Jinksy

Doh, not sure quite how I managed to leave a small heart out of the original poll. Updated now (I've relabelled the original 'other' as 'small heart', which I assume is what the other other voters were voting for...)

IMP pairs: [hv=pc=n&w=sa75hqt83da54c963&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Good%20raise%20with%204)p4sppp]133|200[/hv] 2N was described as 'invitational', but S's English wasn't very good and she's fairly inexperienced and nervous, so I assumed she meant 'invitational+', and didn't want to press her on it. (say if it makes a difference)

I ran into PK last night, and quizzed him about this thread - I hope he won't mind me posting his view as well as I can remember it here: He would bid 5♥ if not on the bridgewinners hand, then on one not too dissimilar from it, given the extreme shape (he gave an example of an extreme weakish hand on which he would pull that unfortunately I can't remember <_< ) He would still raise 5♥ to 6♥ (not looking for a grand), rating P to have a strong hand sufficiently often to justify it He thinks (not 100% I've got the reasoning here right) that if you don't double on a lot of hands where a slightly less extreme version of the bridgewinners hand would have no play in 5♥, you open yourself to exploitation from aggressive 5-level bidders who will play undoubled costing you a game, or if you play the X as particularly takeout oriented you let yourself get pushed into unmakeable 5-level contracts by the same aggressive bidding when their contract was surely going off. His impression is that such aggression is more common in Europe than North America, possibly explaining people from the latter's greater tendency to want to pull the X

(repeats some of the above responses, but I didn't want to read them before writing it) 2♥: Seems hard to condemn, though I would prefer to open 3 at these colours. 3♠: Seems about right 5♥: 5♣ seems like it must be fit after a strong jump to your right. I think I would probably prefer it, since 7♥ might be a decent sac even if they'd otherwise have stopped in game. Forcing pass: Seems bad. If this hand isn't planning to go slam-hunting over 5♠, why's it passing? Is he planning to sit a double from P? 5♠: I find these acey hands extremely hard to judge, but I'd surely double here. Given P's pass (assuming he's not slamming), he should(!) have something in the side suits, and there's no guarantee of making 5♠. 6♥: Yuck. Evidently he agrees with me that he should have opened 3. 6♠: We forgot to support before, so making up for lost time? Seems crazy now. You might just have two clubs running against you. Oh, wait... Small heart lead: Ehh, someone's got to be ruffing this. Clubs seem like our best chance at beating the slam, so my finely honed result-merchant sense is telling me to start with the ace (on the off chance we have a cashing ace of clubs we'll be able to do that next). It probably won't give them the 12th trick more than 45% of the time.

More questions: Which events are levels 4/5? (I'm pretty sure I never play in level 2 or 3 events) Suppose we play 9-14. If I'm dealt a good 8 count, is it legal to upgrade? (obviously being careful not to do this so liberally that we're effectively including most 8 counts in our opening) What range would be legal at level 5?

My P and I have been playing a third seat NV 1N opening as 8-14 points (which I thought was as low as we could legally reach, up to the point where P, who would have opened a decent 11 count, need never invite). A couple of people have remarked that they don't think this is a legal agreement. Are they right?

Putting the two hands in the same post: xxx KJxx Kxx xxx Axx AQxx Axxx Ax On top of everything others have said, in standard Acol with only 4 cards in their major, S would normally rebid 2N, and N, with 4 card support but relatively soft values, a minimum and a pancake, would probably pass. On a red-suit lead you can play for an overtrick, otherwise you can claim your 8 tricks off the top. So well bid, Helen and her hypothetical partner...

Maybe double to show 4+ spades would be a useful convention, the way they do, for eg, in the OP?

In this case only one of the two cards was of the suit led, so presumably that would make things simpler.

I was not aware of that :blink:

Not necessarily - often I've had people who describe carding as 'natural' mean 'standard attitude' (or occasionally other!).

Is that after either 1m opening and a 1♥ overcall, or do you something different after a 1♦ opening?

