sfi

It is much more important to let our side get in the auction on more hands than simply increasing the size of the penalty. Hence playing double as pure penalty is a poor choice, and with the posted hand I would just pass. If you play it as showing values that are suitable for either offence or defence, partner can now make a semi-informed decision about whether or not to compete. That way the number of hands we can win on goes up, which more than offsets the losses when we can't double for penalty. A double of 4H is similar in nature but partner is more likely to bid 4S. Hence you can reasonably describe it as 'takeout', even though partner will often pass with a flattish hand and nowhere good to go. There is no strict boundary where it becomes pure penalty rather than pure takeout - it's a gradual transition starting at 1C and continuing all the way up.

I would bid 2NT now, but I would have an agreement that it is artificial. Either 2 places to play or a bad way to get to the 3 level are much more valuable agreements than natural IMO. If I don't have either of those I'd probably try 3C, but it could be pretty bad.

Quarters set 1: sfi 57 - 12 mkgnao http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:83811526.c262.11e6.b596.0cc47a39aeb4-1481763905&u=sfi

You could try the State Library of Victoria, which houses the Tim & Margaret Bourke collection of bridge books. Failing that, you might contact Tim directly.

Thanks - enjoyed it.

Set 4: stoppiello 46 - 17 sfi http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:ba3b34a0.c041.11e6.b596.0cc47a39aeb4-1481529921&u=sfi

Set 3: stoppiello 18 - 11 sfi http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:8eb9630a.c008.11e6.b596.0cc47a39aeb4-1481505366&u=sfi A miserable set of boards, with South averaging a touch under 7.4 points per hand. I made 9 bids all set, while my opponent made 10.

It's seen your opening bids? ;)

Set 1: sfi 23 - 16 stoppiello http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:afa4be1b.be84.11e6.b596.0cc47a39aeb4-1481338777&u=sfi

New Minor Forcing, in this context, is the name of a specific convention and doesn't have a direct link to the general idea that a new suit is forcing in certain situations. It applies in specifically these type of auctions. After partner rebids 1NT you may want to force, invite, or sign off. The problem is that you only have two natural bids and three desired meanings. Playing NMF, you give up the ability to sign off in 2 of the unbid minor. Instead you use this as an artificial bid to start a range of invitational and strong sequences. On the hand you provide, you would have to choose between playing 2H or signing off (in some way that depends on your agreements) in 3C. Not ideal, perhaps, but the gains on other hands are huge.

That really is the crux of the question, isn't it? Given that we have no information I was presuming the person holding this hand wasn't confident about any agreements and wanted thoughts on what might be standard. The problem is that not much is "standard" here. 3C could be forcing or invitational. 2C is likely to be some sort of checkback, but may not be if the players are novices. 4C could be ace asking, asking for key cards in hearts, or a splinter. And so on. Having agreements is good. If I really had no idea what we were playing I would be tempted to bid 6C over 1NT. It can't be too far wrong.

Surely that's more likely to be a slam try with long hearts and short clubs, isn't it? I want to show a forcing hand with clubs. Hopefully 3C does this.

Maybe, but in this instance it seems clear my opponent should not be penalised. I can't do anything about the other situations.

Upon reflection, I would like to ask for the match score to be adjusted (to 0-46). The computer accepting the concession on board 12 is clearly an error in law and should be scored as a push. Thanks. :)

Your score wasn't helped much when you got caught by trying to claim when they were on lead and wound up conceding all the tricks. We've all been caught by that, but it's annoying when it happens.

Oddly, Planet Money just published a podcast on the fake news concept yesterday, and used this "story" as the basis of the report. Interesting listening. Link to podcast

You may be right - I was paying attention to the bit that said 'opponents'. If so, it would depend on what various bids mean, but I would be comfortable guessing that 2H, 3H, and (possibly with a bit less comfort) 4H are all pass or correct without specific agreements.

Or possibly a Stayman double.

diana_eva 39 - 14 sfi http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:c7debf9d.b9a6.11e6.b596.0cc47a39aeb4-1480803665&u=sfi

sfi 25 - 18 broze http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:d9ff9113.b9a6.11e6.b596.0cc47a39aeb4-1480803695&u=sfi

The most likely way a 4-4 fit will create an extra trick is when you have a useful pitch on the fifth card in the suit. You can frequently diagnose this when you have a double fit in a major and a minor, and have started a cuebidding sequence. However, as others have pointed out it's just too hard to convince partner you have four card support when you start with 1S, so it's far easier just to start by raising partner immediately. On the original hand it is very unlikely pitching a club on the hearts will gain any tricks. Even if you did have a way of showing both majors, this would not be the hand to do it on.

What Kaitlyn said. You mostly want the weak hand to bid 2D and hear what the strong hand has to say, with other bids showing something fairly specific and jumps being very precise. Then responder has an idea of how their hand will fit. You need as much room as possible to show shape after a 2C opening, and you're taking up a lot of it quite frequently. In particular, your method is likely to work extremely poorly when one hand is two-suited and the fit is in the second suit, but there is a general theme that you're letting the responder show their hand rather than opener. Kaitlyn presented samples from one basic method of responses. There are others, but the ones that work all share those elements.

A limit raise on this hand is a huge underbid. Take away partner's AK of spades and you're basically 50% if they don't lead a spade, and that's not all that close to an opening bid. Sure partner could have something like Jxx Kxxxx KQJx A and we go down in game, but you're very likely to have good chances on any hand that doesn't have half the points wasted.

Experience counts for something and this is simply an application of that idea. The game is not purely logical, no matter how much people would like it to be. Are you also suggesting we adjust when someone upgrades, gives false count, or simply has a different idea of hand evaluation than you do? The one in question would fool partner, but it is unlikely to matter very much. Partner might innocently raise 3S to 4 and the opponents might leave us in our 2-2 fit. Partner is none the wiser until he writes down -450 and picks up 14 IMPs. Next time the opponents might remember to double and now partner has just made it easier to find their slam. Just because I as the preempter know this might happen doesn't mean I will react differently - if I did that's where it becomes problematic. It's merely acknowledging that bridge is a complex and multi-layered game, and that a novice doesn't know as much about it as an expert. These are very different things. Adjusting here would be like adjusting a contract to -1 because the declarer found a squeeze that the opponent could have broken up earlier had they known about squeezes. I would suggest the real problem is the initial teacher that didn't introduce the idea that opponents aren't there to help them. If people understand these things are a normal part of the game earlier, they are much less likely to be unpleasantly surprised when they do come across someone who bids differently, psychs, false cards, or otherwise misleads them. Shielding beginners from this does them a disservice, both because it oversimplifies the game and means they feel cheated when they aren't being. Making the game simpler is at least as likely to cause it damage as what you are suggesting. As a simple example, I posted earlier that numbers in Australia are growing. We don't have anywhere near the same concerns about psyching (at any level) as in the ACBL, so it is not obvious that your theory is supported by data. When asking people who have come to lessons and not continued (and our club follows this up as a matter of course so we have the data), answers include 'cannot find a partner', 'inconvenient times', 'too much time commitment', and 'not for me'. Psyching just doesn't come up. When we asked people who were more experienced and dropped out the common reasons were 'rudeness' and 'cannot find a partner' (except young people - their answers were totally different). I'm not sure that comparison is valid. If I recall correctly, nobody here had anything good to say about that particular ruling, and that sort of thing could easily lose people.

Because partner might actually have something for you despite showing a long diamond suit. And you have a lot more than you might have. Because you need a call to show a hand like QJTxxx QJTxxx x -, and pass doesn't feel like the right call on this auction.