bucky

And thank GIB for not bidding 7NT instead. What kind of tournament is this? Two humans playing against a human/robot pair?

This would backfire too. Sometimes beating a contract by 1 trick just ain't enough to get a good score, for example if opponents sacrificed.

Even if Dbl is played as T/O (certainly non-standard), don't you need length in another suit (clubs)?

This is a very nice problem. Two traps to avoid.

Well, I agree both bids are bad, but the degree is not quite the same. Imagine that you show me the North hand and ask me: guess which bad bid was made with this hand? I would have guessed 2♥. At least it would be a common error. Now show me the South hand and ask the same question. I wouldn't have guessed 3♥, it is totally off the radar.

A new suit after 3♥ is certainly cuebid. I also think 3♥ demands cuebid, so when responder bids 4♥, he denies an ace in any side suit. However, that doesn't prevent him from having a keycard in trumps, as I believe setting heart as trumps (via 3♥) is not the same as promising a solid suit with no loser. Imagine that opener has everything except ♥K and a side ace, this is a perfect way of bidding it: first set heart as trump, then follow by 4NT as RKC.

It certainly isn't obvious, but it's there, next to each choice in the poll. For example: 3D (best of the unbid suits) (30 votes [75.00%] - View) The word "View" is clickable, although it looks gray.

If your 1NT response is truly limited to 12 HCP, then 3NT should definitely show big club fit (still, it may help to have agreement on whether it shows tolerance in spades). But if you play 1NT absolutely forcing by unpassed hand, then it is conceivable to lump in some balanced 13-15 type into 1NT response (so the 2/1 response will have better definition in suit quality and length), and 1NT followed by 3NT will show the 13-15 balanced instead. The bottom line is, it depends on your overall system structure.

I presume that they have a way of showing void in response to 4NT. But I am not certain of that. I was just saying that a club lead isn't horrible.

Since 3NT takes so much room, I want it narrowly defined in both shape and strength. 2-3-5-3 shape and 15-17 HCP for me.

Why is that? Knowing that RHO has stiff club, a club lead is safe. Maybe dummy has AKJ and declarer wouldn't finesse at trick 1.

Thanks. I thought it was team game. IMP pairs can be quite random (both ways)... especially with a small field of 16 tables.

Why did you lose 10 imps? What happened at the other table?

Your partner's bad bid may actually do you a favor then. :P

The opinions indeed vary, even in bridge literature. I could be wrong, but I think the mainstream today is that the negative double only promises the other major (hearts in this case) but not the other minor suit (diamonds). Therefore you need extra value to bid 2♦. I don't know whether 2♦ must be absolutely forcing, after all you have the cuebid available for unconditional force. But I do prefer 2♦ to be forcing one round, and not to get 2♠ cuebid overloaded.

Are you being sarcastic or what?

Thanks. Now I know. :)

This makes sense to me. When partner makes 1-level overcall which can be as light as 7-8 HCP, you rarely have a hand that would be strong enough to want to unconditionally force the auction. When partner makes a 2-level overcall, it is a different matter. That being said, I can see merits of it being non-forcing as well. Either one can work well on a particular deal, so it becomes a matter of frequency. Perhaps form of score has some influence too.

As far as I can see, law 92A governs who may appeal for an existing ruling. But clearly all pairs in the tournament are considered "contestants", and there is nothing so far that prevents them from pointing out irregularity to TD.

No, South doesn't have game value, especially when holding shortness in partner's opening suit. I think South should balance with 3♠. And regardless of South bidding 3♠ or 4♠, I don't see any reason North should "correct" to 5♣.

An initial conservative 2♥ isn't wrong. But had you done that, is it best to play X here as takeout? Or should X show more balanced defensive oriented hand, something like balanced 10 count?

Says who (or which law clause)? Well, I think it goes down to whether the other pairs are considered contestants. If they are, then they can directly ask the TD for a ruling, so the scenario of talking to another pair into asking for ruling won't exist.

Yeah, I am also curious, for those who chose to bid 2NT at responder's second turn, what would be a 3NT bid in their system? I can see that 1h-2d-2h-3n-4x is cuebid if x is not d or h. But would 4D be universally viewed as cuebid? What if the opener has 6-4 in red suits?

"Contestants" should refer to at least all players in the same section (or multiple sections, if scored across), since the result from that particular hand at that particular table affects them. Also, I don't think there is anything wrong for players to legally try something in their favor, just like nothing wrong to bid and play well to win a board.

15-17 balanced. I thought so too, but now I have some doubts. 3NT seems to take too much room, 2NT would have worked better for this hand. Or maybe after 3NT, opener's 4♦ should be a cuebid implicitly setting hearts as trumps?