luis

Playing on spades should be universal. Run the sQ....

2♣ for me too.

1) Pass a reopening dbl is mandatory at pairs. At MPs if the final contract is 1♠ it is going to be a tragedy for some side so pd will always reopen, if he has a red suit monster he won't double then we'll probably end up in some number of NTs. 2) 4♥ not many options, dbl is bad because we'll play 4♠ in a 4-3 fit 4♥ in a 5-2 fit can be better.

Maybe we should redefine the Water Cooler as a place for BBO players to know each other better, not as a discussion forum about anything. Luis

3♥ I guess since nor you or your pd have 4 diamonds. I think I wouldn't redouble, I prefer to be 4432 with 4 cards in 2 side suits to redouble, that makes finding a penalty more likely. Luis

Again wrong, He is advertising the method as "obstructive" then distinguishin hand types is irrelevant, what you want is to be able to enter as many auctions as you can as safe as you can. That is the real purpose of an obstructive method, to enter many auctions and bid quickly to a relative safe level as high as you can. In terms of obstructiveness I think DONT is better than the method suggested, you can bid with any 4-4 hand so you will be bidding more. Luis

Ok we agree about -500 for EW, the other members of the AC did not :-) We disagree about NS, while reaching 4♠ might be impossible and the NS players recognized this they were damaged and we'll never know if they could reach 4♠ or not, since reaching 4♠ was probable I decided that constituted damage, since reaching 4♠ while probable is unlikely I decided you can't score +650 for NS and opted for AVE+ instead since you can't get AVE- when your chance for a top was eliminated by an infraction. Am I wrong saying that as long as there is damage NS can't score 40% ?

Let me disagree with you for once too Arend :-) You say the ability to distinguish balanced and unbalanced is a good thing. I think that an obstructive system with the ability to make the distinction is a contradiction, it can be very nice in a constructive scheme but if you plan to be obstructive you will only help the opponents. Declarer will know the whole hand when he plays it, making the treatment horrible. Luis

One problem is that 500 for NS will be a top and I don't think they can benefit with a top just because of EW irregularities. So -500 for EW as the worst likely scenario for blatant use of UI was my idea, and AVE+ for NS because it is very unclear what might happen but in my view it is 100% clear they were damaged when the opponents miss alerted a natural 2♦ as majors and NS can make 4♠, if they can reach it or not is beyond the scope of the discussion I think there is damage.

A question: what is East allowed to know about this explanation? Is East supposed to believe it's a double of a natural 2D bid? That doesn't really work, but knowing that the opps have doubled your natural 2D bid as "penalty for one or both majors" is certainly odd. Andy Well Andy this is one of the things that made the ruling complicated. 2♦ was alerted to south as "majors" so south was now playing 2♥ and 2♠ as cuebids showing clubs and diamonds respectively, 3♣ and 3♦ as competitive and dbl to show a penalty double in one major or both. It depends on what side of the screen South is! If he is a screenmate of East 2♦ will be explained as "natural" and south will probably bid a nonforcing 2♠ bid. On the other side of the screen West will explain 2♦ as majors and north will explain 2♠ as "forcing with diamonds", West may or may not compete to 3♥ and north will make some kind of move everything will be chaotic then. If south is a screenmate of west when 2♦ cames on the tray it will be alerted as "majors" and south will dbl, West will bid 2♥ and then North will alert the double to East as "penalty double with diamonds". Again everything will become chaotic. East is thinking they play Capp only against strong NT, West thinks they play Capp against all sorts of NT. This is why I proposed a procedural panelty, at a good level a pair can't have this kind of undertainty about what they play, they may have doubts in some sequences or uindiscussed parts but they should know what they play against strong and weak nts and properly disclose. I asked NS about whether they could reach 4♠ or not and why and they were kind to tell "probably not" but it is very confusing, because if south can bid a non forcing 2♠ over a natural 2♦ North will probably raise with his maximum and support, that will be passed by South as he confesed. But if West bids 3♦ now north has a double as a "sound raise to 3♠" with 3♠ being just competitive, South said taht vulnerable he would then consider a 4♠ bid but can't tell for sure if he will bid it or not now that he knows the hand. It was very complicated, and I'm enjoying the very informative opinions posted here.

The Watchovsky brothers Q Tarantino James Cameron Luis

Sorry if it is not the kind of answer you like but the structure is nothing special, dont, suction, lionel, there are a lot of similar ideas, and this has nothing new or innovative. Good luck anyway of course. Luis

