trevahound

Sorry, I was West. I was the emergency desperation stayman bidder. I was not asked to explain anything. I was at the table to hear North's questions and partner's responses. Partner was inappropriately vague at first; he is prone to give names of agreements. Again, this was a first time last minute partnership. The sum total of our agreement on our stayman was "two way stayman". He got that information all out clearly before North finally passed, though not as concisely as might be hoped for. Playing 2 way stayman in an undiscussed setting, I've found multiple strong players believe some GF hands systemically go through 2c (I am not one of them). I have no idea if this partner believed that or not, but in this circumstance it's obviously not a matter of agreement, and so there's nothing to disclose other than that we had 2d available as GF stayman. North and South are very strong players, and each other's most serious regular partner. North plays against baby NT and two way stayman quite regularly. One of the reasons I was in full emergency mode is I know very well they have strong agreements after double, so if there was a way to avoid that, I was looking for it. Vs inexperienced with these methods opps, at these colors, it's not the same full panic situation. I shouldn't have posted at all last night. I had a very long day at work, then had to fill in to run our club game last night at the last minute, and it was not an easy night at the club. I was both tired and frustrated and pathetically sober when I wrote that post. I do believe that had it been a regular partner who passed in the same circumstance a first time partner chose to pass, "people" would still be birthing their kittens. A regular partner is assumed to be using CPUs when they do something very unusual but coincidentally correct. The OP's question was about whether or not I made an illegal call in ACBL land. Brian Zaugg

I was West. Here's my serious problem. This was a first time partnership, seriously really without partners in common. No purer moment, and I bid 2c in perfect tempo. The pairing/parntership was a last minute fill in type deal. Both my partner and I had played baby NT in other non-overlapping partnerships, and had pretty different styles. However, in this case, it's fairly clear to me that N's questions and E's hand inspired the pass. It was close to a pro-client situation, only no one is silly enough to pay me to play with them (thank goodness). Most of the time I play with regular partners. I don't have the agreement to pass 2c with anyone with just clubs. However, I once passed it myself, when any sensible person on Earth would have (more than a year prior to this, no one in common, including opps). What happens when I'm playing with a regular partner and this happens, hypothetically? I know the answer to that, but it sickens me, more or less. It's absurd to me that a regular partner isn't allowed to play bridge, but according to at least some of my regular opponents I fear that's the case, unless I alert (or god forbid pre-alert) every call with, "partner might continue to play bridge, and not just count 4-3-2-1 points and bid like an commodore pet". It's extremely frustrating to me. If I/we alert everything that might potentially happen once every few years, we make a mockery of the alert procedure, and furthermore, we come at least very close to cheating, as we're wildly mis-describing our actual agreements to opps. Experts are allowed to play bridge. I don't see why us joe six-packs can't as well, on the rare occasions inspiration (with all parties freely agreeing there was no UI at all) strikes. If I choose between 2s (non-forcing, natural) and 2c (stayman, but not the GF version), in a desperate "all hands on deck" situation, and manage it in perfect tempo, and opps guide partner to a brilliancy he's never before managed, why should I be expected to pre-alert or more every call any of us make going forward. And what do we pre-alert? South, the OP poster, was admirable at the table (not reopening even though it was clear to all North had a serious problem), and admirably tried to post this problem as "can one in admittedly desperate circumstances bid stayman without a 4cM or inv values, or anything a LOL would consider a good reason to bid stayman?", given the ACBL's regulatory morass. Brian Zaugg, Seattle

Okay, it's legal to ask anytime, even if your only reason for asking is to lawyer your way to an adjustment you'd have never gotten otherwise. I mean, you have no bridge reason at all for asking, but you sense opps might be on different pages, and you want to get them saying something that can be used against them later even when there is no conceivable answer they might give which would influence your next call. Okay, this is apparently not just legal, it's not even improper. Perhaps it's a quality to look for in a teammate? Then, aren't we giving up mps vs the field if we don't try to gain in score by this method? Now we don't just have to learn to recognize and execute a double squeeze, we have to learn where we can win boards when we hold nothing during the auction, without risk, just with clever questions of the side with the high cards? Is this a bug, or a feature? and if it's a bug, could we address it on the next update (2018, or whenever)? I know I'm hiding it well, but this really bothers me. Thanks. Brian Zaugg

