Leaderboard

♠K. I don't consider pd's double to be of the Lightner variety, because their 7♦ sounds more like a save (over 6♥ which was presumably bid to make) rather than a freely bid effort.

I like to go through all the hands that are played, up to the level that I keep stats with serious partners. I actively hate talking about a hand immediately afterwards. Rik

We know that a transfer bid is alertable but what about when the transfer has been accepted. e.g. 1NT - 2H - 2S. This is a simple acceptance, not showing any particular strength or length in the suit.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq5haq65d7caq8765&n=sakjt7642htdckt42&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c2d]266|200|2 Diamonds is weak[/hv] How should bidding continue?

One of the best at the table reactions I've seen - My partner and I bid to a fairly normal contract, and LHO leads face down, asking his parter whether she had any questions. RHO immediately says "No, go ahead and lead that 8 of hearts". LHO then faces the 8 of hearts, and partner sits there in stunned silence for 2 minutes before asking all sorts of questions. It turns out that this couple has a variation of asking whether his partner had any questions that they only use when they lead the 8 of hearts, letting them mess with declarer's mind (in a well intentioned way, of course).

This "The Economist" article about why USA is less vulnerable to the Greek disease than is Europe, is interesting: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/11/currency-unions?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/sellyourbourbonyoubankrupkentucians

Give them to me.

No, it doesn't mean that we treat it as less important, it's just that our best guess for future will change as we go forward in time. Just a simple example, my umbrella will have more or less worth as the weather forecast changes. Today is Wednesday, but the forecast for next week will be different today than it is tomorrow. So my umbrella's worth will change from today to tomorrow (its total use or expected total use change from day to day). The only time we could even in principle know its worth is once I disposed of it. edit: by the way, I was a condensed matter physicist in my masters, nice catch

I count 5.25 losers, and that is not taking ♦QJ into account. Facing a 6-9 raise (wich suposedly covers from 2 to 3 losers) I'd bid 4♠ at IMPs, invite at MPs. Not sure of your range though.

With 12 diamonds missing and 2 10-card fits partner will bid 3♣ after 5 or 6♦ by LHO? If we are lucky my next bid would be after 5♦ is passed back to me, whatever the bid is on this round..... 1♣ - 2♦ - 2/3♠ - 5♦ P - P - 6♦ - P**- 6♥ - P - 7♣? **Dbl? 7♦? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

A lot of these poll answers are rather subjective, so I am not sure if they indicate a person's bridge profile with reasonable accuracy. The thing about time, though, is something you can observe, and might be more accurate. But actually I am probably not alone in that the one thing I would rule out in a partner is slowness. It drives me nuts.

Don't know, but my guess is that so the weaker pairs who use short club rather than convenient minor is an otherwise vanilla SAYC framework won't be subject to the conventional defenses that would be allowed over a conventional 1♣ opening. Advanced pairs who use T-Walsh or the like don't care if the enemy want's to use something like a midchart 1NT defense over thier 1♣--but it would drive an average ACBL LOL/LOM nuts. I'm not saying this is a sensible decision, but I would be unsurprised at this sort of action from ACBL.

I probably have 0 entries for partner to use in 3nt. I probably have 2 entries in 4s. My hand plays better in Spades, even if it's a 5-2 split. Yes I could be going for numbers but passing 3nt is not right with these cards.

