jallerton

Suppose that you held ♠AQJ10xxx as South. Would you not want to bid 3♠, even if you suspected that the opponents had a few more high cards than your own side? If nothing else, a spade lead could be necessary to beat 3NT.

No, South would clearly pass and play in the known fit in 3♠x. South would reason that North had shown both majors. He might then wonder whether it is possible for LHO to have a full blown penalty double, but that is not South's problem, except when judging how the cards lie during the play. Even if you don't always trust your partner's bidding more than your opponents', it must at least be a logical alternative to do so!

I would also open the North hand. If North does open, would the 'inverted raise denies a major' supporters respond 1♥ on the South hand?

I prefer to play that if an inverted minor raise contains a side 4-card major, then Responder must have the strength to force to game. So 1♦-1♠-2♠-3♦ is invitational. I agree that some artficiality is useful, but even if you don't play any, the strength definition in the sequence 1♦-2♦-2♠-3♠ is no worse than after a 2/1 game forcing sequence such as 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♥. Certainly when Opener has a balanced hand, whether I am playing weak, mini or strong NT openings, Opener will get to show his range. Interesting. I understand why you had this agreement, but what did you do on the 5431 hands with 3-card support which couldn't show the 4-card suit cheaply? Did you rebid the 5-card suit, even if the suit was quite weak, or open 1NT? I'm guessing that you passed borderline opening hands of this shape playing this style.

I normally agree with your thorough posts, Mike, but on this occasion I don't. 1eyedjack has given a far better reply which gives a more balanced view of the situation. I may be idiosycratic, but with several partners I have agreed that a 4-card major is permitted on certain hand types. By doing so, we gain more definition than I have with other partners who prefer your style of respones. Yes it makes sense for Opener to differentiate between balanced/unbalanced hands, but I much prefer that the unbalanced hands show their shape. This helps the partnership to make a sensible decision between 3NT, 5m and 6m. Stopper showing bids with two balanced hands are more likely to help the opponents: often if a suit is unstopped then 5m isn't making anyway; maybe 3NT will make if you haven't told them which suit to lead or if a 4-3/4-4 break in the offending suit is sufficient to make 3NT. If Opener raises the major, then it's not always easy to get back to the minor. Many play that 1m-1M-2M can be 3-card support. If so, it's probably necessary to play 1m-1M-2M-3m as NF (invitational), but then what do you bid with 4/4 and a game forcing hand? Or maybe the auctions starts 1m-1M-3M. Now a 4-4 fit in the major is guaranteed, but now it's not always easy to play in 6 of the minor 5-4 fit when that's the best slam. You mention that using gadgets when Opener does not raise the major. If the auction starts, say, 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♠-any, or after 1♦-1♥-1NT-2♦(game forcing Checkback)-any, how does Responder differentiate between 5/4, 4/5 amd 4/4 in the red suits?

Er, no. If partner holds that hand then Opener (assuming he holds ♥AKJxx) will make 5 heart tricks (think how the play might go). If he has 3 minor suit winners as well that's -360 which could easily be 10IMPs away.

It's a matter of style, I suppose. In my view, the main feature of the South hand is the 4-card support with game forcing values. I can see why on some hands Responder might want to show a shortage or a strong side suit (which may involve alternative agreed responses), but not here. As far as I can see, on your sequence Responder could have 3- or 4-card support, and may or may not have clubs. I'd only consider bidding 2♣ if it were a game forcing relay with agreed follow-ups whereby Responder could determine Opener's exact shape and strength. Then 2♣ has the space saving advantage over 2NT.

If we pass, at least two bad things can happen. 1. They might well make it, especially when we lack entries to get in and draw trumps. 2. LHO might run to 1NT or 2m. Then we have to decide whether to bid 2♠ on the next round and/or stick partner's double of the runout.

Jacoby shows a game force with 4-card support for partner's suit; the South hand looks to fit the bill. The complete opposite of what I want for Jacoby 2NT is a 0-count with a void in partner's suit.

How strong was 2♠? The UI suggesting not passing, However, I'd be very surprised if pass were a logical alternative, even if partner's pass was not forcing.

If double would have been penalties and pass is forcing, why can't partner have somewhere between a bid and a FP? When partner chooses the middle action after a hesitation, and it's not clear what alternative action he was considering, then usually no LA is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation.

