sfi

I posed the original question to the international director at our club this evening, putting myself in your position, and he said that he would have no sympathy for me with a random partner of similar standard. His opinion was that we have a responsibility to look at the main features on the card. He would consider a procedural penalty against the opposition though and would consider an adjustment if the non-offending side were inexperienced players. Once he knew the people involved, he would have been more likely to impose a PP (assuming I worked out your opponents correctly), but would not consider adjusting. Curiously, the other day my (regular) partner and I sat down against a pair whose card was exactly as you describe. Myxo Twos with nothing in the pre-alert section and no brown sticker. Not that this proves anything at all, but I found it amusing.

Mostly they are consequences of the limited major opening rather than the 1C itself. For one, you don't need to find a way to deal with the death hands (good hand with 3 card support and a 6 card minor) by faking reverses and the like. Similarly, you don't need to worry about how to bid strong one-suited hands that you open 1 of a suit but are now worth forcing to game opposite any response. Auctions like 1H-1S-3C/D are better defined as well, since they are guaranteed to be 5-5 and have good playing strength rather than lots of HCP. You also gain space with your 18-19 point balanced hands, since those often get shown at the one level (1C-1D-1NT). And if they don't (1C-1H-2NT), then responder already knows that opener has exactly a doubleton heart. So you no longer need a checkback-style bid to look for 3 card support. In exchange you get an artificial 2D bid that you have to learn in these two auctions, but it works pretty well.

So, you've now taken two strong bids on your balanced 17 count, and the highest card in your hand that you've shown is a 5? And all this to avoid "distorting" your hand?

Many years ago Jan Eric Larsson published an analysis of various systems. It suggests that Polish Club was quite a passive system, and the analysis is well worth considering when choosing something that is right for a serious partnership. It's 17 years out of date, but the data is still very relevant.

I have played PC off and on for a few years, and it is true that you don't need nearly as many conventions as you do with std. american or 2/1. I haven't seen practical issues with most of the points brought up here - the options included in both the 1C opening and 1D response are distinct enough that it is pretty easy to sort out, for example. The major issue that we saw is that it does not preempt the opponents as much as other systems. It's heavily weighted to the 1C opening, which means that the opponents can overcall more frequently. It does not wave the same red flag as Precision, because 1C is frequently a weak NT hand and the opponents can easily have a game, but it does make part score battles more frequent. On balance, I would highly recommend it. The 2-3 conventions that are really important are easy enough to pick up and I've introduced people to it with 30 minutes discussion. I don't see any reason why it would make a poor system for even highly advanced partnerships. The main drawback seems to be lack of familiarity.

3NT looks like a dreadful underbid, with 10 points that are known to be working and a side 5 card suit. I would expect North to drive to slam over 3H, probably continuing with 3S-4C-4D. The 4D bid is what shows real slam interest, so South cooperates with 4H. Even if North signs off now, South can simply ask for key cards and bid 6S. To get to seven you need to have a way to show clubs after the 1S opening, but that's a separate issue. A moderate to large one IMO, but beside the point.

Almost certainly not. I believe that the senior TD in Victoria also heads up the committee that writes the ABF system and alerting regulations, so that's likely to be an oversight if it doesn't say that (I couldn't find it in my 2 minute search before I gave up).

The regulation about pre-alerts. This is from the ABF Alert regulations:

What do you think the director should have done differently? IMO, allowing pairs to discuss defences during the hand is a non-starter - Law 73 is clear. No damage was done, so there was no reason to adjust in any case. Do you think the director should have warned your opponents, assigned a procedural penalty, informed the table to call him back if there was any damage due to the failure to pre-alert, or simply not acted so dismissively? He certainly did not seem to give much credence to any UI implications of the question. (For the record, my answers would be 'yes' to verbally informing the opponents of their obligations and asking play to continue with instructions to be called back at the end of the hand if anyone feels there has been damage. I would have had more to say as director about RHO's comment at the end of the hand.)

Several years ago I actually posted a suggested defence on the notice board in Darwin for both brown sticker conventions my ex-partner and I were playing (Wilkosz Twos and 1NT overcall for takeout). In the next year and a half, a total of zero people looked at it during a session, asked for it, or referred to it. I'm not convinced that making brown sticker conventions more restrictive would be seen as a positive thing by any more than a very small minority. We were getting pressure to allow them in our daytime duplicate sessions, which we have recently done. Nobody has complained and lots of people gave positive feedback. In club championship sessions, they're just normal - most of the pairs play artificial twos, and about 1/3 of those will be brown sticker (the rest being some sort of multi). And frankly, they don't cause problems for almost anyone even at club level. Apart from anything else, the additional paperwork for the directors would be significant.

