kfgauss

I don't understand your method. [i assume you play this with a 2NT bid just asking for the minor (ie not my 3C pass/correct, 2NT game try opposite weak hand treatment I described above).] The strong hand can't just bid 3m over 2NT, then, as partner may pass with lots of decent hands, right? Maybe I've just figured it out: do you use 3C pass/correct as well, so that you only bid 2NT with: [1] a minor suit signoff opposite big hands that aren't quite GF, which will then pass 3m (ie worse than a 3C p/c bid) [2] a good 3H bid [3] a hand that will continue after 3m (ie fairly strong, as partner may have the weak variety) so that the "strong" hands are safe bidding 3m (unless they really are completely GF) knowing they'll only be left there by really bad hands? Andy

White vs Red at Imps, you hold: x AKQxx KQJxx xx. 1S P 1N* ? * forcing You've agreed to play 2-suited bids as weak/strong and also that 3C is pass/correct, and 2NT asks for your minor in addition to your strength (for the weak type: 3C/D with a min weak hand, 3H/S with a max weak hand, corresponding minor). Comment on the above treatment and whether you prefer 3C natural and 2NT just simply asking for your minor as well. Also comment if you think your choice of bids (or preferred treatments) would be different in this seat than in the direct seat over 1S. Andy

I've always thought the first sequence shows a weak/partial stopper and the second one shows a good stopper and that we just don't bid notrump opposite a takeout double without a stopper as we don't expect a stopper from partner. Perhaps your approach is good when partner does happen to have Kx or whatever, though (and I don't claim that my way is standard). Andy

As far as I can tell, you'll double and then partner will bid 1♥ and then you'll probably be excited enough to force to slam, lacking tools to stay out of it. You can try bidding clubs at some point and seeing partner's reaction perhaps. For example, over: (1D) X 1H 2D 2H 3C ? Partner probably bids 3NT (?). This didn't help (that hand is really never going to be encouraging), and now we've lost the ability to find out about heart keycards for the grand it seems. We could just bid 5D exclusion over 1H, planning on asking for the queen if we find the missing keycard (still no way to check on clubs, but the missing club queen is likely onside) or even just bidding the grand hoping the 1D bidder has both Queens (probably ill advised). Andy

Ok, thanks for pointing out what I missed :) . Andy

I assume LHO does have 4 spades (2 of spades lead, 10 of spades return), so exiting in spades can't help. In fact, for exiting spades to win, I'd need LHO to have: Qxx Kxxxx xxxx x or something, which seems an odd spade lead (if diamonds are 2-2 at this point then I don't endplay, clearly). So exiting a spade lead loses me two tricks immediately, so I'll take my ♦A, ♦K, and then, assuming RHO did have 3 diamonds left (if 2 or 4, just plunk down ♥A), I exit a diamond. This wins on the very likely layout of: Qxxx xxxx xxxx x -- A10x Kxxx Qxx xxx (missing jacks ignored) This is a pleasant reading problem, but unless I'm missing something, I can't imagine playing for the other holding. Perhaps this shows my inexperience in playing against people like Bramley and Lazard, but the 10 of spades return from A10xx after winning the Ace would seem rather prescient (especially without seeing the long clubs). Further thoughts: If LHO can read what's going on and holds the above hand, a spade pitch is perhaps indicated to give you a losing option (endplaying him, the guy who lacks !HK). I'm still not persuaded to play things the other way 'round, but it's something to think about. Andy

If we hold AKQJ1098765 A A 2, I suppose it's reasonable. I'm not sure partner won't lie to us when we bid 4NT (or pass!), but clearly that's better if not. Andy

Even if we've agreed ELC here, I wouldn't use it. 2♠ is just fine, at least given that we have no way to suggest diamonds and still be able to play 2♠ in a 5-3. (And even a 5-2 is fine and partner only rarely has 1 spade on this auction.) Andy

