nigel_k

1NT. Not close.

You need some way to set your major suit as trumps: either texas, direct jump to three of the major, transfer then bid other major, or something else. Do that then bid 4NT if you want to use RKCB. Transfer then 4NT is quantitative.

Surely they meant "information available to partner but not declarer" because the regulation is absurd if interpreted literally. So I would say the given example is legal because partner doesn't have any particular information, unavailable to declarer, that enables him to work out what the leader has.

Why play penalty doubles just because the auction is forcing? Don't the normal principles apply - i.e. a double which usually doesn't end the auction makes better use of available bidding space than a double that does end the auction?

I have never understood the attraction of Ogust and prefer either showing feature or shortage. Definitely use 2♠ not 2NT as the ask over a 2♥ opening. The following structure works reasonably well. Step 1: Two highest shortages, minimum Step 2: Any shortage, maximum Step 3: Lowest shortage, minimum Step 4: No shortage, minimum Step 5: No shortage, maximum Due to my symmetric background I prefer to show shortages from high to low but obviously you can do it other ways. If you prefer, features rather than shortages can be done in a similar way.

I would open 1♠ and prefer to play 2♣ forcing to game after a suit rebid. Usually responder doesn't have a complete yarborough and doesn't know if his few cards are the right ones. Even if I could stop in 3♠ after a 2♣ opening I would probably still open 1♠ though it is closer. You could also play that 1♠-1NT-3NT shows this hand type (6322 or maybe also 6331) since 5332 shapes are already limited to a 2 point range and can just rebid 2NT.

You can always adjust upward or downward. Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong. Obviously partners should agree this kind if thing but without discussion I would not open a balanced 11 unless it was an upgrade. You didn't give the actual hand you opened so it's hard to say who is right. Also, both your examples have 15 cards.

I can never remember the names of these things so let's call the above A, 2♣ majors and the rest natural is B and the one below is C. 2♣ hearts and another 2♦ spades and another 2♥/2♠ natural dbl penalty With both majors bid 2♦ with longer hearts and 2♣ otherwise I think C comfortably beats A because you can play 2 of a major when overcaller has a five card suit and not otherwise. You can also play 2♦ when overcaller has four hearts and longer diamonds. And the single suited major hands show the suit imnmediately which is better in competition. The only loss is that you show just one major first when you have both. There's also the legality issue if you're unlucky enough to be playing in the ACBL. It's harder to compare B and C because they have different ways to gain. Justin's points in favour of B are valid, i.e.: - Showing your major naturally so LHO doesn't get numerous chances to bid - Concealing whether you have a 1 suiter or 2 suiter to help you when you're declaring - Having a natural 2D bid On the other side: - You can act with a four card major and five card minor. - When you do have a five card major the first step response allows you to play your best fit a very large percentage of the time. Justin's points about responding to the two suited 2♥/♠ bids don't apply so much when it is 2♣/♦. - The 2♥/♠ overcalls are better defined

I agree with loss of deposit for truly frivolous appeals but I think committees take the money much too often. It shouldn't be enough that the committee thinks the issue is clearcut. Ideally the appellant should keep their deposit any time they genuinely believe their appeal is reasonable, and have a basis for that belief even if not a particularly strong one. And I think appellants have this more than 95% of the time.

Arguably it would not be FP even if partner had bid 3♣.

South should have opened and overcalled. North should have doubled at both opportunities. I'm giving North 65% because I think South's actions were closer, and the failure to double 1H by North as a passed hand is the only action I really consider a blatant error rather than just a judgment call.

K9xx of spades and Qxx of diamonds is better than the other one when defending. The difference between the two is much less when declaring so the first hand is a better one to act on. I would X on both but it is close.

I'd prefer 1♠ then 1NT then pass, but any of those is ok. One thing you will notice, both at the table and in these forums, is that people disagree on very basic sequences after overcalls and takeout doubles. Also there is no such thing as playing Acol when opponents open.

Agree with the bidding so far and would bid 5NT (choice of slams) now. Slam is not certain but I cannot pass when 12 tricks are likely and I haven't shown the full strength of my hand so can't expect partner to bid more than 5♦ on most hands where slam is good. A grand slam try is too much - partner is quite unlikely to have the ♠A and he could well accept without it given that he has shown nothing. Partner has better diamonds than hearts, so 5NT suggests five diamonds and a six card major, allowing us to play 6♥ opposite for example xxxxx xxx Qxx xx. 5♥ also suggests this hand type but slightly weaker and is a non-forcing slam try, maybe the same hand without the ♥Q would bid 5♥.

I don't have trouble working all day and playing in the evening, but I'm always a bit sleepy right after lunch, regardless of what I ate. Dunno why. Not having enough sleep the night before makes it worse though.

That's a 1NT response for me. You have 4333 shape. poor trumps and a dubious !sQ. Switch the majors and it is a bare minimum 2♥. Put a club in with the spades as well (i.e. 10xxx Qxx AJxx xx) and it is a definite 2♥. Some people need a bit more for a 'constructive' raise than I do though.

