TylerE

Looks like a pretty textbook 2NT here, with standard agreements. Heart stop, invitational to 3N.

I've got an even better idea, let's just all agree to pass out every board. Then no one will have to face any methods they'd rather not, and they won't have to tire their precious minds with any of that annoying card play either.

Well, SOMEONE has certainly had their mind poisoned.

Since you seem to find any sort of bidding theory odious, I suggest you start campaigning for a revival of whist.

Making the same completely dumb arguments over and over again is the mark of insanity, not being right.

On hands like this with 3-4 defensive quick tricks, I'm a big fan of sitting back and seeing if they'll bid 3N.

For the sake of your development, that is the absolute best thing you could do. There is nothing worse than playing only against other novices, it will defiantly ingrain all kinds of bad habits. Will you lost a lot at first? Sure, but give it some time...

Because he can decide when he's "shocked".

Frankly, I wouldn't trust that list at all. At the very least, DreamHost and GoDaddy are infact known to grossly oversell capacity, and, more or less, totally suck.

North bid fine. South...eh, 3♦ should be asking, but given that, south can almost keycard over 3♠.

Have you considered upgrading to a proper web browser?

Yes, to clarify futhur, online ACBL Speedball.

The hand did in fact take place online. I didn't mention that in the OP because I didn't think it relevent to the facts. The research into the player's previous instances was done after the fact. I was East, as I'm sure has probably been guessed. What we really rubbed me the wrong way about this hand is that the TD stated to me after ruling results stands "He said that was a weak hand". I really could care less wrt to the actual score on the hand, but I think there is no room in santioned play for that sort of rediculous definition warping to go on is just wrong. The ACBL clearly states that Intermediate 2 level bids are alertable, and this player seems to make "weak 2" bids on 12+ with some frequency, perhaps a few times a month. How is that not improper disclosure? </endrant>

♠AK7532 ♥T9 ♦A ♣Q753 None Vuln, MP South deals and opens 2♠, no alert. Auction proceeds: 2♠ - p - p - 5♦ 5♠ - X - AP Result: 5♠=, +650 East calls the TD after the hand and complains about the 2♠ bid, stating that there was no alert, and CC is marked as weak, and that if he'd known it could be an intermediate hand, he would pass out 2♠. (E has a 9 count with 7 not-very good diamonds and a spade void). What's your ruling? Does it change if there is a history found of the player opening "weak" 2's on holdings like AK AJ, etc, several times over a year?

One thing to keep in mind, from historical context, is that the classic italian systems were really only considered so good because everything else out there was so bloody awful.

I think you'd lose way too much precision in constructive bidding. You might get me to consider it in 3rd NV, but not anywhere else.

So you'd rather they stay, cuss you out, refuse to play a card, etc?

90% East. 4♥ was bad, but wasn't the fatal mistake. East needs to know when to quit.

This is interesting to me, but the time doesn't. Something after 6PM EST would be much friendlier to those of us that work.

I don't get it. If RHO knows the situation well enough, why doesn't he just not revoke and lead a small club?

Call me a simple soul, but I just bid 3N with the E hand over 2♣. At MP people tend to bid spades when they have them, and I think FSF is better reserved for harder problem hands than this.

I wonder if on this kind of auction it would make sense to give up a penalty double, and play X as all good hands, and other bids as pre-balancing.

Seems like this is clearly sanctioned by both points A and D. (And if 1♣ is 100% forcing, point A is sufficient.)

So, QJT QJT QJT QJxx is an opening 1N bid?

stoped clock *mumble mumble* right *mumble* day