Apollo81

I'd always bid 2♥ with this shape, and would always pass if you moved a small spade to diamonds.

I believe 2NT strong is the best possible meaning, even in a relay system. My experience is that if you don't play strong 2NT, you will lose about 3 boards from opponents interfering over 1c for every 2 boards you gain from starting lower.

I would. Ditto ditto

I'd double.

It started ok 1♦ (1♠) 2♥ (P) 2N (P) Dare I suggest..........Gerber?

I encountred this for this first time at the most recent nationals. My RHO bid 4N keycard and I bid 5♣. So did my LHO. Director was called, and LHO was allowed to change to double, which had the same meaning by their agreements (allegedly). Thus there was no chance of a misunderstanding, since the meaning of 5♣ was authorized information. Another situation I heard about anecdotally: player A makes an alertable call, but his partner is not paying full attention to the table and there is a short (5 seconds) delay between when the call is placed on the table and when it is alerted. During this 5-second period, player A's LHO bids something. He is then allowed to retract his bid after hearing the alert explained, but the fact that he had tried to bid something is authorized information.

Agree, i did notice that my reaction time was initially 2-3 seconds and then after a few clicks dropped to instant. The right strategy is to stop yourself from reading the word.

This is two different systems because you are allowed to play a lot of defenses against the 1♣ showing 2+ than you would be allowed to if it were 3+. Would I ever complain if a pair used this against me? No. It's a trivial variation, and these people are doing their best to disclose their methods.

How about this: Suppose one partner is prone to taking all kinds of offbeat actions when he feels the state of the match/game warrant it, but the other player doesn't ever do that and is pretty straight arrow regardless of the circumstances. Is this legal/disclosable and if so when/how? Furthermore, suppose it's a pair game -- do they have an obligation to disclose what the offbeat guy thinks the state of their game is to their opponents?

The difference between your hypothetical example and the real examples you posted earlier is that all of the real examples are small (sometimes trivially small) individual variations, and the hypothetical example is a huge variation. For example, in the real weak-two example you gave, if the aggressive guy is opening bad 5 card suits then their prealert should reveal the stylistic difference. If he's not then I don't have a problem with no disclosure (unless asked) 'cause i don't think the individual stylistic difference is that significant.

Adam, I really don't have a problem with B in theory. In each case, the opponents are going to either alert, announce, or indicate something unusual on their convention card. I have never in my life played against a pair playing 13-17 NT, so if a pair announced they play that then (1) I would automatically think that something like what you described might be going on and (2) I would ask about their individual styles if I really needed to know. As long as they answer (2) honestly, it isn't a problem. Maybe you don't like B because in practice most people who use B don't really answer such inquiries honestly?

deleted

I've found that in the ACBL, there's an unwritten (or perhaps it is written somewhere) rule that infrequent deviations from the norm by one card or one point are "just bridge", and that seems reasonable to me. In general, I favor option B. Players aren't allowed to play different methods, so their official agreements should encompass all possibilities by either player. I don't think the rules should force people to change their personal styles. I am in favor of disclosing the difference in style (1) if asked for further clarification of any bids/alerts/announces or (2) after the auction if the conservative person has taken an action that is marked as wider-ranging than his style really is, but only if it's more than a slight difference in style. So, here's what I would do in each situation: (1) Indicate weak twos = 5+ on the card. Alert weak twos if bad 5 card suits are routinely opened by the aggressive guy per ACBL rules. Explain style difference per above guidelines. (2) Indicate light 1M openings on the card and prealert per ACBL rules. IMO the difference you mentioned is slight. (3) If the pro only did it on 14s then I'd say "just bridge", but 13's are more than the 1 point guideline mentioned above and I think this is more than a slight difference. Therefore announce 13-17, and explain style difference per above guidelines. (4) Mark 4-card majors on the card. The sound guy will still presumably open strong 4 card majors like AQJx, so I consider this only a slight difference. (5) Mark 5-card majors, 1♦=NF 0-2, and announce 1♦ as "could be short as 1". The difference here is that I believe in the ACBL youre supposed to mark expected minimum length in the major openers section and announce absolute minimum length when opening a 1-minor that could be shorter than 3. This situation seems similar to partnerships where 1 guy tends to open 1c on 4432 and the other guy tends to open 1d on 4432. In that case, they've gotta mark NF 0-2 on their card and announce it. I'd put an asterisk or something next to the part on the card where it says expected major length 5, then write an explanation of the asterisk somewhere. I don't think there should be any alerts here, since 4-card majors aren't even alertable/disclosable (or if they are, no one ever does).

