coyot

I know this can cause problems... One possible solution - don't play 2-suiters on reopen (no need to preempt) - so use cue-bid for onesuiters that are too good for takeout. Playing strong onesuiter doubles only requires partner to calculate with such a possibility. If you have 20HCP with 0634 shape, overcalling 1♥ may cost you a game, because the opps won't reopen the bidding. My first bridge book said that takeout is 12+ or 15+ with own suit or 18+ anything. I've changed the numbers, basically making it 12+ with support for unbid suits or 18+ anything (and 16+ balanced as I like Polish NT overcall), so my suit overcalls range from 8HCP to some 17HCP... And that is wide enough to put a pressure on partner as when to bid in order to not miss a good game. Deciding between double and overcall is influenced by opps as well. I can safely overcall 1♥ with the above hand if I know that the opps will 99% reopen with the spades that they seem to have (my p will not have a 6card unless with 4 hearts B)) - but with old ladies that frequently pass behind an overcall with 8-9 HCP, I simply cannot afford the risk of playing 1♥+3 :), so I MUST bid it as a strong one-suiter... and if partner jumps in spades, pity... I might then play 4♥ down a few if he has only spade values... but this is the mirror to partner jumping to 4♠ with the shown hand, risking to find 12-13 HCP with useless KJxx in hearts and going down as well. It is all a matter of dividing bidding space among various hand types. The problem with spade jump is obvious - the difference between a hand that would bid 3♠ and a hand that would bid 4♠ is next to nil. (To all those who advocate jump to 4♠ - tell me, what less would you want to have in the hand to jump to 3♠ only (and yet consider jump to 2♠ a bad bid). The problem with overcall vs. takeout is basically the same. You either overload the overcall OR overload the double. Overloading the double IMHO provides much more space later in the bidding to clarify. Especially in modern aggressive bidding, you need light overcall. You need preempts as much - and that means that hands that really want to make 4♥ with little outside help NEED to be bid somehow else - and the double is the only free spot.

Richard, the biggest problem here is the lack of jurisdiction! Is "conforms to SAYC" a jurisdiction? I don't think so. The only jurisdictions I know are WBF, EBU, EBL, ACBL etc, plus BBO. The common sense says that, given the hierarchy, we can either play by WBF rules or by ACBL rules (since BBO is located in US) or by BBO rules. There are absolutely no grounds for using ANY OTHER jurisdiction UNLESS the tournament organizers specifically say so. WBF approach is simple: alert anything that is not natural AND alert anything that carries extra agreement or partnership experience ACBL approach is pretty complicated to me, they seem to prefer a lot of artifical calls unalerted, but they sometimes fail to cover the consequences. (I.e. I checked that they say that most cue-bids are not alertable, including Michaels - but they do NOT require you to alert if 1♦-2♦ shows diamonds. (That is, they do not require it explicitly in this case... and since they make explicit requirements in most other cases, I assume that the alert is not required - and I would be very puzzled if asked to alert a NATURAL call :)). BBO approach is the kindest - alert anything if you have ANY doubt opps aren't sure about the meaning :). Anyway... I don't know where in my post you found the notion that bids that do not conform to SAYC are alertable. That might be your alerting standard, which I could consider flawed. I will certainly consider flawed ANY alerting standard that requires alerts of NATURAL bids. I don't think that every possible response to 2♠ cue is alertable - sorry, that is a total nonsense! Opener will have a ton of natural bids! Of course, I agree that the failure to support partner's spades is caused by East's a) speculation that since opps failed to alert cuebid, we will nail them with damage claim UNLESS we score very good on the board B) lack of interest in the bidding - any reasonable player will ask even if the bid is not alerted - to determine strength of the bid and possible support it promises would be a good idea in all cases. So I would award no adjusts and I would issue a warning for the non-alerted bid (unless it was ACBL event). But, then, the ACBL rules are strange... 1♠-2♥-p-2♠ must be alerted if it is transfer to clubs, not alerted when it shows a heart raise... but what if it shows neither, just generic gameforce/stopper ask? The rules are leaky - and imho the leaks are caused by the fact that ACBL rules try to get rid of "useless" alerts. I admit that 2♠ bid in this case will 99.9% be unnatural, but the rules should then clearly state explicitly, which of the possible meanings is to become the new natural non-alerted... I still think that WBF rules are the most sensible - because they are SIMPLE to understand. They only require a little education of players to explain what is implicit/explicit agreement worth explaining... and they have one big advantage - no nationality will benefit from them... I've been playing "all-alerting" bridge for 5 years and my experience is really positive. Having opponents that routinely explain their agreements and inferences is a real pleasure. Sitting at the table with such a pair, you have the feeling that all parties are interested in having the fairest possible competition. When you compare such an experience with a pair that tries to hide behind the rules and trick you, the difference is enormous...

