shevek

[hv=pc=n&w=sa7hakq83dkcaqj73&e=s84hj962d987ckt64&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c(16+)p1d(0-7)p1h(19+)p1s(0-4)p2c(GF)p2d(bal/wait)p2hp3hp3sp4cp4dp4hp4sp5hppp]266|200[/hv] Some bid this but they might have stabbed. As West, I thought partner might have 3-4-2-4 say, so hoped that 4♠ would encourage partner to show 3rd round control. Even so, partner could have 2-3-5-3 but that's specific. Maybe 4♠ - 5♠ - 6♣ choice, catering for 2-3-4-4 or similar.

It was IMPS by the way. I bid 7♣ with little conviction. A case can be made for 7NT and 6NT. 7♣ will fail to 5-1 clubs, chopping you back to 84%. 5-2 spades is no fun either. Presumably you win ♥A, ♠A, ruff, then draw trumps. If partner lacks ♦J, you need an unlikely squeeze. 7NT depends on jacks. ♠J would be nice, ♥J less so, needing ♥Q to fall. Very small extra chances plus some triples I guess. ♦J & 10 decide matters. I roughly estimated 35% ♦J only for 84%, 35% ♦10 only for 50%, 10%♦JT for 100%, 30% neither for 36%. Add them up for around 67%, plus other stray jacks and squeeze chances. Seems pretty close to me, both marginal grands so 6NT was merit. Take your time ...

You have a good hand: ♠AKQ43 ♥AK ♦KQ ♣KQJ5 You find partner with 8+ HCP & 6 SPs (3-2-1), with ♠ x ♥xxxx ♦Axxxx ♣Axx Jacks unknown, no more DCB. Take your time.

North is about to play 3NT. West starts to lead ♠A face up, which North sees but East doesn't. As director, you decide by geometry that East could not have seen the card. So the card is not played by 45c1. That seems to suggest that West can return the card to hand and wait for East to lead. Is that right?

Preamble We had this good auction. [hv=pc=n&w=sak7hak6dak654ca7&e=sqt6h95djt832ck84&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c(16+)p1d(0-7)p1h(19+)p2s(5-7%20bal%2C%20no%20M)p2n(relay)p3c(5%20diamonds)p3d(relay)p3s(3-2-5-3)p4c(SP%20ask)p4d(3%20SPs)p4h(DCB)p4s(no%20D)p4n(DCB)p5h(S%2C%20C%2C%20no%20H)p7dppp]266|200[/hv] East showed 5-7 pts, 3-2-5-3, 3 SPs (A=3, K=2, Q=1) no ♦ or ♥ honour, therefore ♠Q & ♣K. All good but West waited anxiously for dummy to track, concerned that partner might have bid 2♠ on ♠QJx ♥xx ♦JTxxx ♣Qxx That is, a hand with 6 HCP but only 2 SPs. East-West must make a choice. Either to miss the occasional perfect slam or require responder to give the second negative (0-4) on all hands without 3 SPs. It seems safe to bid 1♠ then catch up with 2 SPs. It may be different with positives to 1♣, which we play as 8+ pts, nearly GF. ♠x ♥AQJxxx ♦JTxx ♣xx is a positive but our base for Slam Points is 5. 4 SP positives are quite rare so you can't afford to set aside a step to show that strength. Here you presumably show a positive then min, then hope relayer can cater for a slight lack of AKQs. Balanced 8-counts can afford to start with a negative if sub-minimum in SPs. ♠Axxx ♥QJx ♦JTx ♣xxx 4 SPs so 1♦ looks better. Throw in ♠J and you give a positive and hope for the best. Is that right? You can see opener bidding 6♠ (by you) with ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦AKQxx ♣A "knowing" your 5 SPs were ♠A and ♥K. (OK, this ignore that opener might be able to ask for AK controls instead) What's the correct approach? Gamble or guess those slams? Or underbid by giving more non-descriptive negatives that you'd like?

