sfi

The question about system was mostly me stalling, since even with 4 card majors they're likely to have 5 more often than not. The vulnerability seems a much more relevant question. My thinking is that it is really between pass and treating it as a strong balanced hand. Let's presume IMPs. If they're vulnerable I'm happy to play for 100's in undertricks. However, if not then the chance for game seems too high to settle for a small plus defending (give partner 4 hearts and we're well on our way to a game bonus), so the opportunity cost of passing looks awfully high. How much trouble can I get into by doubling? Well, partner can bid a minor at which point I bid NT. If the minor is diamonds, then no issues since we basically have what we promised. If clubs, I owe partner a trump and we might get overboard. However, that's probably not such an issue if we wind up in a part-score and partner isn't going to insist on game in clubs without lots of clubs. In that case we might even get away with it (x xx Jxxx KQTxxx isn't the worst game ever). The upside is unearthing a heart fit, which pretty much has to be done now. Let's assume nobody vul and pick some numbers kind of at random. Our upside is +420 vs. +100 (8 imps for bidding). Our downside is -100 vs. +100 (-5 imps for bidding). It feels like good enough odds to double here. If all vul and assuming the same set of results, we're looking at +9 to -9, so the case for bidding is less. So I'm sticking with my initial impressions above. Similarly, at matchpoints the frequency of everyone going down in a partscore seems high enough that I would be very likely to try for +200 if they're vul. At nil vul. I would still bid. You know how rarely we play matchpoints here though, so maybe someone else has a better take on that.

Humour me with vulnerability and scoring, and do we know whether the opponents are playing 5 card majors? That being said, I'm likely to double with the aim of bidding NT next if they're not vul. and pass if they are. I'm also more likely to bid at IMPs.

In my experience, yes. It may not work in some jurisdictions, but in my experience in Australia it works quite well. Here I would say "our doubles over opening bids are artificial." At that point my partner and I can agree what a redouble should show and whether we treat the double of 1NT as penalty. That's just normal behaviour here. And you don't have to mention all the quirks - just the ones against which the opponents might need to discuss a defence. Artificial doubles of opening bids are clearly in that category. Over the past month my opponents' pre-alerts relating to doubles have included the following: - 'our first step response to a take-out double is negative' - 'we play lots of penalty doubles and few takeout doubles after we open the bidding' - 'doubles in competition are rarely what they sound like and frequently transfers' If they don't pre-alert adjustments can and have been given. Not having experienced other jurisdictions where this doesn't work I can't suggest why the difference.

That makes quite a difference. +140 looks like a normal adjustment.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was insisting it was the case. Maybe it was the phrase "my impression"? Or was it when I said "you may be right"? It could have been the "my feeling is that...". As you say: Ah, BBO Forums.

Adjusting seems reasonable. I am having a hard time working out how North is going to make 9 tricks though - it looks like declarer needs to play carefully to avoid down 2. You polled a couple of players for independent data and made a judgement supported by their answers. I can understand East being unhappy by the decision, but it's always easy to convince oneself that the successful action was always obvious. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. IMO East has a standout bid of 3 or 4 hearts and 4H looks like a nice contract. The play there is interesting. It can make if declarer plays for the 4-1 trump split (pitch on the second spade) but is likely to go down in practice.

Easy enough to say in a forum post, but at the table I would be astonished if there weren't a pause for thought.

You may be right, but I'm not convinced. It's not the theorists and people who play strange systems I was thinking about - as you say they will know and apply the regulations mostly correctly. It's the club players who will learn that there is a standard way, which might then be seen as the "right" way. But I have no data to support this impression. Sort of. They have exceptions though (although fewer than I remember). Looking through I find things like: 1C - 2S is alertable unless strong 2C opening is not alertable if strong, but is if natural and limited 2C - 2D is not alertable if neg/waiting 2x - 2NT asking is not alertable I understand why it's done but I disagree with the principle behind it. As such, I prefer the ABF alert regulations - opponents even find it strange when we alert our Precision 2C (which we do because of the implications relating to a 4 card major rather than the basic meaning).

I don't think you can pause for this specific reason, but surely nobody who plays Kickback is going to do anything in tempo at this particular point of the auction.

We simply don't have the concept of announcements here, for better or worse. But the idea of "a majority treatment of the bid" being the standard and then only alerting if there are departures from that is the principle I don't like in regulations. First, it's confusing for new and visiting players. Second, it goes some way to enshrining one system in the local culture and I think this is a bad thing. My feeling is that the ABF approach (primarily the loose system restrictions but also the alerting regs) support the greater variety of systems I see here compared to the ACBL, and I think this is positive for the game.

It's not time consuming. A common phrase is something like "we play transfers in many competitive situations including X or XX. Please ask if they come up." You have to pre-alert the transfers anyway since the opponents may need to agree on a defence, so the last bit is all of three seconds extra. Nobody would go through all the permutations. But it's important to realise that the principle behind the self alert of doubles and redoubles is that there is not a standard meaning much of the time, so the regulations don't arbitrarily select takeout or penalty as the non-alertable meaning. I like it because I'm used to it, but it's just a slightly different approach to that of the EBU. The EBU approach also seems fairly straightforward. Despite the quirky situations that will sometimes occur, it looks easy enough to comply with.

