peachy

I have agreed these to show a maximum balanced 3-card raise. You can translate that as "as close to penalty as they come, without being called Penalty" Same as 1S(P)2S(P)P 3C. And if they balance with a Dbl, then Rdbl is the maximum balanced 3-card raise. Opener is allowed to pull with a hand unsuitable for defending.

What was the actual agreement? The OP does not say. If the agreement is "transfer", South should have corrected the MI without prompting, before opponent makes the opening lead. If the agreement is "hearts", South should say nothing. Unless he wants to inflict further damage to himself :) If there was no agreement, and South took a chance on being on the same wavelength and ot failed, South should say nothing. Or if he wants to, he can of course say whatever he wants to, but why?

Without agreements and standard bidding, 1H-1NT-4H is long good hearts and a powerhouse just short of 2C opener; also denies a singleton since if opener is insisting on 4H, he should describe his hand on the way, in case the responder is not prepared to settle in game. I see nothing wrong in the auction otherwise and 4H is a sensible way to avoid misunderstandings and drive to the most likely contract.

I don't agree with this advice. If you ask, you either force her to give a misexplanation or force her to notice she didn't pay attention and passed a forcing bid. Given the facts as posted, I am 100% sure they don't play Precision. Whatever happens, Pass and take your lumps if there are even any coming. It is only one round and then you go back to normal bridge.

Chuckled all the way reading Justin's last post!!!!!!!! Edit: Nay, correct it. My stomach hurt afterward a little bit, from laughing.

Except that they don't understand A ) what a penalty double is and B ) that it is supposed to be left in close to 100% of the time. What they play is Equal Values Double and they expect it to be pulled about 90% of the time, but still calling it Penalty.

If I were to sit down with an unknown expert and all we say is 2/1 and UDCA, these* are what I would expect to apply always, in addition to the rest of the "usual stuff". This ** is what I play with many partners. The number says how commonly played I estimate these. For a reference point, I expect Regular Stayman over 1NT to be 10 *Lebensohl** 10 Ogust** 7 Sandwich 1N** 5 Cappelletti** 8 DONT** 5 Gambling 3N** 5 Smolen Transfers** 8 *Texas Transfers** 10 Namyats** 2 (I play this with only 1 partner)

If 4D was not forcing, South should still go on to game. North made plenty of noises on earlier rounds and South has a hand that should accept. However, if 4D was not forcing, why is North making a nonforcing bid?

[hv=v=b&s=saj763h83da8caq95]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1NT) by dealer, your turn. [/hv] NT was 15-17 Your NT defense is: 2C = majors, rest natural 2NT = minors Dbl = penalty. Advancer may pull with weak distributional hands but leave it in with all balanced hands. You and partner are good local experts. Opponents run of the mill average. Hand 10 of 12-board set, IMP tourney on BBO. Your score few IMPs on the plus. Anything else you need to know? And no peeking :angry:

South should not pass 4D. Regarding the earlier bidding, whether it is ideal or not, does not matter.

Well, it is the case, actually. If you forget your agreement and give either a wrong explanation or a "I don't know", you are not in compliance with the requirement to correctly explain the partnership agreement and you are in violation of the law. The reason why you are *not in compliance* is irrelevant. PS: "you" here is generic, I hope everyone understands that Edit: The reason why not in compliance actually is relevant because knowingly lying to the opponents about agreements is a much more serious offense.

I play that 2C-opener's jump to 3H says "hearts is trump, start cuebidding". If responder's first response was 2H [no ace/king], then responder cues a queen if he has one.

The agreement is not illegal, just put it on your card and when partner opens 1NT in third seat, announce the range"15-17 but in third seat occasionally *so and so*" - insert your actual agreement in the *so-and-so* and replace 'occasionally' with 'frequently' as the case may be. If the *so and so* is an illegal method where one plays, only then is it illegal to use it. It is the concealment of the agreement that is illegal. Really? Maybe it is only in ACBL where if the agreed NT range is very wide the pair is not allowed to use any conventions (like Stayman). In a tourney last year, a pair made exactly that same announcement after a 3rd seat NT. In the 15-17 marked range, opener had 11 --- after announcing this, responder bid Stayman and invited with a nice solid 10 count. We just happened to encounter that pair the next day. This time opener had a 19 count, and reached an easy game opposite a 3-4-3-3 seven count. The TD, familiar with this pair, was not interested. If the agreement is that in third seat the NT range is something like 12-17 instead of 15-17, then as you say, Stayman and other artificial responses are illegal, in ACBL. In that case there was no concealment, but an illegal use of Stayman. Even *I* can understand it from reading the regulation, the TD should have ruled it illegal and even if there had been no damage to redress, advised the pair that they are using an illegal method.

