S2000magic

Pass. You're likely in the best spot, so there's no need to worry. Partner may be 3=3=3=4, or he may have long clubs. Either way, you can probably scramble 7 tricks at notrump, with no 8 card fit in a suit.

I think that you're right. That doesn't mean that it's appropriate, however. I also think that in a case where we've essentially forced partner to bid even with a yarborough, considering what might happen with a yarborough is appropriate as a worst case, which is exactly how I presented it. Noted. It seems that you, too, might be considering that partner might have a yarborough.

The sarcasm seems misplaced. Partner has about 8 points tops, and zero at the minimum, so the single raise seems spot on.

I assume that the last pass by South is incorrect; i.e., that's supposed to be the question mark we're answering. I have a partner who may have bid 1♥ on: ♠ x x x ♥ x x x x ♦ x x x ♣ x x x I think that 2♥ is enough here. If partner has substantially more than the minimum (above) he can bid again. An ace would quialify as substantially more.

Just the opposite: A - Dbl. B - Pass. (Yes, there may be a reason that Justin plays in World Championships and I do not.)

Partner knows a lot more about my hand than I know about his, and he's said that he doesn't want to compete at the 5-level. I have to trust his judgment. Pass.

Yuck.

I'd pass at IMPs and at MPs.

You have about 6 tricks, so this looks like a fine 3♦ in 2nd seat. In 3rd seat, I'd be tempted to open 4♦ at these colors.

Or even 100%. ;) I'd pass, expecting partner to be stronger than the OP's. If that's what partner has, then I'd expect tight defense.

With a 20-21 HCP 2NT, we should be safe at the 5 level, so I'd bid 4♣. With a 21-23 HCP 2NT, we're almost guaranteed to make 6♠, so I'd bid 4♣ more eagerly.

Because a minimum double by partner, including, say, the ♣ K and the ♦ K Q, could produce 10 tricks, there's an argument for bidding 4♦ immediately. Because partner has another chance to act (say, with a second double), there's an argument for passing the decision around to partner. I'd be inclined to bid; I think that it's too much to ask of partner to reopen the bidding on what may be a minimum hand. I trust that over 4♦, partner won't raise without close to an opening hand. We'll see.

4♥ feels right. I'd want (a lot more) distribution for anything higher.

I saw this problem in MSC as I was flying to LAX from Charlotte, NC. I picked 4♦. When I get some free time later this week I'll read the arguments for other calls, but this looks like a preempt to me.

The ACBL's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (4th edition (I have the latest edition, but it's 2,500 miles (4,000 km) away at the moment)), in its article on cuebidding an opponent's suit, in the subsection on cubidding in response to parther's simple overcall (with an intervening pass), describes the "normal" treatment as a strong hand requesting clarification of overcaller's hand. The cuebidder could have a limit raise or better, or could have poor support and be looking for another suit, or could be looking for a stopper for notrump.

Too many conventions for a beginner.

The scales fall from my eyes.

Depends on agreements but (1♣)-1♦-(P)-2♣ agrees diamonds . . . . (emphasis added) 2♣ in this sequence means whatever you and your partner agree it means. While one use of the cuebid is to agree the suit of the overcall (e.g., as a limit raise or better), it isn't the only possible use of the cuebid, and, arguably, isn't the best use of the cuebid. Some would use it to ask overcaller to furhter describe his hand, perhaps mentioning another (4+ card) suit. Such an agreement would work well here.

According to your second post, we've already played a round of clubs, so the remaining clubs in this diagram are incorrect.

Howdy! I suspect that the SAYC rule stems from the popularity of 5-card majors, not from some a priori estimate of the probabilities of the suit division. Five-card majors were introduced (in American bidding) in the '50s in the Roth-Stone system (and later in the Kaplan-Sheinwold system). Five-card majors have some distinct advantages, but also cause some difficulties of their own. Most partners you find (in America, at least) will be playing 5-card majors, so you're better off using that approach. I tend to use some form of long-suit points, and open on 13 or a good 12. What matters most is that you and your partner agree what constitutes a minimum opening bid and that if you choose a weaker lower limit you strengthen your responses a bit (at least, those that are game-invitational and game-forcing). As always, my pleasure.

