S2000magic

Yes.

4♠; lefty's gotta be itching to get into the auction.

I'd bid it the same way. Good point.

Thanks! I just asked to be added to the roster.

Please add me to the roster. Thanks!

I like 3♠.

I wouldn't disagree. There's judgment (sometimes read "guessing") involved, and less room than over a 1-bid, so sometimes you'll gue . . . uh, judge . . . wrong. Feel free to toss in a better example.

I got about 11.15 seconds, but I really like your solution. :)

I didn't cite that because it sounded as if the poster wanted a text that discusses weak NT and 5-card majors, not just Edgar's system notes. (I have an old hard-copy.) As do I; we should partner sometime.

This about sums up my feelings, though I wouldn't be quite so lenient in my description of Gerber.

Picture a typical weak 2 opposite your hand and ask yourself if you'll take 9 tricks in notrump, 10 in a major, or 11 in a minor. If so, bid game; if not, don't. It's all about tricks, not points. For example, suppose partner opens 2♥ and you have this: ♠ K Q J 3 ♥ 6 2 ♦ Q J 8 4 ♣ A J 6 That's 14 HCP, and you should pass. Partner has a hand like: ♠ 10 7 4 ♥ K Q J 9 3 2 ♦ K 8 ♣ 9 5 You'll probably lose a spade, a heart, a diamond, and a club, and partner has a pretty good weak 2; it could be worse. Suppose, instead, you have: ♠ A K Q 3 ♥ 7 6 2 ♦ Q J 8 6 4 ♣ 6 Put that opposite partner's weak 2 and you'll probably lose a heart, a diamond, and a club; that's a reasonable (minimum) raise to 4♥, and it has only 12 HCP.

♥8 (or ♥9). (The only lead to set them was the ♦2, wasn't it?)

Moscito started out as a forcing pass system, but was changed to a forcing club system so that it could be used in more tournaments.

There's Edgar Kaplan's and Alfred Sheinwold's How to Play Winning Bridge; it's out of print but you can find used copies at Amazon. The weak NT and 5-card majors are the cornerstones of Kaplan-Sheinwold.

Without resorting to conventions, you can show a singleton/void by strongly bidding the other three suits. For example: 1♣ - 1♥ 2♠ - 2NT 4♥ Here, opener has bid one suit (♣), jumped in a second suit (♠), and strongly supported a third (♥); he cannot have more than a singleton diamond. A typical hand for opener would be: ♠ A Q J 3 ♥ K Q 4 2 ♦ 7 ♣ A K J 6 (Note that opener raised to game a suit that responder had bid only once; hence, we know that opener has at least 4 hearts.) (Note, too, that many people would use a convention - a splinter - to describe this hand. Because I can describe it as shown above, I prefer to use a splinter in this situtation to show a void in diamonds, and use this sequence for a singleton.) This is done frequently by bidding a suit in which you cannot logically have length. For example: 1♦ - 3♦ 3♥ - 3♠ Responder would not raise diamonds in preference to showing a biddable spade suit, so his spade bid here shows a stopper. (However, opener's 3♥ bid could - should - show a biddable suit.) (Note that some people might say that it shows a partial stopper, and others might say that it asks for a stopper; the former is a treatment, the latter a convention. You need to discuss this situation with your partner to ensure that you agree how to use it.) This is largely a matter of agreeing with your partner which bids are game-forcing and which are not. Most people today play that a double-raise in a major suit (1♥ - 3♥ or 1♠ - 3♠) is invitational, but some play that it is game-forcing. (This used to be standard.) Some people play that a 2/1 response is game forcing; others don't. Virtually everyone agrees that a jump-shift rebid by opener is game-forcing. It's largely a matter of style. The easiest way to invite slam is to bid something new when you have agreed on a suit (or notrump) and are forced to game. (If you were interested in nothing more than game, there's no reason to bid something new: just bid game.) For example: 1♠ - 3♠ 4♦ If opener were only interested in game, he'd bid 4♠ (or, possibly, 3NT), so his 4♦ bid must be a slam try. (Note: it doesn't matter whether responder's 3♠ is game-forcing or invitational; once opener bids anything they're committed to game either way.) Presumably he's strong enough to imagine that they're on the brink of slam, he has a control (probably the ♦A) in diamonds, and wants partner's cooperation in deciding how high to bid. Bidding above game is also, clearly, slam-invitational: 1NT - 4NT Here, responder's 4NT is a slam invitation: it asks opener to pass with a minimum, bid 6NT with a maximum, and use his judgment in the middle. This gets back to hand evaluation, which daveharty mentioned, above. If you have considerably more strength than your previous bids have revealed, and you're committed to game, then you should start thinking about a slam. This is really easy when you have a balanced hand and partner has bid a natural NT: you can add your points to his and know if you're nowhere near 33, maybe at 33, or definitely at 33 (or above) 33. When you're bidding suits it's tougher, and that's where judgment comes in. There's a book by Albert Dormer - Powerhouse Hands - that covers a lot of the principles of bidding strong hands quite succinctly; you might look for it.