1NT both minors has merit. Our 1NT opening shows 5+ ♦s. Open 2♣ with 4 ♦s & 5 ♣s. Works okay. A plus for 1NT as ♦s is that 2♣ is a range relay so it can be 7-12 at no cost. Over strong PASS, we simply play 1♣ 6-10, then 1♦ relays 17+ slipping straight into structure below. 1♦ 0-6, no more relays. 1♥ 4+ ♠s, not flat, 11+ pts, etc So exactly same structure as over strong CLUB. Never fancied the Marston idea of 1♦ positive over strong CLUB, others semi-pos.

At the vul, I would have bid 4♣ over 2NT. What would happen them?

Replying to most .... Playing multiple systems has a good track record. In Sydney, a fair few play 2/1 strong notrump but switch to a 10-12 notrump at favourable. They cope with the cascading effect on other auctions. The 1♠ fert has gone well over the years, a net gainer. It's true that luck and unfamiliarity have been factors. We've had score-ups like "+420" "+160" when LHO has doubled on a 1-6-3-3 16-count & RHO has gambled a pass, "cos they were vul". Plus cases when opponents have taken their sure +660 instead of taking the same 11 tricks in defence. We still like 1♠ (though perhaps not any more at vul vs not) for a number of reasons: 1) When we bid one major and preempt the other, it's much harder for them to cope. Vs a 1♥ fert, a common & reasonable defence is to double 16+ with 1♠ negative. Other calls are 11-15. This makes it harder to penalise but they do okay constructively. Vs a 1♠ fert, that approach has big problems, since 1NT & 2♣ are awkward candidates for the negative. 2) We narrow the fert. It's 0-7 but we like to describe on many 7-counts so it's really 0-6½. This increases the chance that opponents have a compensating game, while taking the load off a strong responder. Sure, constructive bidding is problematic but responder's license to leap about or stay low with a big hand has proved useful. We play 1NT as 15-19, 2♣ 19+ any, others like overcalls, nominally 10-18. Has worked well. 3) We gain another descriptive bid. Last century we played 1NT as 9-12 no major, no fun. With a higher fert, we can push this back to 1♥ as 7-12 balanced, no major. The wide range is fine because responder has a 1♠ relay to split the range. It's good to widen range of descriptive limit bids, which also makes it tougher for opponents to place the honour cards if we end up defending. Nil vul & all vul are similar if their side has game. You can point to the -500 vul when they make 140 but that hasn't happened much. Also, -8 IMPs vs -4 IMPs if we weren't vul is small change in this big stakes game. -200 in 1♠ passed out is painful at MPs but there are no Yellow systems in matchpoint events. 4) A subtle advantage of 1♠ vs 1♥ can be seen when both sides have major fits. If you play 1♠ for -300 when you have a big heart fit, presumably they would have done very well in spades. However if you make a 1♥ fert with spades and get passed out, there is no up side. Having said that, we open 2♦ as a mini multi (3-7 pts) to further tone down the fert. (We open 1NT with long diamonds) With system cards, we have each have two different ones - different colours - and would make sure the right one would be on display. Also, we need to provide a written defence when we play Yellow. More paper shuffling, will see how it goes. With symmetric relays, switching methods is less of an issue. In terms of strength, a 7-12 opening is like a positive to a 16+ 1♣ and an 11+ positive to PASS is like an 11-15 opening. Our 1♦ opening is the same shape – 4+ ♠s, denies 4 ♥s, could be canapé. Responding to PASS is like responding a strong 1♣, with the extra step used to split 0-10 into 0-6 & 6-10. There has been a concious effort to make the two systems similar, with minor compromises to avoid memory strain. We think we can cope. We'll see. (Hate reverse relay, by the way) While the aim in strong PASS is to describe early on the 45% hands with 8-12 pts (or 50% with 7-12 pts) there will be fewer of these plus less urgency in second seat. Strong PASS systems stand to gain on hands where the other side make game+. How many of these are there when dealer passes? This is not a rhetorical question! STILL undecided about 2nd seat at favourable ....

