peachy

If this were more or less standard bidding 1S-2S-3D, partner is saying "if you can stop three top losers in diamonds, bid game" and he is not asking "are you min or max". However, your agreements include 3 point raises so I don't know what your agreements are about evaluating HSGT [if 3D was a HSGT]. Therefore, can't answer, but if forced to pick without knowing, I bid 3S.

(Unsuccessfully) splitting hairs, are you? Law 6D2 includes hands dealt without a shuffle from a sorted deck. So hands constructed for a purpose are obviously included in the scope of this law. Wait a minute! We can't put words or meaning in the law that is not there. You think the law "obviously" mean something not said in the law? I don't. The Law says what it says and if an interpretation is needed beyond what the law clearly says, then some case law or some LC interpretation is necessary. Is there one regarding the OP issue? If there isn't, then outside of club games [when players like or want the lesson deals inserted] inserting them is illegal, announcement or not.

Depends on your agreements. 2/1 players commonly play that responder's 1M followed by a jump to 3m (or 3 other minor, if the opening was a minor)is "to play" with 4-card major and 6-cards in the minor. If you don't play that style, then make some agreements.

I like your analysis. Would you have ruled "no adjustment" also in the 6S case? If not, how are the two cases different?

...especially the magnifying ones. Instead of just laugh lines and wrinkles, one sees the detail. It ain't pretty...

1D-1S-2H-2NT! [4th suit or 2NT, whichever is cheaper to bid] in my methods shows a weak hand that will Pass opener's next bid or make a correction to final contract. It is not often that we are playing a partscore in responder's suit, but playing Lebensohl that becomes a possibility when responder's suit was clubs. I don't see the advantage of changing opener's rebid so that he has to bid his first suit instead of 3C because responder can always correct to that if he had a preference. Still, I'm interested in listening in here. Reverse auctions are often difficult.

It is a wrong basis for a ruling to use "Pass makes no sense in this auction". If it was determined that there was UI and that there was damage, then the bidder choosing an illogical alternative (in this case the Not-LA was Pass) is not going to protect the bidder from a ruling. The TD has powers to redress damage to NOS under OTHER laws if UI laws cannot be used. I think this case is similar to another type of situation once discussed on another forum, several years ago. 1S-...3S-6S. 1S natural (opener had a minimum hand), 3S limit raise (responder had a limit raise), 6S bid out of frustration apparently because partner hesitated before 3S. The UI definitely did not suggest AT ALL that opener choose an ILLOGICAL alternative of 6S, but the illogical alternative of 6S was nevertheless caused by the UI hesitation although could NOT be demonstrably suggested by the UI, and there was damage because 6S was cold. I have never quite reconciled myself with this logic, it so much feels like "if it hesitates, shoot it". But it was the consensus of respected TDs at the time that when TD cannot adjust under UI Laws, he still can and should under the broad license "when no other laws allow for redress of damage". Apparently in the OP case here, there was BIT that is UI, there was an illogical alternative chosen (to Pass a forcing bid/inquiry), and there was damage (nothing beyond 4NT makes) so using the same logic that was used in the 1S-...3S-6S case, this result should also be adjusted.

1. In basic bidding, new suit by responder is forcing for one round. For practical reasons, you might adopt a guideline that "If I don't know what a bid means, I will treat it as natural and forcing". There is additional logic behind all this that we don't want to "try to improve a contract from NT to an unbid minor or from a minor to the other minor" while we often want to try to improve a contract from NT to a major that is rebid. Sometimes we miss a better partscore using this logic when responder is weak but it greatly benefits auctions where responder is stronger and we reach the right game or slam. 2. Still forcing. 3. Responder should bid 2H with this hand. Since opener rebid 1NT, there is at least a 5-2 fit and a heart partscore should be OK. Bidding 2D is forcing and responder is not strong enough to force.

You are fortunate to have teenagers who a) enjoy card games and ;) want to learn bridge. Be sure to keep it fun and concentrate only on the positive, at least for a little while, whatever you decide as to system etc. It takes a WILL OF IRON to continue learning bridge if all one hears is what mistakes were made.

No, 2S is not weak, it is around 9+ good and 4+ card spades in response to a direct seat takeout double (not the case here) and about 12 opposite balancing seat takeout double. And No, 1S is not forcing. The hand went up in value but balancing seat should not be punished for balancing, I bid 1S.

