OleBerg

[hv=pc=n&s=sq92hakj32dkck852&n=s43hqt98dat63cjt9&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3spp3nppp]266|200[/hv] Lead: ♥5 Opponents are approx the middle of the Danish Premier League. Plan the play.

Hi all, Reluctantly going back to natural (to please a good partner) after quite some years of strong club and the like. Whats best to play as a responce to a strong 2♣? I feel strongly towards not playing steps to show number of controls og points or anything like it. Also 2♦ as a waiting bid, is something it would be hard to take me away from. (Maybe a two-way bid.) But what about the other replies? My experience is limited. My thoughts are something like: - A bid that takes up space, should show define a hand proberly, especially after 2♣, as we are already high, and have not yet shown a suit. So even a meager 2♥ or 2♠ slightly preempts the auction, making things more difficult for the opener, that can have a wide variety of hands. - On the other hand, on a large frequency of hands, the knowledge of responders distribution could be important to opener. I saw that Sabine and Roy played 2♦ = Waiting or hearts (Combined with Kokish). Sounds smart if for instance it somehow combines with 2♠+ = Transfer. Any comments welcome. Thx in advance.

Thx for the reply, I think that there is an even better line. (Not that I came up with it myself, but a teammate pointed it out.)

[hv=pc=n&s=sat753ht8764dkq3c&n=skj62hak53da9cq32&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1np3d4c4dp4sp6sppp]266|200[/hv] 3♦ = 5-5 in majors and game force Lead: ♦J Disassociating from partners bids, how do you play?

(2♦) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 3♣ (Pass) - 3♥ - (Pass) -4♣? And what about: (2♦) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 3♣ (Pass) - 3♠ - (Pass) -4♣? Edit: 2♦ is a weak two.

4 aces (of 5), the ♦Q and a source of tricks that cannot normally be unearthed by partners asking. Responder should bid 7♦ at the slightest excuse. (If he has an ace.)

And a simple one for pick-up partnerships: 1♣ - 1♥ 1♠ = Four card hearts. Simply continue as after 1♣ - 1♠, 1♥ in a natural system. 1NT = As usual 2♣ = As usual 2♦ = As usual 2♥ = Whatever. My suggestion would be: A good raise to 2♠ 2♠+ = As usual 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ = Four diamonds. For simplicity. 1♠+ = Same principles as above. The advantage of this would be simple agreements, some edge in the first sequence, a somewhat smaller edge in the second sequence, and maintaining the preemptive value of 1♣ - 1♠. Furthermore, the available bids made free at the two-level can be utilized as seen fit. I think the first sequence would have some merit, especially at MP's, but I'm not certain it's worth the effort. And you can call it "Revenge-transfer" og "Reverse-transfer" which both are kind of cool names. :rolleyes:

Mostly out of curiosity: If you take my word for it, that pass is a logical alternative, would you still need to see the hand?

Obviously pass is a logical alternative. It might even be disputeable whether 5♥ is a logical alternative. But that in itself doesn't make 5♥ illegal. For 5♥ to be illegal, the UI has to demonstrably suggest 5♥. (In the relevant jurisdiction for certain, but I would expect it to be the case everywhere.) Edit: Like noted below, you can take my word that pass is a logical alternative.

Any input or advise is appriciated. Pass - (Pass) - 1♠ - (Pass) 4♥1 - (Pass) - 4♠ - (X) Pass2 - (Pas) - 5♥ 1 = Long pause 2 = Short pause, but noticeable Pulling to 5♥ was "correct" the 4♥-bid contained a good 7-card-suit and no spade-support. As suggested in the other thread, we are indeed in a context where 4♥ could have been meant as natural. But the 4♥-bidder is known to be very "imaginative", so even if it seems far-fetched, he could maybe have been thinking about something else. Edit, in reply to gordontd's post below: In the relevant jurisdiction any meaning of 4♥ is alertable, either because it is surprising (natural) or because it is artificial. For the sake of discussion, assume the 5♥-bidder claims that the double convinced him 4♥ were meant as natural. So, what is the ruling?

I played this (with weak NT): 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ = Balanced, 15+, not 4 hearts1 1♠ = Natural forcing for a round. 1NT = Transfer to clubs, limited only by not opening 2♣2 2♣ = Transfer to diamonds, limited only by not opening 2♣3 2♦ = A good raise to 2♥, that is 15-16 and four-card-support. Or 3-card-support and a hand that will bid again on a sign-off. 2♥ = weak four-card raise. 2♠/3♣ = Mini-splinter, decent opener something like 13 good points or more. 2nt = 3♦-bid with at most 2 hearts 3♦ = 6+ diamonds, 3 hearts 3♥ = Weak ditributional hand with four-card support. 1: Responder bids 1♠ with 4 spades and 1nt to play facing 15-17. 2♣+ is your favourite checkback. With 15-17 opener bids 1nt/2♠ or pass. 18-19 bal bids 4-card-suits at the 2-level. 2: Avoids the fake reverses on doubleton diamonds or triple majors. 3: Allows responder to make genuine preference with 1-3, without having to pass. Advantagous both facing minimum reverses and stronger hands. After the 1♥-response, principles are the same. Playing this, it is possible to systematically respong on 4HCP and four cards in a major.