I need a little help with an issue that came up at the club a few nights ago. I still haven't issued a ruling. E/W have the auction to themselves. E deals and opens. 1♠(by east, dealer) 1nt(f) - 2♣(alert) 2nt - 3♠ 3nt - 4♠ all pass. After the 2nt call, N asked about the 2♣ alert. W said their agreement was it showed any minimum opener, artificially. After E rebid 3♠, S asked about the 3s call, and W said it showed lots of spades and clubs (not their agreement). W erred by misdescribing their agreement, and E further erred by not calling the director and correcting partner's explanation prior to the opening lead. There is no question that E and W committed irregularities. The mis-explanation was solely of the 3s call; the explanation of the 2c bid was correct (if weird to me, when playing a big club as they were). I have a big problem with the questions about the 3s call. S hand (I held this hand at another table) has no legit bridge reason at all to ask about an un-alerted 3s call. E/W are a regular partnership that regularly goes off the rails in their auctions, and one could uncharitably wonder if S asked these questions only to create and cement UI in an auction where S's calls would not change no matter the explanation given. I don't know why they asked, but it wasn't to alter or influence any action they might have taken. I am told by my local director gurus that a player is perfectly free to ask any questions whatsoever, regardless of bridge reason, so long as they're willing to risk their partner's future actions being partially constrained in some circumstances. I am told that even if one asks just to cement UI for the opps or a misunderstanding for the opps, that no law or propriety bars this, and my ruling should be based solely on E/W's irregularities. This does not seem correct to me, and before I issue a ruling I am asking for others' opinions. Here is the gist of my question, as best as I can summerize: Is it the ACBL's position that one may ask questions during an auction that one has no part in with no legitimate bridge reason to do so, and benefit directly "legally" (via an adjustment, rather than bridge at the table) because of those questions posed again without bridge reason at an inappropriate time? If the ACBL's answer to that is "no problem, you can never be held accountable for asking your questions at the appropriate or inappropriate time so long as your partner doesn't use any UI those questions provide, and you can benefit through legal channels by asking those questions at the wrong times", then my objections go away. I don't believe that is the acbl's position, but lordy I've been wrong more times than I can count on that. Thanks! Brian Zaugg

I don't think *any* regular partners of this person (me) would agree if you shortened it. We don't even play Ogust as our 1st/2nd preempts are so narrow. Funny though. Should truthfully read, "...high variance preempts opposite a partner who didn't open when given the chance". In other words, "bridge", even though we alert them in our regular partnerships.

I am usually informed when I make this claim after the hand (after I see contract went down three) that I should have called the director when I first became aware of the irregularity. Maybe the director was called prior to the play of the hand and that part was just assumed in the explanation above? If S didn't call the director until after the hand, I am not inclined to credit that he would have doubled 4♦ and 4♠ given the correct explanations, assuming he's experienced enough to know to call prior to the play. If he did call prior to the play of the hand, and tells me he'd have acted differently with the correct information prior to the play, I'm inclined to credit he would double both. Is that wrong? Thanks! Brian Zaugg

3♠ for me, then 4♦ over 3nt or 4♣. Pass 4♥. Going slamming if partner's rebid is 4♠ or higher, of course. Brian Zaugg

What Roger said. WTP?

I'm not inclined to run. Partner might have a reasonable hand, after all. If I were to run, I would run to 3d, and if that was hit back to me, I'd run to 3h, hoping partner would correct to 3s holding 3. I'm worried I'm throwing another 300 on the pile by running on average, or unless we guess well at best. Probably I'm gin for 4s and instead going off 800 nv in 3cx. :)

Not in your class, but I'll give it a try before work. LHO is prob 4-4-4-1, and RHO 2-2-4-5. LHO didn't lead a spade, and did lead from KJ97, so probably doesn't have JT8x of spades. I've lost two tricks already (a club and a heart), so if I exit a heart right now, LHO if he cashes both hearts will squeeze his partner out of a club and a diamond, leaving RHO with the last minor guards. I pitch a spade from hand on the 4th heart, and then on the run of three spades RHO is squeezed out of one minor or the other. When I play this way, however, it turns out LHO lead from an original 97 of hearts, and my count is all wrong. Then when I try to recalibrate mid hand, the wheels come flying off. :) I'll let the experts have the floor now.

