[Codo]

1. I agree with the TD Descission. You had an UI and it is possible that bidding was less problematic then after a quick pass. And as you red here, it was a very small minority who did bid 2 Spade on the second round.

2. However, as a TD I had told you to appeal against this descission.

2.1. It is far from clear to me why the hesitation should suggest bidding 2 Spade. I doubt that partner will hesitate with a balanced hands and some points. Why should he? So I agree with Whereagles that the hesitation makes 2 Spade less actractive, because it increases the chance that he has a 5/4 or 5/5 hand in the minors or a club one suiter.

2.2. If the bidding had proceed
pass (1 NT) pass (2 Club)
pass (2 Diamond) pass (pass)

you still had the opportunity to enter the bidding with 2 Spade, so maybe there was no damage.

So I had judged like the TD (in doubt against the offending side) but restored the table score in the AC.

[david_c]

I think the TD was right to disallow 2♠. I'm not so convinced that the auction would then stop in 2♦. However even if it's not passed out it may be difficult to get to spades after this start (if partner bids 3♣ over 2♦ the spades are buried). The ruling will depend on whether TDs are allowed to give weighted scores where you are.

P_Marlowe said:

What I dont understand is, that there was no alert at all,
did the 2C bid promise a 4 card mayor?
After all the guy could at most hold 1 spade and 5HCP, i.e.
weak with 4-4 in the mayor is out.
What was his plan over a 2S response by partner?

I would guess 3♦, if they have agreed that this is to play (not an unusual agreement).

[brianshark]

For completeness, 1NT was weak NT (I thought I specified that before but I see I forgot - sorry), responder held 4 hearts, a singleton spade, I think 6 diamonds to the QJ or something, and a scattered 8 count. I have no idea what he was planning to do. Maybe in their methods, 2♣ followed by 3♦ is a weak sign-off?

[whereagles]

Well, if 1NT was weak, then disallowing 2♠ is absolutely normal. Pard's hesitation could have been based on a 13-14 hcp hand intending to double, and that would make 2♠ a very safe bid.

[brianshark]

Dbl is explicitly 15+.

[655321]

After the hesitation over a weak NT, I can't see that any committee would let you have your 2♠ bid.

You partner's bidding was consistent (yes, I realize it was not deliberate) with the Weasel Defense to 1NT. (Double = 15+, Slow pass = 13-14, Question = 10-12) and if I was on a committe that heard your appeal, I would keep the deposit.

[Apollo81]

First of all, if it was a weak NT, you should have mentioned that in your OP.

Second, whether or not you should bid 2♠ over 2♣ is completely irrelevant. You have an obvious 2♠ call on the third round after 2♦pp which is presumably what was going to happen, and partner has an obvious raise to game.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Apr 23 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

Second, whether or not you should bid 2♠ over 2♣ is completely irrelevant. You have an obvious 2♠ call on the third round after 2♦pp which is presumably what was going to happen, and partner has an obvious raise to game.

That may well be true, I'm not really disputing it, but I don't think you can call either of those totally obvious when it's an auction that probably none of us have ever had before.

Anyway the director's ruling was normal.

[P_Marlowe]

brianshark, on Apr 23 2008, 07:58 AM, said:

For completeness, 1NT was weak NT (I thought I specified that before but I see I forgot - sorry), responder held 4 hearts, a singleton spade, I think 6 diamonds to the QJ or something, and a scattered 8 count. I have no idea what he was planning to do. Maybe in their methods, 2♣ followed by 3♦ is a weak sign-off?

Fair enough, but would this mean, that a hand which bids 2C does
not need to hold a 4 card mayor?
And if this could be the case, I would expect an alert.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nige1]

brianshark, on Apr 22 2008, 04:20 AM, said:

1st seat, nobody vul, matchpoints, you hold:

♠A98632 ♥KT74 ♦72 ♣9

Your options are:

Pass
1♠ = 5+, 11-17
2♦ = Weak with 6+ in a Major
2♥ = weak with 5+5+ in ♥ and another suit (pretty strict about 5+5+)

Your bidding style is fairly normal pre-empts, weak 2s and openings.

What's your call?


[Part 2]
If you pass, the auction goes:

Pass - 1NT - Pass - 2♣

Do you bid now?

As opener, IMO
2♦ = 10, _P=7, 1♠ = 6.

After _P - 1N - _P - 2♣, IMO
2♠ = 10, _P = 6.

[rbforster]

I was going to vote for pass (not right for preempting), and then pass again since the opponents might be headed towards playing in my majors. I was going to add that if a likely 2♦ response by NT opener to Stayman gets passed back to me I'd be balancing 2♠.

brianshark, on Apr 23 2008, 03:33 AM, said:

Anyway, we ended up bidding to 4♠ and opps to 5♦ being doubled off 1. The director adjusted to 2♦ making +2 for an absolute top for the opps.

I think if you give this auction to a bunch of people

P-(1NT)-P-(2♣)
P-(2♦)-P-(P)
?

you'd get a large number of people bidding 2♠. In light of that, I'm not sure that if the director thinks he can enforce a 2nd pass on you whether he can really have the other side play in 2♦. Surely you can balance with a decent 6-4 shape after passing twice?

[jdonn]

Rob F, on Apr 23 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

I think if you give this auction to a bunch of people

P-(1NT)-P-(2♣)
P-(2♦)-P-(P)
?

you'd get a large number of people bidding 2♠.

That's not the guideline the director is supposed to follow...

[Raivis]

1) 1♠
2) 2♥

1) Normal distributional open for me. Not use multi (2 suit hand).
2) Im play DONT style and show both majors is good practice. Litlle worried about 2♣ (may be too have one major).