MFA

I cannot agree less. At least in the ACBL, you are allowed to take action justified by an assumption that partner made a psychic call if reliance upon the opponent's bidding leads to that clear conclusion. Period. If the opponents have made a psychic call, such that the assumption was wrong, then you relied upon a reasonable inference to your detriment. That, however, is not the same as improperly fielding a psychic. Is is properly, but errantly, reading a psychic. Is it so simple? All we can deduce with the 11hcp is that someone is psyching or that everybody is bidding on marginal values. If we have seen this psych before from partner, we might be very quick to assume that he has done it again, when we can´t objectively be sure. We are willing to run the risk of looking silly since we -based on our experience with partner- now feel quite convinced, he has psyched. So far so good. But it might as well be an opponent who had a problem in a situation that smells fishy. Maybe an early guess in the play, or in the bidding with a very strong hand (obviously fearing that everything is off for them). He won't have any special reason to suspect a possible bluff if not told and might not solve his problem as easily as we just solved ours. That is the fundamental problem, and that's why these things are so delicate if we don't take care.

This has nothing to do with practical bridge.

It's also necessary to be sure that "X or Y" is not an illegal agreement. 2♥ = ♥ is ok, 2♥ = ♠ is ok, but 2♥ = ♥ or ♠ is not.

Since partner could easily be equally long in the majors, it doesn't make sense to insist on hearts. One option is to bid 2♠ over 2♥. I don't know these methods very well, but it seems likely that we are too strong for that. Then we could bid 3♦, 3♣ or 3♠ whatever these means. It's worth discussing, if we should play this convention! I think it's sensible to define 3♦ as a gametry+ with longer spades, so we could pass partner's 3♥. Absent agreements, I would surely try 3♠ instead of 4♥.

Can anybody clear up for me, why the WBF rules of "no brownstickers & no HUM in pairs - but ok in some team tournaments" are not good enough for ACBL and why it's necessary to go through this ridiculous agony of specifically approving methods if the defense to it can be specifically approved in the first place?

Exactly, I agree.

♥ ♥♥

Pass, wtp? When partner runs from a penalty double, it means that he doesn't want to play in the strain where he was doubled. Nothing tricky about that. I don't know what he has now but that is obviously his problem.

Let's assume you can tell someone doesn't have their bid. Why do you assume it's partner? The very fact that you think partner is more likely to have psyched than either of your opponents (2 to 1 odds) means that you know your partner's tendencies ---> "implicit partnership agreement" or understanding. Or how else do you explain it? I think you gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Ups, wrong one. "Would an unknown player (of same playing strength) also suspect a psych and maybe try to cater to it?" If the answer is yes, then you are entitled to do so too. "So, do you - punk?"

It would be "green" and ok to cater to partner's psych here. One doesn't need a partnership understanding to figure this out. Suppose you have 1444 10-count and hear (p)-pass from you-(1mi)-2♥ and you bid 2♠ hitting partner with spades and not hearts. This would probably be "red" and lead to adjusted score. Even if you honestly had no special reason to assume partner's little joke. Fair enough imo. The threat of cheating or concealed partnership agreements is so great here that it justifies the rules.

[hv=d=w&v=a&n=s95432h65da6ckj65&w=saj8hqj73dkj753c8&e=sqt76h92dt9842c94&s=skhakt84dqcaqt732]399|300|Scoring: imps[/hv] I know what happened at 5 of the tables were the auction started 1♦-p-3♦ to south. One S tried 3♥ and played there for 170. One S tried 4♥, 620. Ugly but practical. One S could bid 4♣ michaels and ended up with 1370. Two S (including me) tried X and 5♣ over partner's 4♠, which was passed at both tables after a long tank each time. 620. The scores were 2*1370, 9*620, 1*170. Double might look very ugly, but for me it was that or 4NT. The stiff ♠K & ♦Q made me pessimistic about finding partner with much, so I decided not to risk a 5♥-1 scenario via 4NT. After X, my plan was to bid 4♥ over 3♠ (followed by 5♣ if partner persisted with 4♠) and 5♣ over 4♠. After preempts X+bid is not a pronounced one-suiter but a more flexible hand that wants to hear from partner regarding strain.

Take-out.

When we are in a scrambling sequence, and we can't play right there where we are doubled, then we play: pass: no strong preference bid: I want to play there Not much of an agreement, I admit :D We had this sequence this weekend: (4♥)-X-(pass)-4NT (X)-? We agreed that XX would be strong/slam try from both hands, but take-out. So neither pass nor XX would be an attempt to play right there in 4NTX(X). This applies to (4M)-4NT-(X) too in my partnership.

I play this too and I think it's better.

1) Penalty. Some have a style of being quick to prefer 1NT over a takeout double if in range. With that style a later double should be for takeout. 2) Take-out. I would hate to play this differently no matter the rest of my system. 3) Penalty.

In second seat, I play Michaels as 5-5 and a reasonable hand or better, especially the 1M-2M Michaels shows a real hand. Not the weak or very strong approach, I don't like that. I prefer that advancer respects the Michaels and shows a fit/values if he has something. In the balancing seat the bid is therefore about the same as in second seat for me. Perhaps the vulnerability means more in second seat than in fourth seat, though.

I play (3♥) - X - (pass) - 4♥ as a good 4♠-bid. So 4♥ followed by 4NT is RKC for spades. RE the two auctions: 1. Clearly natural with long hearts and medium strength. 2. 2-suiter, minors until we tell partner otherwise. Thought this was more standard than it apparently is.

We don't play non-leaping michaels, because I don't fancy that convention. Also, 4♦ shows both majors, and 4♦ followed by 5♣ would thus be a slam try. What would you bid in that context? So far, we have a couple of votes for 3♥ and 1 vote for 4NT. More votes/comments are most velcome. ;)

♠ K ♥ AKT84 ♦ Q ♣ AQT732 All vul, imps. (1♦) - pass - (3♦) - ? Now, sir, it's your turn. What is your medicine? They play 5card spades, 4card hearts, 1♦ shows 4+, strong NT. 3♦ is purely preemptive.

4♥ on 2 and 4♠ on 1&3. I play transfers.

I played in 2003 and have good memories (not only about the results :lol:). The foreign players stayed at the same nice hotel in a nice area of the city, and there was a shuttle to the playing area. But surely one could have made his own arrangements about accomodation if one prefered. Friendly and nice tournament.

Well, I guess I'm just not used to a style, where a 3-level preemptor sometimes comes back in and competes 5 over 5. The suggested treatment, where X="I have another competitive move in me" is useful for 4♠ over 4♥ decisions. 2♠-(X)-3♠-(4♥), X for instance. Almost no defense, lots of tricks for spades. Apart from that, count me out.

Penalty. The other options are very speculative, and I especially hate them if one of them is supposed to apply without a clear agreement.

At imps, the priority is to make the contract. Certainly. But for some people, the goal seems to be to arrive at exactly the required number of tricks, and I don't like that. If I'm taking a safety line it's because I know exactly what I'm doing (guarding against). Otherwise I just try to rack up as many tricks as possible to get the 1's and 2's also. These scores matters and also it's more annoying to play against somebody who fights for every trick.

I don't know ACBL rules (and I have been grossly surpriced before), but with normal (:wacko:) rules, this is likely a weighted score between 4♥ and 6♥. NS are not exactly on track towards slam at the moment, so a full 6♥ seems a bit much.