So it does - good point. Curiously, there isn't a 'brown sticker' box on the blank system cards to be manually completed, unless the one sitting next to me is out of date (which may be the case). Yes, which is why I would consider an adjustment. But you are expected to familiarise yourself with their basic system before the round, and it is on the same bit of paper. True as well. I'll have to give this a try and see what sort of reaction I get from the directors. :) That doesn't really change the fact that you are expected to be prepared for a number of common conventions and systems. I still maintain that this is one of the ones that you would expect to see a few times in a session. I would have no sympathy if you had a misunderstanding after a multi-2D auction, but this situation is more arguable.

There are a couple of practical points here: - I've seen brown stickers available in Australia exactly once. If directors actually want to enforce this then tournaments (and clubs) need to supply them. - The computer program used to generate printed bridge cards does not support having two stickers. - The section for two-level openings is directly above the pre-alert section on the system card. - Brown sticker conventions do not require a suggested defence, and a written defence is not allowed. All manner of strange twos are really common in Australia, even at club games. It's not unreasonable to expect experienced tournament players to be prepared for them. However, the alert regulations (section 3.1.2) talk about what to point out during the pre-alert phase and it does mention unusual two level openings as an example of what should be pointed out. This suggests that an irregularity has occurred and that the director should consider an adjustment if your side has been damaged. As to the actual questions, I can't imagine a situation where the director would let partners discuss anything relating to system during the hand. I don't see how UI is generated by the question, but it's a situation entirely of the opponents' making anyway.

Why not just point out the irregularity? That action doesn't by itself force your side into a position of accepting it or not, and now everyone knows the reason for any break in tempo.

You may well be unfair to declarer with this statement. They may simply have not thought about the issue beforehand and are trying to work out the hand at this point. It would have been better to have asked beforehand, but if they have not done so, then they are entitled to the information now. The OP's statement at the table was fine.

There are many 14-15 counts where you really don't want to jump or make a reverse playing Precision. It's best reserved for hands with extra playing strength rather than just a point count description.

Why does 2♥ show 5 of them? What do you bid with 3-4 or 2-4 in the majors and a 0 count? Given that North is now showing a minimum hand, game is a long way off and 3♥ could easily go down. Bidding again with 6 potential losers looks like very poor odds. 100% blame to North, despite South's strange second double.

Looking at the hand, 2NT is surely showing both minors.

You could always adopt a little gem of a convention we encountered a couple of years ago: Use 2NT as RKC for the last bid suit. The opponents twice in one match had the auction 1S - 2S; 2NT - 3x; 3S - Pass, both times for +140 and both times off two key cards. Clearly it's a winner. Or not. ObOnTopic: No idea - most partnerships I play in use 4NT for this purpose and lots of cuebidding otherwise. We don't seem to wind up in trouble too often, but then I am firmly of the opinion that asking for keycards is vastly overused.

Well, you can't bid a passable 3C. You need to throw in a cuebid at some point to force to game, and now seems as good a time as any. If partner bids 3NT, you can continue with 4C to offer a choice of slams. Partner should get the idea that you only have 4 of them, and bid NT with only 3. If partner doesn't bid 3NT, then they will choose a suit like X asked for. If it's 4C, you know you have an 8 card fit (which sounds likely anyway). Getting to slam isn't much harder than just bidding it at this point.

One of the interesting things about bridge is that even recommended plays can easily fail - there is rarely a sure thing, especially on lead. For example, swap the HK and HQ, and the DK and DQ. There is no reason to suspect that the bidding would be any different and the HA lead is the best way to make the contract make.

It looks like the rails really went off with the 3S bid. Without knowing your system, I would expect that to show 4 card support in most circumstances. Why not bid 3D over 3C to explore? Now West can bid 3NT easily and East has no reason to disturb that. Without a high heart, West might bid 3H and then the auction could continue 3S-3NT-4S or something similar if you want to get to the Moysian. 3S seems to jam the auction just enough so that nobody knew quite where to stop.

That would seem to be a major flaw to not pay attention to partner's signals. Here, for example, it's an entirely avoidable two trick difference that rewards declarer for bad play.

Because North didn't play the SJ at trick one?

Surely these are reasons for women's events. There is no reason they or any other group of bridge players can play in the highest standard game around. But if this is the standard they want to achieve then it's worth accommodating the clients.

Even if you rule the card had not been played yet, it was still not exposed inadvertently and is therefore a major penalty card. Which, conveniently, must be played now.