dave_beer

There are some Flash replacements available that may solve your problem. I don't know if any of them will solve your problem because I don't know how the movies are saved on BBO.

I would expect xx-AKQJxxxx-xx-x and it might have a stray Q or so but definitely not side A or K. With your example I would bid 2♥ and then 3♥.

Playing Ingberman 2NT rebid is neutral and usually denies 5-card ♠ suit. Responder can bid game after bidding 2NT but can't usually offer choice of games*. Opener's only forcing rebid below 3NT is 3♣. With the actual hand I rebid 3♦. I can't rebid 3♠ since there is no safety if ♠ aren't an adequate trump suit. As described Reverse Lebensohl doesn't seem like a good structure. It presumably allows you to stop in 2♠ but it loses all of the other shape information that both partners might give using Ingberman or Lebensohl. * You could play that 3♠ after 2NT offers choice between 3NT and 4♠ but that might be a hand willing to play 4-3 fit.

A matter of agreement. The older style for both unusual NT overcalls and Michaels cue-bids was split range, i.e., either save-oriented or hands strong enough so that there would be a good chance to make if partner took the save. The strong hand might take another call even if partner passed. The modern style is continuous range, i.e., just get your shape into the auction and hope to be able to sort it out. Playing split range, the given hand falls in the middle and you bid 2♦ hoping to bid ♣ next if the level is convenient; playing continuous range, you bid 2NT.

(1) Natural (2) Void-showing as opposed to singleton if your current methods don't do that (3) Semi-preemptive slam-possible hands, Slam is possible opposite the right hand but you want to make it harder for the opponents to enter. 4♣ = unspecified void and good side suit, e.g., Qxxxx-xxx-KQxxx-{void}. I played it as denying an ace and not having control in the fragment but you don't have to do it that way. 4♦ = good trumps and bad side suit (at best Qxxxx), e.g., AQxxx-xx-xxxxx-x 1♠ = 4♥ as natural

I think it is close between PASS and DBL with the East hand but DBL is not for penalties in my style. I have a bad strong NT and the wrong number of ♠. If I have a penalty double I just PASS and stay fixed. If East doubled I could PASS hoping that we don't have a slam and that the penalty would be larger than our game. I have a better than expected hand but my values in ♠ are not working and if we need a ♣ finesse it is more likely than not going to fail. However, slam is still possible so I would bid 4NT asking partner to bid a suit but intending to convert 5 of either minor to 5♥. To me this suggests a good 5♥ bid giving partner a little leeway with a minimum hand. If East passed I would also PASS with the West hand.

I might make weak jump shift with KQJxxx or QJ10xxxx and nothing else. I don't want to be shut out but 2♥ shows more defense and 4♥ shows more playing strength. I don't make negative doubles with a bad one-suited hand.

Pass. I play that 3♠ would be preemptive here but I like to have a singleton (or void) to do it. A doubleton ♠ is the worst holding in the opponents' suit: shortness is clearly good and additional length makes it more likely that partner will be short. Partner will expect some HCP for 2♠ and despite the LOTT my hand is not nearly good enough for 4♠.

The answer depends on whether you are playing negative free bids and/or weak jump shits in competition. You could add fit jumps to the list and make the answer even longer. Neither weak jump shits in comp nor negative free bids (A) shows a hand not good enough to bid 2♥ directly but takes the risk that opener will make an inconvenient rebid (B) shows a better hand and may or may not be forcing, depending on agreements. I play it as non-forcing and have to either cue-bid 3♠ or double again to show a hand that needs additional information Weak jump shifts in comp but not negative free bids (A) not sure it exists but probably best played as 5-5 in ♥ and ♣ in hand too weak for direct 2♥ {B} same as (B} above Negative free bids but not weak jump shifts in comp (A) forcing with ♥ (B) since 2♥ wasn't forcing this is just competitive Both weak jump shifts in comp and negative free bids (A) forcing with ♥ (B) since 2♥ wasn't forcing this is just competitive but hand is further limited by failure to bid 3♥ the first time

"Two Kinds of Game Tries?" by Bob Ewen appeared in the 1st issue of The Bridge Journal (Sep 1963).

In most partnerships I played strong jump shifts. In some of those I used Soloway-style rebids where responder's rebid of a new suit showed support for opener's 1st suit and shortness. In those I would have responded 2♠ and rebid 4♥ over 3♠. In others I didn't jump shift with side shortness but would make a non-jump response followed by a jump rebid in an unbid suit on the 2nd round. I had to play something complicated to describe it if partner rebid a 3rd suit. Using this approach I would have had the same start as the problem but I would have shown real ♣ support.

