pilun

My slackness. I posted on 3 May and got a response the next day from Pescetom. I waited a couple of weeks with no further replies. It seemed no interest so I didn't return until now. "How would you rule?" admittedly doesn't cut it. There are questions to be asked that weren't. Don't know what the answers would have been and whether they would have been self-serving. For instance, North could have been asked about partner's 3♦. East-West wondered how North would decide that partner did not have ♦KQJxxxxx and out. I suspect the answer might have been "I have no idea about 3♦. Whatever partner intended, I wasn't going to pass!" The director asked two peers what they would do with North's cards and both said they would bid 4♣. The result was changed to 5♣ making 11 tricks. The assumption being either a spade lead or a correct guess in trumps. That seems a bit generous but weighted scores are messy. The 1♦ opening was unusual but defenders have meta-agreements over short minors. For instance, if 1♣ is 2+, most have discussed whether 2NT is minors or reds. Perhaps this partnership didn't get that far. Another avenue that might have been pursued. West's question about 2NT is a bit troubling. It's all very well to say that West has an absolute right to ask about the alerted bid. Indeed, it would be good to get a diamond lead against 5♣! However, there is always the concern that such questions have the "unwanted" consequence of giving an opponent a UI problem. In some cases, that may even be the intent. A face-to-face issue. Scamp is nearly ACBL-legal. 1♥ & 1♠ both show 4+ in the suit bid. 1♦ as a skip transfer seems less of an obstacle than a modern Precision 1♦. If transfer responses to 1♣ are perfectly fine, it seems mean to hamstring suit openings.

Start by asking West why s/he did not alert 2♠. The failure to alert gave East UI that something was strange in the auction, maybe that West had forgotten the meaning of 2♦. So West is expected to bid 2NT over 2♠ 100% of the time. It does not then follow that 3♦ shows something other than 18-20 balanced. Without agreements, it probably suggests some 18-20 point hand that West didn't want to rebid 2NT with, maybe with concerns about right-siding.

[hv=pc=n&s=skq865h863dt65ca3&w=s9732hkqdaq832c98&n=sahaj952djckjt765&e=sjt4ht74dk974cq42&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1d(4%2B!S%2C%2010-15)2n(Alerted)p3dp(West%20asked%20about%202NT)3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] Australia RealBridge in "face-to-face" mode, so no screens, players alerting partner's bids. 1♦ showed 4+♠s, not 4♥s, 10-15 points. This was alerted verbally, plus the alert card clicked. (Not announceable, no question asked) 2NT was alerted by South. At her turn, so after South had bid 3♦, West asked about 2NT and was told "Minors, presumably". Note that 3♦ being the "the bid of a suit bid or shown by an opponent" is not alertable in Oz. 4♥ made 11 tricks on the ♠J lead. How might you rule? Also, How do you view West's question about 2NT, which caused the problem? Is this a case where polling is useful? Do you think NS should be offered some leeway in view of the unusual method they were confronted with?

Assume no revoke. That is, declarer draws trumps and claims 12 top tricks, which may - or may not - include the emerging ♦K.

This happens quite often. 6♥/S on a diamond lead. Dummy spreads 12 cards including a singleton diamond. 3rd hand wins the ♦A from AQxx and leads something else. Declarer has the rest. At some stage (does it matter when?) dummy's hidden ♦K makes an appearance. Is is +1430 or -100?

I think I see. If double contains all the hands that would have bid 1♥, it's okay. I was hung up over "Subset" and still am. If it goes 1♣ - (2♠) - 1♥, there might be a problem with double, because some weak hands that would have bid 1♥ are not strong enough to double. Then you go back to double as a subset of the 1♥ hands. (Not the other way round)

Even if double does not promise hearts? That is, if there are quite rare hands without four hearts where double is the correct system call.

I like double for penalty, if only to limit the other actions. Also I don't want to change method because of their range. Normal and sensible is to double a weak notrump for penalty. Is 14-16 strong? Is 13-15 weak?

