peachy

This is not the definition of a psych. I think it would be good for the discussion if we stay within the legal definition of a psych: a deliberate and gross deviation from partnership agreement. But of course I agree that *if* opponent asks about the 2NT call (Ogust) we don't want to act like sleazebags and break the Laws in the process! Explanation in full: Asking opener to clarify his suit quality and general strength; does not necessarily promise values.

2NT over partner's weak-two opener is an "asking bid", not a "showing bid". Much of the time it is used to look for game, but not always. There are no legal or regulation restrictions [in ACBL. I doubt that anywhere else either] as to what kind of hand the 2NT bidder must have or what his reasons for asking must be. And it was also not a psych, UNLESS you had agreed with partner that the 2NT asker promises a good hand. Same with Stayman. One is allowed to use Stayman with no HCP or with no 4-card major. It is an asking bid, not a showing bid, UNLESS you have agreed with partner that Stayman bidder always has one or both majors.

I expect partner to have a 1NT opening. Also expect he thought we play lebensohl. If not, he has good long clubs. Either way, 3NT. If he alerted and we didn't have the agreement we play lebensohl, then it gets tricky. But if the FACT is we didn't agree to play lebensohl, then we don't play it.

Don't wish to be a devil's advocate here, but the wording must have suffered in translation from Dutch, or maybe the text is not complete and only relevant part was quoted. Implication I get is, that inciting hatred against a majority group is not a violation of Dutch Law.

This hand is like a textbook example of splinter by opener. Responder then knows that all his values are working and at least 6C will be reached.

I was going to post something in these lines. Agree with every word. As to what spade to play trick 2, wasting a J or 10 now is foolish. Carding methods have nothing to do with it when dummy has Q9x, so whatever the carding, you play small so as not to give declarer an extra trick free. Also in this hand, North knows the spade length (from bidding) and strength (looking at dummy) himself with no help from South. Well, declarer doesn't need the potential extra trick in spades in this hand, I was thinking the spade suit in isolation when posted. Sorry.

I was going to post something in these lines. Agree with every word. As to what spade to play trick 2, wasting a J or 10 now is foolish. Carding methods have nothing to do with it when dummy has Q9x, so whatever the carding, you play small so as not to give declarer an extra trick free. Also in this hand, North knows the spade length (from bidding) and strength (looking at dummy) himself with no help from South.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq72haj9872d6cak9&s=sakhq65daq53cj743]133|200|Scoring: IMP Directions changed for convenience.[/hv] Contract is 6H. EW passed throughout. Opening lead is D2. What is your plan to make this?

They could easily have asked someone whose native language is English to write the conditions of contest. Surely not too late now.

Poky said the Dbl was "negative". I don't understand how it could be "negative" now - but that may be my deficient thinking. I am just wondering if it is "negative" now, why was it not "negative" at the time opener re-opened with 3C instead of a Dbl. Which wondering ends in my thinking that the Dbl now is not negative, it strongly suggests defending with a hand that lacks 4-card hearts.

4H. No second choice for me.

I bid something with this sort of hand. 3S or 3C both look good to me.

I think face-to-face bridge at a local club is a good place to start. They often have Beginner games and some free lessons. Or you can try to find a mentor at the club who is willing to play (and perhaps discuss some points after the game). Or you might pay for bridge lessons online or face-to-face, but be sure to get some references or ask around; there are some worthless lessongivers because there are no qualifications required to advertise - and/or give - lessons. If you just want to play online, use the Learn-to-Play resources recommended here by others and jump in. If your level is set to "Novice" or "Beginner" and you are accepted at a table, there will be no enemies:) Kibitzing is also good learning method.

I would pass. Hand this weak cannot possibly be enough for inviting game even if partner has the better than minimum opening. If you try to use 3C as keeping opponents from easy balancing, it comes at a very high cost of misleading partner into bidding game when the weak hand knows game is impossible.

What Jillybean and blackshoe said is all correct. However, "non-sanctioned" and "clueless" as Mike P described the game, might well include the TD - which means that calling him to rule might not lead to a correct legal ruling if there were something to rule on. But in the cases you described, there is no infraction. It is okay to deviate mildly (18 instead of 17) or deviate wildly (strong hand instead of a weak one or vice versa). But once the deviation becomes a habit, for example *many*, even if not *all*, 18 point hands are opened 1NT, then it is best to change the convention card to show 15-18 because such habits are now part of your "system" which opponents are entitled to know.

