S2000magic

I assume that it was a typo, but the bidding system is "Standard American". "American Standard" is a brand of plumbing fixtures, notably, toilets. (Then again, maybe it was an editorial.;) )

#3. Astro Cue Bid isn't a defense against a 1NT opener; it's a 2-suited overcall of a one-of-a-suit opener showing the lower, unbid major and the lower, unbid minor, with the minor longer than the major (usually 5-4 or 6-4, but 6-5 is possible). Thus, 1♣ - 2♣ shows 5 or 6 diamonds and 4 hearts 1♦ - 2♦ shows 5 or 6 clubs and 4 hearts 1♥ - 2♥ shows 5 or 6 clubs and 4 spades 1♠ - 2♠ shows 5 or 6 clubs and 4 hearts

Agree with this and by regression with S2000. Transitivity, perhaps?

North: 70% - for bidding on junk South: 30% - for doubling on junk

White vs Red, again; you hold: ♠ K Q J 6 5 4 3 ♥ 9 ♦ --- ♣ A 8 7 5 3 RHO deals and opens 1♦. What's your plan?

At the table I was torn, then passed; 2♠ was the winning action. (In fact, 4♠ is cold on the deal.) Next time I'll be more aggressive.

White vs red, you deal and hold: ♠ 8 7 6 4 3 ♥ 3 ♦ K 9 6 ♣ 10 9 8 5 The bidding begins: Pass - (1♦) - 1NT (15-17) - (2♥) - ? (2♥ is apparently not forcing.) Would you bid (or transfer to) 2♠?

Irrespective of the rest of his hand? I think that a minimum with 7 spades might legitimately bid only 2♠. (But what do I know? On Sunday, partner and i got fixed by an opponent who opened 2♦ with ♦ A K x x x x x x; with ♦ Q J 10 x behind him (and lots of other stuff), we thought we'd massacre him, but he got out for down 1.)

I'm with the pass-then-3♠ crowd; seems pretty clear-cut.

Typo, or editorial?

If you can find a copy of Robert Ewen's Doubles for Takeout, Penalties, and Profit, get it. (I had a paperback copy which I can no longer find, but my wife got me a hardbound copy (in good shape) for Christmas.) The title's a bit misleading, because it's not just about doubles: it includes a good discussion on overcalls, balancing, and reopening. The advice is good, and it's fun to read.

Those should be easy: let the opponents play the misfits.

My error: I missed the context of the question. Sorry for sowing confusion. Yes, for slam purposes a control is the ability to prevent the opponents from scoring tricks in a particular suit. A first-round control is an ace (or a void when another suit is trumps) and a second-round control is a king (or a singleton when another suit is trumps).

It's certainly a common treatment when playing a weak (12-14 HCP) notrump,

I believe that this is what you intended to emphasize.

I'd probably duck. I'm a form believer that you cannot fight the opponents and partner all at the same time. Better, of course, if declarer has A Q J so that the finesse is repeatable. Nonetheless, mess with their heads. (Speaking of misunderstandings, on Saturday I opened 2♠ and heard the opponents bid to 5♠; they got to play it there on a 2 - 0 trump fit, down 6, when cold for a club slam. You can bet that I'd mess with them on the next few hands if I could.)

In duplicate bridge you get a 50-point bonus for any partscore bid and made, a 300-point bonus for any nonvulnerable game bid and made, and a 500-point bonus for any vulnerable game bid and made. If you bid and make a slam you get the appropriate game bonus plus the appropriate slam bonus. You also get a 50-point bonus for any doubled or redoubled contract made. All of these bonuses (boni?) are in addition to the trick score (undoubled, doubled, or redoubled, as appropriate). Partscores do not carry over from one deal to the next; each deal is scored separately. Thus, there is a great emphasis on reaching makable games and slams. Therefore, most bidding systems are designed to facilitate accurate game and slam bidding, often at the sacrifice of accurate partscore bidding.