1) Yes, always open. It is just far too strong to pass even playing sound openings. 2) I think 1♥ is ok but it is close. It's hard to evaluate because so many different things could happen but I think Justin has really overstated how much you could lose by opening 1♥ compared to what you could lose by opening 1♦. He didn't even mention the possibilty of partner being on lead. 3) If I opened 1♦ I would always rebid 2♣, matchpoints or not. This doesn't have the feel of being a hand where playing 1NT will be a glorious victory for our side.

You need two ways to raise because the range of 1♥-2♥ is much too wide if it has to cover all hands with three card support and less than invitational values. Going via 1NT and giving preference to hearts should be the weaker one because opener will want to pass that on some fairly good hands. So the immediate raise has to be the stronger one. The upper limit of the immediate raise is anything less than a three card limit raise. With the kind of hands that people typically open at the one level now, that means you'll just raise to two on most hands with three card support, 4432 shape and 10 HCP. The lower limit will be the same as the upper limit of the hands where you start with 1NT and give preference. This upper limit should be set so that opener will be right to move on the same hands regardless of whether you have three card support or a doubleton. I think the above is more or less generally accepted and what is below is just my opinion. Most 7 HCP hands are better off raising immediately but a below average 7 will go via 1NT. So an average 7 to a slightly above average 10 for the single raise and 1NT first for weaker hands. This assumes 4432 shape. With more shape and certainly with a singleton the HCP requirements are reduced. What you do with four card support is a separate issue. My (minority) view is that it's not worth jumping to the three level with a balanced hand and four card support. I'd rather make a single raise on most of the 7-9 HCP range hands where others are using Bergen raises. A jump would be either full invitational values or have a shortage. Either way, four card support is better and should be evaluated accordingly. With no shortage, four card support is worth about 1 HCP more than three card support. With a shortage it is worth 2 HCP more.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s76hak2dqj764c874&w=skj9hj8653d8ckj96&e=saqh1097d932caq1052&s=s1085432hq4dak105c3]399|300|Scoring: IMP P 1♦ X XX 2♥ P 3♥ 4♠ X[/hv] The hand is from a book I have just been reading. It was in 1950 and Sobel was West and Goren East. So defensive bidding has come a long way since then. Bidding over preempts even more.

Definitely takeout doubles of their first natural suit bid. I think pass nonforcing is better in theory but it is just so easy for them to psych as they know partner won't bid much. So if RHO bids 2H after partner's X and you have hearts and some values you can't just pass confidently knowing partner will reopen because he may have heart length as well. So I would play pass forcing up to 2H.

If they overcall 2♣ and higher, IMO it's best to play that a new suit is a positive and double is for takeout and may be semi-positive. There's no way to really prove it but I think this puts you in the best position to find a fit and bid game when you have one, or stop in a partscore or pass it out when that is right. Passing with any 0-7 makes it too hard for opener to decide and expands the range of hands they might hold when they do act. Doubling with any shape likewise makes the continuations difficult. Given your agreements I would guess 3NT on 1, and probably 5♦ (with 3NT close second choice) on 2.

Fred's example works, but only because refusing to ever superaccept without four card support is just such a bad method. The purpose of a superaccept is to reach games that would otherwise be missed, not to ensure compliance with some law that doesn't work anyway. A hand where slam is good and partner would not make a slam try will also be a hand where game is good and partner would not make a game try e.g. Axx KQx xx AK10xx opposite xx Jxxxx Axx Qxx There is an obvious difference that the slam try doesn't raise the level of bidding and a superaccept does, but I really doubt that two of a major making exactly will be par very often when opener has a maximum with good three card support and a good five card minor like the above example. You'll miss games by not superaccepting on that hand much more often than you go one down at the three level when you could have gone plus.

Takeout doubles of their first natural bid are just better, both in theory and practice. If double is penalty, all the sequences following the double become unusable and this is quite a large percentage of all the sequences available. Since the hand will often belong to your side in a partscore you don't have much bidding space to find out and can't afford to waste any by using penalty doubles. If their overcall is artificial, you have two scenarios: 1) Overcaller doesn't have the suit they bid (e.g. 2♣ = majors) 2) They may have the suit they bid (e.g. 2♣ = ♥ and another) In scenario 1, you can just double with values and if the next player passes showing clubs, opener has to bid unless they have a penalty pass (i.e good clubs. In scenario 2, I think it is better for the doubler to promise 3+ cards in the suit the opponent bid. This allows opener to pass much more often. Otherwise opener is under their possible long suit and with no guarantee of any trumps opposite so opener will need to almost always bid something or run the risk of letting opponents easily make the doubled contract.

I use a 'raise' (i.e. 3♣ over 2♣ or 3♦ over 2♦) as artificial and game forcing, and everything else as natural and nonforcing. Clearly this makes some hands very difficult to bid well, but I think the relative frequency of the various hand types means it is ok.

If you take the phrase 'unrelated to the infraction' literally, then you should adjust. Given the assumption 'Last to speak would double if 3♣ had been alerted', clearly there is a relationship between the infraction and the failure to double. But I think a better interpretation is that if the cause and effect relationship between the infraction and the bad result relies on a 'serious error' by the nonoffending side, then you can regard the bad result as being unrelated. So you can deny relief under 12C1b if it is determined that the failure to double would be a serious error even 3♣ was a limit raise (and therefore the non-alert was correct).