Well, the consensus seems to be to bid 5♦ on these hands. I did this on the first one and went for 1100 (yes, I took less than half of the tricks). Wasn't sure whether there was a moral there or just horrible luck. The full hand: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=s654h87dk984ck1096&w=sqh103daj107532ca32&e=sj10982h954d6cj874&s=sak73hakqj62dqcq5]399|300|Scoring: IMP P P 4H 5D P P X P P P[/hv] This is perhaps more of a win for the 4H opening in 3rd seat than a loss for my bid, but there are perhaps fewer ways to win once partner is a passed hand. Of course, my luck was quite rotten. (I'll note that I was even given a trick: small club to the Q on opening lead ended up giving me a club trick, whereas they made 3 trump tricks with a heart uppercut.) [Edit: I tried to prevent the uppercut by playing the 4H bidder for ♦KQ tight and leading ♦A, low ♦. This gave them the uppercut in the present case, unfortunately. I'm not certain what play was best, but decided that LHO might've doubled with K984 and that this outweighed the restricted choice odds.] On the second hand, I do see that 5♦ is probably best. I doubled, and they made while 5♦ was just off 1. Perhaps I was traumatized by the first hand into not bidding 5♦ ever again :P . My partner passed the third hand, and I think this is very close and perhaps it depends on what collection of hands you double on (well, certainly it depends on this, but maybe this collection doesn't vary enough amongst experts to ever change the bid). This was, as I noted above, the partner of hand two. Andy

Some problems (scoring always IMPs): 1. None vul. Q 103 AJ107532 A32. P P 4H ? Do you bid 5D? If not, what's the "smallest alteration" you could make to this hand to get yourself to bid 5D (examples of small alterations are Qx x AJ10xxxx Axx, Q 10x AQJxxxx Axx, Q 10x AKJ10xxx Axx, etc.)? If yes, what's the smallest alteration that would get you not to bid (e.g. Q 10x A109xxxx Axx, etc)? 2. None vul. 8 KQ5 QJ107 Q10852. P P 1D 4S ? Do you Pass, Double, bid 4NT, bid 5D? Again, small alterations that would change your mind to each of the bids you didn't make here are welcome. 3. None vul. A9 J87 AK8653 J7. P P 1D 4S X P ? Do you pass or bid 5D? Again, smallest alterations to get you to make the other choice would be welcome. (Yes, I know this last hand is the partner for hand #2, but we can all ignore that and answer theoretically.) Andy [Edited for typo]

Yes, that was pretty silly, wasn't it. Thanks for catching it. Andy

A nice problem. Here's my answer (hidden): Andy

Sure, I'll bid 6♣. All I really need is for partner to have ♦AK, ♣AQ, and only two major suit losers. 4♣ already shows rather a nice hand, so I think this is quite likely. If partner has only AKxxx of diamonds, I'll need a bit of luck (something like diamonds 3-3 or clubs 2-2 or better diamonds or clubs from partner), but this isn't so unlikely, and the "better diamonds or clubs" part is quite likely. Actually, I need even less: A xx AQJxx AQxxx and similar may be fine unless they work out to lead hearts (and if they do lead hearts, hey, maybe the 3S bidder does have the diamond K -- his partner has passed already). (I will need diamonds 3-3 or clubs 2-2 [or the diamond king onside], however, unless partner can produce the diamond 10 too.) Andy

Ok, thanks. I intended the "usually bids 2H with 5-5" bit to be part of the vote (there's no reason to do this if you don't choose one of the 2S and 3H options). Preliminary results suggest that my thinking is wrong or at least not standard here. It's my impression that the 5-2 will play better than the 4-3 when we're weak, and so I've been bidding 2♦ often when my hand isn't very good and I have (32) in the majors. Does anyone have any reasoning (or simulation data) why this is or is not a good idea? Andy

When playing that 2♣ over the opponents' 1NT opening (let's say strong for the purposes of this post, but comment if it's different when weak) as both majors (5-4 or better) and playing that a 2♦ advance asks partner to choose, when do you bid 2♦ with (32) in the majors? Thanks, Andy

Yes, very nice. Two comments: 1. There's no "revolving" suit preference option. (I don't play this, but it's mildly common.) 2. It might be nice to have an option for "the lead of which card (vs suit, nt, high level [5+] suit contracts) asks for count/unblock, if any" though I suppose this can just go in the comments. Andy

I'm very willing to accept that inferences I make are at my own risk. Saying there was no use of UI and/or that there's nothing wrong with the 2♥ bid seems very wrong. East had UI that West had a takeout double in addition to a 2♦ bid. This UI suggests bidding 2♥ instead of leaving partner in 2♦. East may have had a tough call of whether to pass or bid 2♥, but this means that pass was certainly a logical alternative and thus East should pass (or face the consequences of an adjustment later). Also, regarding West thinking about doubling or bidding 2♦, this just strengthens the argument that UI existed: people really aren't allowed to make 2 bids at once to help partner when they can't decide what to do. In any case, she started with 1♦ (I'm pretty sure she didn't see my 1♠ card initially), not 2♦. Andy Edit: I'm not really interested in retribution or how I did on this hand... I just thought this was an interesting laws question that I didn't know the answer to.

