sfi

Really the comments are only 1-1. The same person made their point against 2H twice.

My guess is he didn't jump to 5D because he didn't think there was much chance for 11 tricks in the 0-3 fit.

Set 2: sfi 24 - 15 derppp http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:1488e7f6.54c2.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1497857820&u=sfi

I don't think your conclusion is correct. Even if you are correct about working backwards (I actually agree with blackshoe's interpretation but that's beside the point here), accepting the lead doesn't establish the revoke. All it does is determine who leads at this point, and West hasn't played to the next trick yet. Nor does West get the opportunity to do so with the director standing there, so East's revoke never becomes established. The next thing you have to do is apply Law 62. East now must correct the revoke by playing the diamond, and South may withdraw both cards before playing to the trick on which the revoke occurred. So play really resumes from the correction of the revoke (with East having a major penalty card) and the fact that West accepted the lead out of turn is no longer relevant. South doesn't even have to win the revoke trick if having E-W on lead is valuable at this point.

First set: sfi 25 - 10 derppp http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:6ad4a1d6.548d.11e7.b134.0cc47a39aeb4-1497835201&u=sfi

That was my thinking as well. S/he finds an impressive number of straw man arguments to fight against in my two-line response, while missing the main point entirely. Given that none of them has anything to do with the original problems, I'm done.

You're not really into this partnership thing, are you? X of 1H is totally normal, and if the only thing you ascribe partner's bidding to is "temporary insanity", you're going to miss out on good results on hands like the ones posted. Maybe, but not because of the 2H call.

By "modest extras" I was trying to suggest a hand not quite worth jumping to 3C, but is willing to rebid 3C over 2H in the actual auction and wants to show spades along the way. Not a large subset of all possible hands, I admit. But then, it is an odd bid in the first place.

I agree that #6 is a style thing, and would be likely to pass as opener with a minimum 3-0-4-6. I was picturing something like a 4-0-2-7 or 4-1-1-7 hand with modest extras that is hoping to hit a spade fit on the way to 3C and thought my choices were pass or 3C. I couldn't decide which one I would choose, although your hint pointed me in the direction of what you wanted. I'm also not convinced the answers on some of the others are quite so clear, but that doesn't make the problems any less good. Numbers 1 and 5 also have the excellent theme of trusting partner rather than the opponents. Picturing partner's shape and problem is a skill well worth practicing. Here the alarm clock is fairly obvious, but even recognising when partner has done something weird that you need to work out is a worthwhile skill. And it's not just in bidding - we recently won a match against a good team because I sat there for 5 minutes trying to work out what possessed partner to play the C9 at trick one.

This. The 1D response seems to make the system all but unplayable as described. You would need a lot more discussion about how to show strong hands over 1D, how to show clubs, and how responder can find safe spots to play on potential misfits. Or just pass with weak hands and leave 1D as a natural bid, which at least means you will face the same problem as others. Polish Club has a similar issue (1C = weak NT, clubs or any strong hand), where the 1D response includes weak hands and the 1NT rebid shows 18-20. It addresses it by potentially bidding a 3 card major at the one-level and potentially scrambling for the best fit. I mention this to show how your agreement can cause problems which do not always lead to good contracts, and that good bidding theoreticians haven't come up with perfect solutions.

It's not totally silly advice because those 10-13 hands with 5+ hearts are clearly a weakness in many forms of 2/1. You have to either bid 2H and risk getting overboard opposite a hand like this, bid 1NT and risk not being able to show the hand (after, for instance, a 2S bid), or introduce artificial agreements. This sort of problem is why it's becoming more common to play invitational jump-shifts after 1H/S. If you have a good way of handling the invitational heart hands, the author's objection isn't relevant anymore.

It's not really an ugly rebid - you just have to have an agreement what you do with these hands. 2S is commonly a catch-all bid.

That's really not what I said. What I said was that it has more going for it. At MPs, you might get lucky and talk them out of something, so there is a potential positive position that can be balanced against the -200s. At IMPs, the set of hands where you win is much smaller - you're looking for a good club fit where either you have game opposite a passed hand or can talk them out of their 4S contract. I'm not worried about the -200s. I'm worried about -1100, which is worse at IMPs than at MPs. Frankly, I see little upside in bidding 2NT at any form of scoring.

Given other responses, I'm clearly in the minority. You also don't say whether it is MPs or IMPs. At IMPs I don't think this hand has anywhere near the playing strength needed for a vul vs. not unusual 2NT, especially opposite a passed hand. I would like to see good intermediates in my suits and would expect 6-5 or 6-6 more often than 5-5 here. At MPs 2NT has more going for it. I still wouldn't do it because I don't think the odds are in my favour. But that could be because almost everything I get to play in is IMPs. 2D for me, and I don't think it's close. 2NT just feels like you're asking for a double.

And Skitt's Law continues to hold true...

Pass if I'm allowed to. 3C if 2C was forcing.

I'm not crazy about splinters when I have a long suit that might be a source of tricks if partner has a bit of help. If possible I would bid 4C, which should get something besides a sign-off from partner. 4H last train would be ideal, and the lack of wasted diamond values may be enough for South to push for the slam.

I'm in.

Nice (and kudos to Kaitlyn who also pointed this out) - I missed that.

You don't get to try both 3-3 hearts and the diamond finesse because East is very likely to switch to a diamond. That being said, the heart finesse is better than my earlier suggestion of dropping the queen. That line works whenever either red-suit finesse wins.

Try clubs first. If they are coming in for four tricks, my plan is to play the HK and HA. If the HQ doesn't drop I'll fall back on the diamond finesse. If all that fails, they might give me a spade trick while I still have a club entry to dummy. If clubs only give me three tricks, I'll try the heart hook and see how I'm going.

Sure, but we don't know what this pair plays yet. We also don't know whether 3H shows 5/4 or 5/5 distribution, which is important.

What did 3H show? What would other bids by South mean - is 3S forcing and is 4C/D natural or a cue for hearts? These affect what the hesitation suggests, but I would be surprised if pass were not a logical alternative.

This is your first contribution to the forum? Not the most constructive start ever. ObOnTopic: Anything but 4H is overthinking the hand.

That's totally normal the way many, and probably the majority, play negative doubles. Double shows 4+ hearts in the auction you provide (there might be some hands that have to double without 4 hearts, but responder would have a plan to manage the rest of the auction). It doesn't say anything about clubs, so if opener bids clubs, they are doing it because they have clubs, not because partner showed any. If you play that way, and if you play 2H by responder as forcing, doubling and bidding hearts must be a non-forcing hand with long hearts. That's pretty standard and expecting something else from a random partner is likely to get you into trouble. Of course, if you and your regular partner have agreed something else, then that's also fine. Clubs. This is a pretty good hand and it's extremely likely we will have a fit somewhere (especially if they jump around in spades). If partner corrects to hearts, so be it - she has heard about my suits.