Poky

Playing a natural 1NT after the double is a bad usage of this bid (assuming it is IMPs) If you want to play NT, you shouldn't have any problem with them bidding and playing NT.

I play 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♦ as 8-11. 1NT is 8-11 too (or 10-11 vulnerable). Excellent stuff. Easy developments. The problem comes eventually when you open 1♦. In this context 1♣ is 12-14 balanced or 18+ any.

You should never open mini 1NT with singletons because natural sequences 1NT-2M and 1NT-3m are most powerful. I used to play 9-12 but this always creates a swing when you open with 12. Therefore I would suggest this ranges: 9-11 > open 1NT 12-14 > open 1!C, rebid 1NT 15-17 > open 1!D 18+ > open 1!C, rebid strong

You're right. But, fortunately, you are always in time to find another one that suits your abilities well. B-)

[hv=pc=n&n=saqt8h2dktct98532&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1c1sp1nppd2dd]133|200|1C opener has 12-14 balanced (may have longer diamonds than clubs)[/hv]

Do you really bid 4NT with, say, 2164? What is partner supposed to do with 4333 on 4NT?

[hv=pc=n&n=saj95h962dacakt84&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2hd4h5dppdpp]133|200[/hv] Team match. Maybe you do not agree with the first double, but this is how the bidding went... Now?

Very funny to see all the people blaming South. :rolleyes: North 95% South 5% With 3NT South clearly said - "I have 12-13 without interest in your suit(s)", since 2NT would show: a) More points, or b) Interest (and enough equity) in finding some better spot. Where is it going North now with 30-31 points on the line, a misfitting hand, singleton diamond and just one ace?!?!!? Come on. 5% for South because he could have bid 5♣ instead of 6♣.

Pass maybe isn't the best bid, but is surely a LA, since I've narrowed the range of my hand pretty much. With 0463 it's borderline if pass is a LA (probably not).

Specific ace(s) ask. I think Zia plays it that way...

8-11 system. Not only fun, but this is also a very good aggressive system (if you are skilled well enough to handle competition after 1♦ opening, because all other openings are +EV by themselves, including mini 1NT). 1st/2nd: 1♣ = 18+ any or 12-14 balanced 1♦ = 12-17, many hands (including 15-17 balanced/5+M) 1♥/1♠/2♣/2♦ = 8-11, 5+ cards (1M may occasionally be 5M332 with 12-13) 1NT = balanced: 8-11 NV, 10-11 Vul 2M = 5/6M, no 4oM, 12-14 2NT = both majors, 12-14 3♣ = 5+♣4+♦, 12-14 3♦ = 6+good♦, 12-14 3M = 7M, 12-14 After partner passes, openings are: 1♣ = 18+ any 1♦/1♥/1♠/2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠= natural, up to 17 1NT = 15-17 balanced, no 5M 2NT = 5♦5♣ 3any = to play

1. Clear pass 2. Do not like it, but I don't have any better bid. 3. Bid 3♦ as cue for clubs.

I held: ♠KQJTx ♥AQTxxx ♦x ♣x and felt that 4♦->XX was the right way to bid this hand, although I didn't do it. And, of course, 4♣->XX if I had the 4-7 pattern. :P

IMP. All vul. Expert partner. You have: ♠xxxx ♥x ♦Jxxxx ♣Jxx pass pass 1♥ 1NT pass 3NT 4♦ Dbl pass pass Rdbl pass ???

1st board: The double is just saying that 2♥ wasn't thin and that the board belongs to us (suggesting that Zia is bidding tactically, which is pretty clear anyway - noone invites the game, where opponents are inviting the game). But even if we do not know anything about the double, the doubler's continuation is very easy: - 3♦ = cuebid, I am interested in game; - 3♥ = I'm not interested in game. 2nd board: I'm bidding 3♣ and passing the rest.

5♦5♣ 15-18

Yes, there is. Your 'Swedish' structure has many leaks: 1. The cheapest rebid is showing the worst hands, 2. It's asymmetric with a profitable structure when we overcall, 3. Doesn't polarize between weak balanced/unbalanced hands without revealing the shortness. What do I mean? 1. The 3C rebid spares most space and should be used to show the best hands, 2. Do you really want to bid 3C to show a minimal hand after, say: (1C) 1S (pass) 2NT (Dbl) ? 3. Sometimes (and pretty often, I would say) responder has a hand that wants to play game if partner is minimal but unbalanced, without knowing which shortness opener has (to make opponents harder to find the best lead/defence) All that said, a much better structure should be: 3C = any 17+ (...3D asking, new suit showing shortness, 3M showing 10-11 balanced) 3D = minimal unablanced (...3M/4M to play, step1 asking shortness) 3M = minimal balanced (...3NT to play, cuebid trying for slam) 3oM/4C/4D = shortness, 14-16 3NT = balanced 14-16 with 5M 4M = 6M(322), 14-16 After 3C 17+, 3D relays into the same structure, with one addition: 3M = 6M(322) 3NT = balanced with 5M And besides all, it is very intuitive, easy to remember and use.

