Coelacanth

I don't disagree with this, but I think South's bidding also leaves something to be desired. He wants a club lead, not a heart. He should not double 5♥, and his double of the final contract would request a club lead.

Odd that you should mention ZT. Part of South's desire to be "overly helpful" on this hand may be related to the previous hand, where I very nearly called the TD over to enforce ZT. On the previous hand, the auction went [hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2s3h3s3np]133|100[/hv] South, holding a weakish (in the context of having made an overcall at the 3-level) hand with 0724 shape, bid 4♣. This resulted in his side's reaching a hopeless 6♣ instead of 3NT or 4♥, either of which is cold for 11 tricks. (North was 4234). This poor result was, in South's opinion, entirely North's fault, a fact which he was continuing to point out right up to the point where he passed his partner's forcing call on the subsequent hand.

Interesting discussion, everyone. Thanks. I agree that South's motives here were in no way nefarious. While his tone was indeed condescending, his comments did prevent West from taking the losing action. I do think, however, that had 3♣ been making, or down only 2, there might have been a case for damage. It just seems that the difference in tone between "whoops, I should have alerted partner's last call" and "really, it would be a mistake for you to bid here" is relevant. Maybe L74A1 (courteous attitude), 74A2 (remark that might cause annoyance or embarrassment), 74B2 (gratuitous comments) or 74C4 (commenting during the auction) would be applicable. But I think these would all be dealt with, if at all, via a PP rather than a score adjustment. For those who are curious, West's hand was ♠Kx ♥KTxx ♦x ♣AKQ9xx, not an unreasonable hand to balance with after the opponents have subsided at the two-level. However, North had the ♠AQ, ♥AJ (South had the ♥Q), and a stiff diamond (and the ♣T to overruff with). So South's comment, while poorly phrased, did help EW avoid a disaster on the hand.

ACBL Regional Open Pairs NS are both accomplished players (over 5,000 MP each) but not an experienced partnership EW are good players (well, West is; East was me) but significantly less-experienced than NS [hv=d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1d2cdp2hp2spp(After%20some%20thought)]133|100[/hv] The auction was as shown. South thought for quite some time before passing over 2♥. After South's pass, West began to consider his call. (Clearly, he was deciding between passing and a 3♣ balance.) Upon noticing West starting to think, South turned to West and said something like (sorry I don't remember it verbatim): "You really don't want to bid here. We play negative free bids, so my partner's double followed by 2♠ shows a much stronger hand than bidding 2♠ directly. 2♠ was forcing by agreement but I judged to pass." West considered this and passed. 2♠ was held to 8 tricks (9 tricks are available) for +110 NS. 3♣ EW would be held to 6 trump tricks, and maybe not even that (an overruff is lurking). Most of the room scored 140 or 150 NS, so -110 was a near-top for EW. What do you think of South's actions? Should West have summoned the TD prior to his final call? Do EW have a claim for damage? (-150 in 3♣ would be a zero, but +100 in 3♠ would be a top. Of course, it's not clear that either N or S would have bid 3♠, and even if they had, they may have adopted a different line of play and made the hand.) This was the last hand of the round. Midway through the next hand (at the next table), West wanted to call the TD. Would this have been too late for an adjustment (if, indeed, any was appropriate)?

OK, everyone has convinced me that 3♠ was bad and I should have bid 2NT. However, everyone has also made the quoted assumption, which turned out to be wrong. [hv=pc=n&s=sk6hak9754dk873ca&n=saq2h3dqj6542cqj4]133|200[/hv] The goal on the hand is to get to 6♦, which is cold. 2 of 9 pairs got there. I passed 4NT because it honestly did not occur to me that partner, having bid hearts, then spades, then clubs, then NT, was keycarding in diamonds. Can anyone suggest a good sequence to 6♦ using a fairly vanilla Standard American approach?

Congratulations, you're the first person to figure out what my partner was doing. I'm still not sure how the auction would have gone had I realized this (and bid 2NT), but at least I would have a chance to get it right.

