sfi

Was that for penalty partner? I wasn't sure... And I think we're running late for the next round now.

Agreed. Turns out you can even get banned for writing to a table with 3 robots in 'Just Play Bridge'. This seems like a very blunt instrument to use without warning.

I forgot about the written description, but my partner did have it at the table. Not many people looked at it.

My experience from the 2015 Spring Nationals is: - Vanderbilt was superchart, so we could play our strong club relay system. - Other major national events were midchart, so no relay system (for a variety of reasons relating to our specific system), but most constructive treatments were allowed. - The one-day swiss teams we played as a warm-up was GCC, which meant we had to drop a couple of conventions. If you play a convention requiring an approved defence (we didn't), you will need to have it available even in events such as the Vanderbilt and Spingold. Our 2nd round opponents had forgotten theirs so weren't playing multis against us. We told them we didn't care, but they still dropped it. As I understand it, any non-GCC conventions that don't require defences simply require a pre-alert before the round. We had no problems in four days of both pairs and teams, and nobody was particularly surprised by the pre-alert. We even played Polish Club in everything but the Vanderbilt and had no issues at the table, although we did include that in our pre-alerts. The two unusual things I did find were that almost nobody looked at the convention cards even though we put them on the table in front of them, and the question 'leads and carding' was almost ubiquitous. In response to the latter, opponents expected a summary of all carding agreements. Odd compared to what I am used to, but hardly impossible to adjust to. In short, unless you are pushing the boundaries the hype about the differences appeared to be much greater than the reality. You may not get to play your pet conventions (or what I call 'sensible modern methods') in the side events, but there are enough national events that this may not affect you if you play well enough to make the finals of them - typically top 50% of the field.

Agree with Wilkosz. There was even data many years ago that where someone showed it gained an average of 3 IMPs a hand at world championship level, which is similar to my unscientific observations.

So I seem to be out on a limb by myself here with a 2C overcall. What auction are you imagining being faced with next round where doubling immediately is better than overcalling with the intention of doubling next round? The only one I can see is a big preempt by opponents, but if they really think they have a fit I'm prepared to double most levels if that's the case. What am I missing?

2C sounds about right, for all the reasons you quote and for the situation you found yourself in when you doubled (I would double 3D as well as two - this is a pretty good hand). This hand is worth more than one action so there is a real advantage to showing your hand as accurately as possible. You're fairly stuck after the double. You could belong in 4S opposite KQxxx xx xxxx Jx, 3NT opposite xxxx xx Axx Axxx, a club slam opposite KQxx xx xxx Axxx, or a part score opposite wasted values. And it is hard to sort out. As for your questions, apollo was pretty close to my understanding: - 2C shows the double and bid hand, but is not FG - 2D is FG Partner can easily have four spades here (I would expect a responsive double to have three most of the time), but I would widen the range to something like 5-10. Basically a hand that would respond at the one level to an opening bid.

Against any reasonable opposition I am much more surprised when there is no pause at trick one than when there is one, and I don't think anything should be read into it. Both declarer and defenders have to process a lot of new information at this point, so playing immediately rarely happens. In fact, many times I have seen extensive (multiple minute) delays when it is pretty clear there is no real choice on trick one. I have never seen a player try to claim damage from a trick one pause, nor would I expect to. I even advise newer players not to play to trick one before working out as much as possible about the hand. You haven't made a mistake yet, the opposition will not read anything into the hesitation, and valuable information has not yet disappeared.

Double is pretty awful - our shape is dreadful, we may not have a safe spot, they may be going down, and we are vulnerable. Lots could go wrong. I'd probably double anyway.

What alternative contract are you envisaging that will be better than 3C? Partner might have 4 hearts with 3H being a good contract on your 4-3 fit, but that's a pretty narrow target you are aiming at. If you just bid an in-tempo 3C and don't have a good fit, they may well misread their partner's club length and push on anyway. I would expect a takeout bid to look more like 2-3-5-3 on this auction, where you can suggest 3D as a good contract.