Yes, presumably this should have happened, but it shouldn't be so confusing that it didn't :). Andy

Thanks for the replies. I'm in the US, so ACBL specifics apply. The 1D bid was pretty close to the table, but was very quickly replaced by the double, so no real chance to call the director between the two. So if I understand you correctly, the contract remains at 2S, but then the "best result likely" is given to the non-offending side, even though 2S was the actual contract and was actually played out? The opponents didn't gain any benefit from the 2♥ bid other than to convince me to make a failing play. If LHO had competed to 3♥, they would've benefitted (they can take 9 tricks in hearts), but that doesn't seem relevant as they didn't compete. Andy

I was playing at a club game yesterday and held AKQxxx x Jxx QJx in 3rd seat, none vul. The bidding goes P P 1♠, and then LHO takes the 1♦ card out of the bid box, almost places it on the table, says "oh!" and then doubles instead. We called the director who said that a 1♦ call had been made, and was insufficient, and that technically she'd replaced 1♦ with X and barred her partner, but that since it was just a friendly club, he'd be nice and allow her to retract the X and either bid 2♦ and not bar partner or do anything else and bar partner. She bid 2♦ and I clarified with the director (so the opps wouldn't use the UI from the X -- I didn't expect them to know about UI and such) that info about length in ♣ and ♥ would be UI for RHO. [The question isn't really about LHO being allowed to bid 2♦, but if people want to comment on what would happen in a tournament, feel free.] So it goes: P P 1♠ 2♦ P 2♥ 2♠ P P P And dummy is xxx J98x K1097 xx. LHO leads ♥K (K from AK), then ♥A, which I ruff. I draw trump in 2 rounds and lead ♦J and LHO hops ♦A. LHO returns a low diamond, I insert ♦9 and win it (RHO discarding). So LHO has shown up with ♥AK and ♦AQ (and ♠J). Only ♥Q and ♣AK are remaining. It seems that RHO must have ♥Q else she's 1) bid 2♥ with xx 10xxxx x AKxxx at best and thus has made fairly blatant use of the UI and 2) LHO has failed to raise partner with ♥AKQ and 16 points (and was going to open 1D instead of 1N, but these opponents needn't be trusted to bid 1N when it's correct). So I hope LHO started with ♥AK10 and lead ♥J to pin the 10. RHO plays low and I have a problem: if I'm wrong I've given up my 140 for 110, but if I'm right I can pitch 2 clubs and score 170 (2nd club on the 4th diamond). I pitch and it loses to ♥Q and they cash ♣AK and I make only 110. My question is: if this sort of thing happens at a tournament, ie the opps make use of UI (ie the 2♥ bid above) and I play for them not to have and thus take a losing line, do I have recourse, or do the opps just get slapped with a PP (Procedural Penalty -- for blatant misuse of UI) and I take my bad score? That is, here, the auction might be rolled back to P P 1S 2D; P P ?, and I still bid 2S and may still play it there. I would no longer have the info about a 2H bid, but presumably I'm allowed the info about the 2H bid. My guess is that any use of info about the opponents is at my own risk, but this is a sufficiently funny situation that I'm not sure. Side comment: RHO's action seems blatant enough to me to warrant a PP in a tournament -- comment on this if you disagree. Also, LHO's "fielding" of the use of UI is very strange. (Perhaps these opps should just be educated, even in a tournament, but in any case the actual legal questions remain.) Andy Edit: Here's the whole hand for your convenience: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sxxxhj98xdk1097cxx&w=sjxhakqdaqxxxcxxx&e=sxxh10xxxxdxcakxxx&s=sakqxxxhxdjxxcqjx]399|300|Scoring: MP P P 1S 2D P 2H 2S P P P[/hv]

Sorry about that. Should I start a new topic next time if I want to comment on something like what Richard said? (Or perhaps Richard should have started the new topic?) Didn't mean to clutter the B/I forum or to irritate anyone ;). Andy

