MFA

I play 4x as splinters, and 3NT as slamgoing without splinters that you want to show. What did the superaccept show? I'm used to a minimum hand with 4 trumps. Better hands would bid something else on the way. Opposite a minimum, I will guess to splinter 4♥ and then pass 4♠. Opposite a maximum, I will try 3NT and blackwood to slam over 4♣.

1♥. I like sound 2NT's, but I prefer suits with body, not a handful of aces. Would guess to pass 3♣, if I must live with 2NT. Sure we could have a game, but there is no safety with such a bad suit. Also, notrumps are wrongsided.

Sure, games count at MPs too. The 5th trump is huge.

Pass 1♦

Why would we assume otherwise. :) When I write properly, I mean according to my own criteria. :lol:

If it is handled properly and all, then fine. I object to secrecy, to randomness, to one-sided statements and to not having the director to rule at the table in the usual way. Does some of this occur then I'm clearly against the whole idea. I'm also against it, if any complaints are accepted about issues that weren't raised at the table. TimG: If you run out and file a complaint about bad ethics immediately afterwards, then this has a hollow ring to it, doesn't it?

Frances (European) advocated sound doubles in this thread. Gerben (European) also advocated sound doubles, in part because of advice from Sabine Auken (European) in her book. I don't think it's just we Americans who need 15 hcp to penalty double a 10-12. :) Where do you find that? The only example I see is a board where an opponent balance with 5-4 in the majors and 6hcp. "... it was ill advised. Partner would certainly have doubled the miniNT with 13 hcp or more,..." ! (p. 8-9)

Good gracious I should hope not. He wasn't there as a witness. There is a reason hearsay is frowned upon in courts here. Play this game to find out why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_(game) Haha, come on :lol: The director is a filter here. Sometimes players get very agitated and are almost willing to put an opponent in the chair for taking advantage of his partner's thinking. The director should be able to put things in perspective, so a bunch of silly complaints could be avoided. Complaints that might not look so silly to a recorder, if the reporter is able to give it a wild, subjective twist. I'm in the national appeals commitee, and I'm frequently amazed how differently players can view the same case. I'd much rather have the director's opinion than an infuriated opponent's as a basis for a complaint, if I can hear only one voice. It's not like the director should make up his own cases.

The fact that her partner was considering bidding at all is also UI! So we obviously have to look at the lead problem of her hand with no UI at all. Is the diamond Jack suggested by the UI? Well isn't that for the TD and/or appeals committee to decide? Yes, it is! When I get an UI, I must "carefully avoid taking any advantage" (law 73C). This means that it is a perfectly fine procedure to (1) absorb the UI, (2) think about what it indicates, and then (3) bend over backwards to take a different route. Perhaps this is what west did, thinking "partner wants to bid => this is probably spades, since these are most valuable to introduce => I'd better not lead a spade". If this is so, then she tried, and that is all one can ask, ethically. If NS disagree with west, they can call the director and let him look at it - at the table where everybody can speak. They should not go about filing some one-sided complaint behind EW's backs. Everybody has to deal with UI from partner once in a while, and these problems are sometimes tough. If one missteps, so be it, we'll settle it with the TD at the table, and everybody learns something for the next time. @ Art78 & bid_em_up Thank you for info! I can certainly see the merit in recording very suspicious incidents, but when it comes to UI-problems, these are best dealt with in open daylight and not through a secret intelligence system. If the director is ruling in a case where he thinks that one side was outright unethical, perhaps he can file a form?

I think it's wrong to be too conservative about doubling a weakNT or a miniNT. We need to bid the games (or partscores) where our strength is evenly divided. I know that some American top players advocate the sound doubles, but here I'll listen more to the Europeans, who seem to have more experience with the weakNT (or miniNT) after all. :) Subsequent t/o doubles + lebensohl are very useful for sensible follow up auctions.

