S2000magic

Any sort of topology, actually.

I'd double. Partner needs something to keep his interest in this hand.

And, most important, it's an agreement. But it's not as much fun for the opponents as, for example, when one player thinks that his 4NT (over partner's 4♣ cue bid) is Blackwood (and his partner's 5♣ response shows 0 or 3 aces), while his partner thinks that his 4♣ is Gerber (and his partner's 4NT shows 3 aces).

If you wait for a 19-point, practically-forcing-to-slam SJS, you're correct. Because a SJS is forcing only to game, I've found it useful to lower the strength requirement - a good 15 or 16 is fine - and to restrict their use to hands that can be described with two bids: a strong rebiddable suit of my own, strong support for partner's suit, or a strong notrump; no two-suiters. It seems to work well.

I doubt it. Might I suggest a 6 card suit and strength that is worth Acol 2/1 but not worth 2/1 GF. Thanks, Robin!

Is there an official definition of an intermediate jump shift (IJS)? If so, what is it, please.

I wouldn't expect partner to to have made a free bid on the previous round without something useful to say: ♥ K J 10 7 4 and the ♠ K or the ♣ A, for example. He knows he'll get another chance to bid, so why jump into a possible misfit (for both sides) opposite a possibly minimum double unless he has something useful. Partner may be broke, but I don't see it as a certainty.

I'll give it one more try with 3♥. I don't like 2NT because the diamonds are behind me and there is no flexibility in my club stopper; if I lose the diamond finesse (likely) I could be down a million. In hearts I have a likely second stopper in clubs: the ♥8.

Anarchist!

In a club game, red all around, you're third in hand after two passes, looking at: ♠ 5 ♥ A K 3 ♦ K ♣ A Q J 10 8 6 4 2 What's your call?

Good point. That's what I get for: 1) Not referring back to the original hand before posting, and 2) Posting late at night after an exhausting day. (Note to self: don't do that again.)

Planning on making a takeout double later if the opportunity presents itself (and partner hasn't raised hearts); e.g., 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♣ - Pass Pass - Dbl. - or - 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT - Pass 2♣ - Dbl.

They seem to be very popular at the Charlotte Bridge Association, but I, for one, don't use them.

Good suit, lousy defense: preempt. Lousy suit, good defense: don't preempt. 1♥

Holding the ♠A himself, I doubt that South's all that worried about whether North has it or not. ;)

Although a lot of responders have said that a double by East is negative, this is a really a matter of partnership agreement; some partnerships play negative doubles through only 2♠, others through 3♥, still others through 3♠. Assuming your double here is negative - that's how I would play it - I agree that a double is better than 4♥, the latter being more appropriate with a (good) 6-card suit (telling partner that you really don't need his cooperation to determine the trump suit). Over a double, I'd expect West to bid 3NT (he'll credit East with control of hearts and clubs) though I wouldn't expect him to be elated with it until he saw the ♥ K Q J 9 3 and the ♦ K 8 come down in dummy. To answer the question in your subtitle, you bid when you don't really need partner's help to determine the best trump suit, and double when you would like partner's cooperation in deciding which suit should be trumps. The dividing line will vary with the level at which you have to bid: at the 2-level you might bid a fair 5-card heart suit, at the 3-level you'll want at least a good 5-carder or a fair 6-carder, and at the 4-level you'd better have a good 6-card or fair 7-card suit.

Lead a high card only when you would be happy to have an opponent cover it with a higher card. If you wouldn't be happy, lead toward the high card. In the first example, you won't be happy to have the king covered by the ace, so don't lead the king; lead toward the king. In the second example, you won't be happy to have the queen covered by the ace or the king, or the ten covered by the jack, so don't lead the queen or the ten; lead toward the queen-ten. It's all about your friend's happiness.

