semeai

So if it's a clear-cut bid, but just barely, I might worry that partner will raise me and decide to pass after all? :)

Your auction seems okay. I wonder if these threads would be more interesting and informative if you put the North and South hands in spoiler brackets, told people to open North if they were born on an odd-numbered day and South if even-numbered, had each post in spoiler brackets (with North: or South: above) with their bids/thoughts and then posted (without spoiler brackets) one side's bid once there's enough support for one bid, or something similar. Then at the end you could post the hand and have people put up their own wonderful sequences. Maybe I'll try that when I have a good pair of hands if there's any support for the idea.

This took me a bit of time. Extremely mild spoiler:

Maybe it would be helpful if you posted a few of the hands. If not the whole hand, then yours plus what went wrong.

3♦, 7♥

(I have no credentials to be discussing laws, but...) It may be best for "second order UI" to be disallowed, but this reasoning seems merely to be wishful thinking. The "unauthorized information" in 16A1a must refer to information that is unauthorized to you, otherwise there would be an issue with using information deriving from calls/plays/etc but which is affected by information that is unauthorized to an opponent, which is surely not the case. The distaste here seems to come from the fact that one could conceivably use this to one's advantage, and even plan a hesitation for this purpose (probably doing this is cheating somehow, though I don't know the relevant law). What I gather from reading some of these laws threads, though, is that things are not illegal merely because they could be misused by unsavory types. Maybe I've gotten the wrong impression, though.

Some possible meanings: 1) Invitational with 4 spades This is necessary if 2NT doesn't show 4 spades. It has the added benefit of playing 2S when partner declines an invite and has 4 spades. Partner can also choose sometimes to play 2S in a 4-3 fit instead of 2NT. It has the detriment of wrongisding the contract sometimes. 2) Invitational with 5+ spades This has the benefit of playing 2S instead of 3S when partner would decline an invitation (1N-2H;2S-2N/3S). Partner can also choose sometimes to play 2S instead of 2N with a 5-2 fit (which he could not do after 1N-2H;2S-2N). It has the detriment of wrongsiding the contract sometimes. 3) Garbage stayman with clubs and 4 spades. Over 2D, you bid 2S as well. 4) Garbage stayman with diamonds and 4 spades. Over 2D, you pass. 5) Garbage stayman with short hearts. I don't recall wanting to bid one of these 3 sorts of garbage stayman. Maybe playing a weak notrump they'd be more valuable. I usually play 1 or 2 depending on the meaning of 2NT. Maybe the former is playable, but the latter doesn't really make sense to me as it's so high with so little room below 3NT. Also, I like to play 1NT-2M;3oM as a slammish raise to 4M.

West has ♠Kxx and two other cards. I can't make if West has no diamonds: On a diamond lead, West ruffs low and later scores ♠K. On a spade to the 10, West will be able to tap me. On a spade to the A, if a diamond next West gets a low ruff, and on a spade next West can tap me. On a heart lead ruffed in hand, West follows or pitches, and then see above for diamond/spade lead next. Assuming West has a diamond, I can make: Cash ♦A, then ruff a heart. If West follows/pitches, I exit a diamond. If West ruffs in with ♠K, he's down to ♠xx and one more card. I now ruff the next lead in dummy (or win it, in the unlikely case it's a diamond).

Here's an example of this related by Gavin Wolpert on bridgewinners.com: http://www.bridgewinners.com/index.php/gavin-wolpert/457-unauthorized-information-level-2

Okay, thanks. This seems a reasonable/good way to play it, though I'd not heard of it being used this way before. Do you specifically have this agreement with partners, or just expect them to find this logical? Is it widely played? My copy of Kantar's rkc book is not the latest, but I don't recall this sort of thing being mentioned. This of course doesn't mean much about its usefulness, just about how widespread it's likely to be.

1C (3H) X (4H) 6C!? or uncontested?

An interesting idea, but I doubt it will happen. I'm also not sure it would be good for it to happen. I wonder if there's anything in slight censoring? What if nobody were allowed to send a chat message with more than one ? in a row?

:)

The difference I can spot is that you led the ♦9 for the ruff whereas both of the other tables led the ♦6. Why that matters to GiB, I do not know.

Law 27B1a says that it's fine if both bids are incontrovertibly natural. If not, then 27B1b says it's fine if the corrected bid has the same meaning as or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid. What the "meaning of an insufficient bid" like 1♠ here is was the subject of a recent lengthy discussion in the laws forum. I think one opinion was that it is whatever the player who bid it intended, as far as the director can determine. With this interpretation, if the director thought the player intended to transfer to clubs, the correction to 2♠ would be fine. Beware that I'm not a laws expert.

Such as double, if he has decent values?

I like 2♥, which I would also bid after 1♦ (P) 1♥ with an understanding partner. 1NT and 2♣ have merit too. Good problem.