1. Hmm, I'm having a BIG problem with this "recorder form" procedure. I only know it from this thread, so hopefully I have misunderstood something. :) How can it ever be fair to have a one-sided statement only? I absolutely hate the thought of a little "ethics chat" between a player and a director about some opponent, and if it results in filling out some form, it's even worse. All very arrogant. If there is a problem, raise it while all are present, so everyone has the chance to speak. 2. I don't think that this incident is even close to justify some recording. East is considering a bid with a mediocre 5-5 and a void in their suit and is asking some questions (about an alerted bid, I suppose) while making up his mind. This transmits UI, but so what? That's not illegal, it could only restrict his partner. It's not like he had xxx, xxx, KQJT, xxx. West then leads the singleton ♦J. Yes, odd, but perhaps she was reasoning that if partner was considering bidding a suit, it rated to be spades; surely partner wouldn't pause and inquire with just diamonds. Or perhaps she wasn't. Who knows, if nobody asks her? I would be beyond furious, if I wound up in some UI situation and an opponent were filing something nasty behind my back, because he had a different opinion on the impact of the UI on my (or my partner's) bid or play. Please come back to earth. I think this incident, where no damage was inflicted(!), is being blown completely out of proportions with premature TD calls, secret ethics talks, and dubious recording forms. When experts are behaving like this, it scares away the bad amateur players from the open tournaments.

... if declarer guesses the clubs.

Interesting! I didn't know that there was this possible difference in procedure. ACBL rules continue to surprise me :D

It's a downside that you lose the natural 2NT. I used this bid with success as late as yesterday. I do play a variation of this convention with my regular partner, however. But it's in a strong club context where the need for a natural 2NT is not so great. Playing standard, it's not clearcut if the sacrifice of the natural 2NT is worth it.

Is this how you would handle possible UI influence on the bidding as well? Say somebody takes a bid after a noticeable pause from his partner. Do you call the director immediately then? If you do, doesn't that lead to many "unnecessary" TD calls and annoyed opp's, who feel that you are pursuing everything without even considering if there is a case? Just curious :D I'd think that the correct procedure is to make sure that we agree on the UI, and then wait and evaluate afterwards. When the UI was some questions asked (the actual case), there is no need to have the opponent confirm that he really did ask. Very rarely there would be a dispute about this afterwards.

I play that 2NT (art F1) and 3 of opener's suit (NF inv) shows exactly 4 spades and new suits shows 5+ spades. 4-3's can be ok, but we should know what we are doing. In my usual style of very aggressive openings and 3M raises (strong club context & weak NT), I would pass here. In standard, I would scrape up an invite.

Even if you were able to devise a structure that theoretical is superior to standard (I doubt this very much), then you'll be playing unfamiliar methods, which is a BIG disadvantage for your side. A single annoying convention like multi 2♥ could be ok though.

... and what Gerben said about doubles after miniNT-stayman and miniNT-transfers.

I would recommend just to play bridge and skip the fancy stuff. Vs 1mi opening: Take it as a natural opening. It's their problem that they can't trust the suit they have opened. This is a big downside for them in competitive auctions. Your focus is to play your game and know what you are doing. Vs 2♦: Natural overcalls, 2NT could be minors, X majors. Bids such as "2NT any one-suiter" are counterproductive. Either the bad guys doubles to find out, or they they don't care and just bid on, and your side is having the problem of not knowing the suit. Vs miniNT: X= penalty, around 13/14+. Take-out doubles of their escapes. Then your normal NT defense that you are used to. Bids are somewhat constructive, perhaps 10-14 or so. X+bid is stronger. NB. omg. Please don't tell me that transfer advances (such as (1♣)-1♠-(pass)-2♦ = hearts) usually are restricted in ACBL??!

1) 1♠. Clearcut in my style. 2) Prefer 1♥. Double + ♥'s is awkward on such a bad suit, and I'm minimum for that action anyway. 3) 18-19 or tricks. 4) 2♣. Not comfortable with double here opposite a reopening. Partner is supposed to pass this with all balanced or nearly balanced hands. 5) 2♥ is up to around 10. 6) (1♣) - 1♠ - (pass) - 2♥ transfer, good+ raise (pass) - 2♠ - (pass) - 3♥ (pass) - 3NT* - end. * 3♠ also possible, raised to 4.

As jdonn, especially on the balancing issues. My direct 1NT overcall range is 15 - bad 18. So X+NT for me is 18+ - 21 approximately.

Hmm, I'm not calling the director before I learn what they have. Maybe there is no problem at all. I might (seldomly) want to ask the opp's if they agree that there was a break of tempo or whatever the issue was. Agree! The opponents will feel that they are being accused of cheating, which is basically also the case. It's not enough to try to appear polite when the message is not. This is the director's job. Agree strongly! If I think there is a case, I must raise it at the table or keep quiet. The aftertalk is so often one-sided and unfair to the opponents, and they really deserve to hear it directly, if there is a possible problem. Perhaps it's all a misunderstanding?!

1NT (11-14) - 3NT Non-♣ lead, next board please.

I cannot imagine bidding like this with 5+♥. I'd overcall 1♥ on anything ever worth showing.

I agree with this.