S2000magic

I would make a (strong) jump shift in diamonds, then rebid in notrump (if partner bids hearts) or clubs (if not).

1. About once every ten years or so. 2. Something really bizarre: 7-5-1-0, 7-6-0-0, that sort of thing. 3. Nope. At least, not for bidding after preempting. ;)

Parry.

It wasn't so much that han's post was grumpy (we all make grumpy posts, yours truly included), but that I think that he was confusing someone else's replies with mine.

Howdy, Lesh! I was going to reply at length, but mgoetze pretty much covered everything I was going to say. I had a perfect example of this on Monday evening. My left-hand-opponent (LHO) dealt and opened 1♣, the bidding proceeded: (1♣) - 3♠ - (4♥) - ? I held: ♠ A K J x ♥ x x ♦ x x x x x ♣ Q x Partner's bid was the sort that mgoetze described: a long (7-card) spade suit and little-to-nothing outside. I bid 4♠, figuring that it was very likely that our opponents could make at least a small slam in hearts: we'll get at most one spade trick, and probably nothing else. The opponents let us play in 4♠, down 3. If they had bid 5♥ I would have let them play there (they don't get the slam bonus if they make 6), but if they had bid 6♥ I would have bid 6♠. It turned out that they were cold for 6♥. Down 3 at 4♠ was an excellent score for partner and me. You need to be careful that if the opponents double you they don't get more points setting you than they would get in their own best contract, but whenever you have a long (6+ or 7+) suit and very little defensive strength, you should consider jumping to the highest level you can afford, making it difficult for your opponents to communicate with each other. You said that you were worried that you might get left in 4♦: a contract you didn't want to play. Here, I was thrilled that we were left in 4♠, even though I knew that we weren't going to make it: we saved a lot of points by going down 3.

I like 1♥: I can bid and rebid the diamonds to describe my shape. The problems with preempting are that partner won't expect this much playing strength and may not put us in game (or slam!) when we belong there, or that we may belong in diamonds instead of hearts (not at all unlikely).

I'm the OP and I don't consider a 2♦ rebid on a 3-card suit after a forcing 1NT to be artificial, any more than I would consider an opening 1♦ bid on a 3-card suit to be artificial; it's a standard rebid in a 3-card suit. If you consider it to be artificial, so be it; please don't ascribe that interpretation to me. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone; what makes you think that I am? Some have suggested that their agreement is that the 2♦ rebid promises 4, so I asked what they rebid on 5=3=3=2. Is there something wrong with trying to get a full understanding of their bidding? Well, I didn't do it, so if it doesn't make sense, that's fine. I try to avoid doing things that don't make sense. It appears that, here, at least, I have succeeded. I don't think that. Perhaps you could ask me instead of making assumptions about me. I don't think that. Perhaps you could ask me instead of making assumptions about me. That seems reasonable to me. Forgive me for omitting that detail in the original post. It wasn't intentional. As soon as someone brought it to my attention, I rectified it. I haven't forced anything on you, I simply told you the conditions under which I was playing when this hand arose.

What would a jump to 3♥ show?

Another good beginners' book is Terence Reese' Bridge for Bright Beginners. It's a small book, but gets the beginner off to a great start. One characteristic I like about this book (which would lead to the only complaint I have about 5 Weeks) is that it starts combining bidding and play immediately, so that when you're bidding you understand the objective in the play to which you are striving. The opening chapter in the book (if memory serve) has you play a 3NT hand; it's easy for a beginner to follow, and he concludes the illustration by saying that the greatest expert in the world could not have taken any more tricks than did you, a lowly beginner. You may have to hunt for a copy.

Hear, hear! If you look on Amazon you'll see several great reviews, and the occasional "It's terrible because it doesn't teach 5-card majors and Jacoby transfers and other stuff". These latter reviews are written by idiots. This is a great book, written in the late fifties / early sixties when 5-card majors and Jacoby transfers were innovations (and are included in the chapter on Modern Bidding Conventions). What this book teaches you is how to think like a bridge player, which doesn't change no matter what bidding conventions or carding conventions you're using. Study it and learn to think like a bridge player. Read it cover-to-cover three or four times. You'll be amazed what you'll learn, even if you're an experienced player. (As a simple example, I've been playing at a new club for almost a year, with many different partners of varying levels of experience. I had one partner who knew transfers and 1430 and Bergen raises and negative doubles and new minor forcing and a host of other conventions, but when I asked what sort of game tries she used after 1♥ - 2♥ or 1♠ - 2♠, she looked at me as if I were talking in Greek. It's a basic concept, covered beautifully in one of Sheinwold's early chapters, that seems to be omitted from modern bridge instruction. Bizarre.)

