TylerE

It's threads like this that re-affirm my belief as to the superiority of strong club methods. In my methods of choice 1♣ (16+) - 1♥ (GF. 5+ ♠) 1♠ (Trump ask) - 2♣ (exactly 5 cards, 1 of top 3 honors) 2♦ (Ask in ♣) - 2♠ (3rd round) 2NT (Ask in ♦) - 3♥ (2nd) 3♠ (Ask in ♥) - 4♠ (AK or AQ) 6♠ Notice how we get to stop at the 4 level oppisite no hearts.

I've played a similar system in GCC events. 1♣ - 15+ Bal, 16+ Unbal 1♦ - 2+, 11-15, Unblanced, Canape 1♥ - 4+, 11-15, Canape 1♠ - 4+, 11-15, Canape 1NT - 11-14, Includes 5M322, 5M422 (optional, may be opened in the 4 card suit), 6m322... 2♣ - 4+, 11-15, Canape (yes, this is mandatory systemically on, say, 6=1=2=4) 2♦ - Mini-Roman (Don't snigger...nessesary to make the system work.) 2M - 10-13, 6M, no 4 card side suit 2N - Minors Notice how the 1x openings practically promise a side suit (and in fact we systemically open the side suit, not the 6 bagger....pretty strict canape) Never had any director complaints playing in mostly sectional-level events.

Other: I hate X. I would just bid 2♣ the first time. Show where you values are, get the lead director in. Partner is allowed to bid hearts if he has them.

all

Would be helpful if you gave the hands and auctions...

Anyone who *wouldn't* take 4M over 4♣ as a cue is on crack.

Was this hand played in person, or online? Because if in person, I think you can see where I'll go with this, despite clee's typical ambivilance... Do you think it is reasonable for a director to force me to play 3♦x? Yes. You have UI from partners presumed lack of alert. You must take partners pass as long with diamonds. Inventing bids sucks some time, doesn't it? If the ♣ and ♦ holdings were reversed, I can see some logic in allowing a pull.

Couldn't partner have ♠x ♥ x ♦ JTxxxxxx ♣ xxx?

Doesn't anyone bid 5 card suits anymore? I know the level is unfortunate, but are you really expecting partner to agree ♥ on Hxx? A 5♥ bid is maybe about right. Preempts work sometimes.. I however really do NOT like the X, as it is unlikely to really inform you about anything you care about. Knowing more about system would help. What hand types can partner open 1♣ on? In response to part 1: 4NT = RKC for ♣.

RHO has 3 hearts.

Dummy: ♠ Ax ♥ QJx ♦ ATx ♣ JTxxx Declarer: ♠ x ♥ x ♦ KJxxxx ♣ AKxxx Auction was, with East Dealing: (3♠) - 4NT - (5♠) - 5NT (p) - 6♦ - ap Opening lead: A♥, everyone following small, then K♥. On the first round of trumps: (highlight to see)

Pass...and I open almost anything in 3rd with a 5 card suit.

North needs to take a strong action than 4♠.

2♠ = 10 Pass = 8 1NT = 0

3♠ bid over the 2nd X is very clear. 2♠ over the first double nearly as clear.

Barry Crane probably could have won playing Goren or Vanderbilt Club or...

Full blame to north. He's expecting two passed hands to beat a one bid?

Yes, it's two suited takeout. There is no hand that would wish to play 4NT that doesn't have a penalty double of 4♥.

Glad to here it Fred. This will definatly make me more interested in playing in the robot events.

Opener should generally pass without anything special to show (e.g. 6 card clubs, or something, and even then perhaps sit.) Generally from here on out whatever the opponents bid, opener should double (for penalty) any suit the opponents bid that he has a decent holding in (3 to an honor, say). As an aside...another Haskell programmer in the house?

I see no reason for 2NT to deny spades. If pard cares, he can always checkback with 3♠ on the way to game.

Looks like a fairly middling 3♥ bid to me. Doesn't look like a hand to overthink.

With one partner I play that 1N-2♣-2♦-2M is a weaker invite to 3N than 2N over 2♦. Playing that way, 2♠ here is right.

If they can just get it to stop transferring into 4 card suits I'd be happy.

Alerts are a matter for the sponsoring organization to decide. In general, Weak 2s are *not* alertable, but Strong 2's are in many jurisdications. You should clarify if opponents ask. If a 4♥ opening is truly 'to play', with a pass by partner being the only possiblity, then that is a sufficient alert. You are only entitled to their agreements, not the contents of their hand. If in doubt, ask!