In that thread (which I can't find) I said - among other things - that with 5-card support for partner's 1M opening, we bid 1NTF and next round raise to 4S, showing a 4S bid but with a side control. At the time I got some idle rap from somebody about the 1NT being alertable in ACBL and hints about me being "less than forthcoming" in disclosure because I don't alert the 1NT or the subsequent 4M or the direct 1M-4M sequence. I promised to ask ACBL and post their answer, mainly to be sure I was doing the right thing, but nice to set the "hinters" straight, too. Here is the email; the asterisk-parts are Mike Flader's answers within my original e-mail. QUOTE We play 2/1 and 5cM, 15-17NT, 1NTF Our agreements for major suit raises are (without competition): - 2M = simple raise with three cards - 3M = preemptive 0 to bad 6 points, denies side ace, vul 3 to bad 7 - 4M = preemptive with typically 5-card support and some shape, denies side ace - 3C = Bergen raise w exactly 4 trumps, 7-9 - 3D = Bergen raise w exactly 4 trumps, limit raise values - 2NT = GF raise w 4+ trumps - Splinters - 1NT(F) = any hand not gameforcing and not suited for listed raises, could be 3-card limit raise Given our agreements, there is a hand type that falls outside the system = a hand like xxxxx-AJx-xxx-xx which has side control so not suited for preempt, and too weak plus too many trumps for Bergen raises, and obviously unsuitable for Jacoby 2NT. After it came up once, we agreed to just bid 1NT first and then jump to 4M with such hands. So now this is our agreement to include this rare "hole in system" into the 1NTF response. Several questions. 1. Is our 2M alertable? ****NO 2. Is our 3M alertable? (I know it is alertable without competition) ****In non-competitive situations, alert, otherwise no 3. Is our 4M alertable? ****No way. 4. Is our 1NT alertable? (we announce it "forcing") ****No. An announcement is sufficient. Additionally, while no immediate alert would be required for the 4M rebid by responder, at the end of the auction, on hands played by your side, you should offer to disclose this information to the opponents. END

Partner's Dbl is takeout. This hand passes and collects B)

I have no idea why so many "Yes" votes. What ARE those people playing?

Looks like a good reason for making 3♣ non-forcing. I very much dislike being required to pass rather than 2♠ for fear of hearing a forcing 3♣. That said, I think I would probably want to force with that strong hand. And get too high and go down. He is going to hear 3C whether he bid 2S or not, if takeout-doubler had the strong one-suiter in clubs. Why won't he hear 2♣? He might, if his RHO passes.

Looks like a good reason for making 3♣ non-forcing. I very much dislike being required to pass rather than 2♠ for fear of hearing a forcing 3♣. That said, I think I would probably want to force with that strong hand. And get too high and go down. He is going to hear 3C whether he bid 2S or not, if takeout-doubler had the strong one-suiter in clubs.

His partner has made a call so too late. No change of call allowed far as I understand 25A. When it is too late, does it matter what took place, mechanical or not mechanical?

I would be a bit careful before using this as a "strength-barometer". 4x as voidshowing in this position is pretty standard among good players in Norway (I know you were discussing American players), to my knowledge it is played by all our recent Bermuda Bowl and European Champions (I only checked the CC of Brogeland - Lindqvist)... John Perhaps it is not called Jacoby 2NT. Much of Scandinavia calls similar 2NT forcing raise Stenberg.

Sometimes one can't tell if he is serious or not. But I'll take your word he was not serious this time :)

Intend to penalize them in one or both suits. Of course some values must be held, not just length, and setting up a force to at least three of something we can play unless we defend them doubled. I didn't vote because this option was not in it.

sorry but it is not forcing unless by previous discussion I would phrase it the opposite. It is forcing in standard bridge. Non-forcing if so agreed (but why would anyone?).

Intent That's not the way the EBU regulation operated. Intent was important and it was not against the regulation to misbid strong artificial openings. There was a famous case (in the EBU Appeals booklets) where someone misbid a multi 2♦ and there was no adjustment although it was illegal to psyche a multi 2♦ (and still is at some levels). I think that is an unfortunate regulation if despite a bid being illegal, there are no consequences for making that illegal bid.

Both Reese and Kelsey were 4-card major players, I think. It could work in that context more often than "seldom". In a 5-card major system it would typically lead to a poor score, so much so that I call it a clear error to not bid the major. I might just have sympathy for 1NT if responder is 4-3-3-3, in the upper range for NT, and the 4-card major is 6xxx.

Q1 Penalty Q2 If a hand was good enough to open, and it has opponent's suit short, it is good enough to reopen. There are circumstances where this is not a hard rule, like Qx in their suit which tends to reduce the possibility that partner is on a trap pass and more indicates partner might be broke. After all, EVERYBODY can't have the heart honors and this hand is staring at one already. But going by simple principle of "short in their suit", I would not argue too heavily against reopening.

Thank you, Gordon! I'm glad someone here actually bothered to read what I wrote. I read the OP a few times and STILL thought she was asking if it was illegal. Sorry all, especially blackshoe. And it was no trouble reading what _you_ wrote...

Your common sense does not come into play at all, it is a matter of partnership agreement what 4C by opener shows when playing Jacoby 2NT. Common agreements are that 4C shows 5+ card club suit, or that it shows club void; or it could be agreed as something else (but not a singleton) and that is up to partnership agreements. The singleton is showed by 3C, and if this is not the case, then they are not playing Jacoby 2NT. Anyway, back to the OP question. This pair had not agreed what 4C is. This fact was made known to the opening leader so there is no MI or other infraction. No basis for adjustment. And as an aside though not part of any consideration in this case, the Double indeed was wild and gambling - gambling on the fact that the opponents did not have firm agreements. Edit: On second reading, their agreement was maybe not Jacoby 2NT, just that 2NT was 4+ support and 12+ HCP. This makes the case even simpler = they had no agreement what opener's followup calls are.