I'm sure this has been covered, so apologies for asking again. Case 1 (1♣) - 1♣ Not condoned. I don't see how the "overcalling" side can do much here. Double is a thought but there are plenty of doubling hands that would not have opened 1♣. Would North have a chance if their 1♣ is the modern "2+, either long clubs or balanced, no 4cM"? Are they stuffed? Case 2 1♣ - (1♠) - 1♥ A good change in the Laws is being able to replace an insufficient bid with a negative double. Say East has a 7-count with four hearts, so doesn't want to bid 2♥. Perfect but there are issues. ♠xxx ♥AKx ♦KQx ♣Jxxx What should East do after 1♣ - (1♠) ? Put it to a bidding forum and you will get votes for double, even if that "guarantees" four hearts. So maybe double is only a 95% subset of the hands that would have bid 1♥ if legal. Is that rare possibility enough to make it incomparable? TIA

8 is a Fibonacci number. If you have a group of 8 hands, you can resolve them all within 5 steps. (3+2+1+1+1) The question is. Should you? Take the example of 3-suiters with both minors. There are eight of those. This is a logical Fibonacci way to group them: 4-0-4-5, 4-0-5-4, 5-0-4-4 (so 3 hands with a heart void) 4-1-4-4, 1-4-4-4 (2 of those) 0-4-4-5 0-4-5-4 0-5-4-4 If 2♥ is the bid to show 3-suited with both minors, you can get them all out by 3♠, zooming with three shapes. All good and easy enough to remember. Is it efficient? 4441 hands are more common. If we look at hands short in hearts, 4-1-4-4 is twice as common as the three heart void hands put together. With the scheme above, 4-1-4-4 comes out at 3♥, 1-4-4-4 comes out 3♠ with zooming. One asymmetric way to group them is like this 2N = 4 spades (4 hands) 3♣ = 1-4-4-4 3♦ = 0-4-4-5 3♥ = 0-4-5-4 3♠+ = 0-5-4-4 then 3♦ = 4-1-4-4 3♥ = 4-0-4-5 3♠ = 4-0-5-4 3NT = 5-0-4-4 So one hand finishes high. In fact all the heart void hands are a step higher. (There are 2 zooming shapes, not 3) To compensate, the 4441s come out earlier, which has to be good. 1-4-4-4 at 3♣ 4-1-4-4 at 3♦ That's a gain of two steps for both the 4441s. Seems a better deal; getting the more common hands out earlier. For us, there is another reason for an asymmetric split. Two of our major openings deny four cards in the other major. As a consequence, when describer shows a 3-suiter, there are only four shapes to show. Four is not a Fibonacci number so there is no gain in splitting. Just show them in a line, naturally starting with the 4441.

1♣ = 16+ 1♦ = 4+♠s, denies 4♥s 1♥ = 4+♥s, denies 4♠s 1♠ = majors, 4+ 4+ 1NT = 12-15 no 4cM 2♣/♦ = natural, no 4cM Thus every limit opening either shows or denies a major. The "denied major" concept has been discarded by some other systems, like Moscito, but we value it.

In many strong club relay systems, a 2/1 response is non forcing, typically 6-10 and a decent suit. Stronger responding hands start with a shape-asking relay, such as 1♥ - 1♠ = 11+ any

Marston - Burgess played a non-vulnerable 2♣ fert - basically 5-8 any - in the 1989 Bermuda Bowl. Previously they played strong pass. Regulations forced them to switch to strong club, so they moved the fert.

Select all the text, copy and paste into https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin= (Just paste it all into the address bar, after the equals sign)

We ditched the 3-6 fit jumps because the right hand never came up. We would do it on the wrong hands - such as a raise to two which happened to have a 6-card minor. Now we have them intermediate with no major fit. Working okay. It allows other auctions. In particular 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3 any where 1♦ = spades, not hearts & 2♣ any balanced. We use 3-any here as shortage, even in spades. This because hands worth 3m natural would have bid that first time. SPlinters in partner's possible four small have proved useful.