If NS are advanced+: adjustment + PP. Reverse hesitation -> blatant breach of Law 23.

Interesting view, I have to admit. And what are doing expert players with south's hand? Bidding 2♦ with three cards and bottom of their range (both in view of points and distribution) just to induce a very strong partner to rebid something, aiming towards an almost sure minus score (clearly being propelled by the unfavorable vulnerability that offers EW much tactical/bluffing space)? Or maybe you just wanted to say that north with 22 points and 8 contols (missing a spade stopper) has a comfortable pass over 2♣? :rolleyes:

:blink: Not only it isn't an obvious call, but it would be in complete collision with the rule 72A which says: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Not a lower score, but a higher score. Partner bid 2♥ after hearing the explanations. Opponents' ranges are namely 11+ and 11-13. I have 12 hcp. Therefore, partners range is around 4 hcp. Partner said just that he wants to play 2♥. It shouldn't be a surprise if he holds something like: ♠xxx ♥QJT8xx ♦- ♣xxxx because this is what he bid - "I want to play 2♥ not giving them the opportunity to pass 2♦x out". Bidding anything except pass (even 3♥, I mean - what do I want to achieve with this bid? What equity do I have in this hand?) is bidding against my partner. I should be very happy to hold 3 carder support in this spot.

The Portland case reminded me a case we had in my country last year. [hv=pc=n&s=s76hqt954d954c854&w=sak8hkj876d6cj976&n=s32ha2dakq2cakq32&e=sqjt954h3djt873ct&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1hd1sp2cdppp]399|300[/hv] After the 2nd double east asks south about the meaning of the 2nd double: - "Is this double informative*?" *A way to call a double that's not a penalty double (lets assume - something like "takeout") - "Yes, I think so." Everyone passes 2♣x for -3. East, after seeing ♣AKQxx in north claims he got misinformed about the meaning of double and calls the director. What do you think about this potential misinformation and the NS-bidding? Do you rule "yes MI, no damage" or "no MI" (or something else)?

First of all, not all the doubles mean the same. And not all people are very good at understanding and/or defining them. The classic (and most profitable) meaning of double in this sequence is "negative". And a negative double is negative because denies (negates) the fact that their contract (if passed out and played) could be in the long run a good contract for our side. In most cases you have takeout shape for bidding a negative double, this is true, but sometimes you just do not. And you have to bid those hands anyway. And this is what probably happened here. North doubled the 2nd time and south started to think: - "hmmm, partner doubled twice, so, he should have good (at least invitational) values" - "hmmm, my partner didn't bid nor 2♦ neither 2♥ forcing, therefore, he doesn't hold those hands" - "hmmm, my partner didn't bid 3♠ on 2♠, he doesn't have much club support and/or he thinks that for some reason X could give us better result" - "hmm, my partner didn't bid 2NT/3NT, he thinks that for some reason X could give us better result" - "hmmm, opponents didn't raise spades and I have just two small ones" ... And all this thinking, looking at the two small spades, heavily leads to the assumption partner has (3)4 spades in his range. If this is true, a pass in the long run with AK+A (with a hand that doesn't guarantee a game can be made even if partner is 12-ish) could even be a profitable MP move. Certainly, it is true that sometimes North will have some 2443 shape, but this is more probable in theory than in practice. In given context it would be pretty absurd to rule "fielded misbid" when there are so many bridge-reasons for making this move (which was just a little bit gambling). Except if you just want to punish them (in a wrong way) for saying "takeout" except "negative" - where is absolutely clear what opener meant (and his further bids are a clear evidence). A good director should primarily focus at the tempo of second double (and potential UI arosen) because this is the most probable way the damage (if any) could have be done.

How do you exactly define a 'fielded misbid'? I mean, what are the bases of fielding? Because, I always meant there should be some prearragned agreement around that (implicit or explicit).

South has just about 2 HCP above average for this situation and an average support for majors. This is by no means "general strenght". If you allow him to double 2NT (which is plain wrong, but you can make a poll), be prepared to take into consideration (except 3♣x= by EW) the following contracts: 4♥x by N, 3NTx by N, 3NT by N (3♥ not being an option, North has 9 points).

I really do not understand Directors who tend to be creative without a valid reason. Did South have he right information of the 2NT bid when he doubled 3♣? - Yes, he did. Would he bid something else on 2NT (with the right information) what would prevent him even to come in situation od doubling 3♣? - No, he wouldn't. But even if we rule that he would, 4♥x -3 is worse than the score achieved at the table. Therefore, 3♣x= stands for both sides. Easy job. South probably tried to be tricky (by doubling in the hope of catching West without fit in minor or something like that) and shoot himself in the foot.