CamHenry

One of my favourite psychs is a heavy weak 2 in 3rd seat. We're not (often) missing game, even if I have 12-14 HCP, and LHO sometimes gets too high and/or misplaces cards. Sure, it's not original - but it works when it happens.

My "other option" is a direct 3♠, but then I overbid my overcalls.

In one partnership I *play* strong, natural 2-bids (my wife doesn't want to learn weak 2s just yet). We both announce them as strong, non-forcing: but I can't recall seeing a suitable hand for six months at least!

In response to the original question, my immediate reaction was "I'm doubling; I can compete in ♠ later if partner can't double them". This caters for: - oppo having lost a wheel - partner having made a light bid and having spades with no values - partner trying to talk oppo out of spades and actually having heart support; he can reveal the psych later and therefore clear up the situation (e.g. ... 2N-X-XX-3♥) On the other hand, my class of player is NOT the class of player who stays in such events as far as the final, so I may not be a peer of the player in question :)

West should probably bid as if E has shown something like 5=2=3=3 with good spades, or 6=2=(32) with poor spades. I think a raise to 4♠, which is passed out, may not be an LA: give E AKQJx/Ax/Axx/AK and 7♠ has play; it should be easy to construct less perfect hands on which 6♠ makes easily. I reckon 4NT is therefore allowed. 5NT: I'd ask E why he bid this. Having promised 23+ and knowing partner has some values, he shouldn't worry about his response being taken for 1 ace! I find it difficult to see anything unethical about the auction, and rule result stands. PS: there was no opportunity for anyone to pass 4♠ on the auction you gave: was there a typo?

Then don't you upgrade the suit to a 5-card suit and hope? :)

When asked, they said "you don't expect us to have a defense to this stupid system, do you? It's just bridge." When pressed for meanings of doubles in similar situations, they said it "probably shows some values".

I think S should consider what N could have. Even given the worst possible hand opposite, something like xxxx/KQxx/AK/Qxx, game has very good play despite significant wasted values. N will be able to judge whether to go on based on S's shape - so South should describe his hand. Suppose we rearrange this minimum hand a bit: Axxx/xxxx/Ax/Axx and there's still some play for slam.

Yes, South would have passed holding xxx/AKx/Kxx/Qxxx (for example). N would still pass - this might not match the action you would take on the N hand! NS take the view that most opponents don't make enough trump leads on defense, and 3-3 fits at the 1-level are often scrambleable when holding 20+ combined HCP. Even the 140 from 1DX= beats the expected value in a major partscore, and it's worth a shot. Thanks for the comments, all. As is probably apparent, I was N: this was the first board of a 7-board match, which we then proceeded to lose 16-4, so opponents didn't feel excessively aggrieved overall! The director's ruling was that the score stands, as W should probably have asked; also that if the pass promised 4+ diamonds then it was alertable.

[hv=ac=n&s=sj85haj8dkq763c54&w=saq93ht965d2cj983&n=st64h432djt5cakt6&e=sk72hkq7da984cq72&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1c(Nebulous%20%5Bsee%20below%5D)p1d(%22Negative%2C%20no%20interest%20in%20game%22)dp(Not%20alerted%3B%20see%20below)p(No%20questions%20asked)p]399|300[/hv] All vulnerable: I've lost how to set this on the hand diagram. NS play a strong diamond system. 1♣ showed EITHER 11-13 balanced OR 10-15, unbalanced, no 5cM and not 4-4 majors. This was alerted and asked about before W passed. 1♦ was alerted, asked about by E. The explanation given was "negative; no interest in game facing any hand I could hold". The double was neither alerted nor asked about. South's pass was not alerted nor asked about. Systemically it hasn't been defined in detail; the actual S hand definitely IS a pass, while Axx/Axx/x/Axxxxx definitely IS NOT. E asked about N's 1♦ response, clarifying the description. It was further defined as "could be as strong as a bad 9 HCP; excludes a hand with a six-card suit to an honour and nothing outside". When dummy came down, W asked about S's pass. He was told "it shows diamond tolerance; with no tolerance he'd bid a suit or redouble". At this stage you are called and receive a description of the situation. At the end of play you are called back. The contract made +1, for 340, and EW justifiably feel this is likely to be a very bad score for them. W claims that he "would have taken out the double if S's pass had been alerted". How do you rule? [Disclaimer: I was a player at the table, not a director; I have no objection to the ruling received but wanted to see how many opinions come up.] Edit: it's West, not East, who wanted to take out the double. Also Nige1 explained how to set vulnerability: thanks!

Frances' opinion on what to call with the E hand in not necessarily relevant. If the actual participants are weak, Frances is not in "the class of players in question".

