CSGibson

Our opening NT is 11+-14, beyond that we open fairly normally for a 2/1 partnership - maybe a touch lighter than a standard pair.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk85hk93dq94ckqt6&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp3dppdp]133|200[/hv] RHO is known to have high-variance preempts 3rd seat.

over 1N, we play a modified hamilton, being able to show major/minor and single-suited hands constructively, but not 3 suited or balanced hands unless appropriate for a penalty double. You have not played enough against a weak NT with this partner to discern what types of hands he may or may not choose as appropriate, but it is unlikely that he is waiting for 5-5 hands.

[hv=pc=n&s=skq98hj4d86ck9853&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1n(10-13)p2h(to%20play)ppdr2spp3dp4hpp]133|200[/hv] Have anything left to say here? edit: Cross-imps (BBO)

800

Over 3♠, partner bids 4♣. If you continue with 4♦, partner raises to 5. Double ends the auction. Over 4♥, partner bids 5♣. Anyone have opinions as to what they would do now in their chosen auctions?

I like to use it as garbage stayman, with either major potentially being longer. I also incorporate weak 3=4=1=5 and 3=4=0=6 hands into the bid (if responder corrects to spades, I re-correct to clubs). I think whether you garbage stayman or not with 4-4 in the majors depends on several factors. I will do so if we are playing teams and I think my hand is definitely going down in 1N, but may make 2M if we find a fit, especially NV. I might also consider whether our NT range is different than the other table, or whether we will be facing similar decisions. I am much less likely to stayman if I am a near max for my values, I tend to play 1N when we have the majority of points, but not enough to invite game.

Actually, I dropped a ton of MPs in Atlanta when playing with my flight B partner because I didn't adjust to playing with her as opposed to my regular partner - I tried to be a butterfly when I needed to be a hammer, both in defense and in the bidding.

I'm bidding 4S. I have a clear accept with diamond length, club shortage, and partner's marked heart shortage to go with my 4th trump.

Just a general comment - I think players at all levels of the game leak imps/mps through tempo. In the Spins vs Upmark and Nystrom, I was able to guess hands correctly simply because of the time it took for the Swedes to make decisions on defense - if they had the card I was going to try and guess, they would have not taken so long, or if they didn't have it, they would have had more to think about, etc. At lower levels, the tempo of a bid or defensive play is also frequently revealing. Personally, I give up some things by playing and bidding too fast at times, so I'd like to hit that happy medium of taking time when it doesn't matter, and playing quickly when tempo might be an issue.

I accept with South. I blast with North. I would drury originally with south (I have what looks like 3 cover cards in spades, that's a limit raise).

Agree that I would have preferred to Michaels initially. I'm hitting this - it could easily be wrong, but so be it.

We have that agreement as well.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt73hkdak874cq5&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2c(10-15%20HCP%2C%206+%20clubs%2C%20could%20have%20a%204%20or%205%20card%20major)3h(preemptive)]133|200[/hv] Playing precision, partner opens a 2♣ showing 10-15 HCP, 6+ clubs, and which does not deny a 4 or 5 card major. After the preempt, new suits by you would be natural and forcing, partner would raise the suit with Hx or xxx. X would be take-out oriented. What's your bidding plan over 3♥?

Lack of use has never incurred a PP in ACBL land. And opponents may not bid in whatever tempo they wish if you don't use it. Maybe its different in the UK. The only advice I've gotten regarding use of the stop card are multiple people telling me that if you use it, always use it, and if you don't use it, always don't use it.

I would only be in favor of such a law if it is enforced like use of the stop card is enforced - no penalty for infractions, but you may give up some of your rights if you fail to comply to the law and a situation arises that may have been ameliorated if you had followed the law.

I'm bidding 3♠ like Brian. Over 3N, I'm continuing with 4♦.

I believe you to be wrong, but mostly because you used 99% instead of 85 or 90% - ie, wrong in degree. 17% of ACBL players have more than 1,000 masterpoints, and 7% more than 2000. I believe the majority of those players would be experienced enough to have some sort of agreement about superaccepts that expands to suit bids.