Under the given circumstances, and after the mutual agreement that *declarer will ask when a discard comes up (instead of digesting the entire structure before declaring)*, there is nothing wrong with phrasing the question the way it was phrased. Even if you think it is a wrong form of question, in ACBL the answer still has to be complete even if the declarer did not ask the right question. This pair of defenders both 1) gave misinformation - doesn't matter if it was deliberate/intentional or not - which they corrected too late and which caused damage 2) concealed their discarding agreements - it looks pretty intentional to me too The TD (or more than one) have apparently erred. I wonder if it was a TD in charge who made the table ruling and the consultee's were his subordinates :) :) I would fill out a recorder form and appeal the ruling. There are two issues here, not just the ruling.

4D. Even if Kxxx clubs is completely worthless, I still have the remaining two suits controlled so I want to cooperate. Compare the actual hand to x-QJxxx-AQJ-KJxx which is also consistent with the bidding so far.

1) North made two dubious choices which I really want to call "mistakes" but maybe that is too severe. First, bid 3H. Second, it is an automatic double at pairs. 2) The second hand is not as clear. Maybe in the given auction South could double with the surprise at hearts that he has since this is MPs but I would not call it an error to pass. It feels like a top/bottom gamble. I wonder what would have happened after 1D (P) 1H (my choice). Is West still doubling?

There is no lesson. Whatever the partnership discussions and agreements might be, I cannot imagine any agreements by which South has showed a club control in the given auction. Without any agreements and just "normal bridge", which was the actual case, it is crystal clear that South does not have club control. So why does North bid slam, anybody's guess.

It shows an opening hand with heart suit, a hand which had wrong shape for takeout double in the first round of bidding. So it is Penalty in the vote box since the vote options did not include this. And in reality it is left in nearly always.

I would have no objection to your getting a substitute if han is not available. Anyone else?

The agreement is not illegal, just put it on your card and when partner opens 1NT in third seat, announce the range"15-17 but in third seat occasionally *so and so*" - insert your actual agreement in the *so-and-so* and replace 'occasionally' with 'frequently' as the case may be. If the *so and so* is an illegal method where one plays, only then is it illegal to use it. It is the concealment of the agreement that is illegal.

I am starting to catch on...finally. The OP is testing how long it takes for people to figure it out his questions here are not serious.

Penalty. Opener typically has the hand that would have rebid 2NT without all this busy-ness from the opponents. We are in force, so double is then always penalty. With a one-suiter, opener will bid his suit if he thinks that opposite a yarboro he has better chances for a plus by bidding. You can have different agreements in place, but without agreements and with a reasonable partner, this is how it "is".

1S-1NT 3D-4S = 3-card limit raise 1S-1NT 3D-3S = 2-card spades. All 3-card spade hands would have raised directly. If you play constructive raises, it can be weak hand and 3-card raise, but not for me, thank you. Or when playing constructive raises, you might agree that 4S is the weak hand with three card support. Whatever your agreements, it is of great value for responder to describe his hand and not make the same bid with 3-card limit raise and with weak non-fitting hands. If responder has some control rich limit raise with maybe secondary diamond honors or support, 3S is right then also, with the decision to continue on when opener bids 4S. Had the auction been 1H-1S-3D-3H, the 3H bid is less defined than after responder has made a 1NTF response. 3H could be anywhere from xx hearts and weak, to a 4-card support and slam search.

I think the engineered ( "may be artificial") jump-shift ought to just be Clubs ( 1M - 1NTF, 3C! ). Also, if artificial, the implication is that the Major is extra length. Clubs leaves more room for "sorting out" later. Thus, the 3D SJS should be natural. For you, fine, if you have that agreement. For me, I jump shift in the suit where I have some goods if I don't have a 4-card suit to jumpshift.

This is what is called a "senior moment" or a "brainfart", it was not "accidentally pulling the wrong bidding card". Not too long ago, this happened to me: I had no intention whatsoever of passing partner's forcing bid, but I did pull the Pass card out and put in the table... My own fault for losing focus. The laws, L25 in this case, do not protect players from their mental lapses, and IMO they never should. The call stands.