Some examples where 2/1 is better. (1) Partner opens 1♠; I have a big balanced hand without a fit, say 2335. The auction starts 1♠-2♣-2♥ in either method. In 2/1 I can now bid 2NT which is very descriptive and gets partner to pattern out, which will be quite helpful in my search for a slam. In a system where 2/1 is not GF, my next call will have to be either 3+NT (which destroys our space to explore) or 3♦ 4th suit GF (which is still more space-consuming than 2NT, and very non-specific about my shape). (2) Partner opens 1♠ and I have a game force with 3-card support. I respond 2♣ (my longest side suit) and the auction starts 1♠-2♣-2♥. In 2/1 I can now bid 2♠ to express my fit and slam interest and we have all the space in the world to explore pattern and/or cuebid. If 2/1 is not GF, it's likely that 2♠ would be NF and I will have to bid 3♠. In fact, some even use 3♠ as NF (to distinguish between a 2-card preference and 3-card limit raise) and will have to go through 3♦ 4th suit GF. Either way, I have lost a lot of space and description. (3) Partner opens 1♠ and I have a game force with a ton of clubs. In 2/1, I can bid 2♣ and then 3♣ which totally describes my hand. If 2/1 is not GF, I either have to start with 2♣ and then temporize with some artificial strength-showing call (which leaves partner in the dark as to the nature of my hand) or perhaps I can use a strong jump shift to 3♣. But even after the strong jump, I have used up some space to describe my hand and it may be less clear whether partner's next call is a cuebid or natural. (4) Partner opens 1♠ with a 5332 pattern, and I have a weak hand with a ton of clubs. I can now bid 1NT (forcing) followed by 3♣; assuming I play the popular invitational jump shifts this will exactly describe my hand (without INV jumps, it has a ridiculous range of 5-11 which is a massive loss for 2/1, but let's assume I don't play that way). If 2/1 is not GF (and 1NT is not forcing) then I would risk playing in 1NT with a big club fit on this sequence. Note that almost all the above advantages are in game-forcing auctions. It follows that the sounder your openings, the better 2/1 will treat you. Here are some examples where 2/1 is worse: (1) Partner opens 1♠. I have an invitational 2434 hand. In 2/1, the auction will start 1♠-1NT-2m and I pretty much have to bid 2NT. After all, preferencing to 2♠ is a weaker hand, and raising partner's clubs (if he bids them) on four is risky since he could have a three-card suit. This sequence could easily miss a superior partial (2♠ or 3♣) and could also wrong-side 3NT if my diamond holding is weak. If 2/1 is not GF, the auction starts with 1♠-2♣. If partner rebids 2♦, I can bid 2♠ and play there opposite a minimum, having shown my values. If partner has a club fit we should be able to land in 3♣ without too much trouble. Partner also has the opportunity to bid notrump first if his hand is suitable for it. (2) Partner opens 1♥. I have a 3244 hand with minimum responding values. Playing 2/1, I bid 1NT and partner rebids 2m. Now I basically have to correct to 2♥, because partner's minor suit could easily be a 4-3 fit (or even a 4-2, without flannery). This gives partner the chance to bid again with mild extras (likely getting us too high). Even if partner passes 2♥, it will often be a worse partial than 2m on a 4-4 fit or 1NT on a pair of flat hands. If 2/1 is not GF, I can bid 1NT and partner can pass... and if partner does bid 2m I can pass knowing we have found a real it. (3) Partner opens 1♠. I have a 1426 ten-count. Playing 2/1 with invitational jumps, I should respond 3♣. But now we could easily miss a heart game if partner has a fit there. If I had responded 1NT, partner will often rebid 2♦ over which 3♣ won't really show my values. If 2/1 is not GF, this is a non-problem as I respond 2♣ and then raise a heart rebid to game or otherwise rebid 3♣ having shown my hand accurately. (4) Partner opens 1♠, I have a 2443 hand with less than game values. Whatever I respond, partner rebids 2♥. Playing 2/1, my first call was 1NT and now that I hear 2♥ I want to raise. But do I really want to make the same raise on an 8-count that I make on an 11-count? It seems that just bidding 4♥ on a flat hand could easily be too much, yet if I bid 3♥ on both how will partner know what to do? And if I pass on the 8-count we could easily miss game if partner is 5/5 or has 16/17 points (or both). If 2/1 is not GF, the 8-count can bid 1♠-1NT-2♥-3♥ and the initial response limits me to about 8-9. The 11-count bids 2m followed by 3♥, which clearly shows 10-11. Note that most of the above advantages are on invitational hands. The relative frequency and importance of invites versus GF hands depends on how light you open and on the form of scoring! I'll note that there are many conventions or versions of these systems and perhaps some of them deal with some of these issues. In general I've assumed that 2/1 includes invitational jump shifts (but not Gazzilli or BART) and a forcing notrump. Obviously not everyone plays this way, but switching things around creates other pluses and minuses.

