foobar

+1.

Think you are being sarcastic here, but the issue isn't about overcalling on junk. It's about failure to disclose implicit agreements (if only by way of observation) that develop perforce in an experienced partnership. For example, many pairs have an agreement that they won't make an immediate overcall holding say the equivalent of an opening hand. However, this is seldom disclosed even after the auction is over, and by way of extension, there's no such thing as a truly random 13-card defence against 1♣ unless it's made without looking at the hand.

Hmm...waiting for hrothgar to chime in what he thinks of "13-cards" defences against 1♣. Basically, it's perfectly legal and totally fine if it's truly random, but the ethics of full-disclosure get really tricky because pairs start developing patterns of when they will actually use the defence.

If I am not mistaken, the response structure seems similar to Mark Abraham's SCREAM that used responses of 1♥ / 1♠ as any semi-positive / double negative (albeit in a 16+ ♣ context). Perhaps, the OP can draw inspiration from IMPrecision (that uses 1♦ for some GF hands) as well.

Thanks for the responses. The bidding at our table was a little comical, but who can argue with the result :D? (3N) - X - (5♦) - 6♦ - (P) - 6♠ - (7♦) - X - (P) - 7♥ - AP Pard held: K9xx AJxx xxx Kx My X was a poor choice because they might sit for it and it can easily make. Pard's 6♦ was bold but very well judged, but I was still debating the choice of the X when it came around to me, and should have bid the grand. 7♦ was a great sac, until I finally got it right on the third try. In retrospect, perhaps 4N (ostensibly showing a powerful two suiter) might be a better bid with my hand.

How will pard know that (3N) - 5-minor is exclusion KC and not just to play?

IMPs, red vs. white. RHO deals and opens 3N showing a solid minor with 7+. AQJT96 KQT542 void A Any thoughts on how to bid this hand? Edit: Delete extra spade pip.

That too, though I have some sympathy for the initial X.

Thanks for the responses. The hand that prompted the poll was: A QJx AKTxxx Kxx The person holding the hand insisted that the X of 2♦ was correct and that it was intended for penalty. The opponents had their bids and pard held the expected weak hand with ♠. IMO, the only reasonable bid for this hand over 2♦ is Pass.

Playing relays, there are two ways of getting there: [Parity cue biding] 1♠ - 1N (5+♠; ask with 14+ HCPs) 2♣ - 2♦ (various, including ♦s; relay) 2♠ - 2N (5+♦; relay) 3♠ - 4C (5=3=5=0; QP ask) 5♣ - 5♦ (10+ QPs, zooming into PCB: A♠, AQ of ♦ or nothing; relay) 5♥ - 7♠ (AQ of ♥ or nothing; must have A♠, AQ♥, AQ♦) [RKC followed by specific card asks] 1♠ - 1N (5+♠; ask with 14+ HCPs) 2♣ - 2♦ (various, including ♦s; relay) 2♠ - 2N (5+♦; relay) 3♠ - 4♥ (5=3=5=0; RKC ♠) 4N - 6♣ (3 key cards; Q♦? -> lower bids would ask for other cards) 6♠ - 7♠ (Q♦, Q♥; what else)?

The bidding with your opponents dealing and opening 1♥ (red vs. white if it matters) has gone: (1♥) - X - (XX) - 1♠ - (2♦) - X How do folks treat the second X? XX showed at least 10 HCPs and likely denied 3+♥.

Yes, over 1♦ - 1♥, 1♠ shows 4♠, and could be a balanced hand. Not sure -- aren't a majority of 1♣ openings weak NTs?

FWIW, Meckwell play standard carding at T1 if the lead is from AK (and UDCA otherwise), so perhaps they were trying to solve a similar problem as well?

+1

On a slightly different note, did you have any response structure in mind over 1M?

Yup -- got the various responses mixed up and thought that 2♦ was free, but clearly the proposed treatment of 2♦ as ♠ is much superior.

Did you have any plans to for the 2♦ opening (if not playing multi)? One possibility might be use it with some balanced hand in say the 18-19 range? You likely don't need it, but might be useful to remove the 5M332 hand in the 18-19 range from the 1♣ opening.

Mikestar13 already alluded to it, but another option is to use 2♦ as multi (weak major only). Granted, this doesn't permit an immediate raise, but on the plus side removes the cue bid, and might make unwinding the 19+ hands easier.

+1...also, any idea on how it'll fit in the new ACBL charts?

Don't see the need to take a ♦ pitch before AK of ♦ (win T1 in hand to preserve entry to board). But I suspect that it probably wouldn't have made the play problem so interesting :D?

IMO, ♥ ruff to hand is superior to ♣ ruff because: 1) LHO might have led from Q...5th or even Q...6th of ♣. In the latter case, the ruff is imminent; in the former case, K♠ with LHO and ♣-ruff is a self inflicted wound 2) LHO might have led a stiff ♥ instead of #1 Also, after winning ruffing ♥, probably try J♠ or T♠ of spades to try and sneak past KS with RHO in case the ♣ ruff exists.

Against WC silent opps, you arrive in 6♠ [hv=pc=n&s=skt653ha54dck8542&n=saq7hkq2dq987caq9&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2dp3cp3sp4sp4np5hp6sppp]266|200[/hv] Opening lead is A♦, ruffed by South. You draw trumps, West having four and E pitching ♦s. You play three rounds of ♥s, East having two and pitching one more ♦. What next? Hint: This hand is has a unusual solution, and is more bemusing than anything else, but it would be interesting to see if someone can guess the layout.

Looks like there's some context missing here. To GF opposite a 15+ opener, responder must hold ~10 HCPs. How are hands in the 6-9 range handled under this scheme? Also, how does it work after interference: 1♣ - 1♦ (♥ with 0-GF presumably) - (3♠)?

Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about symmetric relay? My recommendation would be to take a look at TOSR or similar systems that have already solved the problem of resolving balanced shapes. After shape is resolved, one can use DCB, PCB, specific RKC asks, etc. to place most cards with almost 100% accuracy if exploring slam.