My introduction to bridge came when I was about 15: my best friend from high school and his mom were going to visit her brother and sister-in-law over the Memorial Day weekend, and invited me along. We arrived at our destination at about 1:00 Saturday morning, to find brother and sister-in-law sitting at the bridge table ready to play. Although both my parents played a lot of bridge, they'd never taught me nor my sisters, so I just sat and watched as the four of them played for about two hours, whereupon everyone went to bed for a few hours' sleep, then got up, ate breakfast, and returned to the table. After another two hours my friend stood up, looked at me, and said, "You've been watching for four hours, now it's your turn," and I was thrust into the fray. The next week I went to a local bookstore and bought a copy of Alfred Sheinwold's Five Weeks to Winning Bridge. I read it in a week. Then read it a second time. Then a third time. Then my friend and I started to play in a once-a-month duplicate game: a group of which his parents were members. We would get together a couple of times a week to deal and bid hands for a few hours. For the first year, each month we came in last, second-to-last, last. After a year we went from second-to-last to second, and for the next year we were first or second every month: it had finally clicked. We also occasionally played at a local club (not too often, however, because everyone else there smoked and we would reek of cigarette smoke when we left). If you can get a copy of Sheinwold's book, do so. You'll find it a bit dated - five-card majors are only included in the chapter on Modern Bidding Conventions - but it teaches you to think like a bridge player, and that applies no matter what bidding system or carding methods you're using. I'd also encourage you to find a local club and start playing as often as you can. If you have a regular partner, that's best, but if you don't, still go and play. If you're reasonably pleasant (I suspect that you are), you should have no trouble finding partners, and the director(s) will certainly help you. After the games, discuss the hands: you'll learn a lot. One other bit of advice: do not be in a hurry to learn the latest, or most popular, conventions. One thread here had a wonderful bit of advice: play for a year using only three conventions: takeout doubles, Stayman, and Blackwood. After that, you'll probably have a list of situations where you felt that you couldn't describe your hand properly. For each of those situations, look for a convention that might help you, then evaluate it to see if it will work for you. This way, you won't burden your memory with a bunch of things you don't need, and you'll have developed much better judgment.

How do you untangle whether or not you have a club fit after a rebid of 2♣? Four-two is awful (a lot worse than even 4-3), but 4-4 or 4-5 is great; does opener have to rebid a 4- or 5-card club suit?

In his book Doubles for Takeout, Penalties and Profit, Bob Ewen mentions the negative slam double. As of the time of writing the book, he said that such doubles had been employed against him three times, by expert opponents each time, and the results were: Making 6 doubled, Making 6 doubled, with an overtrick, Having the opponents sacrifice in 7 when his slam was going down. He recommends against their use, precisely because it is so difficult to tell what's going to be a defensive trick in such circumstances.

A good general rule when partner bids over a preempt is to assume that he's playing you for two tricks (or about 6 - 8 points); don't do anything unless you have considerably more than that. Here, you do: about 8 - 10 points (or 2 - 3 tricks) more than partner expects. I'd probably bid 6♥, though 5♣ is a reasonable bid as well. I want to be in 6♥ at least, with 6NT and 7♥ possible (though remote). Partner cannot have the ♣A unless LHO preempted on (6 or) 7 to the jack, so 7NT is out.

You could end up playing in a 4-3 diamond fit instead of a 6-3 heart fit, or a 4-4 diamond fit instead of a 6-3 heart fit. No I could not. I agree with 3D. I'm interested in how you would avoid this problem; please explain.

Eeewww! ;)

With that agreement, how would you respond to 1♠ with: ♠ 4 ♥ K 9 8 5 4 3 ♦ 10 9 8 5 ♣ K 3 ?

What do you rebid on 5=3=3=2?

You don't consider it a bit strong (after the 2♦ rebid, improving your hand) for a nonconstructive 2♥?

A minimum of 3 diamonds; i.e., basic, run-of-the-mill rebid over a forcing 1NT. Matchpoints.

5=3=3=2, with ♣ A x or ♣ Qx. Not quite 100%.

You could end up playing in a 4-3 diamond fit instead of a 6-3 heart fit, or a 4-4 diamond fit instead of a 6-3 heart fit.

White vs white, in third seat you hold: ♠ 4 ♥ K 9 8 5 4 3 ♦ K 10 9 5 ♣ K 3 The bidding so far: 1♠ - (P) - 1NT - (P) 2♦ - (P) - ? What's your rebid, and why?

Darned right! (There are barbecues.)

Unless, of course, you and your partner disagree on the meaning.