You hold ♠ AKTxxxx ♥ - ♦ - ♣ JT9xxx 1st in at unfavourable playing teams. First question - what is your call? At the table I passed and the auction proceeded p (p) 1NT (2♥*) *H and a minor; 1NT = 14-16 3♠ (4♥) 4♠ (p) Do you agree with 3♠ (which is gf in principle but obviously I'm a passed hand so it is not impossible that partner will drop it - this possibility had not really occurred to me when I bid it)? What do you do now?

Han can u please help me to understand this bidding ? You say 3♠ was a cue, i would assume that pd should have some sort of ♥ support in order to encourage you for slam, unless of course your 3♥ showed a rock solid ♥ suit. But anyway, if 3♠ is a cue, what would he bid with a 6-5 ♦-♠ combination ? Because u may have a broken ♥ suit as you did, and Hxx ♦ or ♠, why are we comitting to ♥ suit so early as if pd showed a solid suit ? (disregard if 3♥ showed a solid suit) Imo opener's only cue that implies a ♥ fit should be 4♣ since it doesnt make sense for him to bid his 4 card ♣ at 4 level. But then again i dont know your system, perhaps u have another way to describe 6-5 hands, however i still find your pd's choice of cuebidding with singleton in your suit a little confusing.

Make it 4 for 4 on leading the K♥.

Yes, the Bourke Relay was written up in BW a few years back ( I believe ) . Here is an example: To take the easiest auction: 1c 1s 2c ? 2d = art GF 2h = natural, constructive 2s = to play 2nt = natural, invitational 3c = natural, invitational 3d / 3h = I am not sure but I think Bourke plays this as an invitational two suiter 3s = natural, invitational 3nt = natural, to play - - - - - - - - - - - To take the hardest auction: 1h 1s 2h ? 2s = to play 2nt = natural, invitational 3c = art GF 3d = natural, invitational 3h = natural, invitational 3s = natural invitational 3nt = to play

Either 1♣ was unprepared, or it was prepared to rebid clubs. 3D must show extra values IMO, since it is not a suit shown by the negative double. In any case, if I was planning to raise 1S to 2S with this hand, I can't imagine doing anything else but bidding 2S now. In effect, partner has responded 1S, plus she has enough to make the neg double at this level. Nothing has changed for me, as opener.

I realise that if p has no heart control, slam is pretty darn likely to be good but that wasn't really what I was asking - sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that I don't understand what auction you are referring to. It sounded as if you were advocating looking for grand if p bid 5♠, which is what he is likely to bid on *any* hand with no club control, regardless of whether it contains a heart control or not because he will believe we are off 2 clubs. Surely 5♥, whatever else it shows, must promise a club control here.

Since nobody's taken you up on this, I'll take a shot at interpreting. Am assuming that 2♦ was an artificial GF bid. I also haven't looked at any of the writeups to see if any of this is addressed specifically, so this is just trying to apply NMF/4SF type of logic to this situation. 3♣: denies 4♥, denies 3♠, denies 4♦, by infererence from all that shows 5+♣, denies having BOTH ♦/♥ stoppers for NT 3♥: showing 4♥ (and 5♠ by implication). You ask if this is "just groping"...seems like what is effectively the 2nd descriptive bid of your hand should still be honest, showing a full 4♥. You can save the "groping"/fragment-showing for the 3rd descriptive bid if needed. 3N: ♦ stopped, willing to play NT across from a 54xx shape. Likely 2335. Maybe 1336 or 2236.

Clearly part of the reason I passed was that I hoped that I'd be able to show my hand later but I could obviously run into problems on a competitive auction. I was also worried that if I opened 4S and oppo came in I'd be very poorly placed. When I passed I had certainly already decided that I would bid 4S later if I had to. At the table I bid 6♠ over 4 because my partner and I don't play together often and I wasn't sure what 5m would be - on one hand it certainly sounds like a cue bid but on the other I must surely have been dealt a very shapely two suiter to have passed and now be looking for slam, so maybe it should be NAT? Given that I wasn't certain what 5m should be and which m suit p would expect from me if I bid it (if I bid 5♦ and then try 6♦ later to look for grand I am certainly worried p will pass it) I thought 6♠ was the most practical bid. To whereagles, how will p show/ skip a heart cue? I'd have thought 5♥ over 5♦ would just show a club cue (kind of last train-esque), otherwise you have no idea what's going on when p bids 5♠? P put down Jxx AKx xxxx AQx so obviously small is all but frigid. To the (many) people who open 4S, what would do you if it went 4s p p 5H or something of that ilk?