It seems we've had a semantic mixup. By keycard-responder taking control of the auction, I meant no more and no less than keycard-responder getting to be the one making asks (i.e. asking for help) in side suits rather than showing specific cards/holdings. If this is a word that usually means I have crazy ideas about bidding, I'll try to refrain from using it in the future! This is an interesting meaning, and it could work well. It would just not occur to me, and I don't know how it would occur to your partner, that you wouldn't just be showing the keycard-asker your ♠Q ♣K instead of now getting to be the one asking for help. Whenever keycard asker is limited and keycard responder is unlimited, does something like this happen? For example, after 4N-5D;5N, showing all keys, it seems the same logic as you have here would entitle keycard responder to bid 6♣ not as ♣K but as asking for help if sufficiently unlimited opposite a sufficiently limited partner. This is why I asked you about that auction too. This seems like a difficult inference. I'm not fond of these "torture bids" that require partner to divine that I've tried an unusual meaning for a bid because I think it can be worked out. In addition, your statement is maybe not true. See my above construction, with QJxxxx x KQJ Axx AKxxx Ax A Kxxxx (Of course, your meaning for 6♣ is fine on this pair of hands too, but that's not the point!) Perhaps the lower hand would've bid keycard itself instead of cueing 4♣, but I'm not sure we can demand that. Probably he didn't expect his partner to bid 4NT, which is also a bit suspect with the top hand here, but I don't think we can forbid that hand from bidding 4NT either.

Yes, and we left out entirely things like the matter of how your partner is to bid after you bid one of these (your guesses are likely not too bad though). You should feel no rush to add conventions, especially inessential ones. I'd consider this one inessential. I think the confusion is that an Intermediate player may well play SAYC, but a Beginner likely plays something more like this summary (from Karen Walker's site).

It doesn't really matter, but you're right I should've left it out. I've edited my posts above to fix the situation and not recommend the double-jump.

That's why I said "unless you have other agreements," but you're right, maybe I should've left this out in the interests of keeping it to its "simplest form." Do you think someone asking about weak jump shifts as above plays splinters already? To Nu2Br: Perhaps you should stay away from the double jumps because your partner may assume it means something else if they know too much. I've fixed my original post to reflect this.

Yes, but 2-suit needs to be a jump response. For example, 1♣-2♥ is a jump response and so with "weak jump responses" agreed, it would be as you say. However, 1♠-2♥ is not a jump response, and it is just a normal response in a suit, showing 10+ points since you've responded at the 2-level. If you have a weak hand with long hearts and your partner bids 1♠, you can instead jump to 3♥ if you've agreed "weak jump responses." Here you should have 0-6 points and at least 7 hearts, because you're jumping to the 3-level. A double jump, for example, 1♣-3♥, would be similar (unless you have other agreements about these). Unless you've discussed it specifically, don't bid a double-jump like 1♣-3♥ or 1♠-4♦ because your partner may interpret it as a different convention. No minimum number of points, but I wouldn't do it if the suit is not good. For example, I would want a suit like QJxxxx or J98xxx at least for a weak jump to the 2-level. (Add a card for jumps to the 3-level.) Others may have a slightly different opinion on how good the suit should be. If you agree to keep using them "in competition" then yes, as long as it's still a jump over the opponent's bid (or double). So 1♣ (1♥) 2♠ would be a weak jump response, but 1♣ (1♠) 2♥ would just be a normal response showing 10+ points, because it's the lowest level at which you can bid hearts.

Doesn't show extras. Also, 3♥ isn't a strong spade raise, but just a general force (possibly stopper seeking, etc).

I'm happy with all you've written, but I'm confused with your meaning for 6♣ (i.e. the <whatever 6♣ showed> part). Why was it asking about club help (added: aka showing doubt about clubs) instead of showing ♣K (added: aka asking about how partner feels now that we're known to have ♣K)? What does (spades agreed, e.g. 1S-2H;3C-3S) ... 4N-5D;6C mean for you? How about (same) ... 4N-5D;5H-6C or ... 4N-5D;5N-6C? How did you decide what 6♣ meant in the auction at hand? No, this is why it was "cute." Sorry, I should have resisted. (You seemed to suggest that the meaning of 6♣ depended on whether the player bidding it was unlimited, in essence deciding that hand had some inherent "control" to be the one asking for help in suits instead of showing something in suits.) Added: Next we should argue about the meaning of the word "about."

Interesting. I was going to object and say there was no bridge reason, but I guess I see it now: it's the opposite of what I was suggesting with the Qxxxx-KJ situation. Declarer could be deciding whether he needed to play the J, keeping the K around to possibly overtake the Q, or whether he can afford to make the more deceptive play of the K, which may have the effect it did on you: it was taken by the A and you were left to wonder whether there was still a further trick in the suit for you. Probably on both of these suit combinations the length of the huddle together with how much keeping the ability to overtake makes any sense in the context of the rest of the hand matters?