We like to play strong PASS in long events but there are reasonable restrictions in Australia. Not allowed in early rounds/stages, not in the bottom 3/4 of the field. So we are forced to switch systems mid event. Not a big imposte. If we have to carry 2 systems around, why not switch within each match? We would need to provide separate (colour-coded!) system cards. Our strong PASS relay system features a 13+ pass, 1S fert (0-7) other openings 7-12 artificial. Strong CLUB version is 16+, other openings natural-ish. Currently we (intend to) play Strong PASS as dealer, unless vul vs not Strong CLUB in 2nd & 4th seats Maybe strong PASS at favourable in 2nd seat?? We have no desire to shift the fert up and down according to vul. There are two obvious reasons to avoid strong PASS at unfavourable. Safety, avoiding -1100 vs 460 etc. Secondly, important to descibe on our good hands. A 13+ pass at unvafourable is a welcome mat. Strong PASS works best when outgunned. In 2nd seat, dealer's pass makes that much less likely, swinging the balance in favour of describing with 11-15. Suggestions please.

Thanks for that

Can someone work out the chance of picking up an exactly average hand, one of everything? So 1 ace, 1 king, etc .... 1 two. Or point me to a resource ... TAI

Yes, it's not technically optimal. The big difference is that 3-level suit bids are no longer forcing. After (2♠) X (no) you bid 3♠ with ♠xx ♥xx ♦AKQxxx ♣Kxx What else? If partner is in 1NT mode, he'll bid 4♥ with 4 of them plus a stopper.

Wish this convention had a name of its own, rather than a borrowed one. Anyway, some people suggest it works the same way as over 1NT but that's not sensible. Is the following "standard"? (2♠) X (no) ? 3NT to play, probably not 4 ♥s 3♠ stopper ask, maybe a solid minor 2NT - 3♣ - 3♠ 4 ♥s, NO stopper 2NT - 3♣ - 3NT 4 ♥s, stopper Seems okay, though partner from the "slow shows" Lebensohl mindset will have a different interpretation. The problem with this style is the risk of reaching a no play 3NT, like we did recently: [hv=pc=n&s=sa6hj73dkq952ckj5&n=s84hak62djt3caq73&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2sdp3nppp]266|200[/hv] I bid the crude 3NT for -200 when 5♦ is easy. I did that because I thought going through 2NT would show 4 ♥s. Subsequently, I suggested a change. 3NT direct = don't touch, so double stopper or source of tricks 2NT then 3NT = choice of games. Is that playable? It means giving up on something. Which?

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h1s2h2s3h3s4sp]133|100[/hv] Hypothetical, to make it 100% clear that 4♠ was an aberration (unintended). Law 25 doesn't mention UI, so what happens if North - sits still for a long time, waiting for South to wake up - looks puzzled - looks angry - says "Did you mean to bid that?" TIA

[hv=pc=n&s=skt7ht874dj9ckq54&w=s654hq6dk86cjt963&n=sa83hak53dqt432c2&e=sqj92hj92da75ca87&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1cp3cdppp]399|300[/hv] This happened in a recent Swiss Pairs event. I led ♦J as South, collecting +800. One hand proves nothing but got me thinking. West asked partner whether he preferred a 1NT response. East said No, just an unlucky layout. Fair enough. I don't like 1NT much either, wrong-siding your likely game and making it hard to compete in clubs. Maybe some would respond 1♦? I like a traditional 2♣ on these hands, also on some hands with four trumps: ♠xx ♥xxx ♦Axxx ♣KTxx 3♣ still be preemptive but more shapely, or the actual at favourable. The supposed gain with inverted comes via those sweet shape-showing auctions you see in books, rare at the table. Mostly you do just as well after a limit jump raise, which also pre-empts the 3NT-killing overcall. Criss-cross (1♣ - 2♦ & 1♦ - 3♣ as limit-plus) allows you cater for most hands with support.

There is no low risk action in those auctions. There is no good solution. At least you have X then 3M to show a 3-card raise.

Thanks all. No assertion that East conveyed UI when partner alerted.

