nigel_k

You have to support immediately, preferably with a 4♦ splinter otherwise 2NT. You get into all sorts of problems otherwise and the spades aren't even very good so you don't want to discourage partner if he has a singleton spade.

Three options: 1) takeout double 2) too strong to overcall a suit 3) too strong to overcall 1NT The minimum in each case depends on agreement and style.

These problems are hard because there is a fine line between it being your hand and their hand and there is no way to know until it is too late. I would always open 2♥ though.

Hands like this will make you really wish you had a two suited opening. If not, I might open 2♥ and possibly rebid 3♦ later if that seems like a good idea. You might pass in first seat if your methods and style require it, as long as you don't feel good about it. On the given auction, it is obviously very dangerous to enter on the second round but there are also plenty of bad things that can happen if you pass. In the worst case, RHO could be 4-6 in the blacks and partner with a number of red cards. I would pass at IMPs but bid 2♥ at matchpoints.

I've added a poll to encourage more answers.

My general view on these kinds of rules is that, if you are an expert, you can do better by looking at the actual hand and using judgment. If you want to be an expert, you should look at the actual hand and use your judgment in order to become better at doing so. If you are not an expert and have accepted that you never will be, by all means go ahead and use whatever rule-based approach works for you.

Kx Axxx AJ10xx xx 1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(P)-? Expert partner, 2♠ is natural and forcing. No other relevant agreements. It was matchpoints and I think all vul if that matters.

We've had a few of these 1 vs 4 problems and I'm feeling more and more confident that I don't need to see the hand before answering that I would open 1.

I'm happy to be a sub but am quite busy and have a severe time zone problem (i.e. it is around midnight EST when I get home from work).

I agree. Not scoring the touchdown is nothing like losing deliberately to a weak team in a round robin. It is closer to not cashing a winner so you won't be squeezed later, which I believe most people regard as completely ethically unquestionable,.

It's a huge amount of work for BBO to verify what happened and go through a process of warnings etc. Even if they eventually ban someone, the person can just log in with another username. So it makes sense that BBO will give priority to cases of serious abuse rather than just general rudeness. I suggest that if you do feel someone is being rude, ask them to apologise. If they don't apologise, quit the table and go somewhere else. If enough people do that, the abusive players will have to change. If not, at least you will be at another table.

I think East's bidding was fine, assuming the jump to 3NT shows extras which I think it should. West should have done more.

With a void, I will always enter the auction if possible. Here we can do so easily.

I would bid but it could easily be wrong.

Also, it's not obvious to me that there is no causation. It's not a philosophy forum but quite a few people regard 'x caused y' as equivalent to 'if x had not happened then y would not have happened'. Certainly without the infraction the 3♣ would not have occurred because the auction would have been over. Returning to the practical application of bridge laws, I'm still not clear at all on which subequent events are and are not related to an infraction.

Good post. I don't know the answer but can I maybe ask some followup questions; 1. Is it correct that serious error only matters if it unrelated to the infraction, but a wild or gambling action need not be related to the infraction? 2. If so, is it correct that West's 3♣ was related to the infraction therefore it doesn't matter whether it was a serious error. 3. Apologies in advanced to the OP, but if 3♣ is not wild or gambling here, can anyone give an example of a 3♣ bid in this auction that would be wild or gambling?

The advantage of the game try being forcing is that you can use it on hands that are not necessarily 5322, but no other game try fits. This may be 6322 or even 7222. Responder justs bids game or not based on whether they like their hand. Obviously on the actual hand, overcaller should just bid 2♥.

Quite likely it would be my choice.

IMO North's actions were fine. Maybe the double is questionable but North is in a tough spot after choosing to overcall 1♥, which I agree with. South needed to do more over the double and visualising some possible North hands would show that game is there quite often and stopping in 4♣ will usually be ok otherwise.

IMO it's a mistake to try to get rich collecting a penalty when opponents are in their eight card fit at the two level and your trumps are Jxxx opposite a singleton. Sometimes the layout will be like this one where you have no eight card fit and/or can beat them by more than the value of your game or part score, but it's hard to diagnose those situations in the auction and you can't really do that here. The overcaller could reopen with a double on something like Jxx x Axx AQxxxx and 2♥ and 3♣ would both be cold. So if I did pass with the responding hand, I would bid 2♠ not pass over partner's reopening double. I don't really have any strong opinion about the meaning of the double in the actual auction, but I would be reluctant to assume it must necessarily have diamonds if undiscussed. Regardless I would bid 2♠ on J10x instead of 3♦ as the overcaller because it's a level lower and we're playing matchpoints.

What is all this Gerber over 2NT? Why can't we just bid 4♣ to set trumps and initiate cue bidding?

If you are gaining 6 imps 35% of the time and losing 5 45% (80-35) of the time, that is -EV. You could also lose more than 5 if they double, which is quite likely when hearts don't break. Also, double-dummy defence is probably a bit easier than double dummy declarer play when the contract is 3NT and the auction has revealed declarer's hand quite precisely.

On a scale of 0 to 10 (where 10 is that guy running a marathon on each continent in 5 days): S1: 2 W1: 3 N1: 8 E1: 9 S2: 7 W2: 0 N2: 4 E2: 0

Just barely qualifies for 3♠ for me. Otherwise 2♠. Not pass ever.

I just about laughed out loud at this one. After reading the OP I assumed that partner had bid 3♦ slowly and this hand took further action. I was going to post that maybe pass is a logical alternative for a sufficiently poor class of player, but you would have to look quite hard to find an expert who thinks 3♦ is an attempt to improve the part score. Obviously (a weaker version of) DBurn's example could exist but it's just so wrong to use 3♦ to cater to that rare hand type. We are in essentially the same position as if we opened 3♣ and partner responded 3♦, i.e. partner is inviting further action and our hand is huge for a weak 3♣. So obviously 3♦ cannot stand. Unless you take a very literal interpretation of the laws and decide that pass is not a logical alternative so the player didn't choose from among logical alternatives etc.