dave_beer

Agree with you and disagree with your partner. I think it is more important for 3♣ to show real length. A hand that has a three-card ♣ suit and doesn't have three-card support can usually rebid 2NT but may have to rebid 2♠ as in the example I gave; one that has a two-card ♣ suit has to have three-card support (this can happen after 1♠ opening). In both cases opener can now rebid 3♣ with 3-card support.

Hardly ever but after 1♠-2♣-2♥ you can have a hand like Kx-xxx-xxx-AKQxx that can't rebid 3♣ because the suit isn't good enough doesn't want to rebid 2NT because there is no ♦ stopper doesn't want to bid 3♦ because that could get a preference to 4♣ that will cause problems If I had the ♥K instead of the ♠K I might bid 3♥ for similar reasons but here I am violating the rule about needing 4-card support. I would like to have Hxx and I think partner should expect it but I won't always deliver. Aside from the exception above there are hands with xxx where I might surpress my support especially if we are playing (non-)serious 3NT it can be very difficult to get to 3NT instead of 4M if I show it now.

2♥ shows Hxx and 3♣ is just patterning out. It helps partner evaluate which cards are working and sometimes leads to playing in a better trump suit. I would have rebid 3♥ as responder which shows HHx and at least mild slam interest.

There is a post from mid-afternoon that can be found in Featured Articles (or http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/injunction-lifted/) saying that a federal court had lifted the injunction. You have to look further down in the comments to see where they admitted it was a joke.

Don't think anything is standard. First sequence is most commonly played as invitational with ♠. Depending on the rest of your structure it can be: any shape or only unbalanced (balanced hand transfers and rebids 2NT) 5+♠ but can be 4-card suit if direct raise to 2NT is not natural The second sequence varies widely by rest of structure. I think most common these days (at least in US) is that Stayman followed by 3 of other major shows slam try in opener's major with an unspecified shortness. Opener can relay to find it if interested. This is frequently combined with 4♣ as key-card ask and 4♦ as balanced slam try agreeing opener's major.

The Four C's article minimum for a 2♣ opening was 22 for a long major and 24 for a long minor. Aside from the problem of not having 22 (which is easy to fix), it has sub-minimum defensive tricks and is void in ♠. I'm pretty sure Edgar would have opened it 1♥

The hand evaluation method commonly called KnR was developed by Edgar Kaplan to allow Jeff Rubens to program The Bridge World's computer to generate hands suitable for two club openings. The article gives AKxxx-AKxxx-Ax-x as one such hand and AKxxx-AKxxx-Axx-void is a bit stronger so Edgar Kaplan would have opened it 2♣ and I suspect he isn't the only one. While a 3♣ response to 2♣ is positive and forcing, some players use a single jump response to show a solid suit. In either case you should end up in 6♣ which is cold if there is no trump loser (about 54% of the time) and has some play if there is one trump loser.

4♠. Partner may be able to make a move with good ♠ support and either red ace. Opposite a singleton ♠ I may belong in ♣. However I will also need partner to have enough ♣ support to ruff my ♠ losers and either the ♦A or Q. Even if the ♦A is onside I may not be able to take the finesse safely.

Vulnerability was one of the major differences between Contract Bridge and its predecessors. In Auction Bridge you got credit for how many tricks you took and there was no vulnerability. In Plafond the scoring was similar to Auction Bridge but you only got credit below the line for tricks you contracted to take but there was still no vulnerability. Vanderbilt added vulnerability and introduced something close to the modern scoring table.

Seems like partner could have opened 3♥ and certainly should have balanced with 2♥.

1NT because it describes my hand. If I have a two-suited hand and RHO opens the bidding in my longest suit and I have a strong hand then I can PASS and come into a live auction later by bidding my second suit. For example, 1♣-P-1♥-P // n♥-n♠ shows a good hand with ♠ and longer ♣. If my hand isn't good enough to do this then I either have to PASS or overcall in my other suit.

My suggestion 1♦ - 2♣ 2NT1 - 3♦ 4NT2 - 6NT3 (1) 12-14 or 18-19. With 15-17 either open 1NT or rebid 3NT which I think should usually show 3=3=5=2 (2) 18-19 and no interest in ♦ contract (3) 18+16 = 34 should be enough

Assuming I pass with the N hand, my auction would start: P - 1♥ 1♠ -2NT1 3♦2 -3NT3 4♦4 (1) Least of evils choice. Good hand for Gazzilli but I have assumed it is not available. (2) Checkback for additional undisclosed major suit length (but can be natural if rest of auction is inconsistent with that) (3) Denies both 6-card ♥ suit and 3-card ♠ support (4) Natural and at least mild slam try. Can't be too strong given initial pass. At this point S has to decide between signing off in 4♠ or making counter-try of 4♥.

