rogerclee

Haha. At these colors, I think E has an obvious pass over 1NT (12-14). But even I'm not going for 800 in 1NT undoubled :).

Hmmm...pass.

Would never dream of making a NF 2♣ bid. :P Would not be surprised if a simulation shows partner passing 2♣ close to half the time. Edit: Now Csaba bids 2♣! Wow :/. I know it seems silly to post a thread for feedback and then to question that feedback, but I am just sort of astounded by the number of 2♣ bidders.

IMPs, White vs Red ♠AQT ♥x ♦AKTxxx ♣Kxx Uncontested 1♦-1♠ ?

No. 3♣ here would be GF.

1♣ = 14+ with 5cM, practically forces 1♦ relay (I assume 'practically', because forcing 1♦ unconditionally sounds so bad that I cannot believe it, though this may be the intent.) 1♦ = Art, Forcing, no 5cM 1M = 5cM, "8-13HCP with the expectation of winning 5 tricks", whatever this means 1NT, 2♣, 2♦/♥/♠ remain the same (I guess the implication is "the same as in 2/1"), so I guess this system has 3 forcing openings.

Thanks for posting. I am not going to argue details about the system, though I believe that many of them are quite poor. I only take special exception to this: Regarding disadvantages of the Areinoff Club: Actually, after perusing a huge number of possible hands, this author has found none, except for the need to expend some time and effort to learn something new, to leave the comfort of the familiar and be willing to accept change. You cannot be serious in this statement. All systems have deficiencies, and this one has more than a small number.

Oh, forgot to add something onto the original post. But no, this seems like a good way to lose 4 heart tricks/ruffs.

I think the short answer is, no, they cannot do better. Playing a mini NT is an inherently risky thing that has big rewards (shutting out their game) and big losses (getting nailed over nothing). This one was a big gain for them. To interefere with a weak NT, you should have sound values. From someone who prefers to play weak NT, I can tell you that my biggest gains don't come from cheating the opponents out of their games. They come from nailing bad opponents who overcall or make penalty doubles with nothing.

If there's no other logical play, and finding this logical play was not the byproduct of UI, then I don't see how the UI matters.

Pretty sick. I redouble, since I am semi-flexible about running to hearts. I'd rather not play a 4-2 fit, and in this situation, I would say that this is very likely to be the case. What NT range does this "English style" employ?

Perhaps the traditional meaning in the UK is because opening bids have a wider range. What Hannie describes as "a very minimal hand" is something I'd regard as a perfectly normal minimum opening. Anyway, I'm bored of this topic. Anyone got any play problems? 973 62 AK2 T9653 AKQJ4 KT54 Q6 A4 (1H)-P-(P)-X (P)-2C-(P)-2S (P)-4S-AP You declare 4S on the ♦J lead, winning in hand while RHO gives count (even). On the ♠AK, LHO follows once but shows out on the second round. Plan the play.

:) Edited.

That is not the same thing as saying you have a better spot somewhere else. Sure I agree with that Wayne, but he was basically arguing that you should try to find a better spot. On this hand if you are playing competent opps, S figure to be 5-1 at best, so maybe you should try to find a 7+card fit - its not that unlikely that you have one. Poorer opps may well sit a t/o x with KJTx. In my experience, poorer opponents need more, in fact, much more to sit for a 1-level penalty double than good players.

IMPs, All Red ♠KTx ♥x ♦AKQxx ♣QJxx 1NT = 11-14ish. (1♣)-P-(P)-? Edit: Lol at "x then 1D" option. This is obviously "x then 2D if possible" Edit2: God I am stupid tonight. LHO opens 1♣.

FWIW, I agree with this overwhelming consensus to pass. Michael Rosenberg online chose to xx, puzzled as to what he was trying to accomplish (and if I have a bridge hero, it is Rosenberg). This led to one of the most bizarre auctions I have ever seen in my entire life. 1♠-Dbl-P-P Rdbl-P-2♦-P P-Dbl-2♥-P P-Dbl-P-2♠-P P-Dbl-3♣-Dbl AP 3♣x=. RHO is 7-4 in the black suits, ♠JT8xxxx and ♣KJxx.

I think you're reading it incorrectly.

Forcing. Would be NF if opener had rebid 1NT, would also be NF if you played 2♦ some sort of artificial checkback.

R/R IMPs, against highly expert opposition: ♠AQ942 ♥J6 ♦AQJ ♣QT5 You open 1♠ in first seat (some might open 1NT, but let's say you play weak NT or something), LHO doubles, and this is passed back to you.

Agree with this, but I'm not sure anyone has gotten to a big point--what's the upper range, if any? What does ♠AKQxxx ♥void ♦x ♣AQxxxx bid? Can it bid 3♣, or should it pass first and then start jumping in clubs?

I'd bid 4♠. 3♠ is nice, but I don't want to give partner a problem when I don't need to, and I think this is fairly close to being one of those times.

5♣ w/r. I might just pass at all other colors, but if I bid something, it'll be 4♣. Bidding more and more clubs helps the defenders evalulate their hands better, and I have little doubt that their ~20HCP game is making. Might as well make them think they're stealing.

Leaving aside the comments about the ethics or legality of this line, in my view it is simply bad bridge :) No good player would ever twitch (or cover) with the club Q. It is simply impossible that you bid 7N on a hand on which you would be taking a finesse this early AND it is important to cover. A good player will play low in tempo rather than even think about the play, just on instinct (which is internalized experience). And I would hate to have to try to read WHY a less-than-expert opp twitched. Maybe it was because he was expecting another heart. Maybe it was because he was thinking about giving count. Maybe he was thinking about the colour to repaint the living room walls. And all along, we are committing to a line before we have tested all of the side suits, which may actually give us a good technical edge: we find out, for example, that hearts break 4-2... combine this with inferences as to other suit lengths, and we may be able to infer which way the clubs break, and then hook through length. Not to mention that maybe an opp wiill pitch a small club (or 2) on the run of the hearts. Oh, I never said I thought it was a great line :angry:. I agree that cashing all the other suits dry first is better to get a count. I posted this line mostly out of fun, since I miss poorbridge updates :blink:. I am not interested in defending the line in question as ethical or not. I am interested in finding out whether or not it is ethical. My initial survey of the laws led me to believe that it is certainly not illegal, and not even unethical. The posts here have also led me to believe that it is neither unethical nor illegal. However, to be fair, I consulted a local player who serves on national appeals committees frequently. He believes that intent is the key here, and that the declarer's intent is to gain information he could not have gotten normally. He thinks that you'd never get called for it, but that it is probably unethical/illegal.

I'd actually like to see this law. I searched for a few minutes through the ACBL lawbook, but I was unable to find any law that dealt with this matter. It is entirely possible that I couldn't find this law if it exists, or that this law exists in Europe but not in the ACBL. The closest thing I found is: Law 73D: A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made. That is not the goal here. The goal is to read his tempo, not to mislead him as to my holding in clubs. In fact, I am sure that if my LHO does indeed hold the ♣Q, it will be clear to him within 3 seconds what my exact club holding is. For example, this law refers to a situation such as this: I am declaring 3NT and have ♥KQJ. RHO gets in and leads a heart. It would be unethical and illegal for me to hesitate here and then play the K, possibly suggesting that my holding is Kxx or KJx. I must play a card in tempo, since I have nothing to think about. If for some reason I huddle a bit, I MUST play the J, not any other card, as this is the card which makes my holding most clear to the defenders, and even then, the opponents may be able to successfully nail me for this.

I'd be happy if someone who's very educated about the laws can explain why this is or is not an okay thing to do. My response is the same as Arend's--"Huh?"