Echognome

Although I would personally not prefer to play in a "No Psych" tournament, I don't have a problem if other people want to. Say that certain people really enjoy playing a game that is not bridge, but is very similar to bridge. If that game happens to catch on and become more popular than bridge, who are we to say that they shouldn't be allowed to play it? That's like saying that a Whist website should not allow bridge. Why not? What does it harm us if people are allowed to play Canasta or Gin or whatever? Are we offended because it is on a bridge website? I personally think it has to be tough to figure out what's a psych and what's a misbid. When does the partnership have an agreement (explicit or implicit) and when do they not? But it's not for me to judge whether it's workable and I certainly don't want to tell other people it's wrong to play a game they enjoy, even if it's a game I wouldn't enjoy.

Just curious why your preference is to NOT play Lebensohl. I can understand wanting to play Rubensohl or some other form of transfer Lebensohl, but don't understand why one would prefer to play no form of Lebensohl. I guess the only reason I can think of is tending to forget the convention or continuations.

If West knew what the agreement was written on the card, I would at least like to ask West why they asked. It at least strikes me as a possibility that West was asking so as to make East (a "weaker player") aware of the meaning and tune East into the auction. I ask as a question whether this is a separate violation than just potential UI violations from asking such a question (since conveying UI is not necessarily an infraction).

Just because 3♥ is available does not mean there is no use for a descriptive 4♥ call. In addition, using a frequency argument, the splinter call must be pretty rare. If opener has a splinter, where are the hearts? With the overcaller? with partner? with advancer?

Which can lead to a different source of problem...

I prefer the rule "In a competitive auction, we can only splinter in the opponents' suits." That would make it clear here that 4♥ is showing length.

Especially when a poster says "I agree with everything that XXX said above." If the person were ever referring to me, I'd be tempted to edit my post!

That was my presumption. But partner may still pass with a balanced hand no?

If partner's pass showed first round diamond control, then I'm even more apt to double than bid on to 7♣. It's harder if he is showing interest in moving on rather than doubling while holding x(x)(x).

Note that for some people, they agree that 5M/6m hands open 1M systemically. I'm sure we could spend hours arguing the merits of such an approach, but I don't see why we should do that here. I personally think it's just a different style and can work well. I do think Kevin is asking about what one opens in more standard methods (note the intentional use of standard rather than natural). If we can use non-standard methods, I might say "1♣ WTP?" or "Forcing Pass WTP?". To answer the original question, I think I would open 2♣, but I find it close.

While I agree with Mike's assertion that partner did not show or promise 5 spades, I think the odds are good that he has 5 spades, given that he did not pass 3♣X. I'm trying to simplify the auction here for partner and of course it means I'm taking the bull by the horns rather than consulting with partner. At the same time, I find it is very difficult for partner to know exactly what I'm asking when he has the weak hand. Of course, the better the partner you play with, the better he is at judging hands. I agree with Andy that one of the 4NT sequences should be natural and one of them should be keycard. I do think that 3NT here has a pretty wide range, although this hand is too strong for it. So to show the moose, you have to double first and then do something else. To me it is double and then NT that is natural, although I'm not sure whether this falls under double and 3NT or double and 4NT.

Didn't we already show a good hand with 5♣? In order to make grand, we need partner to cover 4 losers. Yes partners hand is wide ranging (since he has no room over 5♦), but that is quite a flier on someone who just raised. We really don't know if partner is bidding to make or sacrifice when he bid 6♣. I do grant that his pass over 6♦ says something. Are we morally certain that we are in a forcing pass situation? I think we are, but it doesn't fit nicely into one of my meta rules. Is a jump over a preempt equivalent say to a 2/1 auction or a 2♣ opening where we are forced to game or to double opponents? I'm going to take the money and run with double.

As a thought process, strong single suited hands can jump directly over a preempt and show a strong hand. (perhaps not this strong in terms of hcp, but may have considerable playing strength?) So double then cue then suit would (in my mind) show a strong flexible hand. That being said, what we really need are good spades. So why beat around the bush with 5♠, when we can ask with 4NT?

This hand has an obvious bid over 1♠. The question is what hands that pass 1♠ are you hoping to cater for?