Interesting, but it is the old idea that extra length and extra strength are equivalent. I don't believe they are, in competition. When 4th seat bids something, opener with some holding in that suit may want to double if you were the short strong hand, but bid on if you were the long weak hand. Passing does not convey that information, and you will not know what to do.

2♠-3♣ exclusion in diamonds-2 keycards with trump queen 7♣ (at IMPS) 7♠ (at MPs)

I prefer a 2nd double by East instead of 3nt and then West will bid 3♠ which may well end the auction. The hand was worth dbl followed by 2nt over a spade response but not 3nt over silence. Too many quacks in East and no gaurantee that West has a 5-card suit.

Less so if you get the compass points correct.

What means ATB anyway? :)

Agree with Fluffy that Fred and Justin are a level above the rest, as they both play and write very well. MikeH, Frances, Gnasher and Phil all post frequently and thoroughly, and are often thought-provoking. Also RHM but his bidding isn't to my taste! I believe [but I'm not certain in all cases - I haven't played against them all] that Mich-B, Fluffy, Han, Cherdano, 655321, DBurn and myself are among the top players here, but we post less frequently and/or less thoroughly than the names mentioned above.

Thanks Timo. Without sounding like a MAS you should be on your own list. Nevertheless I don't like these types of threads for obvious reasons like Fluffy said but I will freely give you my opinion at the bar.

It is most certainly NOT standard expert practice to show aces when accepting a quantitative 4N invitation. I've only once encountered a true expert who even suggested such a thing. What I believe to be "Standard" is to bid 4-card suits up the line at the 5 level (where a fit is still possible), and to jump to the 6 level with a 5-card suit. Standard does not necessarily mean best. Where one might have a six-card suit (true for most NT openers these days), a jump to the 6 level should probably show six. You can usually bid 5 and then 6 with a five-card suit (yes, partner might spoil that plan by bidding 6N). For regular partnerships, it is also worth discussing when 5 of a minor over 4N is an attempt to improve the contract, as opposed to accepting the invite and looking for the best strain. My system notes define 5 of a previouslyn agreed minor, or one which someone has rebid or is rebidding clearly showing 6+ cards, as to play. Another thing to discuss is whether 5N over any of these 5 level continuations is forcing or not. I don't think it should be. That way you can accept with a marginal hand, which is more likely to have slam if you find a fit, and still stop in 5N if no fit is found.

If the 1NT opener always accepts the transfer regardless of shape and/or strength, completion of the transfer is not alertable in Australia (the jurisdiction stated in the OP). Completion of a transfer is only alertable in Australia where there is a negative inference available from the fact that the 1NT opener has not super-accepted or if the partnership agreement is such that accepting the transfer promises certain length in the transferor's suit (e.g. some people who use 2♠ as a transfer to ♣ will bid 2NT without ♣ support and 3♣ with ♣ support - both of which would be alertable in Australia).

OK mrdct - this answer could be worth $10 to me. If you play just a normal, simple, basic system and your partner bids 2H after your 1NT and you accept the transfer by bidding 2S - does the 2S have to be alerted?

As I pointed in earlier posts these bailouts still do not address one of the main issues. A main issue being the free movement of labor. If you make it difficult through various laws to fire or hire people that makes it tough to grow productivity. If you make it difficult to have flexible labor rules that makes it tough to grow productivity. Another huge problem Greece has are property rights. It is very very difficult to transfer property rights compared to many other countries. IN fact it is difficult to find out who owns what. Bailouts dont solve these issues. Here in the USA one common example how we hurt our economy is the lack of visas/citizenship for students who graduate in engineering or the sciences from usa schools. We actually make them go home, nutty. Another current example is how we send farm laborers back home. Here in the USA we are actually making it more difficult to transfer property thus not allowing the real estate market to clear.