That's the point I am trying to make - don't jump to 4♠ with the above hand - 3 will be enough... What I want in competitive bidding: 1) Jumps to any level to be generally preempts (definitely not with a 20HCP hand with a void). Case study: Imagine a hand with which you want to preempt opps with 4♥ against a passed partner and LHO bidding 1♦. Now, what is your partner supposed to do with two side aces? Bid a slam that does not make because opps have two aces as well? Don't think so. Yet, with a 20HCP hand like the below, you might easily miss a slam if you bid 4♥ to play. 2) Simple overcalls showing hands that are not good enough for game on their own. Now, putting these two points together, there is no room for the hand in question in these two bids. That leaves cue-bid (which I prefer for 2suiters) and double. I have absolutely no problem showing a hand that is 1 trick short of a game via takeout double. And I think that it is wholly OK to sacrifice one of FOUR possible strong bids with spades to prevent distasters like this. Don't you think that between 2♠, 3♠ and cue-bid, there is enough room to describe all spade hands that were not good enough to open 1♠ or not suitable for preempt? Don't tell me there are SO many hand types (that cannot be opened) that you need FOUR different strong bids for them. Yes, I am willing to take the risk that I jump to 3♠ with the above hand and my partner with unattractive values passes. So, we will miss a 9card fit game on 19-21 HCP, that is not the end of the world. And it is a fair price for bidding a few good slams correctly.

Seems to me that there was no endplay to speak of - there are 4 top tricks unless the player on the lead can produce a diamond (in that case you don't get the black winners). So, the opps whining was out of place as there was no possible "help" from the dummy that could help you make more tricks.... On the other way, opps were quite rightful to call the TD, because a talking dummy is a bad thing. There might be causes where such a "wdp" may really give some UI that will help the declarer, usually in cases where he still has some doubts and might choose a wrong line of play...

The best part about calling the director is that you are fully entitled to do it EVERY time the opps had a significant hesitation in bidding :-) and you can do it while smiling politely. And, since the client hesitates invariably, you'll get the adjusted score most of the time. BTW, could some f2f TD clarify on the same system? I've heard the requirement so often that I consider it true that both partners must play the some system...

100% agree. If you're not willing to overcall on a spade 4-card, you don't deserve to get into the bidding. And, the golden rule: NEVER make a takeout double if there is only one suit remaining (unless you have conventional agreements). Any sane person, seeing the above bidding, will follow this line of reasoning: He did not overcall in spades. He does not want to reopen in spades when opps bid three other suits, he does not want to let ME reopen with spades, should 2♣ be passed to me... therefore he has clubs and the double is for business - they surely have a misfit and not too many points.

I think it is quite reasonable to expect people to follow rules or carry the punishment if they don't :-) Most of the non-alerting business comes from the "I am the centre of universe" mentality. Many Polish players have never heard about any other system than WJ and their 1♣ opening seems obvious to them. Many American players have never met anyone who does NOT play transfers after their (weak) NT opening. There are subtler differences. For example, Stayman: - some play that it guarantees major 4card - some play that it guarantees major 4card or 3card in both majors if weak... - some play that is is just asking partner about majors and does not guarantee anything. An unalerted Stayman may cause you to misdefend easily if the responder becomes declarer. Somebody bid unalerted stayman with 1-2-4-6 shape... Now, should I spend eternity investigating what does the bid really mean or should I be notified by opps that it has a non-standard meaning? (For example, alerting rules in CZ say that Stayman does not have to be alerted when it guarantees 4card major). As for the various other bids: Blackwood, rkcb, responses: You should know that bids above 3NT are not alerted with the exception of conventional openings, no matter what they promise. Transfers to major: I will happily argue that you deserve no adjust when I bid a 2♦ stopper after 1NT opening and you miss your heart partscore :). And, no matter where we play, even if the rules say that transfers are not alerted, I will be right (unless the rules explicitly say that NON-transfers have to be alerted - and I am sure that the day to alert natural bids will never come). Various doubles: As far as I know, all non-penalty doubles should be alerted, especially in self-alerting environment (maybe with the expection of first bid by unpassed hand). I know that in f2f bridge, this policy has been changed and no doubles are alerted, but this has been done to prevent passing of UI (when partner alerts your penalty double or vice versa) - the alerts have not been cancelled because the officials would think the opps don't need the information. Simply put, if we want to make this game enjoyable and fair, there must be a UNIFIED alerting policy that will be enforced as strictly as possible. Sure, in the first months a lot of people will find it annoying, having suddenly to alert things they consider natural, but in the long term, everyone will be better off. Until such a policy is accepted, there will always be ill feelings about damages and adjusts.