If you're in Los Angeles on a weekend and want a unique brunch experience, I'd suggest that you go to The Magic Castle in Hollywood: it's a magician's club, and for the price of brunch you can see shows in each of the three theaters (the Close-Up Gallery, the Palace of Mystery, and the Parlour of Prestidigitation). The downside: you need to know a member to be allowed in. The upside: I'm a member.

Pretty much a toss-up between 3♣ and 4♣: depends on my mood, my assessment of the opposition (and what my counterpart might do), my assessment of my partner, and so on. I chose 3♣, so I'd be able to answer the second question: pass - not even tempeted to bid. He knows my hand a lot better than I know his. (As for being tempted, I learned long ago that I always lose when I try to second guess my decisions. Three clubs (initially) might be right, and four clubs (initially) might be right, but 3♣ followed by 4♣ is (in my experience) always wrong.)

I agree. However, I don't see that bidding the better major with 4-4 loses clarity on constructive auctions (when responder promises a 4-card major to use Stayman). Mike777 complained that when responder has 4H & 3S and opener bids 2♠ with 4-4 majors we'd miss the 4-4 heart fit; apparently he isn't willing to settle for a 4-3 spade fit in that case. I merely pointed out that if responder has 3H & 4S and opener bids 2♥ as he suggests, he misses the 4-4 spade fit. His habit of bidding hearts is no better than mine of bidding the better major: sometimes you end up in a 4-3 fit instead of a 4-4 fit.

Or give responder 3h and 4s; if opener bids 2♥ is responder going to correct into a possible 4-2 spade fit?

Fixed. (Don't I feel silly?) If you always bid 2♠ or always bid 2♥ it can help the opponents in the play when you make the bid that denies four of the other major.

Unquestionably. Then you have to know whether in this sequence: 1NT - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ responder's spade suit can be a 4-carder. I'm not certain that whether opener bids 2♥ or 2♠ with both matters in that case; i.e., matters merely because Stayman guarantees (or doesn't guarantee) invitational values, as opposed to mattering because of what distribution responder guarantees. Do you have an example to show that one choice is better than the other? If responder can bid 2♣ with either 5=4 or 4=5, it may not matter which major opener bids with both: he'll hit the 5-4 fit half the time and the 4-4 fit half the time. (It could matter if you're playing non-forcing Stayman and the bidding could go: 1NT - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ There's that pesky sequence again.) If responder can Stayman with 5=4 but not 4=5 (or vice-versa), then it probably matters what opener bids with 4-4 majors.

. . . and if you bypass a 4-card heart suit you may miss a 4-4 heart fit. Exactly! Responder to opener's 1m can afford to bid up-the-line because his new suit bid is forcing; if responder bids 1♥ and opener dislikes hearts, opener will bid 1♠ with 4 spades. Advancer to partner's takeout double of 1m cannot afford to bid up-the-line because his new suit bid is not forcing. ---------------------------------- The one that I really find bothersome is this: 1NT - 2♣ ? Innumerable partners have told me that with 4-4 in the majors you bid up-the-line. In fact, if responder guarantees a 4-card major with his Stayman bid, it makes no difference whether opener bids 2♥ or 2♠ with 4-4; the partnership will never lose a 4-4 major suit fit. The best approach, in my opinion, is Edgar Kaplan's: better first with both.

I just read this thread about responding to a takeout double with 4-4 in the majors, and the principle of bidding up-the-line was mentioned. It's a principle that many players invoke in a plethora of situations, without, I suspect, understanding the reasoning behind the principle; in some/many/most of those situations, bidding up-the-line is not appropriate (or, at least, not necessary). Here are a few typical auctions in which I'll hear players invoke this principle (assume that the bidder is 4-4 in the majors): 1♣ - ? 1♦ - ? 1NT - 2♣ ? (1m) - Dbl. - (Pass) - ? When you have two or three 4-card suits, what is your opinion on when to bid up-the-line and when not to? Are there any other auctions in which this principle should be applied? Or avoided?