I find this practice annoying, when I am dummy and my hand is on lead. I am sometimes dozing, trying to use up as little mental energy as possible, so if partner calls for "ten" when dummy is on lead I have to work out which ten he means. Of course, when dummy is following suit, it's totally normal to call for just the rank, and I can't see why this would even merit a warning. Indeed in practice, there is sometimes an advantage in not naming every single card: with tables at some clubs and tournaments being quite close together, the less information that can be heard from neighbouring tables, the better.

I wouldn't recommend doubling 1♠ on this hand. Think how the auction might go. Nothing much good can happen if you do. I would overcall 4♥. My second choice is 5♥ on the grounds that there's a fair chance that I'll have to bid that anyway, so it's better to give LHO a first round problem at a higher level.

In England, this type of situation is covered in The White Book, I believe.

What's a typical minimum unbalanced 1♣ opening bid in your style? The range of the 1♣-1♠-2♣ rebid seems uncomfortably wide. By the way, Opener's rebid problem on this type of hand is one of the advantages of playing weak NT openings. Now you have an easy 1NT rebid (15-17) after 1C-1♠.

I disagree. It's quite common to play it as forcing, but a lot of people play it as NF also and it is quite playable to do so. For example, not everybody plays weak jump shifts. If you don't, what would you bid with a 6232 5-count here?

As has already been pointed out, there are two infractions in this case. The declarer committed the first infraction and this is explained in Law 46. As I understand it, Law 46A tells us that calling for "ten" was an infraction, whilst Law 46B describes the appropriate rectification. In this case Law 46B3(b) applies, so the rectification is that the ten which was still in dummy's hand at stage is the card which has deemed to have been played. Looking elsewhere in the Law Book I note Law 12B2: This would seem to prevent the TD from applying, for example., Law 23 to this situation. In respect of the defender's infraction, the normal major penalty card rules apply, as has already been noted.

I said "might not" partly because it is debatable whether declarer's irregularity caused the major penalty card. In this case, many would argue that the main cause of the major penalty card was the defender's failure to pay attention. It's not clear to me why declarer's irregularity of calling for "ten" was the major contributing factor. On the other hand, if declarer had called for a "club" at a point where dummy did not have any clubs left, then the defender's action of "following" with a club would seem more understandable.

I agree with Bluejak. I suspect that even Barmar does not name both the rank and the suit of every card he plays from dummy. I disagree with the "no harm, no foul" approach. The bridge Laws distinguish between 'rectifications" and "penalties". If an offender gains from his offence, the Laws provide an appropriate rectiifcation so that the offender's opponents do not lose out. Penalties should be assessed based on the severity of the offence, independent of whether the offence causes a problem. It might not have made a difference this time, but is likely to do so in the future unless the offender can be discouraged from such behaviour.

Another way to lose is that the defence may be more accurate if you give away more information about your hand. 2♠+2 scores better than 3♠=.

I don't think 5♦ was terrible. The problem with doubling 4♥ is that it will be difficult for partner to judge when to pull. Wouldn't you also double on a 4=2=3=4 12-count? What do you expect partner to do with say x Qxx KQJxx Axx?

It could easily be right to bid here, but pass might also be the winner. This awkward guess is partly self-inflicted. With 5-card support and a void in RHO's suit, it must be quite likely that LHO is about to raise hearts to the 3- or 4-level, so is it really right to double 1♥ on the first round? I'd prefer to raise diamonds. Whilst none of 3♦, 2♥, 3♥ or 4♦ is ideal, my preference is to make a fit jump of 3♣ which describes the hand quite well and helps partner to judge over the expected heart raise from LHO. I know I'll sometimes miss a 4-4 spade fit, but that doesn't have to be a disaster. Diamonds will often make an extra trick and at IMPS 5♦= is fine even when 4♠ was making. Opposite a good hand like Axxx xx AKxxx Ax, the fit jump will make it hard to get to 4♠, but we might find 6♦.

You're probably right, but in this case we can consider the original infractions of both North and East. North's infraction of picking up his bidding cards did not cause any damage (within the meaning of the Laws) because N/S's table result was worse than it would have been without the infraction. Hence no rectification is required in respect of this infraction. East's infraction of picking up his bidding cards did cause damage (within the meaning of the Laws) because E/W's table result was better (and N/S's table result worse) than it would have been without the infraction. Hence the TD needs to assess rectification in respect of this infraction. Clearly both North and East are equally deserving of PPs!

Yes indeed, that's my concern. Doesn't BBO Forums use the same passwords as BBO? To log in to BBO Forums, the address shown on my browser is: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=login

This really depends on methods. What does 1♣-(1♥)-dbl mean in your system? On what shapes with fewer than 4 clubs can a 1♣ opening be made in your system?