Echognome

Maybe as a constructive point, someone can attempt the wording of a regulation (or amendment to the law) along with guidance to the TD's (am thinking of something like the EBU White Book) with an example of where a TD should give a penalty and an example where a TD should not give a penalty. Maybe as a starting point to it, just a few examples where people will think it is clear enough to give an additional penalty and where it is not.

This sounds awful to me. As far as I am aware, it is not the director's job to tell people how to play bridge. If a TD told me to take a convention off my card (that was a legal convention), I'd be outraged.

I think the issue here is that a regulation based on penalties of "forgetting" one's system is overly harsh. Do we believe that people forget their system on purpose? I know it's quite common to forget a card that has been played or to remember exactly what spot the cards were. So why have such a harsh view on forgetting one's agreement? I understand there were a lot of problems with, say, Ghestem, where people were forgetting often. But why does it ruin your enjoyment if you sometimes are on the wrong end of "rub of the green"? I mean isn't this a similar attitude to people that don't like psyches? It's somehow unfair that it has happened to them.

<cheapshot> I can't believe you guys would have a misunderstanding on this auction. Not knowing your system ruins the game for everyone. </cheapshot>

Sorry to hear about this Phil. Taz was such a good dog.

Define "basic auction". Suppose you play a relay system and in competition you continue to play your relay as long as you are 4-up or below. Is that a "basic auction"? Maybe the auction has gone 1♣ - (1♠) - 2♣* - (2♠). That seems basic to anyone playing standard, but certainly isn't basic playing other systems. I remember once playing where we were 4-down (the opponents had doubled twice) and partner had relayed his full shape out at the 2-level. I knew the first two steps were the weak and strong relay and that 3NT was to play, but it wasn't until later that we agreed the definition of extra intervening bids. The auction is so rare.

Fred, Although I understand this is an opinion, do you feel this way only at the highest levels of bridge or at all levels of bridge? As an extreme, imagine a beginner who forgets that 2♣ is Stayman. Does that ruin the experience for everyone? Having read quite a bit of Bobby Wolff's views on convention disruption, it struck me that the views seemed a lot more reasonable for the highest levels of the game rather than for the rank and file. Of course I don't enjoy it personally when my partner forgets part of our system (or when I do), but then I work to either simplify the system or work harder to remember it. We all have bidding misunderstandings. I recall a passage from Meckstroth's book that he and Rodwell have misunderstandings occasionally. Does it ruin it for everyone when that happens? So if the top level players are prone to make mistakes (albeit very seldom), what is the rank and file to do? Should everyone be forced to play the most basic system, just because someone might forget if you add any complications? As per the original post, many people have multiple bridge partners and the "forget" can come from either partner thinking of their agreement with another partner. I guess I'm asking if you can clarify your point. Do you intend it to apply to all levels of bridge? or just the highest levels? What do you think would be the appropriate way to solve this "problem" of people forgetting their system?

I would bid 1NT. As much as I love snapdragon doubles, I don't know why I want to show such a poor suit.

Ah. I answered the question in Kathyrn's first post rather than the poll question. As I play it, then a new suit that forced us to game would change the game try to slam try.

If double is support, then what is 2♠? I would play it as a game try in first instance (akin to 1♦ - 1♥; 2♥ - 2♠). I would also play it as natural (long suit). In that case, 3♣ would be a counter try of some sort.

Happy Birthday!

It is for this reason I would have bid 2NT/2♠.

Can't think of anything more clever than 1♠.

Welcome David. Glad to see the IBLF is still alive and is now going to be incorporated into BBF. Will also be glad to see that we have another expert on the laws around here. I hope being under the BBF umbrella will lead to even greater participation than there was under Bridgetalk. As a personal opinion, I think perhaps there should be a subforum called "Ask a question" or "Any other topic" for those who have queries that do not fit neatly into any of the other categories.

I would lead a trump.

I'm not sure if it will affect my decision, but what other choices did your partner have to super accept? What would 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, or 3♦ mean? Does 3♥ show anything in particular?

LHO opened 2♠, so we know he led from 6 spades. I think this makes the finesse slightly more odds on, but I don't say it with confidence.

Mine is better. :P

I kinda like taking the 2nd round of hearts, cashing 4 clubs and exiting a heart. Of course that's embarassing if hearts are 6-2. But should give all kinds of trouble for the opponents otherwise.

For what it's worth, here's the system I devised for relay after a 2♣ opening that shows 6+ clubs. 2♣ - ? 2♦ Any GF relay or invitational with exactly 4M 2♥/♠ 5+ Invitational exactly 2NT Can either be played as natural invitational OR as puppet to 3♣ either to play or slammish with clubs (shortness shown next) 3♣ Preemptive OR if playing the latter 2N treatment above it can be a puppet to 3♦ showing an invitational hand with 6M or choice of games 3♦+ However you like 2♣ - 2♦ - ? 2♥ 4♥ or 4♠, or 6322 any strength, then --2♠ GF relay, then ----2NT 4♥, then as 3♦+ below ----3♣ 6322 or 7222 ----3♦ 4♠, High short ----3♥ 4=1=1=7 ----3♠ 4=2=1=6 ----3NT 4=3=0=6 ----4♣+ 4=2=0=7 --2NT Invitational with 4♥ --3♣ Invitational with 4♠ 2♠ Min opening unbal, then as 3♣+ below if relayed with 2NT. 3♣ is to play showing an invite with a 4 card major. 2NT 4♦, side suit, max hand (so this is the only exception we make that we open 4♦, 6♣ mins with 1♦) 3♣ Max opening, High short 3♦ Max opening, Middle short 3♥ 3=3=1=6 3♠ (23)=1=7 3NT 3=3=0=7 So you can invite with 4M, 5M, or 6M and can relay out exact pattern.

I would bid 2♥ and not think anything of it. It's certainly possible 2♠ is a better spot, but 2♥ feels a lot safer.

Congratulations Hamdi!

Well said Fred.