Well, thank you for the replies everyone. 1. 3♠ was described as everything from "a nice call" to "a really bad bid". I think the truth is somewhere in between. At the table, I rejected 2NT because I didn't want partner to bid 3NT with 4513. Partner already knew I didn't have 4 spades, so I thought 3♠ was very descriptive in case the 4-3 fit was the best spot. I agree, however, that what I really wanted was to slow down the auction, and 2NT is the way to do that. As for 4♦, Phil mostly has it right when he said it shows that I didn't understand 4♣. I was basically trying to say "I have nothing extra to cue" while keeping the bidding below 4♥ in case that was the best spot opposite some 4612 hand. 2. There was no consensus on partner's shape; some think 45 in the majors, others think 56. At the time I thought the most likely shape was 46. As it turns out none of these was correct. What about partner's strength? 2♠ was clearly game forcing, but does it show extra values beyond that? Certainly 4♣ shows extras, but I didn't know that at the time I bid 3♠. 3. Most people think 4NT was RKC for spades. If so, what was the point of 4♣? I thought 4NT was to play, giving up after I failed to show encouragement after the 4♣ slam try. 4. Thus, I passed 4NT. Partner made 5, for an avg-plus.

ACBL Regional Open Pairs, mixed field but sound opposition at your table, if that matters You are dealer, all vul [hv=pc=n&n=saq2h3dqj6542cqj4&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1dp1hp2dp2sp3sp4cp4dp4np]133|200[/hv] 1. Do you agree with your auction so far? If not, what would you have done differently? 1a. I'm particularly interested in alternative calls after partner bid 4♣. What other calls are possible here? 2. What does partner have? Approximate shape and values 3. What is 4NT? (You are in an occasional partnership and thus without detailed slam bidding agreements beyond "normal RKCB") 4. What call do you make?

At our club the director will normally try to find someone to come in if there is a half table. Recent anecdote: We had a half table and I called someone to fill in. She was not able to arrive until about halfway through the first round. (Four boards per round). We played three boards, but time was up so I decided to have a late play. I told the North player to just enter the last board as a passout in the Bridgemate (entering not played requires a director code and I was busy moving boards and getting everyone in position for the next round). At the end of the session I found the NS pair and offered them Avg+ if they preferred to not play the late board. After all, they were in "no way at fault" for running out of time in the first round. No, they wanted their money's worth and insisted on playing the board. So I found the board, got everyone together, and we sat down to play it. It was promptly passed out.

OK, thanks everyone for your thoughts. When I said 3♣ did not promise extras, it obviously shows either a good hand or a good suit or both. If he was worried about getting too high opposite a minimum 2♦ bid he could rebid 2♠ or 2NT. The South hand was ♠KQJxx ♥Ax ♦Q ♣AJ975. Note the club spots; the opponents clubs were the 4, 3, and 2. Which means that 7♣ is cold on a non-trump lead on a high crossruff, and might make even with a trump lead with a favorable position in spades and/or diamonds. Had I bid 3♥, partner says he would have bid 3NT. If I bid 4♣, and partner responds 4♠ (two keycards, no trump queen), how do I distinguish his actual hand (where slam is cold) from say ♠AKJxx ♥Jx ♦Q ♣AJxxx, which might be off two fast heart tricks? Is there a good sequence that will allow us to bid to 6♣ with confidence? (I'm not sure 13 tricks are cold; I know the ♠A was wrong, but the diamonds may set up for a discard.)

Thanks everyone. Your responses are much in line with those of the TD, and the committee. The TD adjusted to 4♠ making 6 and EW appealed. One committee member commented "we thought it was pretty clear-cut" and another wanted to assess a procedural penalty for pursuing the appeal. East's hand was ♠AQxx ♥KQx ♦Kxx ♣AKJ. This looked to everyone (except East, obviously) as the worst possible 22-count for a spade slam. In fact, NS's teammate at the other table downgraded it to a 20-21 2NT opener. West had ♠Kxxx, ♥Jxx, ♦AJx ♣xxx. All the slam needs is a civilized trump split, the ♣Q with North and the ♦Q with South. Guess what. The only reason I posted this was that West's stated reason for the tank was that he was trying to decide between 4♠ and 3NT. This seems to be a legitimate reason to think for players at this (Flight B) level. IOW, if West might be thinking about strain and not level, does his BIT "demonstrably suggest" bidding on? The TD ruled, and the committee agreed that 4♠ was the weakest bid he could make on this auction (where they are already in a game force and have found a 4-4 spade fit). Thus, the BIT suggested more than just a bare minimum. Pass was certainly a LA for East with her hand. Thus, EW were assigned +480.