Where I come from, you always show the other major (4cM) before 3 card support for partner's major. You'll know if partner signs off in 3nt after your OM response that he/she was looking for 3 card support, and can bid it then. Your way round, I don't see how you can ever find your 4/4 OM fits when you have a 3/5 M suit fit, as you certainly can't rebid 4OM after 3nt "just in case". I don't know where this idea of burying your 4/4 OM fit comes from, but I hear it surprisingly often. In general, though, I'm a huge fan of transfers over 2nt power rebids. Look at it this way: you play transfers over your str NT openings, and your 2nt openings, and your 2c then 2nt openings -- why on earth not over this one very strong in between range? Cheers, Brian Zaugg

5/6 - Fit, for me. No idea what "standard" is, but not sure why I'd want it anything else.

1♣, for me. Not close. 3♣ or 3nt opposite an unpassed partner wouldn't even have come up to shoot down. Neither would pass. If I'm going to psyche, might as well be 1nt or 2spades, something with an upside.

I don't play a medium NT, so don't know what that auction would look like. I do play lots of weak NT though (10-13), and playing that I think 2 way stayman with transfer responses on the GFs is wise. I think our auction would be worse than a str NTer's auction, though. So: 1nt - 2♦* (artificial and GF) 2nt* - 3♠ 2nt=5+♣, no 4cM, and 3♠=5(+) spades strain sorting OR self supporting spades and slam interest 4♠ - 5♣ tough rebid for opener here, and might rebid 3nt instead, even with hearts wide open -- however, our style is to raise with Hx in these close situations 5♦ - 5♥ 6♣ - 6♥ 6♠ - pass with a reluctant sigh. We're off the trump A or a diamond card.

This is an easier auction with some form of xyx. Presuming str NT, then 1♣ - 1♠ // 1nt - 3♥ (natural, GF, slammish+)// 3♠ - and your off, any reasonable continuations will get you there... Without that tool, the auction is essentially identical, though, I think? Or do people play 3♥ as invitational or something? There has to be some way to force with both M's.

Another item on the agenda (or perhaps already passed?) is to make blue ribbon qualifications expire after 3 years. Could someone explain what the purpose of this rule would be?

What do they want me to do? Let CHO get his grubby hands on dummy? I think not. He's been set before, you see.

I had the same auction to that point, but in my auction 5+ hearts had been ordinarily denied. Under these circumstances, I think opener only knows trump is red.

It's partnership agreement. Double for me for sure, but my partner's expect this to be included in the normal range of direct seat doubles.

At the risk of stating something you nearly certainly already know, when you poll those peers, give them the auction plain, without any tempo breaks by anyone. The question isn't what might you do after partner's BIT, but rather what might you do without possessing any UI at all.

As I understand it, a Logical Alternative is always "class of player" dependent. The definition includes that -- it's either in law 12 or 16, I forget and am too lazy to look it up verbatim.

A huge problem (imo) with banning psyches, even *if* that were legal, is defining the line between judgement and a psyche. What is a gross misstatement of strength or shape to you might be a very mild misstatement of those to me, or vice versa. Everyone can say, "I know a psyche when I see one", but to ban them you have to substitute someone else's judgement for yours. For me, that would do far more damage to my enjoyment of the game than the occasional annoying psyche by an opp or by partner. A fair bit of the fun of bridge is trying to back my judgement where it differs from the fields' judgement, and that includes making an occasional tactical call with less than full values (or much more than full values). Brian Zaugg

Setting aside Drury, as I understand a psychic control this would be an example. Pretend we have the agreement that when you preempt and I bid spades naturally (and forcing), you make your spade fit raise via another non-spade call (say 2nt if available, or alternately "cheaper minor"). So, 2h - (p) - 2s - (p) - 2nt^ - (p) - 3h - all pass. In this auction, the artificial 2nt call is a psychic control. Basically, anytime partner's spade raise is not spades can function as a psychic control. Similarly, if you preempt, I raise you to 3nt, and opp bids, and you have the agreement never to double them in that situation, that is a psychic control as I understand the term in acbl-land. I had an auction with a friend on BBO where I bid michaels showing ♥+ a minor as a psyche holding only lots and lots of ♥s. The auction timed out perfectly where partner got a chance to ask for my minor, I said my minor was hearts, and partner kept bidding minors... Sigh.

I "accomplished" something new for me in the past month -- +260 (not new at all) in 2M. To add to the degree of difficulty, I "accomplished" this playing with my most hyper-aggressive partner. I did once win a board in a BAM with a +260 in 3M, vs +230 in the same contract at the other table. :)

In those methods (and I'm a 10-13nt'er too), how do you make a simple raise of the minor? It's not the forcing raise that's at issue; you keep a forcing raise under any sensible methods. But with IM you lose any ability to make a simple raise when you have a simple raise hand.