mich-b

1NT. If rebidding 1NT without a full stopper makes you uncomfortable , you should have anticipated this problem and opened 1♦ planning to rebid 2♣ if they bid your stopperless suit.

Actually , I think some top European pairs are now playing very constructive week twos, perhaps like 9-12. I am curious , when they play this , how does that influence their bidding after they open with a 1 bid? Does 1♠-1NT-2♠ show 13+? or perhaps it may be weaker if the ♠ suit is weak?

The following happened recently in the national teams league (2nd division) : In a match , which is part of a round robin of 12 teams, a team played and made 3NT. The defenders claimed misexplanation of one of the bids during the auction, which caused them not to find the best defense to set the contract. I don't know what was the TD's ruling, but this eventually was brought before an AC which decided that : 1. The explanation given was according to the pair's system and CC, though did not fit the actual hand. 2. It would be wrong to punish the non-offending side since they did get a wrong picture of the actual hands. 3. They awarded the declarer's team 3NT making +600. 4. They awarded the defending side 3NT down 2 +200. 5. They decided that the declaring side will be fined some amount of VP, for another case of explanation not matching the hands. 6. This resulted in the match score being 23-10 to one of the teams (15-15 scale). What do you think about this decision by the AC? Is it at all legal? And more generally do you think that a match score where the sum is above 30 should be legal? and if so, in which cases (maybe only in technical ones like if a third party is at fault?)?

[hv=pc=n&s=s52hdk987432cj964&w=sk74hkj96dqt5ck83&n=sa96hatda6caqt752&e=sqjt83hq875432djc&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1nd2h3dp3n4hppdppp]399|300[/hv] 1NT = 11-14 DBL = Strong 2♥ = both majors 4+, 4+ non-forcing. 3♦ = Natural , no lebensohl inferences. Pass (after 4♥) = Forcing South's hand is not a 3♦ opening in the partnership's style Red/Green. Please ATB for this disaster.

Perhaps: P - 2♣ 2♦ - 2NT 3♣ - 3♥ 3♠ .... ......... 6♥ 3♠ = Artificial , agreeing ♥ , slam invite. (If you dont play this, bid whatever agrees ♥s and invites slam, maybe 4♦ is cue for you?)

Perhaps , as bidding systems are developed, and trends change , so should the system classifications. Maybe all this debate can be easily solved by creating a new category (Orange?) , which means something like "natural , but all balanced hands out of the 1NT range are opened 1♣". Since this is getting popular, maybe the time has come for this to have it's own colour?

I think hand 1 is more suitable for "preferencing" back to 2♠, because : 1. 6-4 is very much possible in hand 1 , while in hand 2 , with 6-4 responder (with no game ambitions) might have just rebid 2♠ with 6-4. 2. When my side values are Aces and Kings , partner is more likely to be forced , than if my side values are quacks. If we might get forced , I would prefer to have a 5 card trump suit.

For cases 1,3,4: a. minors (or more generally 2 suited takeout). b. natural to play. c. yes- slam try with ♥ control. d. yes- slam try without ♥ control. e. probably the best use for 5NT would be "pick a slam". After 1M - (4m) we play 4NT as RKCB.

Mixed raised for me , partly because he has room to invite by bidding 3♥ , and then I can accept. If the mixed raised happened to be just below our suit , I would be more likely to show this as invite.

1. 3♥ - (semi) natural, invite. 2. Double , showing inv+ values , with some hope of doubling them. 3. ♥K 4. PASS , too balanced to bid on the 5 level. 5. PASS , too balanced to bid on the 5 level.

3♠

This fits our agreements , and in particular after 1M - 2m 2any - 3m Opener is encouraged to support and bypass 3NT , unless his hand is minimum with poor controls.

Since I found some of the ideas in this thread interesting - Is there any way to apply similar ideas after 1M-2♦? And if not, does that mean that you respond 2♣ more often than standard? (any balanced? any GF? can have 4 card M support? can have 5 cards in ♦s or ♥s?)

We play that 1♦ - 2♣ 3NT shows 15-17 with 4441 exactly. This hand is difficult to show otherwise.

Declarer is playing 1NT. Mid hand dummy has : ♥JTxx ♣AJ ... and some other cards. Declarer plays a ♣ to the A , and says "Jack". Dummy plays the ♣J , next hand covers with the ♣Q. At this point declarer says "Oh, I meant to play the ♥J". Is the ♣J from dummy a played card? Would it be different if defender has not followed suit yet? Would it be different if dummy did not touch a card, but defender did follow? Whose responsibility is it to resolve the ambiguity about which Jack is played after declarer's incomplete designation? Is there any default that declarer continues the same suit unless he specifies otherwise?

Do you also play that 1♦ 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ is invitational ? If yes, is responder supposed to jump to 2♥ with 4♠+6♥ and weaker than invite?