Bruce, I think you're not right! In fact, I know you're wrong on this. The alerting rules require alerting ALL artificial bids AND all bids that carry specific partnership agreement (explicit or implicit) or partnership experience. But, the AND here comes in the adding sense, not in the computer-logic sense... In computer logic it should say OR... That is, alert bit is positive if either condition is fulfilled. In self-alerting environment, when you're bidding opps suit, you HAVE to alert it if it is conventional, even though the further bidding analysis shows that partner had no idea what this bid promises or not. My favourite example would be 1♣-x-1♠-2♠. What would you expect this bid to mean? It obviously is a cue-bid, isn't it? No need to alert it if you don't have an agreement... BUT, in this particular situation, I have played it as natural - with several partners WITHOUT prior agreement - and they all got the message that I had good spades. Given this possibility, and given the suit quality that is used for those 2suit overcalls these days, it might be well possible that 2♠ COULD be natural by partnership agreement, or even without it. It happened to me a quite a lot of times that opps overcalled (or showed) a suit in which I held something like AKJ9xx. Now, would you expect a natural bid to be alerted? :))) Or would you automatically assume that it was a cue-bid and as such did not require an alert? Would you claim damages later when you discovered the natural spade holding behind your partner?

Excuse me, but I am lost. One thing is that you don't open that hand, fair enough, but implying that the hand is not close to having opening values opposite a take-out double of diamonds is going a bit far. 3♠ would be a serious underbid in my opinion. Roland I would open that hand, of course :) But... a takeout double over diamonds promises support for majors, statistically 3 spades and 4-5 hearts... so the void is placed badly... To the point... p-1♦-x-p-? There are several bids available for good hands with spades: 2♠,3♠,4♠,2♦. Now, if this 7HCP hand with a badly placed void is worth game-jump, how would a 3♠ hand look like, if 2♠ promises (8)9+HCP?... Also, imagine QJxxxx-Kx-Ax-xxx (and pretend that this hand does not qualify for any system opening). This hand is no doubt worth 4♠ against takeout double - and most likely is a trick stronger than the hand in question. I don't really mind the intent of playing spade game against a regular takeout double, but the following points speak in favor of 3♠: 1) Partner will hardly pass anyway, unless his hand is ugly and minimal... such a 3♠ jump basically says that the hand is too good to jump to 2! 2) We're getting some protection and/or saving bidding space here in the case that partner has strong notrump or own-suit double. Give partner Kx-AQx-Kx-AKQxxx and 6 clubs is laydown... but can he bid it after your jump to 4♠? What if you're void in clubs, not hearts? If you jump to 3♠, he will bid 4♣ and you have plenty of room to investigate the slam...

I'll try to defend a little more: A) (1♦)-4♥ might not show weak hand, just too ugly? Well, I don't want to give my partner guesses. While it has some merits to play bids with intent to preempt OR make (and hiding the true intent from opps), this is good when your partner does not NEED to know. If they bid 5♦ or 4♠, should he bid 5♥ or pass? Will you miss a slam if he passes and you double with the ugly hand? I think that it is just a matter of agreement how to show a hand that would want to play 4♥. One of them is takeout double and then jump... ;) The jump to 3-4♠. I see no reason to jump to 4♠ when I can jump to 3♠, telling partner that I have a good onesuiter, too good to jump to 2♠. And I don't want to jump to game with 6suiter and 7 HCP, when my void happens to be in a suit where partner most certainly has some values. In other words: Paint me some hands that are not good enough to jump to game and too good to jump to 2♠. I think there is plenty of room to differentiate and 4♠ is an overbid in this sense. What will you do with a better hand, one of almost opening values? (If your system does not handle it for some reason, that is...)

If he sees 10xx in dummy, he will hardly make a mistake. I mean, how likely it is that the declarer has 11 tricks in hand and is trying to steal one with AKJ in spades, running the jack?

