mich-b

1♠ Far too good (and misdescriptive) for 2♠ and 3♠.

I would bid 2NT , but in MP (only!) would not be upset if partner passed.

Pass. Not enough values, not enough shape.

This is a very basic bidding situation to which there is a single standard meaning : PASS is neutral, and does not suggest defending. If a pair agrees to play it differently I believe that comes under the "unexpected meaning" category, and therefore is alertable. The other situations you ask about , are much less basic, and people have different views on them. So I do not think any meaning of PASS can be considered unexpected and alertable. In all except (1any-X-XX-PASS) I would ask about the PASS if I needed to know before making the next call. Edit : This is my personal view , not representing the ACBL , or any other NBO policy.

1NT is either : 1. A suggestion to play there with a strongish 3442, 3433 or similar or 2. A beginning of an escape . Hand 1 will pass if doubled in 1NT. Hand 2 will redouble , or bid 2♣, or 2♦ if 1NT is doubled.

Perhaps the OP can tell us why he bid 2♠ and not 2♦ (Which is the bid most of us would select). Do you and your partner have any unusual agreements about the meaning of 2♦ here? The answer to this question might be relevant to the alertability of 2♠.

3♥ now , support ♦ later strongly. This should show good hand for ♦ with ♥ control. I would be happier about my choice if this was IMPs. In MP 5♦ might be worse than 3NT, but I think there is enough chance of a making slam, or of 3NT being bad , that I will risk supporting ♦ on the 4 level.

I ask my screenmate what is going on , and unless he convinces me that they knew all the time what they are doing (I doubt it) , and that his 3♦ was forcing (I doubt it) I double.

One more try to explain myself better : With the original hands I would suggest something like: 1♠-2♦-3♦-3NT-4♣-4♦-4♥-5♣-5♦ Opener bypasses 3NT to show some extras, both sides cue to show controls , and since neither has further extras they sign off in 5♦. If East held : ♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx. 1♠-2♦-3♦-3NT-4♣-4♦-4♥-4NT Because this hand is much better than the original, and it is very difficult to construct hands where opener will not have ♠ control.

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do: ♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx. Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control. If opener would have bid 4♣ (and not 4♦) they would be able to sort out both posession of controls in all suits , and having (or not) enough extras , until they reached 5♦. After opener bid 4♦, the auction effectively turned to kind of quantitative one (Opener's 4♦ meaning - I have extras, let's not worry about ♣/♥ controls, do you generally like your hand ?) , so with your hand (♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx) responder should bid slam because his hand is good, control rich, and has a 5th ♦. You ask what about the ♥ control ? When the auction got quantitative, rather than control seeking, responder should IMHO ignore control issues , trusting opener to have a ♥ control for his forward going 4♦.

I think the regulation was intended to disallow "random" passes of the 2♦ opening, the purpose of which is to prevent opps from reaching their best contract. I mean "random" here to mean - not trying to reach a playable contract, just hoping that going down a lot undoubled would be ok. The PASS in the OP's hand is different - it is responder'd best effort to play a makable contract. While I accept the original intent of the regulation - to prevent the "destructive" kind of PASS , I think it should be changed so it will allow the "constructive" purpose - moderate hands , with ♦ length , and shortage in one major. This would go well with a general policy of disallowing destructive conventions, while allowing various preempts where the preempting side does take measures to ensure they end up in a contract with a reasonable number of trumps, and on a reasonable level.

If RHO would have passed , I would prefer 2♠ showing good hand with ♣ support , ending in 3NT if pd is maximum , or 3♣ if he is minimum. Now that I dont have this option , 2NT seems my best choice.

4♦ was reasonable , though minimum for bypassing 3NT. (4♣ might be a better bid, using the space to show control "on the way"). 5♣ was ok. I agree with showing 1st round controls below game, especially by an already limited hand. (limited by bidding 3NT). 6♦ was way too much. 4♦ was already a move towards slam, and the West hand surely does not hold additional values.

If my choices are "natural" or "general force" I prefer "general force". I have met people who had a different use for the bid : 2♣ is a 3 card ♠ support , 2♠ is a 4 card ♠support. This idea might especially appeal to those who freely respond 1♠ on a 4 card suit.

Pass , and bid a lot later. This way your hand is limited by the original pass , and pd will not get excited with points, but no good fit.

Double. If partner bids 4♠ we have reasonable chance of making, and if he bids the unlikely 5m , this may be a make , or a good save. If he passes , I have reasonable defense and need about 1 trick from pd.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sq95hj72dqt6543ck]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠-2♥-P-?[/hv] What is your call? And please mention if there is any other call that you would consider.

2♣ is enough. Bidding 3♣ also makes it more difficult to sort out the minor suit lengths correctly, on a reasonably low level.

I think that it is very wrong to compare performance in Olympiad to performance in BB by terms of finishing place in the qualifying stage. It is obvious that a qualifying group of 18 in an Olympiad (an open event!), would have quite a few weak teams (and only 1/4 of the strong teams), while the BB field has no weak teams and all the strong teams (including 2 from USA). So certainly finishing 11/18 in the qualifying stage of the Olympiad is a poor result, equal to last in the BB. and 7/18 in the Olympiad group is equal to about 25th overall in the Olympiad , which also is far from being equal to average in BB. So , it seems to me that the data as you present it, does very much support Peter Gill's claims.

With standard agreements my choice would be 3♥ (limit raise+). But, I was recently convinced that it is important to have a bid that shows a "mixed raise" in this situation. Some use 2NT here to show the mixed raise, some suggest using 3♠ as mixed raise, and bidding a simple 2♠ with the "preemptive" hands.

It seems to me that this is not the appropriate place for this thread. What you are discussing here is not really "bridge" , not "interesting bridge hands" , and perhaps barely "bridge related discussion". IMHO , this thread should be moved elsewhere, so that people , like myself, who are not interested in that other game you are discussing , will not waste time on skipping this thread.

Option a) seems to me to be get the worst of both worlds : It misdescribes the hand and risks playing 2♠ when cold for 4♠ , or 5♣, or 6♣, and at the same time leaves room for opps to judge their actions. The plan "to bid ♣ later" may often not work, for example if the auction proceeds 2♠-3♥-Pass- 4♥. Obviosly bidding 5♣ now has some disadvantages. I would suggest selecting between : a. Pass - planning to bid agressively later, and getting both suits into the picture. (probably the "normal" choice). b. Open 4♠, hoping that it is either a good contract, or that opps will bid too much.

♦J. This will require the least from partner to beat the slam. Also , most LHOs would be much more likely to bid like that missing a ♦ control than missing a ♣ control.

The 2. It is likely that partner will need to know the count of the suit, so lead small from 3 and high from doubleton.

Was I asleep on the previous round of bidding?