We're starting to diverge QUITE a bit from SAYC here, however, I'm not sure whether I agree with Justin's comment regarding using 2NT as a natural and forcing response to a 1♥ opening: I certainly agree with his basic point: Being able to show a balanced hand with GF values is certainly useful, however, I question whether using a jump to 2NT to show such a common hand type is an efficient use of available bidding space... You have a lot of hand patterns to worry about and not much space left below 3N This is perhaps true if you try to respond to 2NT naturally. A bit of artificiality goes a long way, however, and I'm quite fond of a structure from Sher-Umeno's "Supernatural" system notes on Dan Neill's website (first version -- they've since switched to 2♣ GF relay and no 2/1's). I'll reproduce it below for the lazy. Andy Responses to 1M-2NT: a. 3c = shows shortness, relay to 3d, may be the start of a slam try: 3h,3s,3nt=shortness, LMH responder bids 3nt or passes 3nt w / appropriate holdings 3 or 4 M, shows 3 cd M support new suit is showing concentration of values, denies 3 cd M support slam tries can be made after showing shortness, bidding naturally 1s-2nt-3c-3d-3h-3nt-(4d,4h,4s all natural slam tries) 4c,4d = 6M and 4 of bid m, slam try short in other M, around 16-17 pts 4M = 6-3-3-1 slam try in M, around 16-17 pts, short in other M 4h / 1s opener = 6 spades, 4 hearts, slam try b. 3d = 5+ M and 4+ either m: 3h = relay, could have 2/3 cd support, (with 3 cd supp, looking for strain), then: 3s=5+M and 4+c, then over 3nt by 2nt bidder, 4c = 5M and 4c, slam try 4d = 5M and 5c, mild slam try 3nt = 4+d (nf) 4c = 5M-4d, slam try 4d = 5+M - 5+d, mild slam try 4M = 6M - 4d slam try 3s = 3 cd support for major, extras, suit oriented 3nt = 3 cd support for major, min, suit oriented c. 3other M = natural, at least 5M-4oM, natural responses d. 3M = natural, asks for choice of games, if you bid over a 3nt choice, you are making a balanced slam try, with q-bids stronger than 4M (either wk 6 cd suit or slam try, needing help in M) responder bids 3nt or 4s with minimums, cue bids when accepting 4M and maximum (one suited balanced slam tries go thru 3M) e. 3nt = choice of games, 5-3-3-2, or something that looks like that f. 4c, 4d, 4h(over 1s) = strong slam try, 2nd 5 card suit, 17+ 4M,4nt=signoff; all other bids are slam interest g. 4M = to play h. 4nt = 18-19 bal, slam invitational PS: Some tweaks might be in order, for instance I'd prefer c. to be 3H and d. to be 3S, so: c. 3H = 5M-4oM, then: 3S agrees M 4m agrees oM, cuebid rest natural (4M or 4oM are bad hands)

It shouldn't be different. But I'd be weary to produce such a wierd jump auction at table because pard might be on a different wavelenght :) I was actually serious. Your sequence of 1♦ 1♥ X 2♥ 3♥ P 3♠ P 5♠ should (in a perfect world) suggest something slightly different. (This is in a perfect world because then you'd never start with a cuebid and then realize you had a perfect bid the round before.) For example, maybe it's looking for a heart control plus something slightly extra and so partner's allowed to pass with a heart control and no help in either spades or diamonds. (This is all assuming that you think 3♠ is just a nothing bid.) I'm reminded of a hand in Allan Falk's Spingold Challenge (skip this paragraph if you're just about to start this book or want to read it soon with no spoilers, I guess). Your partner tells you in the introduction "I don't play frivolous cards, and all my bids mean something" and so, when there's a hand in which partner bids Grand Slam Force and but had a chance to bid it a round earlier with the same info (i.e. you just rebid your suit in a "nothing bid" sort of situation), you're supposed to realize that he's looking for a slightly better suit than just 2 of the top 3 honors. Andy

This is a nice thought. How is this different from a 1♦ 1♥ X 2♥ 5♠ auction? Andy

This is reasonable. I decided to play ♣K because then declarer has the option to misguess clubs when he has A10xx (i.e. he can finesse partner for Jxxx), which he won't do if I duck, as most people don't duck from Kx here. Perhaps declarer is sufficiently unlikely to misguess and the information I gain will be useful. My heart falscard, however, was pretty silly -- if anything, it will help declarer get the club guess correct more often, and it doesn't really gain often (and of course, it takes partner mildly out of certain decisions). Andy