The hand is too strong for 1NT so I open 1♣. My problem occurs on the next round if partner bids either 1♦ or 1♥. I play that my rebid of 1♠ denies the values for either 2NT or 2♠. I play that 2♠ has the same tempo as a reverse, i.e., not game-forcing but forcing for one round and guaranteeing a rebid. This hand isn't good enough to force to game and the ♣ suit isn't good enough to be safe in 3♣ so I would rebid 2NT.

I don't play that either a reverse or jump shift is 16+. It shows a hand that has reasonable safety in 3 of the minor that I opened (or in some cases 2NT) opposite a hand that can't make a positive rebid. For a balanced or semi-balanced hand that means 18+ HCP and for an unbalanced hand that means the playing strength of a jump rebid of my original suit. I play that failure to reverse denies biddable length in a suit that I could have reversed into. So with 4-3-(5-1) and a hand not good enough to reverse I rebid 1♠ intending to show a strong hand (but limited by failure to reverse) with ♥ support if there is a next round. That does not include a simple preference back to 2♥. With a better hand I reverse but do not take a preference back to ♥ if partner makes a neutral response denying 5+♥. I will miss the 5-3 ♥ fit after a jump shift (where partner can't rebid ♥ with a bad hand) and the auction dies in 3 of my minor.

Yes and I am probably better off than letting partner rot in 1♦.

Except that I would force to game via splinter with your example. In either case, I am probably better off than in 1♦.

I respond 1♥ to 1♦ with Qxx-Kxxx-x-xxxxx. This hand is not 0 points and is not a WJS and I really want to pass 1♠.

One definition of reverse is: "A reverse is a bid which forces simple preference of suits to a level higher than at which the preferred suit could have been bid instead" Under this definition the jump shift is a reverse. Even if you don't call it a reverse, if the jump shift is to the two-level then you can play the same structure that you play over reverses. The only real difference is that responder's simple rebid of his/her suit occurs at the three-level and is positive as opposed to however you play it if it could have been made at the two-level. In most partnerships I play that a jump shift to the two-level has the same tempo as a reverse, i.e., not game-forcing but only forcing for one round and guaranteeing a rebid unless partner bids game. I also play that 1♦-1♥-1♠ denies the values for either a reverse or a jump 2NT rebid.

The classical meaning of a jump to 4♠ is that it shows very good trumps, at least Hxxx or maybe xxxxx, and denies 1st or 2nd round control of any other suit. This enables opener to pass if there are no slam chances or to bid or try for slam knowing that trumps are solid. New suits can ask for 3rd round control. Hands with a fit and values unsuitable for 4♠ usually bid 3♠ but can also splinter or show a side suit that is a potential source of tricks and make a strong supporting bid later. Hands with a fit and no real values that didn't have an immediate 2nd negative available make one now and can either pass 3♠ (or take a non-forcing preference to it) or bid 4♠ if opener hasn't already done so. There are some players, mostly from the fast arrival school, who play that 4♠ shows the really bad hand. In either case the East hand is not a 4♠ bid. P.S. The hand was played on January 16, not 6.

I think partner should bid 4♦ with that hand.

3NT with PASS as 2nd choice. The 2nd double shows at least game values. If partner has primary ♦ support and interest in ♥ and no interest in 3NT he could have bid 4♦; if he has extra ♣ length he could have bid 4♣. It is not clear that either 4♣ or 4♦ would be forcing without discussion. If he can't afford to bid 4♠ then DBL is the only call left with game-forcing that allows us to get to 3NT.

My vote was for 5♦. I have a 4 loser hand and partner passed as dealer so slam is unlikely to be as good as on a finesse and I have no way of finding out. I rejected both 4NT (presumably some kind of takeout bid) and 5♥ because 7-4 hands frequently do no play well in 4-4 fits.

I prefer GF for game-forcing and QGF (where Q = quasi) for forcing to 3NT or 4 of a minor, usually with the further qualification that it is an agreed minor.

Favorable, not unfavorable.