Of course all of this is my personal opinion, but what I think some people are missing here is the actual playing environment. If we have a director available (such as in live bridge or an online tournament), then of course there is no need for such a disallowance of claims. A director is available if any problems arise. When playing with sensible opponents, then I would very much prefer having the ability to claim. This is to address Michael's concerns. In both of these situations, I grant wholeheartedly that claims speed up the game. Now, let's turn to the situation I'm describing. You are playing against random opponents in the main bridge club. It is not like a face-to-face club where you have a director available. In this specific situation, I recommend having the ability as table host to have no claims allowed. To answer David's question of how you would know, I think that is simply a software issue. Right now you have tables which allow kibitzers and those which do not. You have tables which allow kibitzer chat and those which do not. There are markings on the tables that let you know which type of table it is. Similarly, you can have tables that are MP's and tables that are IMP Pairs. It seems not to difficult to program even. Either the claim button is available and functions as is or it is not available and you cannot select it.

You may have varying mileage on the speediness of claims, but in an online environment, I don't see it speeding things up that much. Nevertheless, I would prefer to play a game where you can claim online. But then I usually play (or usually did play) only with people I consider "friends" online. In that game, I would definitely prefer having the ability to claim. But then I don't worry about stupid rejected claim issues. However, if you put me in a situation where I'm playing in the MBC against randoms, I'm equally happy to be in an environment where you can't claim. It avoids any issues associated with rejected claims and the time it takes to play out a hand online is minimal. Hence the suggestion to make it an option to the table host. It's a choice. You can like it and select it (or choose to play at such a table) or you can dislike it and live with the consequences of having rejected claims. I cannot see what is wrong with having an added choice. It's not like either method follows the laws of duplicate bridge. I think people misinterpreted what I was suggesting, so feel the need to respond. Do you personally not want people to have the choice to set up tables with no claims allowed or do you just not want that choice for yourself? Why would you object to others having that choice?

A simple solution is to just have an option to disallow any claims at all when playing online. Of course you will in theory slow up the game, but practically this may not be the case. I'm not saying it's perfect, but does avoid the issues associated with rejected claims and no available TD...

I know it's just nomenclature, but I always viewed denial cue-bidding and spiral scanning as different things. To me, spiral scanning is invoked when the trump suit has been agreed. Then the ask is forcing to the next level of trumps and you can ask specific questions, skipping suits as desired. Denial cue bidding is when trumps are not set, so once started, relay asker must always bid the next step in order to continue the ask. Any breaks are to set the contract.

What I mean is that for valuation if I have 4-card support for partner and I have two Aces, then I consider my hand to be a "Limit raise" despite not having 10-points. Of course you can give me an exception by making my hand 4=3=3=3 shape, but I'm speaking in general terms. The point I'm making is that I don't think that the simple raise of partner's suit was the right call with or without competition.

4-card support and 2 aces is always a Limit Raise for me.

Agree that I do not think pass is a LA after partner asks for keycard.

Agreement on the 3rd suit typically calls for the trump lead. Add to that our sitting over opener's heart suit and I think it's even clearer.

Been awhile since I played it, but in Echo club: Note all bids by responder are relays, except 3♠ (control ask) and 7♥ which places the contract. 1♦ - 1♥ (10-15, 4+♥, possible canape) 2♣ - 2♦ (4+♥, 4+♣) 2♥ - 2♠ (4♥, 5+♣) 3♦ - 3♠ (3=4=1=5) 4♣ - 4♦ (3 controls where A=2,K=1) 4♠ - 4NT (♣A or ♣K, no ♥A or ♥K) 5♠ - 5NT (♠A or K or Q, ♣Q, ♥Q, no 2nd ♠ honor) 6♣ - 7♥ (no J of clubs) Hand is known to be Axx Qxxx x KQxxx or Axx QJxx x KQxxx.

I personally prefer an artificial 2♣ where 2♣ shows clubs or balanced GF and you discuss the follow-ups, leaving 2♦ as 5+.

Great idea. I think when this is all ironed out, it will be a great way to address what has been an issue in many tournaments.