Standard American, 2/1 is NOT GF IMPs, 7-board matches [hv=pc=n&n=shk83daj963ckqt86&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2dp3cp]133|200[/hv] 3♣ does not promise extra values, but should be a real suit 3♥ would be artificial and forcing to game 4♣ would be RKCB for clubs 4NT had not been discussed; what do you think it should be? What call do you make? At the table I considered 3♥, 3NT, 4♣, 5♣, and 6♣. Any other calls come to mind?

ACBL, IMP scoring [hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp2c(Strong)p2s(One%20A%20+%20One%20K)p2n(22-24%20Balanced)p3c(Puppet%20Stayman)p3d(No%205cM%3B%20One%204cM)p3h(Spades)p3sp4s(Slow)p4np5h(2%20KC%3B%20no%20trump%20Q)p6sppp]133|100[/hv] South called the director at the conclusion of the auction. North thought for approximately one full minute before bidding 4♠. The TD directed that play continue. The slam was poor, but cold on the lie of the cards, and was duly made. EW system: 2♠ showed exactly one ace and one king. 2NT was 22-24 balanced. Both W (with 3♥) and E (with 3♠) promised four card length in spades. East had UI after West's BIT; this was agreed by EW. I'll post the hands later, but I'm interested in thoughts on the following questions just based on the auction: Does the BIT demonstrably suggest that East bid on? What kind of hand would East need to have for pass to NOT be a LA over 4♠?

A few years ago I had an opponent who found the solution for this hand. (He had basically the same hand but with the minors reversed). Over 1NT, they played 2♠ as a relay to 3♣ as a weak get-out in either minor. So over partner's 2NT opener he bid 2♠. Director! He changed his call to 3♦, barring his partner. It went all pass and he went down one. 2NT would have gone down one or two, depending on my opening lead. I'm terrible on opening lead, so being able to get out in 3♦ was probably a wash with just passing out 2NT.

You're right, of course. I spoke imprecisely; when I said it does not exist I was referring to an EBU-style regulation. On this particular case, there's no evidence that West's failure to double 3♣ was based on some CPU that her partner might not have his bid. Indeed, her 3NT bid was catering to his NOT having misbid.

Such a thing does not exist in the ACBL. North was 2551 and South was 4225. North might have sat for 3♣ undoubled, but if 3♣X came back to him (assuming East doubled 3♣ in the passout seat; as you point out, West was not doubling a partscore at IMPs), he'd surely bid 3♦. West's hand was something like ♠Axx ♥AT ♦A9xx ♣QTxx. Give East what he should have for his double (add the major suit kings to the hand I gave for him upthread) and 3NT is a favorite, with no guarantee of 500 vs 3♣X.

I believe that their agreement about the double is as suggest: willingness to penalize one of N/S's suits. East's hand was approximately ♠Qxxx ♥9xxx ♦Jx ♣K98. As I said, he didn't really have his double. Your point about West's failure to double 3♣ is a good one, of course. It's certainly the call I would make (were I in some alternate universe where I was forced to agree to open 1♣ with as few as two cards there), but I expect she was more focused on what she thought she could make as opposed to what penalty she could extract. 3NT was certainly not her best call, but for a player of her standard it was far from SEWoG.

