[mike777]

The bidding starts out.....1d=(1c)=?

yes 1d by you.....one club by lho.
1) What are partner's options?
2) Depending on what partner does, will RHO ever need to totally ignore the one club bid in the bidding, leading or defense?
3) say partner bids 1h and you play the hand in 4H, can Rho lead a club?

[kenrexford]

1♣ in this sequence shows a weak hand with a good holding in the other major.

Of course, you do not know which major is the "other major" until third seat bids, but you use common sense. With AQJx in one major (and out), third seat will bid the one that you do not have, making your actual major "the other major."

By bidding 1♣, you induce third seat to refuse to accept the bid. You then pass, barring partner. Third seat will be assured (unless he knows this convention) that you want a club lead and will forbid the lead of a club. That gets partner off to the right lead.

If third seat knows this convention, then you invert the meaning, such that a 1♣ bid actually does ask for the lead of a club. That's fairly advanced, though.

The wrinkle is if third seat accepts the bid. However, the message is already out. If the bid is not accepted, then you do not have to alert it, because it is not an accepted bid. If it is accepted, however, then fourth seat alerts to explain the normal (or perhaps inverted) meaning.

Q1: So, what are third-seat's options?

As mentioned, he can accept the bid or reject the bid. His best bet is to accept the bid, just to see if there is then an alert.

Q2: How does this impact fourth seat?

As mentioned, it depends on whether third seat knows about this convention or not. Third seat will tell fourth seat what to not lead, hopefully what second seat predicted. If third seat accepts the bid, and then is alerted, there is not problem.

Q3: What if third seat bids 1♥ and fourth seat is on lead against 4♥?

It depends on whether 1♣ was accepted or not. See above.

Simple stuff, really.

[jtfanclub]

Ach, not enough time, but the short version...

Your partner can accept the bid, and do whatever he wants (including X and bidding 1♦), but then the insufficient bid is AI and there are no lead penalties.

If your partner declines the bid, then LHO can either correct to 2♣ (if both 1♣ and 2♣ are natural) or bid something else. If he bids something else, then his partner is barred from the bidding and there will be lead penalties. If he corrects it, then there are usually no penalties*, though the fact that he tried to open it 1♣ is UI and can create all sorts of havoc for his partner in the bidding. However, there are no lead penalties beyond the UI.

*even though 1 club promises 3 and 2 clubs promises 5 clubs. Go figure.

[kenrexford]

In all seriousness, what if the 1♣ bidder uses a short club opening style? Now, 1♣ would be artificial...

[mike777]

3) partner accepted one club and responded one heart.

How does this affect 4thseat player in the bidding, lead or defense?
Again can he lead a club?

You seem to say one club is AI and no lead penalties?

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Dec 17 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

You seem to say one club is AI and no lead penalties?

LAW 27
INSUFFICIENT BID
A. Insufficient Bid Accepted
Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls.


Yeppers, the 1♣ if accepted is treated as if it were a legal bid in every way.

[PassedOut]

jtfanclub, on Dec 17 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

Your partner can accept the bid, and do whatever he wants (including X and bidding 1♦), but then the insufficient bid is AI and there are no lead penalties.

Does anyone have an agreement about what X or 1♦ would mean here?

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on Dec 18 2007, 06:16 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Dec 17 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

Your partner can accept the bid, and do whatever he wants (including X and bidding 1♦), but then the insufficient bid is AI and there are no lead penalties.

Does anyone have an agreement about what X or 1♦ would mean here?

As I understand matters, several regulatory authorities expliclty ban players from having agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Dec 18 2007, 07:23 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Dec 18 2007, 06:16 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Dec 17 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

Your partner can accept the bid, and do whatever he wants (including X and bidding 1♦), but then the insufficient bid is AI and there are no lead penalties.

Does anyone have an agreement about what X or 1♦ would mean here?

As I understand matters, several regulatory authorities expliclty ban players from having agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids.

Last night I was reading a Bridge World from 1993 and there was a problem in MSC where pard actually doubled an insufficient bid. It was at the 3 level after a few rounds of bidding and we had a void in their suit.

The general feeling was that pard's double was 1000 percent penalty. The panel also didnt feel any ethical obligation about the inferences related to pard doubling an insufficient call.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Dec 18 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

As I understand matters, several regulatory authorities expliclty ban players from having agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids.

I don't understand this. How can you bid if you don't have any agreements about what your bids mean?

[mycroft]

My partner once did this - and we were playing Precision.

It's a lot more fun when, if third-hand doesn't accept 1C, the strong hand has to guess what to play :-). I guess that's a roundabout way of saying, Ken:

If 1C is artificial - or if 2C/1D is artificial (I have seen opposite-minor "Michaels", though usually it's 1C/2D) then if the insufficient bid is not accepted, you don't get the option to correct without penalty. You get to make your bed, partner gets to pass throughout, and there may be lead penalties if your side defends.

(partner got to guess from the two old standards, and guessed me to have a bad hand. She was wrong (but would have been right most of the time) - 1NT+2).

Michael.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Dec 18 2007, 01:22 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 18 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

As I understand matters, several regulatory authorities expliclty ban players from having agreements over the opponent's insufficient bids.

I don't understand this. How can you bid if you don't have any agreements about what your bids mean?

What's meant is that you can't have any agreements specifically related to insufficient bids. For example, you can't have a "mini-support double", where doubling an insufficient bid shows only 2 card support. You also can't have a conventional agreement regarding whether you accept the insufficient bid or not.