Thx for the reply. Polling peers is ufortunately not an option. The pair has no agreements, but the play in a circle, where 4♥ = Shortness would be the default expectation. But then again, the 4♥-bidder might not be completely up to date on this. Best Regards

Hi all, Any input or advise is appriciated. Pass - (Pass) - 1♠ - (Pass) 4♥1 - (Pass) - 4♠ - (X) Pass2 1 = Long pause 2 = Short pause, but noticeable What does the pauses, if anything, suggest? And how demonstrably do they suggest it? Best Regards

[hv=pc=n&s=sj5hajt543d53cj43&e=skq2hqdkqt92ct972&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2d(Multi%2C%206-9%20HCP%2C%206%2B%20hearts%20or%20spades)p4h(To%20play%204%20of%20partners%20suit)ppp]266|200[/hv] Lead ♦K Capable opponents. On the first trick partner plays the ♦7 and declarer the ♦6. Your agreements about the signalling is quite clear: Partner must encourage/discourage. Low-high is encouraging. What do you do?

You didn't bid 1♥, the guy they carried out did. Anyway, you bid 1nt and gets to play there. But you might want to use the information from the bidding during declarer play. What do you make of the very strange explanation?

The story of the hand is this: I was on lead, and dummy had given me the "no agreements" explanations and I had decided on the diamond lead. But before I led, declarer corrected and said that 5♦ was Voidwood. I then changed my lead to a spade. So all was well and fair at the table. My reason for posting is, that I often feel that the non-offending side gets short-changed in these situations, that their claims is not given credit enough. And often this shortchanging is, directly or indirectly, based on the argument, that the actual chosen lead is not to smart anyway. (Which I guessed some might think of my initial choice to lead a diamond.) And here I have a hand, where I have "evidence" that the correct explanation would change the lead. So I just wanted to hear some opinions. Thx all for your contributions, and further replies are welcome, naturally.

He had forgotten it at the time.

a: The player bidding 5♦ meant it as Voidwood, The player bidding 6♦ simply meant it as "more in diamonds". b: The player that was to interpret 5♦ didn't know what it was. The player to interpret 6♦ knew his 5♦ had been misunderstod. c: No agreements was given to both defenders. d: Before the opening lead. e: It was, after the hand had been played f: Should be ansered elsewhere. g: There was such an agreement. Both players readily admitted to it, and it was in the system-notes. To you and others: What I am really looking for, is not legal advise as such, but your opinion on how much credit we give to the claim, that the MI caused the bad lead, anfd that a spade would have been lead with the right explanation. Thx all in advance

Thank you for the reply. The correct explanation is that it is the answer to the 5♦ Voidwood. The hand happened in a jurisdiction where all forms of adjusted scores are allowed, and are at the TD's discretion. But what I am really interested in, is how much we believe the claim that the wrong explanation caused the bed lead?

West might be telling the truth, but even if the TD believes him, the ruling will still have to be 3♥+1 if pass is a logical alternative.

. Wrong. Whom his peers are is determined by skill-level. So you have to find a number of peers who would bid 3♣, never mind their reasoning. If a number of these peers also passes 3♥, then pass is a logical alternative.

The opponents are all aware of the meaning of your bids, and they are not the sort of persons that suddenly takes a leave of their senses. I know this all seems somewhat strange, but I promise that there will be an explanation that will make (some) sense.

A player is on lead in this auction (only one side bids): 2♣1 - 2♦2 3♠3 - 4♦4 5♦5 - 6♦6 6♠ 1:Strong 2:Relay 3:At least a strong 6-suiter, normally sets spades. 4:Cuebid 5:No agreement 6:No agreement The player on lead has: ♠6/♥AJ72/♦QJ4/♣KT954 The player lead ♦Q which is bad for the defence. After the hand it turns out that the correct explanation to 5♦ was: Voidwood The player on lead now claims, that with the correct explanation he would have lead a spade. Which is good for the defence. How much credit does he get? What is your ruling?

You are called to a table to stand in for a player that has fallen ill and has left. All players are strong, and it is a serious tournament. The bidding so far: 1♣ - (Pass) - 1♥1 - (Pass) 1♠2 - (D) - ??? 1: Transfer to spades, shows 4+ 2: At most three spades You now ask for the meaning of the double, and get the answer: It shows an honour in spades, and is very unlikely to have more than three cards in the suit. You might ask a few more questions, but the opponents will call the (competent) TD for advice, who will rule that you have gotten all the information you are entitled to. What are your thoughts now? And if you come to a conclusion, what are you allowed to do? (I post in this forum because I want people with knowledge of the laws to respond. But all are welcome to respond, naturally.)

You are red vs white: ♠ AQ2 ♥ JT9542 ♦ J42 ♣ A (1♠) - Pass - (3♣/♦) - ??? What is your bid on: 3♣ = 9-11 and four-card support? 3♦ = 6-8 and four-card support? Thx in advance. Ole