jallerton

[hv=pc=n&s=sq62h83da9765cqjt&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1dp1hp1nppp]133|200[/hv] Love All, IMPS Opponents play 5-card majors, strong NT. 1♦ shows at least 4. A 1♠ rebid would show an unbalanced hand, so RHO has a weak NT (11-countis possible) with 4 or 5 diamonds and not 4-card heart support. What would you lead?

My wording was slighty wrong. I should have said: People are not giving procedural penalties for alerting in good faith.

Sorry! As a general rule, if in doubt about whether a call if alertable, I'd suggest that you err on the side of alerting. Then you cannot be accused of giving misinformation: the opponents have been informed that they should ask if they want to know the call's meaning.

Your negative inference conclusion is one possibility. But one could equally argue that in the same space there was room to state that the requirement to alert did not apply after an overcall, and draw the opposite negative inference from that. Or maybe the failure to include this sequence in the examples was deliberate. After all this pre-emptive meaning is arguably "potentially unexpected" at many clubs, but not "potentially unexpected" in the final of a national tournament. This brings us back to one of the questions in the opening post which has not yet been answered: should our decision whether to alert depend on the opponents?

2NT. Natural. Assuming that a 1NT opening would have been 15-17, partner should be expecting us to hold 18-19 balanced with 3-card heat support and a spade stop. Holding ♠AJ, there's no particular need to make partner declarer, so why not describe our hand type? A question to the doublers: what do you intend to do next if partner bids 3 of a minor?

Are you really suggesting that readers of the Blue Book are obliged to read its predecessor publication before they can fully understand what the Blue Book means? Maybe it would help to understand the more general context of the Blue Book. Somebody high up in the EBU was of the opinion that the Orange Book (72 pages in 2006) was too long; the complilers of the Blue Book were asked to fit everything in 32 pages. Whilst some whole sections were removed, words had to be cut in all sorts of places. The section on specfic cases of what should or should not be alerted has been cut by a page, even though the basic principle (alert calls with potentally unexpected meanings and those which are not natural) has not significantly changed. The Blue Book was intended to be a more succinct document so we should not be surprised to discover that the examples do not cover every situation.

The longest book I have read on competitive bidding is Acol in Competition, written by Eric Crowhurst in the 1980s. That states that a cue bid of the opponents' suit in this situation is a general game force, best reserved for three situations: (i) a balanced game force with no suit worthy of mention (ii) when the overcall has deprived you of your normal response (iii) when you have a fit for opener's suit and control of the enemy suit. I think that "general game force" is the traditional Acol meaning. Certainly if I were playing in a simple systems event, I would assume Responder's jump raise after an overcall to be a limit raise.

You are probably too young to know, but the 1998 Orange Book was itself a change. Before 1998 a pre-emptive raise was explicitly defined as alertable. The reason why it reverted to alertable in 2006, according to the then Editor of the Orange Book, was because so many people had told him that pre-emptive was an unusual meaning and that the L&E concluded that they had got it wrong in 1998. I'm not so sure you are right about the current position. The Blue Book 2013/2015 section 4H (Specific Cases) starts: "The following are interpretations and examples of the above directives.". Note the word "examples". Then in 4H2 So yes, we know that 1♣[non-forcing]-Pass-3♣ is alertable if pre-emptive but, unlike the 1998 Orange Book, the Blue Book makes no specific comment about the sequence 1♣-(1♠)-3♣. As this sequence is not included in the list of examples it would seem that we should revert to the basic alerting rule in 4B1. Is pre-emptive a "potentially unexpected meaning"? For many players, I think the answer is yes [the posts of StevenG and TMorris confirm this] . For this reason I continue to alert a pre-emptive call in this situation.

Yes, it's a more interesting question if partner is allowed to raise with 3-card support. Here's a hand I got wrong recently. ♠10xxx ♥Kxx ♦QJ10 ♣Qxx. Partner opened 1♦(5+ OR 4441). I responded 1♠, partner raised to 2♠ which could not be made when trumps were 5-1, whilst both 1NT and 2♦ were far better contracts and making overtricks on the layout. On reflection, I thought I should have responded 1NT, but one of my teammates (who normally finds a reason for the winning action) insisted that 1♠ was right.

1. What's your basic system? I might double anyway at this vulnerability, but it's a lot more clear to double if playing weak NT openings, as then partner will either have real clubs or 15+HCP. 2. 4♦, showing 2 places to play. There's a case for bidding 4♥; the question you should ask yourself is: do I want to play a 4-3 heart fit on this hand?

So you think that bidding this hand the same way as a 3352 16-count will really help partner? Suppose that he bids RKCB. Are you going to show the void by jumping? Are you going to show the void as an extra ace? Are you going to show the queen of trumps? You will just be guessing, as will partner.

It's also worth discussing what you play after (2♠)-3NT.

Can you? After 2NT-3♣-3♥-3♠[natural]-3NT, I play Responder's bids as slam interest with 5(+)♠,4(+)♥. If you play 2NT-3♣-3♥-3♠ as a puppet to 3NT, you still need a way to bid the slam interest hands with 5/4+ in the majors.

I think it's better to play 3♠ and 3NT as natural over 3♥. Most of the time when Opener has denied a 4-card major Responder just wants to play in 3NT, so it's silly to give the opponents the chance to double a 3♠ Puppet when you've already told them that Opener won't be sending it back. Far more important than the occasional 'rightsiding' of a 3-5 spade fit.