So I'm running a congress Swiss teams in Sydney. Gave a ruling iin Round 4. A pair appealed and are now playing round 5 (9 bds). It would be good to get back to them. Anyway, here goes: [hv=pc=n&s=saq53hq5dkqt3cq95&w=sjt9742ha864d2ca4&n=s8hkj9732dackt876&e=sk6htdj987654cj32&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=4d(Namyats)pp4hpp5dppdp6cppdppp]399|300[/hv] EW play Namyats, alerted. It's on their card. They claim that East has not forgotten previously. West "took a view" A ruled correct info, no infraction so -500 to NS. NS appealed, believing West wasn't allowed to bid like that.

We who play 4-card majors have to be adept at handling the 4-3 fits at the 2-level, not so keen at the 3-level. For the 95% who play 5cM, coping with Michaels or UNT is no big deal. Common is 1♥ (2NT) X = keen to defend, 3♣ = good heart raise, 3♥ = competitive, 3♦ = maybe some spade hand. Against Michaels, responder also has 2NT perhaps as a 3-card raise. All good. With 4-card majors, responder wants to avoid playing 3M in the 4-3. One way is to give up on X as "It's our hand, partner" and use it as limit+ with 3 trumps. Caters for hands like this: 1♠ - (2♠) - ? ♠KTx ♥A54 ♦65 ♣AT765 (1♠ = 10-14, could be canapé) No reason to think anything makes either way at the 3-level. Double will find our 5-3 and let us defend (probably undoubled) otherwise. Is there merit or giving up too much?

(1♠) no (2♠) 4♣/♦ ? While leaping Michaels is normal over a weak 2, this doesn't seem as clear. Could be important to suggest a save "I want to bid 5 I'll give you the chance to deal with 4♠." If that's the case, then is 3♠ Michaels or a stopper ask? TIA

South could double. 4♠ rates to be 1 or 2 off. (If they each have a stiff minor, hearts rate to be 3-3) Just as likely that they both have balanced or 5422 for -500. North's double should simply show more stuff.

Thanks all. I ruled 6H but think that was a bit gutless. Agreement was unclear "I thought we agreed ..." "No we didn't" Convention card didn't help. An established partnership. East said she thought 3D was "weak" a bit weird. Not a good player. Was 3D alertable anyway? This was Australia, where natural jumps are a bit unclear. Around here, most play 1D - 2S as weak and many don't alert it. Regs are unclear "Alert unusual treatments (like pre-emptive jump raises)" Anyway, East seemed to know that West was alerting as a heart raise, maybe by the body language, though I wasn't there. West's 4NT was crude but perhaps he was thinking "I'll bid 6H anyway & 7 opposite the minor aces." Seems fair enough, with spade shortage very likely. Normal for them would be 4NT as RKC in last bid suit if a jump so clearly diamonds in this case. 3041. Couldn't allow 7D. +1430 was enough to win the board since the other table was +1390 so awarding 7H would have swung the match.

[hv=pc=n&w=sak432hakq752dq4c&e=s7h3dakjt9652cj96&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp3dp4np5dp6hp7dppp]266|200|3D alerted[/hv] Board a match. East intended 3D as natural, North alerted it. No questions asked. 4NT was RKC and East has lied. West thought 3D was some sort of Bergen ("8-11") North-South want West to bid 7H opposite 2 aces. 7D makes 13, 6H makes 12 on any lead.

[hv=pc=n&s=s86hqt85dj7632cj3&w=s52hkj7dk4ckqt876&n=sq43ha93dqt985ca5&e=sakjt97h642dac942&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1s3d(pre-emptive)p(Agreed%20BIT)p3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] Australia, matchpoints, daytime club game. NS better than EW. North did not alert 3♦, though preemptive jump raises are alertable in Oz. Limit raises are "standard" in this club. Director called when East bid 3♠. EW acknowledged. Ruling please & would it change in other circumstances.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa93hda84c&w=s86h7djtct&n=skqthdc975&e=shdc]399|300[/hv] South (reasonably competent) on lead in 3NT has lost 2 tricks. She claims 11 saying "the clubs are high" Can the defenders/director hold her to 8 tricks by requiring ♦A, ♠AK, ♣9?