Double. The opponents don't get to open and play 1NT at pairs at this vulnerability. It's pretty much that simple.

My apologies - I thought you were actually trying to make a sensible, if misguided, point. I'll be off now.

In other words, the real agreement is North shows 12-14 when opening 1NT while South shows 15-17. There is nothing in the laws stopping a partnership from doing that, but most jurisdictions have regulations that say the partners must be playing the same system. So you are unlikely to be able to play this in most places. Wrapping it up in a sophism does not change the nature of the agreement. And if you tried to explain it that way to opponents in a serious competition, I suggest you should expect a penalty for doing so. And rightfully so IMO.

We get it - English is not as precise as mathematical terminology. Nonetheless, everyone else seems to understand the meaning of range in this context with no difficulty. The regulations may be easier to navigate if you don't try so hard to misconstrue their intent.

Surely the "discussion" about the size of the 10-15 NT range is not relevant here. This use of 1NT is conventional and only allowed at the Superchart level, is it not?

Most people in any group are either beginners or intermediate. The mere fact that most people on BBO rate themselves otherwise is a telling point in itself. The only thing that has some real merit is the star rating, which is at least an objective real-world measure. Some people with stars may not be very good, but it does show some experience in bridge out of the online context. Not very helpful, I understand. Personal experience will count for much more than any rating system (self-rated or otherwise).

I've been using 1M-2C like this for a while, but throwing in the major suit raises in as well. It is a clear enough win that two regular partnerships have switched to 2/1 (in various strong club contexts) just to add this. Advantages: - you can invite in the major and stay at the two level - a 1NT response never includes the invitational hand with three-card support - jump shifts are freed up for something more useful than Bergen (we use them as nat/inv) - other two-level responses show real suits - it provides a good way to bid flat hands with support - it reduces to Drury by a passed hand, so the transition is easy It's only legal in mid-chart and higher events in the ACBL, but I believe it's fine everywhere else.

It's pretty common around here to play a jump in the other major as a three-card limit raise, in both SA and 2/1 contexts. Not saying this particular approach is brilliant, but there are any number of ways to deal with it.

That's not correct though - you are entitled to the opponents' agreements. If they don't have one, there is no obligation for the bidder to tell you what they hold. It is a different situation if they have an agreement and the bidder has simply forgotten it. Then there is misinformation.

If dummy puts the hand down incorrectly and declarer doesn't correct the irregularity I don't really see how the declaring side has any cause for complaint. I'd accept the ruling and move on. A quick look through the rule book gives me Law 12A1 or Law 23 as a basis for adjustment. I may be missing something though.

Explaining it as "no agreement" is fine. I suspect the phrasing used is a literal translation from Polish or similar language - the Polish bridge books I've read often use phrases like that. For example, WJ2000 describes the auction: 2♦ (weak 2-suiter with at least one major) - 4♦ (to play in partner's major) as "today you better try it rather than me". Or possibly the person is just trying to be amusing and their sense of humour does not match yours.

Pass, obviously. East got the chance to invite and remain at the two level - the best they can hope for. FWIW, I would invite with the East hand if I could stop in 2S but not if I had to force to 3S.

If the auction proceeds 1C - (1D) - 1H, West should not pass this without three card support for partner. Doing so is too likely to result in a negative score. Fortunately, West has an easy 1S rebid, which will see them land in 2S.

A feature of playing a non-standard notrump range is that you sometimes win or lose on a hand for reasons unrelated to skill or evaluation. If you are looking to stretch your valuation of a particular hand to cater for these differences, it's much better to do so when designing the system rather than at the table. In one partnership that started out as precision, we did exactly that. We now play a weak NT and all 15-17 balanced hands are thrown into 1D. That particular change adds some odd features to the system, but we made a conscious decision not to increase the randomness by having different types of decisions to the field who normally break the balanced hands up between 14 and 15 points. In other partnerships we discussed the issue but decided to accept it.

Speaking as someone who likes opening 4H in 3rd seat, please double in pass-out seat with the East hand. As Phil said, West has a risky but reasonable double. East has no excuse for one.