Robert Ewen's Doubles for Takeout, Penalties and Profit is an excellent book, and fun to read even if you don't learn anything (which, you will discover, is impossible). Alas, it's out of print, but you can find used copies on Amazon. (I cannot find my copy, and the only person to whom I would have considered lending it assures me that I did not. Hmmm.)

That reminds me of the college history professor on the radio yesterday who was asked if he had any tips for his students before their final exams. He had one: study.

I'd bid 3NT, and cross my fingers. Having no regular partner, I have no regular system over 3NT. Can you make a recommendation?

Mbodell pretty much wrote everything I'd have written. In none of these situations do you need a convention: merely an understanding with your partner about the meanings of your (natural) bids. On hand 1, you rebid 2♠. Without considering Mbodell's comments, you should ask yourself, "If 2♠ is the proper rebid with this hand, what sort of hand would I have needed to have rebid 3♠, or 4♠?" If you ask yourself questions of this sort (i.e., when you get a bad result, instead of asking yourself why you made the bid(s) you did, asking yourself that you would have needed to make bids you didn't), you'll find that you'll develop your bidding judgment much more quickly (and you may have more fun doing so). On the second hand, some would double, some would bid hearts; most would use 2NT in this position as unusual (for minors). I'd probably bid 3♥. As for hand 3, one of the commonest mistakes I see at the table is people overcalling on lousy suits. They're able to get away with it without obvious penalties (i.e., without being doubled) more frequently with the rise of negative doubles, but they still have to live with the less-than-obvious penalties (i.e., partner leading their suit when another lead would be better, playing in their lousy suit when partner's suit would be better, and so on). I'd pass this one, but more aggressive bidders would double. I will add that you need to discuss with your partner whether a new suit in response to an overcall (e.g., (1♦)-1♠-(Pass)-2♥) is forcing or not. Standard practice would be nonforcing (but most would say encouraging or forward-going), but either is playable as long as you have an agreement.

I'd probably double (then bid 2♠ after 2♦-Pass-Pass), but there's no question that any call you make is imperfect. Partner might have 4 hearts, in which case we'd prefer a heart contract to spades (and probably to notrump as well).

Recently I've found that many players try to learn new conventions well before they have a good understanding of basic bidding theory. As an example, I played with a partner who wanted to play Jacoby transfers, Bergen raises, 1430, Jacoby 2NT, and so on, but when I asked her what game tries she used after 1♥-2♥ or 1♠-2♠ she looked at me as if I were speaking Greek ("Does 1♠-2♠-3♣ show a long suit, a short suit, a suit where you need help, a suit where you need no help . . . ?). The very basic concept of a game try other than 3 of the agreed suit had never occurred to her. I played with a new partner today and we hit it off brilliantly. At dinner after the game he described a sequence he'd encountered with a previous partner: 1♦-(Pass)-1♥-(1♠). He raised to 2♥ on ♥ Q x x, after which his partner bid game and went down because of a bad trump split. His partner said that you never raise without 4 trumps in that situation, and he asked me if that were true. I told him that it's not true; maybe 90% of the time you shouldn't raise on 3 trumps, but occasionally you have to. Then I asked him if he'd ever heard of support doubles. He had, but wasn't sure what they were. After I explained how they solve exactly the problem he encountered, he said that we should plan to adopt those . . . eventually. That's a perfect example of how to answer your question: you encounter a specific problem that your current bidding system cannot handle well, there's a convention that handles it well, that convention doesn't cost you much (e.g., you will not frequently want to have a penalty double available in the circumstance where a support double would apply), and the convention isn't something you're likely to forget in the heat of the fray. So, look at the situations where you've missed games or slams or whatever, see if there's a common thread amongst some of them, and look for a convention that covers that situation. If you'll remember it, and if you don't mind the cost, then adopt it; otherwise, don't. In short, with a little careful thought and some judicious research, you'll be able to tell much better than we which conventions you should learn.

Not unlike someone with, say, a Bostonian accent choosing to say "No bid" instead of "Pass" because of the chance that "Pass" will sound too much like "Heart".

I'll give it a shot.

To my ear, it also sounds a bit rude (as if declarer can't be bothered with explaining his desires fully to his partner). Frankly, it sounds worst when it's perpetrated by people whom I know to be - otherwise - the soul of politeness. I have a similar aversion to such phrases as, "Go up!" Is that easier, cooler, or whateverer than saying, "Ace, please"?

Are you going to keep us on tenderhooks, or are you going to tell us what you learned? ;)