I was in the AC and this happened: [hv=d=n&v=b&n=sjxxhaxxdxxcakqxx&w=sxxxht9xxdqjxxcxx&e=sqxhkqxdakxxxcxxx&s=saktxxhjxxdxxcjxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] No screens, MPs North opened 1NT (12-14) East Bid 2♦ alerted by west as "Both majors" (CC says Capp over NT) South bid Dbl alerted by North as "penalty double of one or both majors" (prepared defense against Capp) West bid 2♥ (no alert by East) North passed East now bid 3♦ alerted by west as "Must have diamonds, not majors" TD was called facts were examined South bid 3♠ All pass Making 5 for about 40% of the MPs for NS and 60% for EW TD ruled East used UI when he bid 3♦ but that the use of UI did not damage NS. Result stands. Ruling appealed by NS claiming damage. Ac ruled: Result stands for NS, 30% for EW for using UI. Dissenting opinion (me): While it is almost clear that NS won't reach 4♠ after north opened a 12-14 NT the fact that the opponents bid 2♦ as majors certainly makes reaching 4♠ 100% impossible for NS. Without using UI East might raise 2♥ to 3♥ if pd has a heart suit,it is unclear if NS will double this. I believe NS can not get 40% from a deal where a case of MI and UI usage occurred so my proposed ruling was: Average+ for NS -500 for EW in 3♥x (about 10%) - Procedural penalty to EW of 1% of their session scoring for not knowing what they play over a weak NT. (It was a national tournament) What do you think?

I bid 5♥ bet they can't double it. Luis

Yes. I think that's the only way to bid it. That is my default mode, I only switch to "Rock" when I'm over 60% at MPs or 30imps ahead in team events. I have the rule of never going for the "fatality" hit :-) It usually backfires and a big win becomes a close match or session.

4♠ I don't think this is as trivial as the answers suggest. Let's see it without the UI problem, the interesting thing is that 4d is always revealing because when a player with a long suit bypasses 3NT facing an unpassed hand it is because he is really broken with many diamonds and shape. If your pd has something like Qxxx xxx Axx xxx Is he supossed to bid something over 4♦ ? I think you have a chance in 4♠ every time your pd has 4 cards in the suit. What would have happened if LHO was the dealer and he opened 4♦ pass pass to you? What do you reopen ? Double? 5♣ ? That would be hell of a problem, you would probably double planning to correct 4♥ to 4♠ showing black suits, would you? Now that you have already opened 1♣ I think it is logical to expect pd has an average 7HCP hand, so without any hesitation I bid here 4♠ and take my chances. With the hesitation I think that seeing other posters comments pass is a LA so I pass and then beat pd up. :-) Luis

Heart Jack to retain trump control in case I have to switch to something else. The problem of the heart ace is that declarer might just claim after solving the trump problems I have nothing in clubs so it looks dangerous. With Kxx in clubs for example I would lead the heart ace and another. If pd has Txx of hearts after the lead of the jack we still might have our 2 trump tricks when declarer has KQxxx. Luis

Takeout of course. The difference between the double and 3♥ is that a double suggests the hand has improved with the 2♠ bid. A penalty double doesn't make sense after 1♦ - 1♥ when the opponents bid 2♠ voluntarily you can't have a penalty double of 2♠. At Matchpoints an interesting way to see it is to double with 2 or 3 spades and to bid 3♥ when you have 1, then opener can consider if he wants to pass 2♠x or play 3♥ instead.

I admit that going beyond 3NT is not completely clear but with the black suit tenaces over opener I think I would never bid 3NT at the table so 4NT RKCB is just a way to go. When pd shows 2 I would just probably bid 6♦ offering a choice of slams planning to correct 6♥ to 6NT and hope for the best. Maybe this is more a "feeling" problem than a rational one. Luis

What is 4N, Luis? Natural? If so, it seems a bit of an overbid, given that partner will not have a hand on which he expected to make game opposite a 1=4=4=4 12 or 13 count (he should assume that you hold that kind of hand for you double and bid accordingly: 3♥ is not remotely forcing) If it is keycard, your ♥ suit may prove a trifle inadequate to an 11 or 12 trick cpntract... after all, he would, should jump with xx K10xxx AQxx xx.. surely noone bids 2♥ with that? But, more to the point: do you trust partner or not? If 3N describes your hand, as most say it does, why are you taking charge rather than trusting partner? 4NT is RKCB in hearts of course. I don't think 3NT shows this hand. Is pd expected to bid on over 3NT? I don't think so, he already said what he has with 3♥. So 3NT is a hand that wants to play 3NT and I think it's an undervaluation of this hand. Luis

What kind of tea do you like Richard? :-)

1NT only way to avoid being stolen. Luis

I'm not going to bid 3NT!! If I need a black suit finesse it will be on, so I only need some moderate values for a slam and pd just jumped to 3h! I'm going to try 4NT over 3♥.

Well, if it's 6 cards and 12-15 hcp, the only reason I see you doing it with 10 hcp is if you count aces as 5 points :ph34r: 2♥ and 3♥ are two different bids aren't they? Well, ok. Nevermind. I didn't want to sound rude with my answer but 1♠ - p - p - 2♥ and 1♠ - p - p - 3♥ Are different things to me. The first is just a balancing overcall The second shows about 12-15 and 6 cards in hearts. Hope it is clear now :-) Luis

Well, if it's 6 cards and 12-15 hcp, the only reason I see you doing it with 10 hcp is if you count aces as 5 points :rolleyes: 2♥ and 3♥ are two different bids aren't they?