[rbforster]

Perhaps the "obvious to bid round 1" people will explain their initial bid and plan in an uncontested auction (unless they're all playing 3♣ as a weak jump shift which I think is pretty rare).

1NT seems like the least awful non-psych choice, although if partner passes I'm not sure we'll be in a good place (I guess maybe NV it'll be an ok sac against their partial). 1♦-1N-2N will force you to at least 4♣ if you play transfers there and can't get out in 3♣. Opposite a random balanced hand, I don't think I'm willing to bid some number of diamonds playing inverted minors.

Passing the first time, I'm would double 2♦ for lead since I expect to defend against the opponent's spade partial. I can see bidding 3♣ though to try to bury their spade fit (known to me, if not yet to them).

[mikeh]

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

mikeh, on May 13 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

mich-b, on May 12 2009, 06:07 AM, said:

I like 2NT now , showing long ♣s , and also length in ♦, so partner can appreciate the degree of fit.

But , I strongly disagree with the  pass on the previous round.
I dont believe in Passing partner's opening NV Vs VUL , with any hand with shape.

Do you pre-alert this? Do you announce, on your CC, that at favourable, partner's one-level suit opening is forcing?

I'm curious why you immediately think to ask this question of people who respond extremely light to opening bids. I might be misreading, but it seems awfully cynical to me.

I may have misunderstood the post I responded to... but this has, as I wrote, been a fairly common position in the fora: 'I never pass partner's opening bid', whether qualified, as it was here, by 'with any shape', presumably meaning I bid on zero counts but only if they are shapely, or otherwise.

Are we not under an ethical obligation to disclose non-standard treatments? Maybe in an extended match against WC opps, we don't need to prealert this approach, but most of us rarely, if ever, play in those circumstances.

If I have played with this partner before, to any degree, then almost certainly partner is aware of my tendencies, and when those include responding on a shapely zero count, he will cater to that in the auction... but the opps won't, because this is a hidden agreement.

Maybe we are all so sophisticated on this forum that we think that this is all standard, or should be, or that the rules don't apply to us. Nonsense... in fact, the better we may be, and the more experienced we may be, the more ethical we should be.

I am not saying that the ultra light responders are deliberately being unethical.. but I do wonder if they announce this approach... the few times I have encountered this at the table, alerts and notations on the CC have been absent, and the proponents sneer at objections on the basis that what they are doing is 'bridge'.

[jdonn]

Yes you give a lot of explanation about the question, the answer, explanation of the question, etc. But what I was wondering was why your mind drifts to that particular question in these cases. No one who talks about landy on the forums seems to be questioned about their ethics.

[helene_t]

I think I should ask why this thread has derailed into asking question about what motivates a to ask why b ask c about d's questioning behavior, while this "note censored" thread has become an exercise in assertions about who should assume what about whether a should use the word "should" when applied to the question of what b should or should not do.

Quote

Um... ?

btw I agree with Csaba.

[ArtK78]

Some years ago, I played in a few North American championship events with a partner who was new to me but is fairly well known at that level. One of the first things he told me was that I must ALWAYS have 6 HCP to respond to a one of a suit opening bid. If I had less than 6 HCP, I must pass. I questioned him about it, giving him some misfitting shapely hands, and he dismissed them all.

In discussing this with others, I referred to this as "NAME's Rule." I am not going to name him, but you get the idea.

This person is not 90 years old or a duffer. I do not know for sure if he has ever won a North American Championship event, but I see his name listed in the overall standings quite frequently. He and I finished about 16th in one of the 4-session NA Open Pairs (this was before the time when the overalls were expanded to include most of the pairs that finish above-average in the finals, and 16th place was just out of the overalls). We also finished just out of the overalls in the 4-session North American Swiss on the last weekend of the same tournament.

My point is that there are very experienced players who do not respond to one-bids on hands such as the one presented in this thread. And I understand Mike's point about players who say that they will never pass an opening one-bid, or will do so only in the most extreme circumstances. This is an undisclosed partnership agreement.

On the other hand, while "NAME's Rule" is certainly a partnership agreement, it would not really be a surprise to anyone if a reasonable 5-count were to pass an opening bid. I doubt that anyone would question it.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on May 13 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Yes you give a lot of explanation about the question, the answer, explanation of the question, etc. But what I was wondering was why your mind drifts to that particular question in these cases. No one who talks about landy on the forums seems to be questioned about their ethics.

because my experience has been that the players that I have encountered, in real life, who use this approach tend not to announce it.

These fora may have become, or maybe always were, more of an opportunity for each of us to express ourselves than for readers to learn, but I assume that learning still goes on.

Anyone reading these posts, in which players strongly criticize normal (if conservative) actions, proclaiming that "I" never pass an opening bid, might form the impression that that sort of action is 'normal', to the point that they might adopt it without ever understanding that their opps will be misled. I don't care if anyone plays any method they like.... in a long match, with proper advance disclosure.. almost anything goes... and in short matches or mps, I tend to be more liberal than most tournament organizers, even tho these days I don't experiment much myself.

But I do feel. and feel strongly, that it is fundamentally unfair to present as playing 'standard' while in effect treating a 1-level opening bid as forcing while not disclosing it. I was going to write that 'I assume that you disagree... which, frankly, surprises me.. I thought of you as someone who likes to win by outplaying the opps, not by having secret agreements with partner'.

However, I am certain that you, and indeed everyone who has posted here suggesting that they respond on zero counts, do in fact prefer to win on skill... and maybe we are misunderstanding each other.

Your point about Landy is silly... the point would be fair only if a poster, discussing Landy, were to proclaim that he uses the landy 2♣ routinely to show 5-3 in the majors.... and that when asked the meaning of 2♣ were to reply 'major 2 suiter'. If someone posted that, I wouldn't object to their (silly) treatment but I would ask if they gave a proper explanation.

[gwnn]

edited out

[kfay]

I bid 3♣ now.

Reading through the posts I like 2NT but....

[jdonn]

FYI I am quite far from responding to all opening bids, and more conservative in that regard than most of my friends.

[Codo]

I think there is a reason why nobody of the "obvious bid" posters did respond to the question what to do in the later bidding.

If you respond with this hand, you need a real good set of rules to come out at a convenient level.

Of course I would bid ifsay, 1 ♦ 1 ♠ is a transfer to club.
I would bid if 1♦ 3 ♣ shows this hand.

I would bid if 1♦ 1 NT 2 NT 3 ♣ shows this hand.

In my world all of these bids show other hands, so I cannot show it. It is an easy pass, despite the fact that the trick taking potential is much higher then many random 6 or 7 HCP hands.

And I would prefer a normalo 3 ♣ to a 2 NT later, because 2 NT looks like xy36 to me too.