S2000magic

Indeed, it does. Most bidding systems contain some conventions, however, Acol and Standard American are considered to be natural systems in that most opening bids and responses do not employ conventions. Blackwood and Stayman are not bidding systems; they are individual conventions that are incorporated into bidding systems. (These two are sufficiently popular that they are incorporated in some fashion in virtually every bidding system.) Yes, it is possible to add and remove conventions. However, if you make up your own conventions you may run afoul of ACBL rules regarding what sorts of conventions are allowed at particular contests. In many parts of the world, conventional systems are considered standard and are taught to beginners. In the U.S., Standard American or 2/1 (game forcing) are considered standard; both are natural systems. So, yes, there are conventional systems suitable for beginners, although in the U.S. you will likely find it difficult to find a beginner partner who also knows a conventional system. Of all of the conventional systems, Precision is probably best suited for a beginner in the U.S. because it's relatively natural and relatively well-known. For a casual game in the U.S., I'd stick with Standard American. There are subtleties for bidding with a part score in rubber bridge, but you'll pick those up easily enough. Although no bonus is recorded on the scoresheet for the first game of a rubber, it is worth about 300 points. (If you win a rubber two games to none you score 700 points: figure that that's 300 for the first game and 400 for the second.) Standard American works as well for rubber bridge as for duplicate. Chicago is not duplicate; it's an adaptation of rubber bridge to make the game go faster. Yes, it is possible to play bridge without conventions. However, you'll find some conventions (such as the aforementioned Blackwood and Stayman) almost indispensable. We all started where you are: with basic questions. My pleasure.

An almost identical hand came up in the Saturday afternoon game at the Charlotte Bridge Club today: North was 6-5-1-1, not 5-5-2-1. He preferred to 3♠, down 2. With the hand shown, I'd have preferred to 3♠ as North.

As opener, would you not be concerned that responder might pass 3NT when 6♦ or 6♠ is odds on? (Not on this hand, per se, but given your initial sequence in general?)

You hold (W vs R): ♠ A 9 7 6 4 ♥ A J ♦ 7 4 2 ♣ J 8 7 Partner has: ♠ 10 ♥ Q 10 5 3 2 ♦ 8 ♣ A K Q 10 5 4 You pass, LHO opens 2♦, RHO bids 4♦, if possible. You've agreed on weak/strong Michaels over 1-bids, and you can infer them over 2-bids. The rest is up to you. (I'll post our auction later; it was . . . interesting.)

Looks like a straightforward 1♠ to me, for all the reasons Chris listed.

Overall, the grand has an 81% chance: hearts need to split, or be 4-1 onside, or have a stiff jack onside, and diamonds need to split, or be 4-0 onside.

The diamonds don't have to break: you can handle ♦ J 10 4 3 onside as well; only ♦ J 10 4 3 offside kills the diamonds.

Seems like an easy 4♠ to me. Occasionally partner has a decent hand for his overcall. If all he has is ♠ A K x x x and junk, I'd expect the opponents to have a slam somewhere.

Fair enough, if you'll concede that replies such as Zelandakh's simple relay system clearly violate the methods - sketchy as they are - that I laid out.

Interestingly, that's exactly what I told my partner. She was skeptical, but after discussion admitted that it made sense. Quite the contrary: good criticism helps me learn; I'm all for it. Partner is admittedly a timid bidder (note the 3♦, not 4♦). She's a good player and will grow out of it. Perhaps, but I doubt it. With luck, one day I'll be leading after such a auction, and we'll put it to the test.

I think that the stiff diamond is pretty clear from the use of 1430 and the lack of a diamond raise. That the diamonds are solid may not necessarily hold, but that declarer can establish them with one or (less likely) two ruffs is a solid inference, I believe. It's true that no lead sets 6♠ - declarer can pull two rounds of trumps and play three top diamonds, with the long diamond and the long trump in the same defender's hand - but a diamond is the only lead to set 6♠ if declarer doesn't have the ♥K, for example, and it will set 7♠ on the actual hand. If dummy has a side entry, nothing stops 6♠ or 7♠, so we should ignore that possibility.

Good eye! I should have posted this under a pseudonym. That was my contention at the table, and I think that one needn't appeal to the actual holdings to justify it.

Flaweder.

I think so: North-South aren't forced to game (though they bid it, it may be a stretch), and East/West aren't (both) passed hands; it's possible that West is quite strong.

I like it. Thanks!

As I was RHO, I can assure you that RHO's bidding can be trusted. No wheel-spinning. ;)

I think 2NT is reasonable, if a bit aggressive. I think 3NT is wildly optimistic: partner shouldn't have 20 HCP. I think that the double unsound, unless West is known to be an incurable overbidder.

I'd take it as a Lightner double and lead a diamond.

While I appreciate that other methods will facilitate bidding these hands, it would be more helpful (to me and my partner, at least) to see sequences that employ the methods I outlined. Thanks.

RHO deals. Opponents are playing 2/1, 1430 w/ 5NT = quantitative kings (6♣ = 0, 6♦ = 1, . . . .) 1♠ - P - 2♦ - P 2♠ - P - 3♦ - P 3♥ - P - 4♠ - P 4NT - P - 5♠ - P 5NT - P - 6♦ - P 6♠ - P - P - P You hold: ♠ 3 2 ♥ Q J 9 3 ♦ J 2 ♣ K J 9 5 3 What's your lead? If the opponents had ended in 7♠, what would you lead?

Good point. No XRKCB.

Dealer holds: ♠ K J 9 8 6 4 ♥ A K 2 ♦ 6 ♣ A 4 2 Partner holds: ♠ A Q ♥ 10 8 7 6 ♦ A K Q 10 9 4 3 ♣ --- 2/1, 1430, relatively new partnership, opponents pass throughout. (Edit: No XRKCB.)

1NT for me. Stoppers, schmoppers.

3♣ - partner's asked me to bid my better minor, not some gosh-awful spade abomination.

After partner has preempted, my double is for penalties.