♣A, K, ruff high, trump finesse, draw trumps, ♣Q. This makes if E has at least 2 ♣; if E has 5 ♣ then you use the ♥KJ as entries for two club ruffs and then lead dummy's ♥AQ for the trump coup. I don't think you can combine chances for E starting with 5=6=1=1 or 5=7=1=0 - this layout can be picked up by unblocking ♥, crossing to dummy's ♠K, cashing ♥AQ discarding ♣, then taking the trump finesse.

awm's point that the mini-NT performs better against weak opponents makes sense to me. I don't often play against particularly good pairs, so I can't speak from personal experience, but from being towards the top of a weak field: - The 10-12 (or 9-11) is disastrous when vulnerable - The inference that partner is weak when you're opening in 3rd means you can play a 9-15 NT in third seat, with natural takeout responses, and put a lot of pressure on 4th hand. This is like Cyberyeti's 10-15 NT, but without the difficulty of having to find constructive auctions. - We play the mini in a strong minor system, so there's no risk of having to untangle our constructive 1NT rebids. - I once had one oppo say to her partner "I'm sorry, they blinded me with science" - having passed out a mini-NT with an 18-count and missed the 3NT game.

4♠ can't do any harm. Partner should get it.

Even at IMPs I might want to be in NT. Give partner Axxxx/Axxx/Qx/xx and 7NT has good play, even though partner has far less than his bid and the worst possible shape. I think transferring to diamonds, bidding Exclusion in spades, then bidding 6♣ or 7♣ has its attractions, assuming partner will understand this as pick-a-minor.

An important note here: the no "canape with a longer major" applies whichever minor you have - so if you play 1♣ strong, 1♦ nebulous, then your 1♦ opening cannot include 4♣ 5+major. You can open 6♣5♠ 1♦, though.

Double sounds too much like penalties in most of my partnerships. With this hand I want it to be 80% takeout at least, and even if it is takeout it sounds more like 6-5 majors than 7-4. I bid 5♥.

I tend to go with "I misread declarer's hand". That discloses the reason for your play, but doesn't say why you came up with that view - it could be your logic or declarer's play that was at fault.

One option is to say something like "I had thought it was weak or strong, but partner bid it recently on a 13-count and we haven't had time to discuss a firm agreement". That could confuse oppo unnecessarily, but is at least complete and true.

Nearly. We play 4-card ♥, 5+ unless both majors 4=4, and 5+ ♠. With unequal length we open the longer major; with equal length we open 1♠ if holding 5+ cards. The 1♦ opening and continuations are absolutely fine; the 1M openings work just fine; the real weakness is our 1♣ opening which contains everything from (41)44 to 03(73) and beyond, along with one of the weak NT ranges (our 1NT is natural but variable strength depending on vulnerability). Fortunately, people don't think of overcalling frequently when we open 1♣ so we get away with it :)

Unless I had an agreement that X was pure penalty here (which I do in some partnerships), I would double. I expect to come off badly when partner holds KJx/KJxx/Kxxx/Jx, but I had to construct a hand that would lead to bad results from doubling.

I'm suspicious about the lack of a trump lead, or trump continuation when in with the ♠A. If LHO started with A/Jxxx/AKxxxx/Ax, which is consistent with his bidding, he should probably lead trumps at every opportunity. Why did he grab the ♠A? He was either forced to, held the Q as well, or held sufficient length that he was worried I was leading a singleton. Now consider the diamonds - why did RHO help me get count on the hand? He should know his partner has 6+ diamonds, and therefore with 3 he knows I'm showing out. It could be that he's falsecarded already, reasoning it shouldn't hurt partner. Counting tricks, I have 8 trumps on a crossruff, the ♠K, and I need one more. I may be able to establish a ♣; a major risk with that line is that I allow LHO to discard ♠ losers on the ♣ leads from my hand. I can't improve on Mike's line, since I won't have any entries to cash spades if they do set up.

Why would I preempt partner's decision here? Have I not described my hand? If I'm "expert", I trust partner to be as well, and therefore if action needs taking he will take it.

Hand 1: I open. We have good defensive values outside our suits, can pass most anything partner bids with a positive EV, can bid 1♠ over 1♦. Hand 2: what strength is their 1NT? What will partner have to bid? I'm tempted to pass even though we risk an unfavourable lead, because bidding seems unlikely to gain much (we might turn +50 into +110, for example, or -120 into -200: and we can't tell).

I like: - hands where I hold 9-15 balanced, third in nonvul, following two passes - hands where I have enough shape to justify a light (9+) opening - very strong 2-suiters, since partner and I have comparative system advantages here I dislike: - hands where I'm missing Qxxx of trumps and have a two-way guess - hands where oppo open my suit