trevahound

I genuinely don't understand any of the above. I'd encourage you to be open to rethinking this entirely. First, if my partner has a recent average of -1.2 Imps, or whatever, maybe they were playing some of the many truly world class players on BBO. They very well might be many times stronger than the yahoo who plays with new or weak players and has a big recent imp average. Second, this partner may very well have that poor average by sticking it out for a bit with a weak partner, instead of throwing a fit and leaving the first time his weak partner did something poor (as it seems you might be inclined to do). You can work on important parts of your game playing with a weaker partner on occasion. Finally, when a random unknown to me criticizes my bidding or playing, I'm able to judge for myself if there's merit in what they say, and not get in a "who's right" argument with someone unequipped for it. I don't know what someone expects to gain by trying to convince someone a level down or so of their rightness. No stranger can "rip me to pieces"; I'm not that fragile. As Steve Smith said to Talib (NFL reference) last year while walking off the field after the game, "Ice up, son!".

I would think with hearts and clubs concentrations you'd continue with 3♣ (a game try until proven otherwise); then when you convert it to a slam try you'll have shown those concentrations. I'm not great with "what's standard" questions, but I thought it was fairly standard that without shortness but with a slam try you bid where you live, and your game try becomes a slam try with subsequent calls.

Is there any reason it wouldn't be a splinter? Helping opener sign off with KJTx(x) of clubs, and to get excited with xxx(x) of clubs? Anything else would (absent prior agreement) greatly surprise me.

I tried passing once. While it worked, it made me feel dirty. :)

doesn't someone have to own up to 4!h at some point? I'm not that shy. I'd have rebid 3!h the first time -- I'm not ashamed of my (barely) GF hand after pard's probably LR+. Many hands pard might have could be awkward after a neg X, and I've even heard on occasion that 4-3 fits aren't always disasterous. Pard might also have a hand wide open in !h's. How wrong can bidding what I have be after pard's show of strength? One final thought -- I want to claim new strains where possible, to reduce the chances pard gets their hands on this beautiful dummy.

All that has to change is that you've replaced one impossible hand type with another. If your 1nt opening range is 12-14, then when you open 1♣ or 1♦, you won't hold a balanced 12-14; you'll be unbalanced, or you'll hold 15+ (assuming you don't open balanced lighter hands). Typically then, 1m - 1M // 2M shows an unbalanced hand, or a str NT with a fit, as you can't have a balanced hand that's less than that (I'm told this is alertable in ACBL-land). You'll find the usefulness of some common conventions can vary when you can no longer hold your weak NT after opening something else. I'm not a fan of 12-14 nt's (my least favorite range), but you'll want to consider at least playing penalty doubles instead of support doubles (or inverting your support doubles), and you'll want some sort of checkback after your 1nt rebids -- everyone and their sister here uses some version of 2way NMF. If you're instead asking about what to play in responding to a weak NT, 2 way stayman and South African Texas fit very well. Transfers of any kind after a wk nt opening work against the preemptive value of the opening. My preference is 2 way staymen with transfer responses to the 2♦ GF -- but this is with a 10-13 opening NT range, so the GF hand is usually 14+, and there's an advantage to right-siding those. Have fun with getting your weak NT's off your chest in one call. :)

deleted multi-post, sorry!

deleted multi-post, sorry!

If 2♦ was GF, no for me. If not, then change my vote to yes.

I have. Their position is you may ask questions for any non-prohibited reason (and the only prohibited reasons would be to convey various information to your partner via your questions), and if answering those questions causes UI or MI problems for the opps, tough. Their position is further that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this -- I may feel differently, but that's up to me, and there's no obligation on anyone else to agree with the way I feel about this. Why the questions were asked that led to UI or MI being introduced is irrelevant (presuming it was asked at a legal time by a legal asker), both as to any adjustments and to any procedural or ethical issues.

I have had many long arguments about this, and come to the provisional conclusion that this is a seriously minority opinion, albeit one I share. I am told repeatedly both by strong players and good directors that it is perfectly proper in every way to ask questions about alerts when you have no bridge reason for doing so, and when you suspect that you might cement UI for your opps via your questions. I find this practice shameful, but that the laws don't care much what I think about this practice, unsurprisingly. I had to give a very distasteful ruling this year against a fairly inexperienced pair where the UI only came about because a very experienced pair asked questions they had no bridge reason to ask during the auction. Brian Zaugg

When a suit is bid naturally on my left, and I can cue bid it, that's my cue bid. A "suit" bid naturally on my right when I could have cue bid the suit on my left should be natural, in my opinion. (1m) - p - (1M) - 2M is played as natural, at least amongst my peers. I would not suspect 4♣ was a nebulous cue, but rather a real suit. With a heart uni-suiter, it's completely unnecessary. With spade support and a partner who's trying to be clever, he'll be able to correct any number of clubs to spades. I may be crazy or have very poor judgement, but I didn't miss opps bid clubs first. I missed slam in Atlanta because it's hard to get to slam in a suit opps bid first. Even non-psyches don't mean they own the suit, and if all non-vuln suit bids after we open 2♣ are insured by Lloyds of London, I'll eat a bug. If there's something else I'm missing in the auction, then I'm still missing it.