ACBL IMP scoring NS vul [hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1c(%22could%20be%20short%22)2n(see%20below)d3c3n(asked%20about%202NT)ppp]133|100[/hv] 1♣ was announced as "could be short". NS, a first-time partnership, have agreed that 2NT shows the two lower unbid suits. At her 2nd turn, W asked about the 2NT bid and was told "minors". S had made the assumption that clubs counted as "unbid" for the purposes of Unusual 2NT when opener might not have real clubs. (Let's not get on a tangent about the new ACBL definition of a possibly short 1♣ as "natural".) West, being well-fortified in both minors, bid 3NT. During the course of play, I was called to the table. I believe this was after N showed out on the 2nd round of clubs, and it became apparent to all that his 2NT bid had been based on hearts and diamonds. The hand was played out and 3NT was defeated. West was insistent that she would not have bid 3NT had she known that N had hearts. West had ace-doubleton of hearts and did not feel this was adequate as a stopper. You may or may not agree with this bidding judgment, but knowing this player I am confident that she would not have bid 3NT had she been told that 2NT showed the red suits. I therefore ruled that W had received MI, and (being in the ACBL) I assigned a score based on likely and at-all-probably results. Absent West's 3NT call, North would bid 3♦ (or 3♥) and this would go one off, undoubled. Lingering questions: (1) Is North allowed to run from 3♣ if West passes? It is technically a cuebid, but it's also what South would bid with 7 clubs and out. (2) In terms of the assessment of damage, does it matter that East did not really have his double? After all, the double occurred prior to the MI. (3) Again thinking about damage, does West's play of 3NT come into consideration? She misplayed the hand badly, making only four tricks when six would be more normal and seven are available double-dummy. Should a score adjustment address "that part of the damage which was self-inflicted", and if so, how would this be reflected in the adjusted score.? Thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

Thank you. This is one of my pet peeves. Our District's GNT CoC refer to a "round robin Swiss" and "Swiss Team Qualifer [with a] BAM-style movement". Drives me absolutely nuts.

I also bid the "obvious" 1NT, but was concerned that this was a slight underbid. I have 10 HCP and a decent secondary fit with partner's first suit, but the quality of my spots convinced me to take the low road. On the plus side, I achieved a score I've never had before: +240 is the score for 1NT making 6. Partner had [hv=pc=n&s=sqt64h5dak6caqt42]133|100[/hv] I think this was a case of both partners taking a conservative view. I can understand partner not wanting to raise notrump with a singleton, and with 15 HCP opposite what could be as few as 6, I have no problem with his call. I won the ♥J lead with the Ace and ran the ♣J, losing. When a heart came back I had 12 tricks. (Both opponents pitched a diamond on the run of the clubs, but they were 3-2 in any case.) A spade switch at trick 3 will hold me to 9 tricks (LHO had Kxx and RHO AJxx) but the heart play was reasonable (LHO could have had ♥KJTx, I guess).

[hv=pc=n&s=s73haktdq9432cj93&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1cp1dp1sp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints, stratified pairs, unknown opponents (but they don't seem to be "A" players) 2♥ would be artificial and game forcing. Otherwise "standard american" methods. Your call?

With one partner I play that a 2♥ opener shows 5+ ♥ and 4+ ♠. We have been told that if, by agreement, this bid can show fewer than 10 HCP, it is Mid-Chart. I have never understood this. When we play this at our local club (which generally is pretty lax in terms of restricting what people can play, so our range is roughly 6-11 HCP) I alert this bid and describe it as "essentially a normal weak two in hearts, promising 5 or more cards, but it also guarantees at least 4 cards in spades". I just don't understand why ACBL thinks it's more difficult to defend against this bid than a "standard" weak 2♥, which I've seen people make with every shape from 2632 to 0526.

The quoted-upthread portion of the Alert Procedure includes the phrase "offer to play in the suit for the first time", while the GCC text merely refers to "opening suit bid or response". The more pedantically-inclined would suggest that if the ACBL wanted these two clauses to mean the same thing they would have used the same words. I think it's clear that they are intended to mean the same thing even if they don't read identically. I think the GCC is implicitly considering a raise to be distinct from a response.

OK, maybe I just really am too old-fashioned. Last night we had the following sequence: [hv=d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c1n(Nat%2C%2015-18)ppdp2hd]133|100[/hv] OK, I'm not THAT old-fashioned; South's double was for takeout. I was North. I bid 2♥ on a 3433 six-count. Even after posting this thread, it did not occur to me that East's double could be anything other than penalty. As it turns out, East had a singleton heart and West held four of them. Obviously, both of them thought it was a takeout double (although West should have left it in anyway with ♥JT8x). West bid 2NT, which made exactly for avg-minus to EW. East was 4144 with the singleton ♥A and about 7 HCP. I guess I'll never learn.

Well, yes, this is true. The NT overcaller was 3235 and the doubler was 5233 I think. Fortunately there was no damage (3♣ was cold and EW aren't buying it for 3♥). In a tournament I would have called the TD had there been damage, but this was a club game and I was the director, so we just had a friendly chat about it after the hand.