CamHenry

Pass is cowardly, and invites oppo to psych and make overcalls on air. Double is neither fish nor foul; I don't have sufficient extras to feel truly happy about it unless we're playing equal-level conversion (so I can remove 2♦ to 2♥). 1NT is off-shape but tempting; if partner has Hx or Txx we have a double stop, and in my methods partner can ask for a 5-card major. 2♥ is, however, the winner. It shows a decent 5-card suit, and a little more than a bare 16 but no huge hand. This is what I have, so this is what I bid.

Was the pass alerted: if not, why not? Matt and I play a rather unusual system; we are therefore both more familiar than the average club player (and many tournament players) with the intricacies of the EBU alerting rules. In the situation here, I would not have alerted the pass as forcing, even with that agreement in place, since I did not realise it was alertable. In fact, my reading of OB 5E4 suggests that it is not alertable: It's a forcing, not lead-directing, pass, and is therefore non-alertable.

:blink: I think such things you posted above neither should belong to this topic nor BBF ! How about to practice active ethics ? That's not my reading of the previous post; I think he's saying: "If you play a weak 1NT, you can open this hand 1NT. Opps then can't overcall 1H. That demonstrates one of the advantages of weak NT." Playing a weak NT has downsides as well as upsides, but it's legal and ethical.

In discussion afterwards, a friend suggested that this hand (if opening) should open 2♣; if partner shows any positive (8+, or AK in the same suit) you punt 7NT. Find an 8-count where it doesn't make! If he declines, you can bid spades, then ask for aces, then ask for kings. The other option is to show a GF single-suiter in diamonds; you can then ask for keycards plus the only queen you care about. The only downside is when partner corrects your making 6♠ or 6NT to a failing 7♦.

One of the better players at my local club, in a teams event, doubled our freely-bid game with the comment "Henry never has his bid". Partner sent it back, and it was cold because I did have my bid. She's not doubled me since! There have been players who met me when I was a beginner, and I was nervous and played especially badly. They probably think I'm worse than I am. On the other hand, a nervous beginner I played with recently probably thinks I'm some kind of amazing expert, largely because I was calm and unflapped even when he went for 1700 after taking my weak 2 as a transfer. Quite a lot of people have assumed I must be "really good" because I play a complicated system; the truth is I'm just enthusiastic. I'd say people underestimate my ability to scramble tricks in a 4-3 fit at the 2-level; far too few of them draw trumps. Apart from that, I reckon they've got it about right.

Just an anecdote here, but one of the strongest hands I've seen in play. RHO opens 1♣, which is alerted (strong diamond system). You hold: [hv=s=sakqjtxxhadakjcaq]133|100|[/hv] The lucky recipient punted 6♠; this made despite the lack of entries to dummy (diamond queen drops doubleton).

♦mjj29 and I play a strong diamond system; our 1♦ includes: 16-23 balanced 16+ hands with > 3 losers GF single-suited hands. Responses are: 1♥ negative 1♠ 8+, GF 1NT to 2♥ weak transfers, with a 6-card suit. The weak transfers are excellent preemptive bids; it's rather like opening a safe third-seat weak 2, or like signing off after 1NT. It also makes the strong (and undefined) hand declarer; with a decent fit and better than a minimum, opener can make some action other than completing the transfer. After 1♦-1♥, rebids are natural; 1NT is 16-19 and 2NT is 20-23 (much like wide-ranging natural openings). Suits promise 4+ but only if 4-4-4-1; jump suits are 3-loser or better hands. After 1♦-1♠, we play artificial rebids (except NT and jumps in suit, which retain their natural meanings). Each suit is a puppet to the bid above, showing either that suit or the next two: ♣ shows ♦ or majors ♦ shows ♥ or (♠+a minor) ♥ shows ♠ or minors ♠ shows ♣ or (♥+a minor) This allows us to show 2-suited hands efficiently; we put 3-loser 2-suited hands through our 2-level openings (which is probably not available in the ACBL). The main disadvantages of our response styles are: - Sometimes easy for opps to preempt even after 1♦-1♠ - Constructive bidding after the response need careful thought (though a relay structure could work well) Advantages: - Establishing a game-force early allows safety in constructive auctions, and allows more frequent penalty doubles - Transfer weak jump shifts allow us to play a lot of partscores - Natural 1NT/2NT rebids mean 1NT and 2NT can be artificial/used for other ranges/whatever you prefer. In your opening scheme, I'd suggest that our structure could be adopted safely, but rebids could be: 1NT: 15-17 bal 2NT: 24+ bal simple suit rebids: 18-23 jump suit rebids: GF This still leads you the difficult problem of how to handle extremely strong 2-suited hands, but they're a low-frequency case.

