What threshold is that? One could produce any simulation result by just defining N's hand sufficiently strong.

Here N should be willing to compete in 2S over 2H pretty freely with a fit.

We have an excellent chance of bying it in 2♥ when we have spades locked up and this many points. I would pass here as the percentage action.

Weak NT context makes this a clear try for 6♦.

Pass. Not worth hoping for miracle hands.

Sure, ultra-light preempts is a method. Just as ultra-sound preempts is a method, and mainstream preempts is a method.

Provided there is a partnerships understanding about it = partner has a special knowledge about the range of hands through experience and/or discussion.

It doesn't matter if partner is expected to be active or passive in the forthcoming bidding. Your suggestion of a mixed strategy (3♥ after 1NX) is also a method if the frequency is such that the reported hand is not really a solitary bluff.

It needs alert from the time that partner knows about the strategy, since it is a special method. In 2100 everybody may be playing like that, and then an alert is no longer necessary, because the method could then not be deemed special anymore. But this is only 2014.

Bridge is unlike poker. Your suggestions of strategies are excellent, but what we *can't* do is profit from the opponents' unawareness in itself, when partner is in the know. That would go against the principle of full disclosure (which obviously doesn't apply to poker).

Regardless of partner having a decision to make or not - that's irrelevant.

Kevin,

Special partnership agreements are alertable. If a preempting style by partnership understanding varies greatly from the norm, then this is alertable.

Your division of bids into forcing, invitational and nonforcing is your own construction and doesn't liberate alerting responsibilities.

Anyway, having an occasional opening hand for a preempt in a live auction does not vary greatly from norm, and does not need alert.

Pokorny shows a 4-level preempt in his air series on JTxxxx and crap and argues that his partner should not bid 5 with his fit. I would deem that partnership style alertable, since it is out of norm.


Aviv,

Alertable if there are *any* implications (which there typically will be once discussed) that these tactics are more likely to be applied by this pair than by other pairs in general.

Legal? Well, we have to judge what the diamond bid really shows for this partnership. If we judge that the diamond bid shows “diamonds or some other suit”, we will have to check if “diamonds or som other suit” is a legal agreement under the regulations in force.

“Asking for 4M” is likely to be an inadequate explanation.

Bids should be explained in full. If partner knows about your tendencies to have tactical holdings that must be disclosed volunterily.

Whether those asking tactics are legal under ACBL rules, I don't know.

No of course not. But once you develop tendencies that partner observes, they become part of the system and need to be disclosed through alerts/explanations.

What bid shows diamonds in “4way transfers, nothing fancy”?

I'll bid that.

I'm not going to get my hand across, but let's see how enthusiastic partner is about diamonds before we shoot, and maybe he can cuebid (or not cuebid) hearts.

I was trying to answer your question.

@ Dean

Length in the major asked for or strength for a balanced invite?

The real heroes are those who are unhesitant to assume penalty on themselves instead of applying the puppy eyes.

4♣ doesn't remotely qualify as a sewog. W has not denied xxxx, Ax, Ax, Axxxx or the like. Roll back to 3♦ with some # of tricks for both sides.

Using up a 2♠-bid that is valuable as natural NF for catering to specifically 6m slam hands on a 4-4 fit is wrong priority imo.
A gadget could be built in to find the 4-4 somewhere else in the structure at a higher level, we have done that, but else I would prefer to have to live with bidding 4N(INV) or 5N (choice of slams) as responder.
Bidding 2♠ INV is bread and butter bridge.

I like the unbal INV. That hand type seems to come up frequently, and the sequence is effective in handling it.

Relays are not very useful here. When would we want to relay? Usually it is better to show suits and let the notrumper evaluate how his values fit.

Puppet or similar can take care of the 5-3s. We don't need to use up a valuable 2S bid for that. And I wouldn't want to unnecessarily give a lot of information about side suits just to check for 5-3 hearts, as in Pokorny's replies.

You had just the hand that X should show imo. Willingness to compete in any suit, aka a “Takeout double”. Passing out your double was very misguided.

I don't understand the term “Do something intelligent”-double.

That is a non-definition.

All East should think of is this:
1) Declarer could pitch clubs on spades but not spades on clubs
2) Playing clubs now is safe
3) Partner cant get endplayed if we play a club.

♠J is also dubious if partner has ♣Axxxx, since he then has to find a club shift which will not be obvious. But again such constructions are unnecessary.

♠J is also silly if south has 4522 with ♠QTxx and ♣Ax. The play is nullo and clearly the worst EW error.

Abstain. Strange bidding. Why don't we try to bid suits? What options did we have 1st or 2nd time?

We have a 9-card diamond fit and a strong suit. “Big surprise” they didn't stand their ground in 2N-X.