1) Takeout double is OK. This hand is too great to bid as heart overcall. 2) Jumping to 4♥ would not be OK as it would strongly suggest WEAK hand. You'll never reach a slam here... (Give partner J of hearts and here you go... 3) jumping to 4♠ against a simple takeout is a gross overbid. - if partner has the reasonable minimum, you'll make 4♠ ONLY if he has working values, i.e. not something like KJxx in hearts - if partner has a strong takeout in own suit (this case), you've blocked him and wasted room. - passing 5♥ is a must. Strong one-suiters are bid this way and they're not meant to be escaped from :-) Ben: Would you bid a takeout double over 1♦ with: Kxx-KJxx-Kxx-Axx? xxx-KQJx-Kx-KJxx? I can construct quite a lot of hands that qualify for takeout even against a passed hand where 4♠ does not make - and I think that, especially given the fact that the responder had 3 jump bids available, 4♠ was simply too much. jump to 2♠ is 8+ HCP, (4)5card.... Jump to 3♠ promises longer spades... what other values does the hand have apart from the (most likely BAD) asset of heart void?

You can't have a system that fits all cards - and it is better to consult partner when you know what to do than not to consult him when you don't. So, yes, with this hand, I would probably bid the same, knowing that I will correct hearts to spades. But, giving it deeper thought, I would most likely jump to 4♠ after partner's 2♦ response. Why? I need quite a lot of keycards to make 6♠ - and I'm not really happy with a hand that has singletons in BOTH partner's suits. I am sure that if he sees top tricks and a spade honor, he will say something. Or I could try the suggested variant with repeated spades (and then cuebidding a minor over 3NT) - that does not promise heart support, whereas a minor oevr 3♥ does.

Hi, what's your point? My claim was, that 3S can be passed and I doubt that opener really wants to only play 3S, after he heard a forcing 2S bid. With kind regards Marlowe Oh, sorry, I misread your post... and I thought you were responding to the latest before it... never mind...

Gerben, think about it before you claim it is nonsense. If you have a good heart raise hand, why not show your support first and then bid 4N? You may thinnk with the hand I gave you can alwasy start with 1S. Is it? Suppose the auction goes: 1H-1S 2D-3C 3H-3S 3N-??? What do you do now? If you bid 4N is it RKC, quantitative inv.? If you bid 4C/4D/4H, is it cue? After the 3♣ and 3♥ bid, 3♠ says: Partner, I have pretty good spades, good enough to make them trumps. If you bid 4 in a minor after 3♥ instead, it is a slam try in hearts, wtp?

If you think of it, the only EXTRA asset for defeating 5C was the Qxx of trumps: doubling gave this info away and an extra chance to opps to make. By doubling, we are basically giving away our extra asset. If you play forcing pass and opps know it, doubling is mandatory and therefore gives ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION about ANY honors ;),

Unless you have any specific agreement, takeout double into ONE suit is a nonsense ;). I would understand it as penalty/lead director on clubs. The most likely hand would be 4 spades, 4+clubs and heart shortage (which would explain lack of takeout double over 1♦.). I mean, where is the sense of takeout into one suit? If partner does not have this suit, what is he supposed to do? I either bid 2♠ (if I feel that it is necessary to re-open in this position, which I don't think is the case anyway) or I pass. Opps can still have a game of 3NT with neither side having a good suit - and in that case, a double of 2♣ will be folllowed by redouble and we'll start running then. My diamond values are pretty bad, anyway... And, I know that if the bidding after my pass continues with any weak bid (2♦,2♥), my partner WILL bid 2♠ on a 4card IF he has any working values ;). And he would surely bid 2♠ over 2♥ with the hand in question.

Ehm, am I missing something? Since WHEN does answer to transfer PROMISE an Ace? :)) There are a few possible treatments for answers to 2♠ that I am aware of: 1) 2NT denies 3 clubs 2) 2NT promises clubs shorter than diamonds 3) 3♣ promises 4 clubs Only against the last variant I would bid game. If partner has 3 clubs, the odds that opponents will be able to hold their 3rd ace for 2 rounds are pretty good even if they don't have 4 tricks in their side suit. Whereagles: so you presume that the field bids a game on this? A game on 22-24 HCP (of which 2 might not be working), relying on one single card in partner's hand (AND three tricks on the side!)? At IMPs, maybe. At matchpoints, unless the field is known to be aggressive, I either pass or bid 3♣ if the system shows this hand. No need to "go with the field" (or against it :)) if you can bid this type of hand easily...

Agree with slam against 3NT. 2♠-2NT is something like 15-18... 19-21 would be via double and 22-25 would be directly....

