jogs

I'm suggesting that the cue should show four card support, while the double then rebid of 3♠ shows 3 card support.

I was willing to open 2♠ without your convention. In a home team against strong opposition I held this hand as dealer, both vul. ♠ T98432 ♥ 5 ♦ A74 ♣ A83 I opened 2♠. The disciplined opponent holding this hand passed. The spades are crap. So what? Double game swing for us.

Doesn't anyone ever wonder why opponents are bidding so much?

Maybe it is just me. I do not use the symbol when stating the number of cards in a suit. 2 ♠ would show 3 spades, 3 ♠ would show 4 spades, 4 ♠ would presumably show 5 spades. The two of you are not appreciating the value of the extra trump. Partner must know the trump length to assist him in judgment in contested auctions. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 On average the extra trump is worth a full trick. E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3 + e Not always. There is always a fudge factor.

Often when the hand belongs in 3NT we must right side the notrumps. RHO could hold AJTxxx, KJTxxx,or KQT9xx in his suit. Having the overcaller on opening lead sometimes creates two stoppers in the suit, while advancer on lead reduces the stoppers to one. Ax -------KQT9xx Jxx

b. ♠ A64 ♥ 8542 ♦ KQT5 ♣ J4 I like choice 2. Double. Intending to bid 3♠ next. 2♠ would be 3 card support 5 to 9 HCP,

No, cuebid shows 4. Direct raise to 3♠ shows 4. Double promises 2(but can be 3). In the Max Hardy version of 2/1, 1♠ -1NT; 2♣ - 3♠, this sequence shows 3 card support. 1♠ - (2♥) - X - (p); 2♠ - (p) - 3♠. The double promised 2. The raise to 3♠ now show 3. I have not suggested any use for 2NT.

These sequences assume a 5 card major system. I hate the use of the word 'takeout'. Think like support doubles. If a raise shows 4, the double shows 3 or one less. The double promises tolerance of spades. Since a direct raise here would be 3, this double promises 2. In many if not most cases opener would rebid 2♠ with a weak hand. But three card support is possible. Now 3♠ by responder would show 3. This has the advantage of allowing us to play 2♠ with 5-2. Don't defend less than a 3 level contract.

c. ♠ 64 ♥ 8542 ♦ KQT5 ♣ A64 Isn't this hand a forced pass? I'm suggesting that a good 9 with at least doubleton in support is worth a double. Double says pard I got something, please compete. With 3 card support and 11 highs responder can raise to 3♠.

If we didn't play neg doubles on this auction, the double could show 3 card support. Reserve the cue for 4 card support. Do we really ever want to force opener to rebid a 3 card minor suit on the 3 level?

1♠ - (2♥) - X Do we really need this as a negative double? Do we want opener to rebid at the 3 level with a minor? This hand appears in the October Master Solver's Club in the Bridge World. matchpoints, both vul. You, South hold: a. ♠ A64 ♥ KQT5 ♦ 8542 ♣ J4 North - East - South 1♠ - (2♥) - ? What do you bid? Change the red suit cards? b. ♠ A64 ♥ 8542 ♦ KQT5 ♣ J4 What do you bid now?

Maybe it's time for negative doubles to only apply after a minor suit opening. Then after major suit opening the double should show this type of hand. Opener should never rebid 5♣ unless he has lots of shape. We want to compete to 4♠, but not 5♠.

I wouldn't feel guilty about passing this hand. Unrealistic to expect partner to reopen with a double. Especially if you had a minor break in tempo. Most would rebid 4♠ rather than pass for penalties. If RHO had bid 3♦, you would have a clear 3♠ call. Would partner go to 4?

What was the East hand? Perhaps your teammate should have also bid 4♦.

Do you know anything about East? Can 1♠ be a pysche? If not, would it show 5 spades? I'm passing this round. Think we should play in spades rather than hearts. Just don't know how high.

Just more evidence that WNT is a poor strategy. Many precision players have raised their NT from 13-15 to 14-16. Yes, I would rebid 3♦. The super conservative 2♦ may work.

5=4=2=2. Regardless of the point range of 3♠, you shouldn't force the 5 level with your hand. I like 4♥. And definitely pass a 4♠ bid by pard.

If you're willing to bid pass 4♠, try 5♣. 6♠ may fail where 6♣ makes. ♠ AKxx ♥ xx ♦ Qx ♣ AKxxx or ♠ AKxx ♥ xxx ♦ x ♣ AKxxx Spades break 4-1 and clubs break 3-1.

Found a board where both directions made 1NT. http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|cbg3,emily903,jnnnhlt,bree%20leant|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S359H5JAD259C3TKA%2CS267KH3468DJC459J%2CS48JH9TKD348KC27Q%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7C1D%7Cmb%7Cd%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CSJ%7C

Assuming North is 4-4 in the black suits, both black suits break 3-2 about 50% of the time. Assuming rational opponents due to their willingless to interfere expect both blacks suits to break 3-2 much less often than expected.

Pavlicek has a strange way of selecting hands included in his study. In testing hypothesis one selects conditions. Like 4432//4333 and 19 to 24 HCP. Pavlicek viewed the results and only chose observations where at least one contract makes. DD analysis has a bias favoring defenders in notrump contracts. When HCPs are 20/20, the declarer averages less than 6.2 tricks. I've done my own study. In real play on BBO minis declarers average better than 6.8 tricks. You must have seen this yourself. Both sides made 1NT. Real people don't find all those killer DD leads.

I hate 4 card majors. Makes it hard to find slams. But that doesn't apply to this board. Let's remove the ♠Q from the West hand. ♠ 532 ♥ AKQJ2 ♦ K6 ♣ A43 --------1♦ 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 3♣ Doesn't matter if 2♣ is forcing for one round or game force. Is 3♣ completing the pattern? 4=1=5=3 3♦ would tell pard about the diamond king. 3♠ would be spade control. Getting to six should be easy. Seven, not so easy.

It has any been only recently students of the game have been studying how tricks are generated. 4432//4333. When HCPs are 19-24, The 4-4 fit makes about 0.5 tricks more than in notrumps. There is no advantage in playing in a suit one level higher. Have there been any good books on theory(of how tricks are generated) written in the last 20 years?

From another site, one poster suggested that consensus opinion was to rebid 1♠ with 4=3=3=3. Just checking if most agreed or disagreed with him.

Look on Pavlicek's site. Missing a 4-4 fit is only inferior when one partner has a singleton or void. I think one should respond 1NT with no way to check back.