Fine with the auction so far. 4♠ was "best of awful options" I think. 6♣ for me now. 2nd choice 7♣. Am pretty sure we make 7♣, but as usual after preempts, I'm forced to guess.

4♦. I'm worth one slam try. I'll respect partner's 4nt or 5♦ sign off, but I'm hoping one twitch was all partner was waiting on, and I certainly have that.

This is funny to me as I found myself in basically the same situation at a Sectional tournament last year (ACBL land). I made a two suited preempt against one pair that has no idea at all how to double, found out we were bidding against the wrong pair, and then had to basically commit suicide against the correct pair. :)

Could partner think my 3♥ then 4♥ calls were describing some form of 5+♥ 6+♦ hand? Heeeheeeheee. And then partner thought 5nt was pick a slam amongst my reds? Partner said by jumping to 5nt "you can't screw this up, partner". If he was wrong, c'est la vie. I didn't drive all this way (wherever I am) to go plus in 6d like someone from Earth. South has my blessing on all calls.

I'm surprised at the dismissal of 1nt. A direct 1nt overcall shows ballpark 15-18, and a balanced hand. Perfect -- that's what I have. If partner has a 5c major of *any strength* we'll likely get to the right strain. We're likely to get to the right game if partner has a little something. LHO will be on lead, and when I'm on lead in this auction normally the last thing I'm leading is a club, so even if we get to 3nt wide open in clubs, they might not be lead, they could split, they could block. We routinely bid 3nt after an opp preempts without a more sensible call available and without a stopper, relying on opps not to have a solid suit, or it to block, or whatever, yet we're petrified of overcalling a 1♣ opening without a stopper? Seems bizzare and perhaps an artifact of answering in a forum, in writing, rather than at the table. There's nothing wrong with 1♦ or X (pass is perverse), but both are less descriptive than 1nt, and both will make it harder for partner to help with strain and level. Brian Zaugg

I don't believe pass can be a logical alternative here. I would expect my new-ish partner needed a little time to process if this would be a forcing pass or not, and then what he should do once he processed the first question. As I can't imagine passing here even if partner folded up his bid box and put it away, I'm not constrained to pass. It's less clear to me if double is suggested by the BIT vs. 5♦. I would expect both to be LAs, but is one suggested? I think not, but don't expect that to be unanimous. Double would be my call without the hitch (I've been -990 before), so if he leaves it in I'm leading the Q of spades (not russinow, hoping to help partner find the club shift when it's right).

I really dislike both 2♥ and 2♠. I don't understand either of them. 2♣ seems 100% normal with the north hand. A 2♠ rebid with the south hand doesn't even seem like a logical alternative to me. I wouldn't have considered it. I'm far far closer to a 4♠ rebid than a 2♠ rebid. When I start creating possible hands for partner, I don't need an opening hand to have good play for game, and partner's promised an opening hand. 2♠ does appear to be both sufficient and in turn, so it has that going for it. And, we're incredibly likely to be plus. ATB 85% south, but by far the worst call. Brian Zaugg

I don't see 3♦ as a LA. I've already shown a 5 card diamond suit, and this is a pretty poor suit. Pass and 3♣ are what I suspect the LAs are, with 3♣ being "more likely to be successful".

I poll it, without the tempo break, of course, and see what East's LAs are. Then, if I find pass is an LA for East, I roll it back. If I find pass isn't an LA, there is no infraction. Brian Zaugg

1st is difficult not knowing what you play. If you have an unambiguous GF unsure of strain, I'm in for that, with one diamond try before 3nt. With problems ahead in the auction because of unclear agreements, I'm in for a practical 3nt. 2nd one is an easy (not even close) pass for me, but many very good players will disagree. 3rd one: either X or 2nt here should include hands like this, with 2 places to play. Undiscussed, I'd assume 2nt showed either minors or hearts and a minor. Partner bids as if it's minors, without an exceptional hand. Gets both your suits in below 3s, and shows values if partner wants to hit something later. Cheers, Brian Zaugg

West's pass of 1dx is remarkable to me, and is the direct cause of e/w's bad score. I suppose west thought his partner had 6-7 diamonds and opps didn't know enough to play in any other strain? I see no infraction nor irregularity.

If I've fidgeted or broke tempo enough to give partner a problem, then 4s. 3s if I'm in tempo. 4s will make often enough opposite random near minimums to be worth it at imps, but partner can see the colors and form of scoring too. If any regular partner of mine passes 3s, we're likely going set there. :)

Both are attempts to improve the contract. You're not bidding psyche-ogust hoping to worsen the final contract. And psyche-3nt is perfectly legal (3m - (p) - 3nt - (fidget, fidget, start asking questions about the 3nt call)). I agree with Jeff on the primary difference (below) (above).