4♦ and both natural.

Back in Sheinwold's day, the general bridge-playing public was told that they needed 26 HCP for game in notrump. However, Kaplan and Sheinwold routinely bid notrump games with 24 and 25 HCP: a weak NT facing a weak NT. They were the Meckwell of their day.

Generally, an ace is counted at two controls, a king as one. It's not the same as a stopper.

If you can find a copy of Alfred Sheinwold's Five Weeks to Winning Bridge, buy it and study it. It offers an excellent analysis on natural bidding, as well as the play of the cards. (Some people complain that it's out of date because it doesn't use 5-card majors as its foundation. While that's true, it will help you develop your skill and judgment better than most books, and it's fun to read. Furthermore, it does explain 5-card majors in the chapter on Modern Bidding Conventions (it was written in the early 1960s), and highly recommends them. What you lose from not having 5-card majors you more than gain back with the wealth of other knowledge you'll get.)

When I wrote that you occasionally break the rules, I didn't mean that when you announce that a 2♣ opening shows, say, 22+ HCP, you should occasionally open 2♣ on this: ♠ A 8 3 ♥ Q J 10 ♦ 10 ♣ A K Q J 10 9 What I meant, for example, is that if you announce that a single raise in a major suit is, say, 6 - 9 points, you might occasionally make the bid on a good 5 points, or a lousy 10 points. Call it judgment or common sense. If you realize that the rules are, as you say, guidelines, then you'll be free to exercise your judgment when necessary. And you'll become a bridge player, not a card pusher.

Good question. 4♠= This is the answer to your question, 10-11 3 card fit. My response, exactly. You beat me to it.

Yes: you get 50 points extra for a partial, regardless of vulnerability. So if you bid 2♠ and take 8 tricks, you score 110 (2*30 + 50); if you take 9 tricks you score 140 (3*30 + 50). Because a lot depends on distribution, fit, location of high cards (yours and the opponents'), it's tough to give solid rules. Figure about 25 or 26 for 3NT or 4 of a suit, 28 or 29 for 5 of a suit, 33 for a small slam, and 37 for a grand slam. I don't include points for part-score hands because they're even more problematic. They'll certainly be using Stayman and Blackwood. Beyond that, I'm not sure. (I'm relatively new here; some of those with more experience can answer this much better than I.) In a word: yes. You're wrong. There is a lot of judgment involved. There is a lot of psychology involved. There's an art to knowing when to follow the rules and when to break them. And there are a lot of situations which aren't covered by the rules (no matter how detailed your agreements with your partner on bidding and play). That's what makes the game so fascinating. If it were always cut and dried once you learned the rules, people would stop playing bridge and find something more interesting to do. As an example, today I defended a 6♠ hand where dummy showed up with: ♠ 8 7 2 ♥ A ♦ K Q 10 9 4 3 2 ♣ K 8 My partner led the ♦ A, on which declarer dropped the ♦ J. Partner then led a low diamond which declarer won in dummy. He drew 2 rounds of trumps, discovering that I held ♠ J 5 4 3, entered dummy with the ♥ A, finessed against my guarded ♠ J, and chalked up his slam. My partner said that she thought that I might have had the singleton diamond, but she should have inferred from declarer's use of the Blackwood convention (not to mention his ♦ J at trick 1) that he held a singleton. If she had switched to a low heart at trick 2, declarer would have been set. (Once he discovered the bad spade split, he would have only one entry to dummy (♣ K), so he could either finesse in spades or take a diamond (I'd rough the second diamond), but he couldn't finesse and later take two diamonds.) That sort of judgment / skill isn't "one of the rules"; it comes from experience and vision (or imagination). Again, my pleasure.

I'd bid 1♥. If partner has four good (or even decent) hearts, it's likely that game or slam in the 4-4 fit will be better than game or slam in a 5-3 or 5-4 fit.