Dbl by South with both majors although a flaw in a minor is acceptable, IMO. 3!C was an overbid which S should Pass. 3!D was an overbid, whatever its intended meaning.

4D leaves room. See what he says next.

4-card spades, IMO. I am guessing that very few people have an _agreement_ what 3S is in this auction and I don't see the logic of it being anything but natural and denying 3-card hearts. If it wasn't natural and there was no prior discussion of the meaning of this 3S call, then I will just wish "good luck with the experiment". PS. I like to restrict the space-consuming 3C response to be six cards with two of the top three or five only if AKQxx or AQJ10x.

Whatever the votes, whoever attends these meetings, and whatever the discussions and decisions might be, there are no meeting minutes (according to Butch Campbell) and also (according to Butch Campbell) it would be improper to approach individual committee members for this sort of information. Which IMO makes the committee a secret society, and which IMO breaks ACBL's own rules that committee meetings be recorded and minutes kept. I found this out when about a month ago I asked to know when and why Multi 2D was changed into "allowed in MidChart or higher events where round length is 6 boards or more" which means that Multi 2D is disallowed in ALL pairs events, including Blue Ribbon. I was interested a) when the change happened and B) the reason for the change. The tone of the response felt like I was slapped in the face.

More than once, I have seen advice for responder to make a negative double although having only three in the unbid major because the responder has an uncomfortable hand to bid anything else. Combined with opening hands like this, we might get to play a 3-3 fit :) Not the end of the world, of course, but some partnership guidelines perhaps are useful to limit the times that a promised 4-card major is only three cards, both in negative doubler's and opener's hand. I would definitely lean to requiring that negative double that promises the unbid major(s) does not fudge, so that opener can comfortably bid 2H _ _sometimes, rarely _ _ with only three cards.

In SAYC, 1H-3D is strong jump shift. If SAYC was agreed, then it *is* strong jump shift unless n' until otherwise agreed. I play it as WJS by agreement with all partners, unless our agreement is Bergen. I don't play SAYC although I know it very well. 1H-4D splinter.

This bordering on "secret agreements" is nonsense because you haven't figured out how it is secret or not: how it is to be disclosed and what is proper disclosure. Given the move by the ACBL away from style alerts, disclosure is via the cc and full description when asked. Thus the real question is what do these folks put on their cc, and how do they describe their bid when asked? I have personal experience about how "they" explain when asked to explain their 2C opening. The explanation is "Strong and forcing" preceded by a sideways look of *why are you asking, don't you know that 2C is standard or did you start playing yesterday*. Anyway, at the level of play where I want to play, this problem is rare. At clubs etc. it is more common. Asking about a 2C opening could also present UI to my partner. The only reason to ask DURING THE AUCTION about a non-alerted standard 2C opening is if I have reason to suspect they don't have their bid. It is better to ask before the match or before the round, but nobody is that diligent and sometimes round gets started in a hurry, etc. etc. It's not worth the trouble at a club game or some local sectional, just accept *I got beat by a bunny* and move on.

If '3NT Gambling' is on our card and ou agreement is it denies outside aces and kings exceot in fourth seat, then this is a 100% 3NT opening.

Gerben, I did not quite understand your numbering and did not understand what you say the bots are playing. Where I play, What is near universal as Lebensohl over their two-level competition after we open 1NT, is the following: 1. Slow shows 2. Direct cuebid is Stayman/ish and denies stopper (as opposed to slow cuebid via 2NT first, which is also Stayman and promises stopper) 3. 3m is forcing. Alternative agreement and equally common is '3m is competitive but not forcing while weak long minor goes via 2NT' - matter of taste However, none of this or any of Gerben's post answered VegasVern's question.

This is not a 2C opener. Can this be legally opened 2C? Yes, if the pair's agreement is that this qualifies as a "strong" hand. The problem is that GCC and ACBL regulations do not give adequate, if any, guidelines what constitutes a strong hand. This is a disclosure problem! When and how to tell opponents about this style? Moreover, those who think this is a 2C opener, probably have no clue that it is unexpected to the opponents to have 2C opener show up with this hand so they would not understand what there is to disclose... As said in the related recent thread, I am still puzzled as to when/where/how this style became popular in the intermediate level. Maybe they have noticed that there is less interference when we open 2C and decided to open to 2C with "anything more than minimum". But to me, this style borders on secret agreements.