I'm speaking from a strong diamond context, but many of the same principles apply. Our responses (uncontested) are 1H negative, 1S GF, 1NT-2H weak transfers (6-card suit; anything other than a completion is strongly invitational). If they overcall, we play X as "any good 8+"; this establishes a game-force (and therefore forcing passes, penalty doubles, and Lebensohlic continuations after a forcing pass). Freebids show a 6-card suit, and 4 to a bad 8. This, combined with experience in deciding when to defend doubled partscores, has served quite well. If they overcall in sandwich seat, after 1D-(P)-1H, we bid naturally (doubles by either hand are takeout at first). Pass by opener suggests but does not guarantee a balanced hand without a stop; we play Lebensohl here as if the auction had gone 1NT - (2x). This does mean that 1NT is sometimes Lebensohl. If they overcall after a positive response (so we've established a game-force), doubles are penalty and passes are forcing. They deserve all they get, and frequently get quite a lot.

No line for 6 ♠, except on a high club or a spade lead. W always scores the spade J; if declarer plays on cross-ruff lines the spade 8 can ruff in front of dummy while if declarer tries drawing trump the club J scores the setting trick. If E is on lead, it starts heart-heart-heart ruff, and 10's the limit.

It's worth noting that this does not automatically prevent a correction. If, as we do, you play the same basic defence to 2NT as you do to 1NT, 3H is likely to be a legal correction. The UI is that you'd overcall over 1NT as well as over 2NT (if you make the correction), but the hands that we'd use to overcall 2NT are a subset of those you'd overcall 1NT. Of course, if 3H means something different here, it's not a legal correction.

First question to ask is "was there misinformation?". This is clear; the answer is "yes". Next we ask "was there damage?", and the way to decide that is to consider what would have happened if EW had been correctly informed. If E is correctly informed at his first turn to call, he may well double (showing values; it could be that partner bids hearts but in that case you can convert to spades). It is also likely that he passed 4H because he thought he would have another chance to call. If E doubles, what happens next depends on South's call. If he passes (redouble 0 pass 1), W will probably pass as 4CX does not look good for NS. N will then bid 4H (no LA exists), and E will double for takeout as N now has a known suit. W will choose to play in clubs, and the minimum-level response from W will be sufficiently discouraging that E is unlikely to make a slam try. 5C seems fair. While 4S and 4NT are likely to make on the EW cards, I do not believe there is a likely auction to get there. I therefore would not consider including them in any ruling. That's what contract we look at. Now we have to consider the play. In 5C by W, N probably leads a heart. W will win, draw trumps in 3 rounds, cash 4 spades and 3 more trumps for 11 tricks. Assuming S holds on to the diamond AK, 11 tricks is the limit on any declarer play. I agree with your ruling.

1: The rule is that the NOS score +3 IMPs unless equity is not served. The score for the OS is more complex: they are not permitted to gain from the infraction, so should keep whatever bad score is obtained. I remember one board recently from a Swiss Teams where opps at our table stopped in partscore on a game board (where slam made but was not biddable), but the other table could not play the board due to loud discussion nearby. The ruling was that our opps scored +3 (no result obtained, not at fault) while we scored +11 for the game swing the director judged likely. If it had been our opponents making the board unplayable at the other table, the director's ruling would have been +11/-11. 2: Penalties are always subtracted. Adjustments may be added (see above) but a penalty does not affect the NOS's score. This is, of course, irrelevant in a knockout but matters in Swiss or Multiple teams. Henry

I was, at one stage, Henry Lockwood (and still am). CamHenry is a substitute here.