One obvious disadvantage of that is that you can not play 3NT after opening 4m.. Another one is that when the opening side gets to play 5m , it will usually be played from the weak hand (it is likely to be played from the strong and unknown hand after a 3NT opening). On the other hand opener's LHO gets only one chance to bid instead of two, which is good. What are the pros and cons of using 3NT for the "good major" hand? How do you arrange the responses? is 4♥ P/C ? Do you ever (often ?) guess to pass 3NT?

Why did North bid 3♦? Did he hear West's explanation that 2♦ is natural , which makes South's double a t/o double with short ♦s? Unless they were playing with screens (so that North did not get West's explanation) , I dont understand North's bid - am I missing something?

Why do most posters think that East's thought makes doubling (by South) less attractive? Couldn't East be thinking about a preemptive raise with a ♠ fit , and weak (or moderate) hand? Isn't this type of hand more likely (for East) than a strong , opening+ hand with no fit?

At the point that they bid 3♣, there are three categories of layout where you might want to penalise them: (1) Responder has trump length (2) Opener has trump length (3) Nobody has real trump length, but you both have defensive hands If, for example, they're in an eight-card fit, our trumps mught be 1=4, 4=1 or (3-2). Unfortuately you can cater for only two of these layouts. As I understand it, your responder thinks (1) will never happen, or only very rarely, so he wants to be able to cater only for (2) and (3). To me, that seems, to put it mildly, illconsidered. The layout where you most want to defend is (1). Because opener is known to have five cards in the major that he opened, (1) is also either the most likely or the second most likely. Therefore it seems clear that (1) should be one of the two layouts that you cater for. That's a long-winded way to reach the conclusion that responder should be able to double for penalties. Which other layout should you cater for? (3) will occur more often than (2), but (2) is probably worth a bit more when it happens. I'd go for frequency of gain over magnitude, but there's not much in it. So, I would play: - Opener's double = a defensive hand with 3+ trumps (or occasionally 2). - Opener's pass = less defensive than that - Responder's double = penalties The only thing I have to add is that the situation where "Opener has the trump length" and trumps are 1-4, is unlikely also because with shortage in their suit , responder would be very likely to have supported opener's suit (♥) , or had length in ♠s , in both cases making a non-double on the 1st round.

"Not to cue shortness in partner's suit" is a good meta agreement when your cue would be ambiguous - honour OR shortage (because partner really needs to know which). But , if you can show a shortage specifically (splinter) in partner's suit , there is nothing wrong with it , and in fact can be very useful.

In fact we did call the TD. And , in fact, the same North , later in the same match again misexplained their (different) agreement , this time the director adjusting. The director did not even consider a PP against North , and actually I don't think the current laws support PP against people forgetting their agreements.

The following happened to me recently : I was west holding ♠ xxx ♥ Axxx ♦ xxxx ♣ Ax South North 1♦ 2♦* 3♣* 3NT 4♠ PASS This was played behind screens , and my screenmate is South (RHO) who explains as follows : 1♦ = natural 2♦ = 5♠, 4+♥ 7-10 3♣ = invitational in ♥ (confirming 4♥s) 3NT = probably natural with ♣ values and max. 4♠ = to play. Now you are on lead, and trusting RHO's explanations you lead the ♥A , hoping to give partner 2 ruffs. Surprisingly dummy comes down with : ♠ Axx ♥ xx ♦ AJTx ♣ Txxx (He forgot their agreement and bid 2♦ as an inverted raise). And you realize that your lead may not have been the best... Thanks to this lead , declarer was now in a position to make the contract. (In reality he guessed wrong and was down 3 , so nothing bad happened to me). You examine your opp's CC (actually you did it even before the lead) and see the explanation you got is correct. So , assuming that your lead , which was obviously based on the explanation you got , gave the contract away. If you will call the director , he will tell you that you got the correct explanation , so no MI , no adjustment. How do you feel about this situation ? Does it sound "fair" ? Do we need any change in the laws that will prevent people from benefiting from their forgets?

1. Pass 2. 2NT 3. Pass wtp, pd will not have 3 keycards , and the 5 level is far from safe. 4. 3S - pd's overcall opposite my PH is usually a good hand.

How do those who play this way (2♥ does not promiss ♥s) , sort out things when opener has 4♥s and raises? Would 3♣ in this auction be a "catchall" as well ? Do you tend to bid your better fragment? And if 2♥ is not GF , wouldn't opener bid 3NT with his maximum rather than presumably non forcing 2NT? This and many other reasons is why 2H has to be a GF. I mean for the reason alone that partner has to bid 3H with a min or max with hearts (cant jump to 4 when 2H doesnt show hearts), and just the fact that jumping around is so bad... If you play that 2♥ is GF , how do you handle hands with 5-4 majors and invitational strength?