jallerton

Except or expect?!?

The short answer is no. In trying to solve a relatively minor problem you are creating a whole host of others. You could probably cope with the 4M5m hands if you knew partner was always going to rebid 1NT and have decent detailed agreements over it. The problem is that partners have a habit of rebidding something else. 1♥-1♠-2♦. Suppose Opener is 1543 and Responder is 4-5 or 4-6 in the blacks. How do you get to clubs when it's right? 1♦-1♥-2♦ How do you distinguish between the various rounded suit lengths you might have? 1♦-1♥-3♦. There's not much chance of getting to a 5-3 or 6-3 club fit now. Even when Opener makes the apparently favourable rebid of raising Responder's major, Responder won't be able to get over the fact that he has a longer suit elsewhere.

I voted on the basis of the agreement I have with all my partners. If we haven't discussed the sequence, then of course I won't be confident how partner will take it.

The key to this pair of hands is identifying Opener's holdings opposite Responder's heart shortage. It would be nice if Responder could show the shortage explicitly, but if that's not possible, Responder just has to improvise. For example: If playing 3♣ as an enquiry (as I also do with some partners), Responder bids 3♦ natural, preparing to play in 3NT if Opener bids either that or 3♥; but in a suit contract if Opener bids 3♠. If playing 3♣ as a transfer, Responder bids 3♣ to show ♦ and then 3♠ natural. Now Opener has the message about heart shortage and can judge accordingly.

Suppose that East makes and faces the opening lead really quickly, such that South does not have any practical chance to correct the explanation in time. East is allowed to change his card, presumably, but is knowledge of the original opening lead authorised or unauthorised to West? Should it be a penalty card even?

I've often seen "exceptionally" used in documents to highlight that the circumstances in question are unlikely to arise. I think that the term is warranted here: 99% of the time when an explanation is corrected, the correction takes place either before the opening lead has been faced or some time after dummy has started to expose his or her cards.

I think the more commom agreement here is "natural"!

1. What is E/W's style of 1-level overcalls? 2. What did double of 1NT mean? 3. Is West likely to have a hand where he would want to make a forcing 3♦ bid? 4. If 3♦ is NF, that doesn't preclude East from raising with a suitable hand.

Without a specific agreement to the contrary 3NT is always natural, unless natural makes no sense whatsoever. Here, whilst there is a case for playing 3NT as scrambling (I can recall discussions on the subject), it's plausible to have a natural 3NT bid: although balanced hands with a double spade stop would tend to pass the double, you might want to try 3NT natural with (say) a single stop and a 6-card minor headed by the A or K.

I've discussed this with many partners. With quite a few of them I've agreed to play pass as NF. As long as you play double as T/O it's not essential to have a forcing pass available here.

I don't think this is unusual at all. At the table, people do not always bid to the par contract or play/defend hands double dummy. Logical alternatives are assessed based on the authorised information available: (in the auction) from the player's own hand and the auction to date. For a start it depends what double would mean. Some play it as strict penalties, but others will play it as general high cards/convertible values.

This would only really be useful if you had teams of 4 in an all-play-all event with a compulsory swap of opponents half way through each match AND an even split of the comparisons over the event as a whole (each pair sits in the same direction as every other pair about 50% of the time). In practice none of this happens in teams events.

Yes, the two extra steps are really important. You know what's coming next: A xxx KJxx AKxxx. 1♠-2♣-2♠-? I don't understand gnasher's suggested bidding for Opener either. It's a question of how and when, not whether, Opener shows the club support. Consider that 7♣ could be the only making grand opposite ♠Ax ♣AKxx and no red suit trick.

Hands with 4-card support normally show the club support immediately (the hand in this thread is unusual because the 7-card suit is (arguably) an even more important feature to be able to show). If partner doesn't actually have clubs for his 2♣ bid he can revert to spades or NT. 1♠-2♣-2♠-2NT-3♣ is normally 3-card support (I've seen it done with ♣Hx also).

I suspect that gnasher is concerned about wrongsiding. Bidding 3♥ instead of 2NT would be the winning move if Opener had something like Kxxxxx AQx Kx Qx. Maybe this is too low a target, when 3♥ takes up so much room. Swap the suits round to give Responder A xxx AKxxx KJxx. After 1♠-2♦-2♠. Do you still think 2NT is obvious, or would you consider 3♣ as a plausible call now?

You are right that the first hand is (mainly) a matter of valuation. However, in my experience strong NT players tend to "upgrade" 14-counts into a 1NT opener significantly more often than weak NT players "upgrade" the same hands out of a 1NT opener into 1m planning to rebid 1NT. This is not to say that either group is wrong - there are tactical advantages in opening 1NT after all - but it does affect Responder's decision when holding a marginal hand like the one in this thread. I agree with your comments on the second board.

I tend to play that these doubles set up a forcing pass for one level only. So if next hand jumps, forcing passes are off. Responder's double implies that we'll often have the values to make 3 of Opener's suit if opener has a minimum but offensive hand, but it does not guarantee the values for game. If you play double as penalties in the forcing pass auctions, it's well worth discussing with partner whether doubles are still penalties when next hand jumps. I think that take-out from both sides is best.

Your first option is closest to the mark, but obviously it has to be a hand not suitable for a 4♠ opener in your style. With the section option you would either bid 4♥ (this sounds like it sets spades with heart shortage) or start with a forcing pass.

Playing 3♠ over 3♣ as weak is a poor idea as it narrows the bidding spectrum, having as it does a similar effect to only using half of the width of the page when posting on BBF. Yes, there is a significant difference, but if Opener has decent secondary spade support, he shows that by means of reverting to Responder's suit at the first opportunity. This concept is sometimes referred to as a preference bid. When a player fails to make a preference bid, it is often possible to draw an inference about the lack of support.

I normally end up voting "quantitative" on these questions but in this case the auction should not exist. RKCB for spades makes no sense either when Opener limited his hand and then could not give preference to 3♠. The previous few bids have been searching for strain. The only plausible meaning I can think of for 4NT is a good 5♣ bid: in this context probably a singleton heart and a very good club suit (say a 2137 shape) would make most sense.

I was advocating a rectification adjustment. That doesn't mean that you have to give anyone a procedural penalty, particularly if you judge that the player has acted in good faith. How about this? Law 19 says that a player may double the preceding bid, if that was made by an opponent. However, if a player has UI which (in the player's opinion) demonstrably suggests doubling over another logical alternative, then Laws 16B & 73C imply that the player must not double. The only way the player can apply with Law 19, 16A and 73C at the same time is to refrain from doubling.

What do the strong players in Australia now play instead?

In which country are you located? In the EBU a call is made "when removed from the bidding box with apparent intent" I'm not sure whether 'quarter pulled out a bid' counts or not!

An interesting question. My first thought was to ask whether it matters whether the irregularity was not the one the player perceived. My second thought was to look up the exact wording of Law 9A1: Well, communicating with partner in this way is prohibited by Law (see Laws 73A1, 73A2 & 73B1), so I don't think that Law 9A1 can be used to justify the "Did you mean to bid 2♠, partner?" question.

Obviously inferior if you could guarantee an uncontested auction. When you factor in giving the opponents an extra step after the frequent major suit showinf responses, it's not quite so clear. (Not everybody can resist temptation like you.)