So, as is presumably evident, I didn't exactly support my P's actions here. Nonetheless, when we discussed it afterwards he asked the reasonable (IMO) question of how you draw the line. Presumably if dummy believes he's seen outright cheating going on, oblivious to declarer (eg one defender facing a card and the other clearly looking at it and saying nothing), he has recourse to do something? If so, how does he walk the grey area between preventing outright cheating and possible UI through an irregularity? (To be clear, I'm entirely convinced that my LHO had no such intention and that my RHO was oblivious to the whole thing until dummy pointed it out - but it does seem like a valid theoretical question)

Is there a case for just eliminating the description 'natural' from acceptable responses to queries about specific bids? I've lost count of the amount of times it's haunted me, usually when LOLs describe something (even carding!) in just that one word, and then become immediately defensive when you press for what it means.

I've slightly edited the OP to clarify - so (from reconstructing afterwards), I think LHO 'played' both cards at once, one stuck to the other. Partner was claiming that since he'd seen it faced, my RHO could have seen it - though RHO denied that he actually had (and neither he or I had noticed the second card being faced at all). Does that affect your judgement?

We were playing in a league match last night, when the following events (to the best of my recollection) occurred in sequence (I'll bracket ones whose order I'm not certain of, just in case relevant): We'd reached a doomed 3N played by me, which the opps were busy cashing their 5-card spade suit against; At about trick 3 RHO led through me, LHO winning the trick (I think - might have been RHO); Partner (dummy) claimed that LHO had revealed a card from his hand (by facing both it and the spade at the same time); LHO (marginally peevishly) denied that he had; (I and RHO denied that we'd seen it; I and LHO said it wasn't dummy's place to make such remarks and we should get on with the hand; Partner (more peevishly) demonstrated that he had seen it by telling us all that the card was the two of hearts); Partner insisted on calling the director, which I still didn't really want to, but figured after P's reveal we didn't have much of a choice The director basically told us to get on with it (and said it wasn't dummy's prerogative to highlight such infractions), and said afterwards that it was supposed to be a fairly relaxed evening, so he didn't want to enforce the laws too strictly. My partner interpreted this as 'this is supposed to be a fairly relaxed evening, so I don't want to enforce the laws too strictly'; I interpreted it 'please stop being such a pain in the ass' (which is what I would have said...) Anyway, suppose we'd been at a tournament event with a stricter director. What would have happened, a) given the actual events, and b) if my partner hadn't blurted out the supposedly revealed card?

I think we can be charitable enough to assume that from X being '4+ spades' and 1♠ not having been bid, that 1♠ would not have been consistent with this hand. Anyway, how would having shown a 5th spade have solved the problem? He'd still have a massive single suiter that would still have excellent play for slam opposite xx x Axxx KQxxxx, and he'd almost certainly have the same rebid problem.

Is there an agreed meaning for 4N here? Unless it's RKCB for spades, I'm bidding 5♠. New suits at the 5 level might be taken as natural, and 5♥ is presumably either showing/consistent with a control in the suit. We don't have quite enough to blast 6, so I'll hope that P can read such as xx x Axxx KQJxxx as a good enough holding. What would a 2-level bid offer by way of club support, btw? It seems odd to play FNJs opposite a short club.

Partner is never going to bid on when you have five-card support and have made a defence-suggesting call at the 5 level. Double might be right, but don't kid yourself that it's a two-way shot.

What would other bids have meant over W's 1♥? Did N eg have the option to bid something rather than X with a distributional 2-suiter?

Why would he want to do that? Any such finesses are almost certainly failing. 5♦ and double seem reasonable, but 6♦ seems way too much when you don't really have any sources of tricks opposite what might still be a weak NT. I think I'd bid 5♦, but wouldn't be shocked if it turns out to have little play.

Does anyone have an email address for Phil King? He doesn't seem to check these forums any more, but now I really want to hear his input on this question.

If I opened 2♣ on that hand, it would be intending to rebid 2N, not 2♥.

I haven't, but it sounds interesting enough that I might give it a go and/or try bidding it with myself with some BBO-dealt hands. If I do the latter I'll give some kind of report here.

Pass 5♣x on both. Partner has to double on most strong hands that aren't so distributional they can bid their own suit (or cuebid). So if you bid 5♥, you might well find him/her with AKJxx x AQJx AQx (or substantially worse). Part of the reasoning PK gave for needing playing strength to pull is so you have a reasonable chance at bidding your slams.