Why not bid 2♦ with the heart/club two-suiter (non-reversers), 2♥ with the reverser, and 2♠+ with single suited clubs? This is more symmetric, plus when responder has 5+♥ and 4♣ it's guaranteed to rightside hearts. You're right. I don't know that your way is more symmetric but it definitely right sides the contract more often with the 5+♥ option and breaks even on the other ones. It's more symmetric. The rule for one suiters is "show your suit, then bid 2s+". 1c-1n-2c-2s resembles 1c-1h-1s-2s, 1c-2c-2d-2s, and 1c-2d-2h-2s. These should all show single suiters. 1c-1n-2c-2d is like 1c-1h-1s-2d, which shows a two suiter not a reverser. Thus this sequence should also show a two suiter not a reverser.

I'm too cheap/lazy to buy the book but wouldn't mind an Internet link to a writeup, were someone to provide one.

Why not bid 2♦ with the heart/club two-suiter (non-reversers), 2♥ with the reverser, and 2♠+ with single suited clubs? This is more symmetric, plus when responder has 5+♥ and 4♣ it's guaranteed to rightside hearts.

The solution to the second one is to play the ♥8 or ♥J. If you play the ♥4 and partner has ♥KT9xx, he will switch suits, assuming you hold ♥A42 and declarer held ♥J8xx. He will get it right if he held ♥KT9x. If you play the ♥2 and partner has ♥KT9x, he will switch suits, assuming you hold ♥Ax42. He will get it right if he held ♥KT9xx. The ♥8 has better chances than the above cards. An alert partner holding ♥KT9x should realize that you did not start with ♥A8x when declarer fails to cover the ♥8. If partner started with 5 hearts, the defense will be trivial. If you play the ♥J, the worst that will happen is that you foul the suit when partner has ♥KT9x. In this case, the sequence J-8-4 will allow partner to defend correctly, as Harald pointed out. On the actual deal, partner held 5 hearts, ♠Kxx, and ♣Qx, so you must take the first 7 tricks to set the contract. -Noble

To address the crowd in general: 1. Several of you have correctly deduced that you must return the ♣7, because if you return the ♣8, partner with an original holding of ♣KTxx may play you for ♣A87. If you return the 7, partner will either duck or overtake with the ♣T and play the ♣K, attempting to drop declarer's queen. Either way, you win. 2. The second hand is the exact same theme, but a little more complicated. I'll give y'all more time on this one.

No agreements will cover every possible situation you encounter on defense. I found these hands interesting because while the standard play is to return original fourth best, if you think about it you will realize that this is not the correct play on either of these hands. You and partner can always get the defense right on both without any special nonstandard agreements if you choose your return wisely. It is refreshing to encounter simple hands that remind you that bridge is a thinking game and that you cannot always play cards "automatically".

I hope you did this before you looked at your 14. 1. You don't need to. 2. You only had two spades.

I have removed a spade from the original 3-5-3-3 distribution.

A couple of interesting hands from the weekend, on a similar theme. You are playing North American standard carding. 1. You hold ♣AJ987 and your opponents get to 3NT on the non-competitive auction 2♣-2♦-2NT-3NT. Partner leads the ♣2 and dummy has ♣xx. How do you defend? 2. You hold ♠Ax ♥AJ842 ♦Jxx ♣T9x, left-hand opponent opens 1NT, all pass. Partner leads the ♥T and dummy hits with ♠Qxxx ♥Q ♦Qxxx ♣Jxxx. You win the ♥A. How do you defend?

1NT-4♥-4♠-4NT-5♣-7♠

I don't think I could beat this guy in the 100m even if I had a 5 second head start

Pass it out. If partner had really short clubs and some values he might have acted, and if he doesn't, we certainly want to defend.