Howdy, again! Let's look at these one by one. Strong 2♣ Make sure that you understand (i.e., agree with partner) fully: What sorts of hands are appropriate for a 2♣ opening, and What your responses to and rebids after a 2♣ opening mean. Stayman Make sure that you and partner agree on which bids are forcing and which bids are nonforcing after Stayman. Jacoby transfers (after 1NT) You might consider using Jacoby transfers over 2NT as well (if, for no other reason, to avoid the possibility of a costly lapse of memory). Blackwood Make sure that you understand when Blackwood is appropriate (remember: its primary purpose is to keep you out of a slam when you have two losers off the top, not to get you to a slam when you don't) and when other methods (e.g., cuebidding) are more appropriate. Gerber (after NT opening) Even more so than Blackwood, make sure that you and partner agree (explicitly) on the situations in which 4♣ is Gerber and when it is something else (natural or a cuebid, say). I'd suggest that you start with a simple scheme; e.g., 4♣ is Gerber in only these auctions: 1NT – 4♣ 2NT – 4♣ 2♣ – 2♦ (or 2♥ or 2♠) 2NT – 4♣ Takeout doubles Make sure that you agree on what your responses to a takeout double mean (e.g., what are the point limits for a non-jump suit response, a jump suit response, a 1NT response, a 2NT response, and so on). At this stage, I'd say not. You should start slowly and learn these conventions thoroughly – the bids, the responses, the rebids – until you are sure that you will not have costly lapses in memory. Only then would I suggest that you consider other conventions. I agree with some advice you were given in another thread: play for at least a year with nothing more than these and start to develop judgment in your bidding. After that, you'll likely have found some vexing bidding situations that recur, and you can start to investigate conventions to handle those situations. After a year, come back to this thread and reread it. Some of the ideas suggested by previous posters have considerable merit, but I think that you're better off waiting until you have gained some more experience and developed your bidding judgment. Weak two-bids have proven their worth over the years. Sometimes you'll get bad results. (Just last week I was on the border between a 1♠ opening and a 2♠ opening; I opened 2♠, partner raised to 3♠, and I made 4♠ easily. I later thought that I should have opened 1♠, but partner (an expert) said that he preferred 2♠, and that we were just unlucky.) If you're consistently getting bad results, I'd humbly suggest that you need to evaluate your responses and rebids: you're probably doing something wrong. (I'd also suggest trying to find a copy of Robert Ewen's Preemptive Bidding; it's a small book packed with a ton of useful information on handling preempts and, because it's written by Bob Ewen, a fun book to read.) As always, my pleasure.

Very cool! (Although I still contend that my 5 beats your 4. ;))

The highlight of a mostly forgettable session on BBO tonight was this hand: Partner's hand ♠ A Q 5 2 ♥ A K 9 4 ♦ 9 7 ♣ A 10 9 My hand ♠ K J 3 ♥ J 8 7 6 5 ♦ 10 4 3 ♣ K 4 Playing in 4♥, the play started with ♦A, ♦K (RHO playing ♦J, ♦2), then ♦Q, ruffed with the ♥9, RHO playing ♣5. A club to the king was followed by a remarkable first-round of trumps: ♥5, ♥2, ♥4, ♥3. It's not often that the first round of trumps contains the 2, 3, 4, and 5.

So far, I have never opened a weak NT with a 5-card major. Maybe some day . . . . After 1♥ - 1♠: with 3 spades, 2♠; with 2 spades, 1NT. Standard K-S. (Note that in standard K-S, 1♥ - 1♠ usually shows 5 spades unless responder is strong.)

Excellent point! (And nice hand layout, too. ;) )