rate it: 1♠ then 4♠ 9 Open 4♠ 8 1♠ then 3♠ 6 1♠ then 2♦ 5 1♠ then 2♠ 3 1♠ then 3♦ 1

Partner is not likely to have 3-card heart support. With the given 4333 hand, partner would (should) Drury. I would just bid 3♥, since my 7-card suit is pretty good. With a worse suit, I might just bid 2♠.

Congratulations to Jan. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

I would pass.

One thing I hate about help suit game tries is that it seems everyone has a different definition as to what they mean.

Moreover, why did partner pass initially?

Clear 2♥ to me the way you have agreed it (and also the way I like to play it as well).

Pass for me. My spade holding tells me quite clearly that partner is not sitting on a penalty double.

Hard to know how the auction would go after a 1♦ response. I think I would double 3♠ to show values.

Heard the news from Jason. Congrats to all. Favorites or not, the other teams aren't just going to roll over for you and die. By the way, the team consists of several players with nicknames. For Justin, I can think of a few. Then you have you Clee and Ch00. Does Jeremy have a nickname?

If the x's are all small, then no. I like to either have a good hand or a good suit when overcalling. Give me AT9xx and I would. AT8xx probably. I'm also not a fan of 5422's. Give me AT8xx x xxx Kxxx and I would as well.

I don't like the 1♠ at all. We have found our fit. I would have bid 2♣ drury, given I am a passed hand. However, if I were an unpassed hand, then I would have made a limit raise. For what it's worth, I would have opened 1♣ with the west hand.

Am still the same gnome, although I hadn't written on bridgetalk for a bit. Seems more convenient to post here now though.

I'm not opposed per se. I just think it's going to be a very difficult task to make such a regulation workable. I think an appropriate place for such a regulation will be in serious competitions. We wouldn't want to start discouraging the rank and file from trying out something new. So how do we propose to sort it out? What are the "basic auctions"? Is "no agreement" a satisfactory answer? How are you going to sort out the additional UI problems? ("Partner's call means clubs." <sneer from partner> "Oh. I mean no agreement." This is obviated with screens of course.) Are you going to create a disincentive for full disclosure?

You forgot to add Wolff's comment: Note that the emphasis is my own, not Wolff's.

I would rule it as bid out-of-turn accepted and thus no adjustment to the table result. The question to me is whether to give North a procedural penalty.

By the way, there are a lot of "maybe's" floating around in response. Most of the explanations given are currently legal. I'd like to focus on Arend's example, because I think it was quite plausible in the given circumstance, although I'm not directing my questions at Arend per se. How should the following be treated differently (if at all)? In all cases, assume these are the facts after one partner has made a misbid. 1a. The pair has explicitly had a discussion regarding the sequence and the sequence is "basic". 1b. The pair has explicitly had a discussion regarding the sequence and the sequence is "complex". 2a. The pair has co-edited a set of system notes, but has not explicitly discussed all of the sequences. The partnership is newly formed and has not played that much together yet. 2b. The pair has co-edited a set of system notes, but has not explicitly discussed all of the sequences. The partnership has played together for several years. 3a. One partner has sent the other partner a set of system notes and that partner has agreed to play them. The partnership is new. 3b. One partner has sent the other partner a set of system notes and that partner has agreed to play them. The partnership is experienced. 4a. The partnership is new and agrees to play a "standard" system, which is not clearly defined. 4b. The partnership is experienced and agrees to play a "standard" system, which is not clearly defined. If you want to make a distinction between the a's and the b's, then you also have the problem of deciding what is a new partnership and what is an experienced partnership.

Perhaps it should be a question of making better use of a recorder system?

1) I want to note that I did suggest earlier in this thread that someone try to codify a rule and it might be more productive to debate that. 2) I think a big problem is intent. This is already a problem, if you think about it, between misbid and psych. That's why I like that the EBU treats them similarly (having green, amber, and red as classifications for both psychs and misbids). Fred tells the story about his opponents that bid (1D) - 1H - (2NT) - ? and was given an incorrect description of what the hand actually held, yet the opponents were able to show that the explanation was correct. I'm unclear on what they did wrong. The way Fred tells it, the opponents have done he and Brad an injustice. But, the TD shrugs and walks away. So what should have happened? What exactly is the problem here? Is the problem that the opponents were playing something complicated so it was more likely they would have a forget? Or was it that the explanation didn't match the hand? I mean I'm sure Fred doesn't have a problem with the latter. People are allowed to psych and allowed to misbid. So, exactly what is the behavior we are trying to prevent? How do we figure out the intent? If we answer those, then it's easy enough to come up with an appropriate level of punishment.