S2000magic

In Five Weeks to Winning Bridge, Alfred Sheinwold suggests that, if you believe that you're overusing Blackwood (the same would apply to Gerber), that you decide to stop using it at all for a while, and use other tools (e.g., cuebidding), to decide when to bid a slam. When you return to Blackwood, you'll have a better understanding where it fits in the slam bidding toolbox. The rub - as you point out - is the "if you believe . . ." part.

Is there a convention whose name couldn't be substituted for "Gerber" in that sentence without making it false? I cannot think of one.

I can imagine instances where control asking bids would be more useful than cue bids; two that spring to mind are after a super-strong opening (e.g., 2♣ in SAYC) and a weak response, or after a preemptive opening. I had a hand a few weeks ago where I opened 3♠; we were cold for a slam that depended on my club void facinf my partner's ♣ x x x. He had the ♠ A, the ♥ A K, and the ♦ A K, so all he needed to know to bid the slam was whether I had a club control. A possible auction would have been: 2♠ - 5♣* 5♠** - 6♠ * Asking for club control ** 1st step: no control, 2nd step, 2nd round control, 3rd step, 1st round control (Note that I was playing with a rank beginner, so he wouldn't have understood the concept of asking bids, and he was too timid to bid more that 4♠; frankly, I feel fortunate that he didn't pass 3♠.)

But you know that there are some people (especially in the United States) who would have sued the toboggan manufacturer (as well as the land owner, etc.) without hesitation. Alas.

Argument against Flannery: In his book Better Bridge for the Advancing Player, Frank Stewart writes that he doesn't use Flannery for a number of reasons. The main reason that he describes is that many (most?) players who do use Flannery ignore suit quality when making the bid: if their distribution is 4=5=x=(4-x) and they have 11 - 15 HCP, they trot out 2♦, regardless. He finds that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages (for his partnerships), but encourages the reader to weigh the costs and benefits and decide for himself.

Pass. Presumably partner knows partner's hand; I don't. He hasn't asked for my opinion, and I don't have one.

Amen! I have an occasional partner now - a beginner - who wants to play a weak NT: 12 - 14 HCP. (Good! I like weak notrumps.) On one hand with 13 HCP he opened 1NT. It had an 8-card diamond suit. On another hand I opened 1♣ and he responded 1NT. You guessed it: 12 - 14 HCP. Amen!² I started playing with another partner (like me: experienced but rusty) last Saturday. Early in the match we had this bidding sequence: 1NT - 2♦ 2♥ - 4NT 6NT - Pass We'd discussed transfers, and Gerber over notrumps, but not this specific sequence; I trusted that he had a slam invitation with a 5-card heart suit, and he did. Making 6. In our second match we had this sequence: 1NT - (Pass) - 2♦ - (2♠) Dbl - (Pass) - Pass - (Pass) Making 4. When we discussed it later he said that if he'd had 2 minutes to think about it he'd have come to the conclusion that my double was coöperative, and that he should have pulled it with: ♠ 4 ♥ 10 9 7 6 2 ♦ Q 6 3 ♣ J 10 8 5 What I know is that this is now a situation about which he's not going to have to think, and the next time it arises he'll make the right decision. All of this is worth a lot more matchpoints than agreeing to play, say, support doubles.

Is 5♣ to play here, or is it forcing? I think we cannot decide what to do on this auction until we know how the opponents play 5♣. On the original auction, 5♣ was clearly to play; here, it could be, for example, ♠ - ♥ A J 10 8 2 ♦ 7 6 ♣ A K Q 7 4 2 If opener has a first- or second-round diamond control, they have a heart slam.

I've played with that partner . . . but never twice.

If they're sufficiently strongly correlated (positively or negatively), does it really matter which one(s) you drop?

I drove a 911S for many years (20,000 miles when I bought it, 180,000 miles when I sold it), and I can tell you hands down the S2000 is more fun to drive than the Porsche; and the Porsche was a blast to drive! There is something sweet about a 9,000 RPM redline.

OK, now you're scaring me.

4♣. Partner should have at least 5 clubs and 4 diamonds for his reverse, with 6 - 7 losers; we have 5 losers so we set the trump suit and start cue bidding after this. We're looking for at least a small slam, maybe a grand.

As everything else has been bid, I guess you have to bid diamonds or notrump. ;) Partner seems to have some idea that he can make 4♠ just looking at his hand, and you fill in his trump suit, so that might justify bidding 5♠. A principle that one hears frequently is that when freak hands abound, your side should be declaring; that, too, would argue in favor of 5♠. Anyway, that's what I'd bid. (Ultimately, you'll show us the other three hands, no?)

That's so old-school; you probably also bid suits you have.

Last night my partner held: ♠ 5 3 2 ♥ 7 6 5 4 3 ♦ 7 2 ♣ 7 6 5 Sum = 62.

As a weak NT aficianado I'm very happy to hear that. How much of the 1 / 2.5 IMPs do you attribute to the weat NT structure, and how much to you simply being better bidders than the competition? (If I did a study like that it would be +2 / +3.5 for the wk NT, -1 for me, net = +1 / +2.5. ;))

So lasso and ridge overcome the problem of multicollinearity?

That's problematic here (and, pretty much, the crux of my reason for asking). Partner held: ♠ J 6 2 ♥ A K 10 8 7 5 ♦ 5 ♣ Q 3 2 I'd guess he'd have bid 2♥, but 3♥ isn't inconceivable (he has better than a minimum overcall, and a sixth heart to boot).

I assumed the same thing, but we're a new partnership (only our second session together). On this occasion, it was sound.

That's what I bid, but not without misgivings that I was underbidding.

I trust that you meant 4♥, not 4♠.

Would your later NT bid guarantee stoppers in both diamonds and spades? Suggest stoppers in both? Guarantee one and suggest the other?

Both sides are vulnerable and LHO opens: (1♦) - 1 ♥ - (1♠) - ? What would you bid with: ♠ Q 10 ♥ 4 3 2 ♦ K 8 7 6 3 ♣ A K 10 (Assume whatever methods you want, but please delineate your assumptions. Thanks!)

Pass. Presumably your partner knows more about your hand than you do about his. If partner wanted to save, he could bid 5♣, then decide what to do when they crack it.