Several: First, don't put anything up at your club. Ethical obligations are complex and vary from hand to hand, trying to make a simple one or two sentence "you should do this" poster will do more harm than good - people will feel educated without actually being educated. 2nd: If you are ignoring the first suggestion, then definitely don't use examples that actually happened against you at the club. People will feel singled out, and will tend to view your "help" as an attack. 3rd: You might be better off having an expert give a seminar before the game rather than post a flier, or to give one example hand but with full details. Also, if people are interested in this type of thing, you might want to think about letting them know about NABC casebooks, giving a link to where they can be found on the ACBL site. They have thorough and good write-ups, and analysis of the write-ups.

I disagree with example one's conclusion that opener likely has to pass - this is a natural and forcing call, or an artificial and forcing call for most people. No one corrects out of 8 card suits with their own non-forcing 8 card suit. I disagree with example 2. If responder doubled intending it as a transfer, then 3D becomes a super accept, whatever it would show in the auction 1N-2H, 3D. Responder has an obligation to evaluate his hand in context, and pretend that opener has a super hand for spades, instead of maybe a small doubleton. I disagree with example 3. If 3C is non-conventional, then overcaller should look at his hand and evaluate as though RHO had a very good hand with clubs - not a poor hand, since he didn't pass 2 clubs. It might be appropriate to bid 4/5C, to try 3N, or to show a 6 card major. If 3C is conventional, overcaller should answer the convention. I disagree with example 4. LHO can correct if his X was based on a single-suited hand. AKQJxx Axx Ax xx I would expect to routinely bid 2S over 2C. What opener must not do is to realize that partner may actually have values instead of a weak runout, and bid 3N. Example 5: The only option is to pretend that partner had a super accept of spades, if that is what 3H shows. Depending on what 3H shows systemically, and what your values warrant, you might bid 3S, 4C, 4D, 4S, or 5D conceivably. If you don't play superaccepts, then there is no unauthorized information because anything other than 2S gives you authorized information that partner forgot. All of your examples are flawed in my opinion, or at least your conclusions are. They seem to say if there is UI, then pass, whereas what the law is saying is that you cannot bid in a way that caters to UI, whatever that may be - in other words, you have to pretend partner explained the bid the exact way that you meant it, and bid accordingly.

What I was implying was that my relative skill compared to a good flight B player is probably equivalent to the gap between a worldclass player and an expert, and that those unbalanced partnerships can really hurt if the more skilled player has trouble adjusting for their partner's blind spots.

I echo Roger's sentiments - this is not because I am in any position to judge world-class vs expert, or whatever. But my experience in Atlanta, where I competed with a flight B partner for the first part of the week where we failed to get out of the first day of the GNT B's, and barely scraped up a 2nd day LM Pairs showing, differed greatly from my experience when I played with a partner who is, in my opinion, a national caliber player later in the week in the Spingolds. In the beginning of the week we did not have methods to get to places. My inherent nature as a bridge player is to be collaborative and delicate in the bidding and defense - that works very poorly in a partnership where there aren't delicate tools, or where a partner does not have the judgment to respond well to delicate probes, but it pays great dividends opposite a partner who has exceptional judgment and who notices the nuances of the cards played, and our results greatly improved as a result.

At the table I decided to run. Because I didn't want a disaster with XX's, my method was the two-step method of bidding 3♦ first, and then, when Rosenthal offered an opinion about the success of that contract, correcting to 3♥, over which Rosenthal bid 3N, partner 4♥, and Silverstein offering a double, which ended the auction. I caught [hv=pc=n&n=s6h8732d72caqj985]133|100[/hv], and it turned out that clubs were 5-1 (Rosenthal was 3=1=8=1, not the shape I'd put him on for the reopening double, but hey, whatever). Teammates brought back a red 3N making 5, we went down 1 in 4♥ hit for 100.

We open light and preempt aggressively (this is a precision partnership), but even so I think your suggestion is a joke 2nd seat. Why rush when we have majors? Why preempt spades when we have a great hand for hearts and an unpassed partner? At that point you are just being random, in my opinion, and if I were to try it out, it would be anti-partnership.

I misunderstood, I thought that you just didn't understand what I had said - always a risk when you don't actually say what you mean, whether to try and make it polite, or for other reasons. In that case, thank you for your suggestion, but we have carefully considered what to do over interference and feel that our present solution is best for us.