rwbarton

Reminds me of Zia's(?) 2NT opening showing 12-14, though that at least has some merit since doubling is a bit dangerous.

Right, this is the rule I was thinking of at the table: It seemed like maybe the purpose of 1♦ was to destroy our methods, but it didn't do a very good job. (And yeah, we actually were playing a relay system with relays on over a 1♦ or 1♥ overcall but not 1♠. That's why over 1♦ we played double = double negative, so after a semipositive pass we could get back to GF relays at +0 after a double by opener.)

As opener I would want to bid over 2♠ with a lot of hands with four hearts, even if I didn't have a max in terms of HCP. I would have thought that 3♥ tends to show a min, with 2NT or a natural-ish 3♣/3♦ for hands with more game interest. xxx AKxx Axx Axx is a super prime minimum, how badly do we want to be in game opposite this hand? Am I missing something?

If you want to cater your methods to it, yes. You can even do it without giving up the natural 2♠ bid. For example 2NT showing game interest opposite a max with the right shortness, then 3♥ = max & short ♣, 3♦ = max & short ♦, 3♣ = min OR max & no shortness OR max & short ♠, over which 3♥ signs off, 3♦ = bid 3♥ unless you are max & short ♠.

We've all seen "4♣ always Gerber" or stolen bid doubles in strange situations, but what's the weirdest or worst agreement you've seen your opponents have? It should be an actual agreement, rather than one of your opponents briefly losing their mind. Here is my story. I was playing in a flight C GNT district final a while back, we sit down at the beginning of a round and tell our opponents we are playing a strong club system. They have a discussion in a foreign language, presumably about their defense to 1♣. On the second board I pick up something like A8754 KQ4 AKQT7 - and the auction proceeds [hv=pc=n&s=sa8754hkq4dakqt7c&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(15+%20any%20except%20some%20bal%20ranges)1d(alerted)d(0-3%20HCP)p]133|200[/hv] At this point I ask about 1♦ and get the unexpected response: "He always bids 1♦." I am sitting there trying to figure out if this is even a legal agreement when I realize, hey, if they want to give me an extra step in every 1♣ auction, I might as well let them! I figured I could describe my hand decently by passing here and bidding ♠ over the runout. But LHO had no idea what to do, of course, eventually he decided to pass too. I think he had ♦Jxxx in a flat hand. We lost a couple IMPs when our counterparts made 4♠, so I guess the 1♦ bid worked! What are your favorite stories about your opponents' weird agreements?

I wouldn't be thrilled about it but I would raise. At least partner is unlikely to be on lead if we defend.

I find this thread interesting because I have on several occasions nearly done the reverse of South (but caught myself before making the bid). I hope it never actually happens! Pick up a 4351 20-count, oh what a nice hand, 1♣. Now 1♥ from partner, who I know has never played a strong club system in her life. What am I supposed to do now? 1♥ has three different meanings in the three different strong club partnerships I play in and I certainly didn't believe I was playing any particular one of those systems. I just made the "good hand = 1♣" connection before I could stop myself. Should I just start pulling bids out of my bidding box at random, since apparently I don't know anything at all about my system?

"Okay", South would say, "but you cannot seriously suggest that any LAs are demonstrably suggested by the information 'I am playing Precision and 1C was alertable' relative to the logically equivalent information 'I am playing Precision' which I already had". Finding the meaning of South's opening to be AI to South but then disallowing a call that South selects on the next round is inconceivable. How is the fact that South misbid even legally relevant?

Come on now, this is nonsensical. If South has AI that he was playing Precision, South also has AI that he holds J64 Q7 T87 AKQ65 and that he opened 1♣ and therefore when choosing a rebid he will notice that he has misbid his opening. So any UI that South has is already AI to South, and so South's second-round action is unconstrained. Put another way, in this scenario North's alert of 1♣ was not unexpected by South, so there is no UI at all!

To those who make a "support double": would you also double on a weak NT with three hearts (aside from perhaps a pure 2335 hand)? What about a minimum 3316 shape?

Thanks for the replies. What's the purpose of having both law 16B1 and law 73C?

Or similarly how about winning the K or Q when you hold KQT(x...) over dummy's AJ9 and declarer plays low to the 9, trying to entice declarer into finessing against the other high honor later. (Today an opponent decided to win the Q from QTxxx in this position; that was rather less effective. :) )

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1n(10-13)pp2d(See%20below)ppdp2h3ddppp]133|100[/hv] 2♦ was intended as the majors but the actual agreement was natural so West did not alert. The subsequent auction is probably AI to East that West took 2♦ as natural, but for the sake of argument let us assume it is not and that it was West's non-alert of 2♦ which gave East UI that 2♦ was natural. There was no need for an adjustment, so the director was not called and there is no actual ruling. But after the hand North and East disagreed about East's obligations after the auction. North thought that after the auction East should mention a missing alert of 2♦, as though the actual agreement was 2♦ = majors, as it was only through UI that East came to realize that that was in fact not the EW agreement. East disagreed, claiming that NS had correct information about the auction insofar as 2♦ was not alerted and that NS are not entitled to know what East thought 2♦ showed. East believed that the laws regarding UI applied only to calls and plays and not to explanations of EW's bids. Comments?