Agreeing with ahydra and some others - B) cue-bid Partner is typically 6=1=3=3 for this and while my ♥K would normally be a wasted value it might provide a discard for a ♣ loser and I have potential ruffing value in ♦. Opposite AKxxxx-x-Axx-xxx slam doesn't need much more than 2-1 ♠ break.

If you are willing to use 2♠ as range ask then Barry Rigal plays something that is described in a few different posts on Bridge Winners. There aren't any more details than what is shown below. 2♠ = Range ask or invitational hand based on long minor *. Opener rebids: ... 2NT = minimum but may accept if responder bids minor ... 3♣ = maximum that doesn't accept if responder has ♣ invite but may accept if ♦ invite ... 3♦ = maximum that doesn't accept if responder has ♦ invite but does accept if ♣ invite ... 3M = maximum that accepts either minor and is concerned about the other major ... 3NT = I don't recall this being described but presumably maximum that accepts either minor and isn't concerned about either major 2NT = ♣ weak or strong. Responder passes if weak and rebids shortness or 3NT or higher if strong. 3♣ = ♦ weak or strong, but not strong and short in ♣. Responder passes if weak and rebids major suit shortness or 3NT or higher if strong. 3♦ = ♦ strong and short in ♣ The opponents can still make lead-directing double of 2♠ but there is no information leakage from 2♣..2NT when responder isn't interested in a major and there is no problem with accept/reject responder's minor for 3NT vs minor suit slam (which can be different hands). * You can also include strong hands with both minors and responder rebids major suit on most continuations.

1♦-1♥ 2♠ = I am willing to force to game after partner responds .....-2NT = If I don't show stoppers now it may be hard to do so later 3♦ = I prefer this to 3♥ with such good ♦ and without high ♥ honor .....-4♦ 4♠ = Bidding 4♥ now would be control-showing .....- Have to decide between signing off in 4NT or bidding 6♦

I play it as either 4=0=5=4 or 4=1=4=4 but denying showing extra values. Without prior agreement I would expect natural but with extras.

Never mind ♦, the language you quote doesn't mention weak two bids in ♥ or ♠ (other than ones which guarantee a 4-card minor in addition to the major).

I would try a simple 3♠. What I am hoping for is that advancer doesn't have enough to drive past game with 4♠, 4NT or 5♥ and that doubler doesn't have enough extras to invite slam over 4♥.

I used the cheapest response to Acol 2 as negative. After 2♦ or 2♥, 2NT by either partner showed the suit of the negative response. So 2♦-2NT showed a positive response in ♥ and 2♦-2♥-2NT showed that ♥ was opener's 2nd suit, typically 4-6 and was not forcing. After 2♠, 2NT was negative so opener could take a view and pass it but was unlikely to do so.

It is close but two things sway me to pass: I have only 3-card ♠ support and I have ♥Ax. If I had a 4th ♠ or ♥xx and an ace someplace else I would double.

I play that 3♦ is forcing for one round but would bid 4♦ which I play as a slam try and usually shows 5-5.

"Absolute Doubles - the Scanian Way" by Mats Nilsland is the fourth volume in the Swedish Expert Methods series. It is only 56 pages long and starts with the premise that "A double is for takeout, unless we have defined it otherwise.". You probably won't find it in any bookstore but you can still order it from Anders Wirgren at scaniabridge,com.

With Qxx-AQxxx-Kxx-xx or xxx-AQxx-KQx-xxx I rebid 3♦ and with Qxx-AQxxx-Kx-xxx I rebid 2♠

Fantunes plays 3♦ as an Acol 2-bid but it isn't forcing since the opening bid was forcing and responder could have nothing

I play that 2♣ is forcing to 2NT if opener rebids 2NT * 3M1 if opener rebids 2M1 and I make a 2nd negative ** Game if opener rebids 3m1 I use 3♣ as 2nd negative over 2M1 and don't have a 2nd negative over 3m1. Opener's rebid of 2M1 shows a hand that may need an unbiddable value to take 9 tricks; 3m1 shows either a hand that may need an unbiddable value to take 11 tricks or has 9 tricks in NT. * you can also play that 2♣-2♦ 2♥-2♠ 2NT is not forcing if you aren't using Kokish and you play 2♠ as the 2nd negative ** if you play 2♥ as Kokish this is difficult without any additional stuff and if 2♦ is waiting or automatic instead of negative then replace "2nd negative" with "negative"

It is better to have a full or partial stopper but sometimes you have no choice. I think it is foolish to rebid 2NT, have partner raise to 3NT with ♦Kx and go down when some other bid would have allowed partner to bid NT first and right-side it.