Coelacanth

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. Had I been sure that partner would read 4♦ as a splinter, I would have done that, but I didn't want to introduce any ambiguity into the auction. The actual hand was ♠AQ ♥AKQJxx ♦9 ♣AQTx and I raised partner's natural 3♣ to 4♣.

Consider the following uncontested auction. Assume None vul at Matchpoints if that matters. 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 3♣ 2♣ is "standard", strong artificial and forcing 2♦ is temporizing; there is no "negative" bid available 2♥ is what you'd expect, a strong hand with primary hearts 3♣ is nominally a real suit, but limited by the failure to bid 3♣ directly over 2♣ You are the 2♣ bidder. I may give the actual hand in a later post, but I wanted to see some discussion of the following questions first. I'm looking for opinions on the "standard" meanings of these bids absent prior discussion, as well as any specialized treatments anyone plays. (1) What would a 3♠ bid by you mean? Natural, showing a second suit (perhaps 5611)? An attempt to reach 3NT missing a ♦ control? A cuebid showing ♣ support? Or something else? (2) Similar questions for a 3♦ bid. (3) Would you assume a jump to 4♦ to be a splinter raise of clubs, a big red two-suiter, or something else? (4) Assume your ♣ holding includes the Ace and Queen. What's the worst ♣ holding your partner should hold? Specifically, must he have the king, or would he bid this way with, say, JTxxxx? Must he have a 5-card suit, or might he have KJxx? Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

There are no language issues. EW are a married couple who have only been playing a few years. S has been playing since the 1950s. Putting aside the issues of how the question was phrased, the nub of the issue is as follows: If EW's agreement is to routinely respond 1NT to a 1♣ opener when holding 3=3=5=2, must that be disclosed by W in response to opening leader's question? Or should it even be Alerted at the time the bid is made? Or does this just fall under the rubric of "general bridge knowledge" and "using one's judgment"? The subsequent question is: if you do find that there was a lack of full disclosure, do you adjust the score if NS's defense was affected?

I did indeed list the jurisdiction, ACBL, in the subject line. I don't disagree with your assessment of the situation. As a hypothetical, if the conversation had gone S: What does 1NT show? W: 6-10 HCP and no biddable suit and the EW agreement was that 1NT is frequently bid on hands with a 4-card ♦ suit, is the MI issue any clearer?

Dlr S NS Vul South dealt and passed. W opened 1♣, North passed, E bid 1NT and all passed. Prior to the opening lead the following (paraphrased) conversation ensued: S: "1NT is standard, 6-9?" W: "Actually, 6-10" S: "But it denies any outside suit to bid?" W: "That's right" Both EW convention cards have the "may bypass 4 card ♦suit" box checked; no mention of this was made during the pre-lead questioning. I believe W may have misheard or misunderstood the question and thought S was specifically asking about majors. S leads a ♠ and dummy (W) comes down with some 3=4=2=4 hand. E is 3=3=5(!)=2 and makes 9 tricks when N discards a ♦ from 3=4=4=2 on the play of the ♣s. A major suit discard likely holds E to 7 tricks. Does W's explanation constitute MI? Does the information on the CC impact whether MI existed? Do you adjust the score?

I ran into the last of these this weekend, except the opening bid was 1♥. The 4♣ bidder actually had a good club raise, but her partner thought she was bidding Gerber. He responded 4♠, which she corrected to 5♣. He now responds Kings and bids 5♥, ending the auction. 5♥ just made. Most of the field was in 5♣ making 6. One pair bid the good slam, so we salvaged a matchpoint. Useful convention, that Gerber.

Sorry for another Law 27/Law 23 question. South dealt and passed, West opened 2NT, North (me) passed and East bid 2♠. The director was duly summoned. East held a (very) weak hand with long diamonds. In their methods, 2♠ over a 1NT opener is a relay to 3♣ for purposes of getting out in either minor. I was not privy to East's away-from-the-table discussion with the Director, but based on his comments after the hand I think he said something like this: "I thought my partner opened 1NT and was attempting to sign off in 3♦. Over a 2NT opener, 3♠ is undiscussed, but I would have bid it anyway, hoping my partner would figure it out." The director ruled that L27B1( b ) did not apply. Actually, he didn't state this explicitly, but he announced to the table that East could change his call to any sufficient bid (or a pass, I guess), but that West would be forced to pass for the remainder of the auction. East bid 3♦, everyone passed, and this contract was defeated 1 trick. If East had made any sufficient call at his first turn, EW would have reached either 3NT or 4♦, either of which is booked for at least a 2-trick set. Do you adjust? If so, is this a straightforward L27D situation or would you also invoke L23?

In my most regular partnership (of well over 15 years standing) we have always played Baron. I'm not sure if this is the technically correct name for the convention, but it's a sequence of the form 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠, where the 2♠ bid cancels the transfer meaning and initiates a slam investigation. In the myriad deals we have played using this agreement, this sequence has come up a grand total of zero times. My point being that for most people who play 2♦ as "transfer or infrequent other meaning", the "other meaning" is so infrequent as to have no practical impact on the defense. I'm fine with this regulation as is.

According to BWS, this is a penalty double

Yeah, that's why I posted this in this forum. I was trying to get at the question "absent any specific agreement otherwise (which would be alertable), what is the 'standard' meaning of this double?" Given the absense of an alert, I just wanted to validate that I was not insane for thinking my RHO had club values on this auction. On reflection, I probably should have asked LHO, but I'm almost certain the answer would have been "no agreement", so I would be stuck with the same guess as to RHO's hand type. Oh well.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts. I was the 2♣ bidder on this auction. My original thought at the table was that this was a pure penalty double, a strong 5224 or the like. I immediately realized that such a hand was very unlikely, as I held six clubs and my passed-hand partner just raised me to the three level. So I figured the doubler was 5233 or so with a full opener and a sure club trick. Her actual hand turned out to be 6331, with a small singleton club and about 13 HCP. Fortunately for her, her partner was 3442 and bid 3♠, which she raised to four. I must admit her double was sound tactics, as it dissuaded me from bidding 5♣ which was cold. However, if her partner had instead held 2452 and passed the double (as who would not, with his ♣Kx?), I would have been booked for two doubled vulnerable overtricks. Oh well. We defeated 4♠ two tricks for about a 20% board. Making 5♣ for +600 would have been about 80%.

I'm interested in people's opinion of the final double in this sequence: P - (P) - 1♠ - (2♣) X - (3♣) - X First double was negative. This pair does not play responsive doubles (not that this double would qualify as one anyway). If it matters, this is matchpoints, with the spade bidder NV against V. Absent any special agreement, what hand type would you expect for this double?

Fred, I've had a couple of issues with the sound on my Vista system when playing on the web client. I mainly play robot tournaments. Sometimes, as the "hey, it's your turn to play" sound is starting, I lose all sound altogether. Not just in BBO, but on my entire system. I have to restart my computer to get my sounds to come back. This has happened maybe 3 or 4 times.