Ant590

Interesting thread given I am about to play in a national event this weekend with a weak NT and no transfers. On my suggestion that we perhaps should alert them as they won't be expected by the opponents (transfers are announced in the EBU, but it's common for people to forget to), my partner baulked --- and to be honest if I alerted them, the opps would probably assume that I didn't know that I should announce. Seems playing natural 2M bids may be a bit of a minefield.

What's SEoWoGA? Sounds like Kriss Akabusi's catchphrase from record-breakers.

P; 3♣ for me

Thanks for all the replies. This was indeed the ruling given by the TD yesterday. I was a little worried that my 5♠ bid (I was East) was too rich for "insurance" on 5♥ making, and on reflection I don't know if subconsciously I was also hedging on South not having his bid --- this did certainly NOT go through my head at the time. But it does raise a question for me, however. Can such 'automatic' rulings always be given, regardless of the actions of EW? I.e. if we want to take the chance that the 2♣ is illegal can we just go crazy in the auction, knowing that we'll get +4IMPs if it is indeed light?

Further to the question about 'partnership agreements' or not: The pair in question have no explicit agreement as to what constitutes a strong 2 opening, but after asking around the director finds that the pair have opened similar hands 2♣ in the past and have been (verbally) reprimanded for doing so. Apologies for not including this initially, but I felt it might bias my write-up.

This probably happens once every two sessions in my local club. IMO the likelyhood is directly proportional to the amont of debris on the table --- not uncommon to find cups of tea, system notes, convention cards, scorecards on the tables :S Small side-tables are certainly the way forward.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqt73hq542d974cq4&w=sj952ht6dt85cat63&e=sak864hdkq32ckj92&s=shakj9873daj6c875]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] Bidding at table (1): S [space] [space]W [space] [space]N [space] [space]E 2[cl]* [space]P [space] [space]2[di]** 2[sp] 3[he] [space] 3[sp] [space] 4[he] [space] 4[sp] P [space] [space]P [space] [space]5[he] [space] 5[sp] P [space] [space]P [space] [space]DBL [space]AP * Strong two in any suit ** Relay Result: -3 for NS+500 Score at table (2): 4S-1 NS+50 Score at table (3): 4S*-1 NS+100 Score at table (4): Unknown After the hand is played, EW call you over and ask for you to judge if South was permitted to open a strong 2 in hearts, and if not to have a look at the hand generally. They return to speak to you after they have scored with two table (it's cross-IMPs), having lost 10 and 12 IMPs on the board so far. Do you adjust? If so, to what score? Is 5♠ reckless? Relevant EBU law: 10 B 4 Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of: a. subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high- card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear-cut tricks, or b. any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs Examples: ♠ A K Q J x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks. ♠ A K Q x x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x does not. Clear-cut tricks are clarified as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand and the second best suit break. Further examples: AKQxxxxx (7 CCT), KQJxxxx (5), AQJ98xx (5), KQJTx (3), KQJTxxx (6), AKT9xxxxx (8), KJTxxx (2) [examples 2, 5 and 7 have been corrected]

I'm not sure of the legalitites of the comment, or the timing of the comment, but I'm pretty sure that it is not UI for righty if your partner balanced. I can see arguments for the comment suggesting a pass, double or push.

I strongly agree.

if 2♣ was forcing to game, I can't see a problem with 2♠ here. If it isn't I think I just put 3NT on the table.

With one partner I play that if we convert a t/o double, or make a penalty double, passes are forcing unless (1) we bid, or (2) they jump

At one point I swear this thread was growing faster than I could read it

I doubt this will make the top 10 (of 2008, let alone 2000s), but there is only one thread I bookmarked in over four years of being on the forum: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=26225

Just noticed this post from December. "advancer" is the partner of overcaller. "responder" is the partner of the opener

Nigel, announcements increase UI, because they are, by definition UI. They mean that partner knows if you are on the same page or not, and if you are not, what he believes the bid to mean. Therefore only your "never ask" option reduces UI.

Really? Doesn't knowledge that he has (1) at least two clubs, (2), 15-17HCP and (3) the possibility that he could have more than one honor, each increase this chance significantly?

No way, unless I'm playing with GIB. I'd show it as the bottom of the next balanced range (17-19?). If partner has enough to GF opposite an average 17-count, he's likely to bring enough to the party to make it worth my while not opening 1NT imho.

Deleted -- double post

If you play (i) 1NT - 3♣ as invitational and (ii) 1NT - Stayman - 3♣ as invitational also The only way you can game force is to bid (1) Stayman then 3NT (2) 3NT directly (but you miss out on showing the minor) (3) 4C You can see why most players choose to make at least one of i,ii game forcing!

Oh, it was IMPs and nil-all. I'm glad to see the action at our table was ok. Partner did indeed have a balanced 14 count.

No bid justifies an opponent walking out, but 3NT is a bit WOW. Surely it can never win in the long-run.

So, after a quick check that my agreements for the auction: (1♥) -- pass -- (pass) -- ? weren't different from "standard" (see this thread), you hold the following hand in this position: ♠ KJTxxxx ♥ x ♦ Qxx ♣ xx What do you call? HIDDEN:

In BBO you use !C=♣ !D=♦ !H=♥ !S=♠ if you use the [] notation, nothing will happen.

(1♥) - pass - (pass) - ? What is "standard" for 2♥ 3♥ 2♠ 3♠ here?

I guess it depends on what you deem a "correct ruling" I think it is valid to appeal an action that you would have made, but are not sure if another action was an LA. For instance say EW would also have game-forced with the south hand. Can they be sure that a poll of NS's peers would not see pass as a LA? What if they are far better or worse than their opponents and so out-of-touch with NS's peers? On these cases I would appeal, but expect to lose and get my money back unless my bridge judgement is lacking. I think appealing on these grounds has merit, and doesn't make one an unethical XXX. For one thing, the same argument you made could be made to calling the director in the first place.