I don't know for sure, because at the table they always seem to have the balanced option, but my guess is the same as Zelandakh's. It's true that they are not guaranteed to have an 8-card fit after 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2M, but they are quite likely to do so and the limited nature of the bids means that sometimes Responder can just pass 2M and play in a 4-3 fit. Moreover, some of these hands are no so easy for standard systems anyway. If Opener has a 1435 17-count and Responder a 4342 6-count, standard strong NT Walsh bidders start 1♣-1♠-2♥-?? Meanwhile if Opener if in the 15-16 range and Responder is 9-10, their methods may help to reach some games missed by standard bidders. Note that after 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♦, which I'm assuming shows both minors, they will always have an 8-card fit.

Most methods work in an uncontested auction, but they are in a better position that the rest of us when the auction goes 1♣-(Pass)-1M-(Pre-empt). Another advantage is knowing about a 5-4 fit. One of the nice things about playing Kaplan Inversion is when the auction starts 1♥-Pass-1NT showing 5+ spades, Opener can raise aggressively holding 4-card support, getting to the 3-level has some security when there is a known 9-card fit. Contrast that with the natural auction 1♥-Pass-1♠natural-Pass. Now it's more dangerous for Opener to go to the 3-level when Responder's trump suit could be 10xxx (or worse); meanwhile Responder is reluctant to make a marginal game try after 1♥-1♠-2♠ in case Opener transpires to only have 3-card support. ARF/DG have similar inferences available after 1♣-P-1M-P. I assume that ARF/DG like these inferences over 1♣ and 1♥ openings, judging from their extension to play something similar over 1♦ openings. As I recall, version 1 used 1♠ as 5+♠, 1NT as 5+♥; then after a while they switched the meanings of 1♠ and 1NT. [This gave us something to think about - what should 4th hand's doubles mean?]

[hv=pc=n&n=saj93hj5dj87ckq65&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1cp1sp3cp]133|200[/hv] IMPs.Favourable.

I would suggest that one of the words in the minute needs to be changed:

Yes, 1♠ over 1♥ is a relay. As I recall they play(ed) 1♣-1♦-1♥-1NT as 4/4 in the majors NF. When Responder has one 4-card major and not worth an invitational move they would bid 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-Pass thus missing quite a few 4-4 major suit fits on paper. But against that they find the 5-3 fits quicker than in standard methods. The convention card linked was from 2013 but more recently they have been playing variable NT (11-14 NV, 15-17 V) which adds another slight complication.

Perhaps you are right. The forum rules state that "This particular forum is for book ruling-type queries" and I posted my query here thinking that the Law Book should really provide the answer to this type of question. One might conclude from the brevity of their replies that Pran and Blackshoe regard the answer as simple and obvious, but I was rather hoping that somebody could explain which of the Laws I quoted do or do not apply in this scenario, and why.

I agree with Nigel. Sometimes, the TD can work out that the bidding problem will be the same at most tables; in those cases, why not make use of an 'at the table' poll, for each the answers already exist? On other occasions the TD can infer that the auctions are likely to vary considerably at other tables; in those cases the results at those tables are unlikely to be relevant to the ruling.

Yes, forcing for me. If Opener had a minimum hand with clubs (including 5404) he could have raised to 3♣ on the previous round. A weak 5413 (if not having raised clubs or passed 2C) would pass 2NT. So this sequence shows a stronger hand, typically 5413/5503/6403. A good 5404 might also be possible, although Opener might prefer a 3♦ splinter over 2♣ with that hand.

As is often the case in these situations, everything happened quite quickly. When an opponent seems to have led out of turn, a player's first thought is often "I thought she was in the other hand, but maybe I thought wrong. Before I say anything I'll replay the previous trick in my head." Although West knows the wording of quite a few of the Laws, it may have taken him a few seconds to remember the exact wording of Law 9B1: "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity" or is it "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is legally drawn to an irregularity."? Dummy's comment was not made until after declarer's card had been faced, but obviously there is a time lag between deciding to say something and the comment being made and heard. Suppose that dummy sees declarer detach a card from her hand, attempts to prevent an irregularity by reminding declarer that she is in hand, but by the time the comment is uttered, declarer's card is in the played position. It seems harsh to give him a PP when as far as he was concerned he was taking an action expressly permitted by Law 42B2. Do declarers lead ever from the wrong hand at your club, Ed? If so, do their partners generally point out the irreguarity or just keep quiet? My experience is that the former reaction is far more commom that the latter. Are a lot of PPs issued when you are directing?

If partner lacks 3-card heart support the hearts will take a long time to set up. So why not treat this 14-count as a 14-count? If you want to treat this as 5332 then fine: bid 1♥-1♠-1NT. Obviuosly if partner raises hearts then you can just play in that strain at an appropriate level.

I agree with you about auctions when they end up playing in spades. But when Opener ends up playing in NT, the opposite is true. If the opponents have bid 1♣-1♥-1NT-3NT then the hand is easier to defend if Opener has told us about his (lack of) spade length. Meanwhile if Opener has a balanced hand with 4 spades, you will have longer/more informative auctions to 3NT if Opener has to start with a 1♠ rebid.