I guess this is just one of those situations where the message according to agreement of a call ("partner, we are likely to score well in 3♣x") is redundant and so it becomes a question of what the natural generalization of that message is. If it's "partner, I have clubs" then double is clear; if it's "partner, we are likely to score well by defending whatever the opponents try to play" then pass is clear. All I can say about that is that I think partner and I were on the same page about the double, and it sounds like some of the other posters are on that page too (though they may well be influenced by seeing the hand that doubled).

mikeh, I can't figure out what you think the difference between a double and a pass over 3♣ is. Edit: I mean, we already passed out 2♣x. I don't think there is any chance if North passes and East passes that South will do anything but double. In this situation, then, based on our general rules about doubles in GF auctions, I think double just shows club length. Why shouldn't North show what he's got? I mean sure, possibly North would do better to bid 4♣ now or bid 5♣ next round but I don't understand passing here. It sounds like maybe you think double of 3♣ is penalty of hearts? That agreement may well have merit but I wouldn't want to invent it at the table. And it doesn't seem obviously necessary anyways, that's what we have a forcing pass over 3♥ or 4♥ for, no?

We play in a game-forcing auction (established here by the 1♥ bid) double from either side is penalty and pass is takeout-ish/no clear direction. I thought that was a pretty common agreement, if not standard. So, in that context, I don't understand for example South passing over 2♣ hoping North will double, or North hypothetically doubling 3♣ with 5431 shape, that would be a pass for us.

MP club game. [hv=pc=n&s=sathq9daq87caq642&w=s9hak7dj9432c9853&n=sj8754h4dkt5ckjt7&e=skq632hjt86532d6c&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1c(16+%20unbal%20/%2017+%20bal)p1h(5+%20%21s%20GF)2c(See%20below)d(penalty)pp2hp3cd3hp4hppdppp]399|300[/hv] After 1♣ and 1♥ were alerted and explained, West jokingly alerted 2♣ and volunteered the explanation "He has clubs". We dropped a trick on defense but -790 would have been the same 2 on a 12 top.

So here's a crazy idea I started thinking about when one day I didn't hear an opening 1♣ bid on my left and announced my partner's 1♦ overcall as "could be short". The natural 1♦ overcall has less upside than a 1♥/1♠ overcall (game in ♦ is remote, and you are less likely to win the partscore battle) and is less frequent as well (assuming (43)51 hands start with a takeout double, and you might not overcall 1♦ on a bad suit because more of the value in overcalling is in lead direction). Perhaps you'd be willing to give up a natural 1♦ overcall and use 2♦ like a normal (non-jump) 2-level overcall, passing with the bad 1♦ overcalls. What might you use 1♦ for then? Here's a scheme that came to mind: 1♣ - 1♦ = NF takeout of ♣, any hand that would make a normal takeout double of 1♣ and pass a 1♦ response. 1♣ - x = normal takeout double of ♦ (including strong balanced hands, GOSHs) or strong takeout shape of ♣ (too good to pass a 1♦ response) The advantages would be that the frequent "minimum, takeout shape of ♣" hand is defined immediately, so advancer is in better control of the auction, not having to cater to GOSHs, and that you can get into the auction with more hands with the majors like shapes like 4423, 4414, (43)15, maybe particularly useful against 2+ 1♣ openers. The disadvantages are of course this puts more strain on your ability to show hands with primary ♦ and you lose a 1♣ - 2♦ WJO. (Also it's not clear to me when advancer should be passing 1♣ - x - p, but I'm not sure whether this is really worse than after a normal takeout double.) Has anyone experimented with an idea like this or another artificial 1♦ overcall?

But don't forget to crosscheck your picture of their partner's hand with the bidding as well. Usually this will tell you nothing but sometimes advancer's Qxxx vs. xxxx or Kxx vs. xxx could be the difference between pass and a simple raise or between a simple raise and a limit raise.

Dummy is South. With 5 tricks remaining West can see that South can take 3 and West can take 2 whether West comes down to ♠Q10 or ♠Q ♦J. So I wouldn't consider the ♠10 discard a bug. (It would be nice if GIB didn't make "inhuman" plays like discarding the ♠10, but that's pretty low on my wishlist for GIB improvements!) The club discard on trick 5 looks like it might be a safety play against West having ♣J964, perhaps? Of course it would have been better to test clubs earlier but once the ♦Q is cashed the South hand is sort of squeezed into giving up a spade stopper or losing communication with the North hand—while the sixth club can never be the 9th trick. Hopefully the scoring was IMPs...

Why not? Once East shows out of hearts it knows it is going to lose the next three tricks to West and on one of these three tricks it is going to have to pitch a club or diamond anyways.

1NT (3♥) 4NT What do you expect this to be without discussion in an expert partnership? And while we're at it, what about 1NT (3♥) 4♥?

I guess I don't understand this position, isn't it even more anti-partnership to decide an action is +EV and then not take it? Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?

I wondered about this too, particularly we had the auction 1♦ - P - 1♥ - 2♥ - all pass on the previous board, but do you really want to make an overcall in opener's 5-card suit when they are in a GF? Some doubt about what 2♠ showed was why I didn't bid to the 5 level immediately which in retrospect was what I thought I should have done. What about 1♥ - P - 2♣ - 2♥? Then I'd think you definitely want this to show ♠+♦ since 2NT would bypass the contract of 2♠.

Passing is a decision too, you have to decide whether you want to or not :)