Indeed. The principle behind the Australian regulations that I really like is that there is not a "default" system from which deviations are alerted. Mostly, if your bid is artificial then it is alertable. The self-alert component is an extension of that, with the idea that all these bids frequently have unusual meanings. Many common sequences seem to have more variation in Australia, so it's less clear what the standard should be if one were to alert only some meanings. For instance: (1C) - 2C is often 5/5 with spades and another 1NT - 2C is very frequently not Stayman It's also worth noting that unusual self alerting calls need to be highlighted at the end of the auction, so the opponents should know about it before the opening lead anyway. This doesn't always happen of course. Some bids are still commonly alerted, such as a 2C response to 1NT (even if it's Stayman). But people are getting used to that recent change in the regs and it happens less frequently.

If you're playing somewhere where no doubles or redoubles are alerted, then not asking about the redouble (or about the double) is really poor. Even at club level here everyone will quickly check about what the double means if it's not totally obvious. Sometimes people ask about obvious ones too, and it doesn't detract from the flow of the hand. Pairs who play really strange meanings (X=transfer, penalty doubles over 1 level interference, etc.) will pre-alert the opposition.

My understanding is that the laws are silent on the matter of proper bidding box procedures, and that it is largely a matter of regulation. For example, ABF regulations do require that the bidding cards remain on the table until the opening lead is faced. This is widely ignored in practice.

A major difference is that the situation you describe is specifically addressed in the laws (54A). Dummy becomes declarer and there are no other options. I have a lot of sympathy for opening leader, as Vampyr is arguing, and for dummy. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the doubler, who should have said something at the table. And I have very little sympathy for declarer. Hence my ruling to adjust the score for declaring side only.

Ignoring any infractions relating to alerting the double, North's claim here is ridiculous. She has no reason to expect a 3-3 spade fit to play better than a 6-1 diamond fit, for example. No damage has been done, so the table result stands. (The overcall got what it deserved as well, but that's another topic entirely.)

This is exactly what I do not assume. The person picked up their cards because they thought the auction was already over. This action is not the same as picking it up as an incorrect method of passing.

The first question that needs to be answered is what the opening leader would have done differently had he seen the double. Surely he wasn't planning on bidding, so he can argue with a fair bit of logic that he would have led a heart. The next issue is who failed to follow correct procedure. The declaring side, who saw the double, clearly did and could have been aware that this infraction would affect the defending side. However, there is no reason to suspect that the opening leader meant his action as a pass. I do think the defending side should have been able to notice the double though - if the bidding cards had been taken off the box quickly the doubler would have been within his rights to make some comment that the auction was not yet done. Given the information provided I would adjust the score under Law 23, to 3NTx making for the defenders and 3NTx going off on a heart lead for the declaring side.

Nobody has actually advocated passing this hand yet, so you may not get an answer.

The problem with that approach is that once you treat it as an opening hand you have set a clear minimum for the hand - "opening values" - and can never convince partner that you have less than that. You can only narrow the range of possible hands, not expand the top and bottom (mostly). So treating it as a minimum doesn't help if it starts off as a sub-minimum. Which, as others have said, this is if you're playing some standardish opening range.

At the risk of asking an obvious question, you do realise that assets increase in value as well as decrease? The HQ isn't worthless. A priori maybe it's half its nominal value - maybe a bit less but probably not more. However, if you're counting the spades as 5 points you're underestimating their worth by at least a point, probably more like 1.5 points. Similarly, the KJ87 is worth rather more than 4 points - the 87 alone rate to be half a point on the average hand and the J is probably 1.5 points. If you're counting points, that adds up to about 12 plus whatever distributional values you want to throw in. And yes, I think that opening this hand without the HQ is normal. Opening 2S stretches the range of that enough to make it very hard for partner to judge what to do, and passing that hand is just losing bridge. With the HQ it's a clear opener, and worth further action on many sequences.

You do realise it's a chunky 6-4 with 11 points and good intermediates? If I gave you the DJ to make a full 12 count, would that make so much difference?

Just as long as you know you are in violation of the law (73D2): "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure." You can and will be ruled against if the opponents call the director. To answer the original post, the odds are rarely in favour of the psyche. Once you realise that you can pick your moments - even second seat vulnerable. Sometimes it works and you have a good story. One thing often omitted is the gain you get from your opponents not being quite sure next time they play you. Of course if your partner stops trusting you then that will more than offset any future gains, so knowing whether partner is okay with psyching is probably the biggest consideration.

You really do see things negatively, don't you? This hand has fitting honours in three suits, honours in the long suits, a source of tricks, an easy rebid, and pretty good defence. What exactly are you missing for an opening bid? Sure you might go down in 3nt when partner doesn't have the right hand. But if partner pushes to game without a fit it's likely to have reasonable play. And if partner supports spades you'll probably take a lot of tricks.

Another option is that an immediate 3m re-raise by opener is the only non-GF continuation. Anything else shows enough extras to accept game opposite an invitational response.