Speak for yourself :) I still like to play inverted minors ON after interference (and know a lot of other ppl who do so) and it hardly causes problems.) What could happen? We might end up in playing 3♣ on 7card (if partner has the worst possible shape without diamond stopper). But more likely we will end up in 2NT or in clubs on a fit. I certainly don't want to pass with this hand (what would I do when partner reopens with double? Will he ever trust me to have so many points?) and there are not other good bids unless double is reserved for this type hand exactly (denying majors) - and I prefer to use double to promise both majors and 1M to deny the other - these hands happen more often than a hand with exactly this lousy shape...

7NTxx and a runner could be IMHO treated as (don't know the official term in English) "board that could not be played properly" (as in cases where i.e. a player mistakenly takes opps' cards from the board instead of his own and sees them.). Non-offending pair deserves ave+, offending pair deserves ave- (mistake) or some serious prodecural penalty (intent). A case of misunderstood bidding - passed takeout double, unfortunately, cannot be treated this way - so the sub WILL indeed have to live with a bad result. So, I would adjust the board to actual result (reasonably played and reasonably defended), blacklist the runner and thank the sub for the patience and willingness to endure the rest of tourney despite a head start like that.

5) Make decisions under strict time constraints (Minutes) 6) Communicate with people not speaking your language. 7) Have knowledge of multiple different bidding systems. 8) Find suitable subs for people who have fallen off their chair or walked out of the building all together. :) 5) The time pressure is the biggest cause of problems: When a TD does not KNOW how to handle a problem, he will simply follow the least-resistance rule, often equaling to running away :) If the TD knows how to handle a problem, he can either do it immediately or gather necessary evidence and tell the players (just as real life TD does) that he will have a look at it later. After the tourney he will look at the movie, compare that with evidence and testimony from players and make a decision. It might not be 100% perfect, but will usually be much better than a quick guess at the table under time pressure. (Note that here it would be VERY welcome to allow a TD to "delay" the computation of results when he knows he is going to do some adjusting...) 6) This is the problem of entrants. My tourney description ALWAYS says that the TD speaks English and Czech. Next time, I will update the description to emphasize that inability to communicate with the TD will cause all problematic cases and adjusts decided against the side that does not talk. (I.e. if you can't explain why you want an adjust, you won't get it. If opps want an adjust and you cannot clarify your actions, they will get the adjust.) 7) Not necessary, although helpful. Full disclosure applies to explanations of your bids and your system to TD as well as to opps. You might rely on the fact that the TD does not know your system and try to trick him, but if he happens to know the system, he will smoke your ass to hell. 8) Any two-fingered trained animal can do this - you only need a right click and a left click (and the little bit of knowledge about where to click :)) But nevertheless, a good idea that this got number 8, because anyone who thinks that this is the only responsibility of a TD will perhaps realize that there are some more, although not necessarily seven :)

Marlowe, the very definition of "Serious 3NT" is FORCING :-) It deprives the partnership of playing 3NT with major fit for the price of showing slam interest cheaply...

1) Opening 2♥ is fine. As far as I know, the two-suiter openers are defined as 2♥ hearts with any, 2♠ spades with minor. 2) 3♠ is perfectly OK. Partner most likely has 3+ spades and 1-2 hearts. (I don't think he would bid 2♠ with a doubleton - but depends on your agreements). Anyway it looks like you could ruff a heart or two in his hand - and you have nice values. Swap the major honors and the hand becomes much worse... 3) EW bidding is crazy. With such a long heart suit, the only sensible bid is pass and then pass again after partner reopens with double. If opps run into a suit that EW cannot double for penalties, it is now time to start looking for our own suit - and partner WILL be given the knowledge that you are strong AND heart-based. The second hand: Which is more likely to cause problems? a) bidding 11 HCP of which 6 is likely not working as a regular opener (11-20) :) bidding the same HCP of which 5 is working as twosuiter (6-11). I would think that a) is the answer. See that you ended in a game contract that needs lousy defense to make. Against the two-suiter, you might arrive in the same contract, but chances are that you will stop lower because your partner will see that the heart ruffs are done with high trumps.

I bid 3♣ showing exactly this type of hand - 6card with 2 of 3 tophonors and nothing like an entry on the side. Bidding is at invitational with clubs seems to have little informational value. I mean, if I want partner to accept with a club honor and pass without it, I can as well play it as above - and if I mean it as general invitation, I can invite via 2NT (would not do with this kind of hand). This agreement of "3nt-stealing" jumps requires you to move slam-tries somewhere else, though - but I have no problem reaching slams after transfers to majors or Minor Suit Stayman. So, given your choice, I pass unless I am sure that invit with clubs will be accepted only with a club honor.