PhilKing

When partner opens a strong no trump out of turn, you know that he is going to correct it to 3NT exactly 100% of the time. If I had a balanced 3-count, I would be this annoyed - :angry: :angry: :angry:. With a balanced 13, on which I would have simply raised to 3NT, much less so B-) .

You may be right about Ingberman predating Lebensohl (or rather Lebensohl being extended to reverse sequences), but that is a different issue. If you can show a reference where Ingberman uses fourth suit at the two-level to show the weak hand, then show me. I do not believe such exists, but I could be wrong. Dave, help me out here. And stick to your guns - call it modified blackout - not Lebensohl. I'm listening.

FWIW, I think the convention described there is Blackout even though it is referred to as Ingberman (which was a slight modification to Lebensohl over reverses in that 1d-1s-2h-2n-3c was reverse lebensohl and 3d+ were GF). Blackout introduced lower of 4th suit and 2NT at the two-level, which was new. But if you want a definitive answer, I would ask Tim Bourke, who I am sure will know. Edit: after a quick search, I am attributing it to Pete Pender, though he did not call it "blackout" (June 1988 The Bridge World and I would trust them to know and say if it were previously published or widely known, particularly since Ingberman was a mathematician from New York, so if I am mistaken, blame Jeff Rubens).

When I was in Australia in 1991, they called it "blackout". It was already common elsewhere, of course, but did not have a name known to me. Google is your friend.

On balance, I don't agree with the decision - it's a tad too deep a reach for my taste. But I think it was a perfectly reasonable decision.

Pass. If lefty bids 1NT and that comes back to me, double, showing this approximate pattern and point count. This old chestnut comes up in the Bridge World every now and again, usually over 1♣, which is slightly different, since we anticipate passing and doubling when they find their fit. The diamond variant, where we anticipate doubling 1NT (which suggests clubs) appeared in February 1990, for instance. Double is the winner when we have weaker diamonds but the same shape (October 2001, for instance).

First and second.

Where on Earth did you get the idea 6-9 is classical?

.

If only there was an idle bid available at the three level which could keep all our options open.

The answer is "it depends". If you play Neopolitan style cue bids (first and second round controls bid strictly up the line), you need a way of clarifying what you hold. The modern Italian way of doing this is to use "Turbo". Then the 1NT opener in your first auction promises an odd number of key cards when he bids 5♦ (or anything else that by-passes 4NT), presumably the AK of trumps and the A of diamonds in this instance. With an even number of key cards he has to bid 4NT. In theory, Turbo is supposed to make it clear whether your control is the ace or king, so a 5♦ cue would show first and second round control, presumably the king. I presume that Belladonna did not play 4NT that way, although he did play it as a form of DI with Garozzo (who I believe invented Turbo), or maybe he just ditched Turbo, so his solution may be different.

Because you have four points to spare, a heart too many and a club too few. Apart from that, it's perfect. :P

OK. It's sorted now. B-)

Good idea. I'll use my influence to get this sorted out. I suggest a sub-forum called something snappy such as Novice and Beginner Forum and another for Intermediate and Advanced.

OK, I'll have a go at defending North! From his point of view, South has not not promised four diamonds (3532 16 count for example, catering to the 4054) and opposite four trumps, you need him to have a lot of working cards to get to 12 tricks, so North really can't go slamming. 3NT will generally play better from the South hand, so 3♠ (which just shows good spades and is in no way confusing) is a sensible bid. South has five-card support and good controls, so he should probably bid 4♦. Sure, once in a while partner has ♠KQJx ♥x ♦AQJx ♣Jxxx, so it could be wrong to go on, but on balance I think it is best and they will not always find the lead when we are wrong. Very close though. Overall, I do not think anyone did anything terrible.

3♥. It slightly depends on the rest of your methods, but it feels as though this should show four hearts and five clubs.

It's based on a Crouch thing from the late 1980s (but for all I know, it may pre-date the Cantabrian cave paintings) - I started playing it with Hobson in 1989.

You probably make it, even if you have not worked out why yet!

After 1♣-1♥, I don't think completing to 1♠ with 12-14 balanced works very well. I play that completing shows various unbalanced hands (forcing) and 1NT is 12-14 balanced, which is just smoother.

I'm leaning towards a PPPP - Platinum-Plated Procedural Penalty.

1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣. Natural, constructive.

Hand 1. 1♣-1♠(no major, less than GF unless balanced). I just ignore hearts unless partner introduces them. Hand 2. 1♣-1♠. Same but close. I can't really stomach responding 1♦(hearts) if partner is unreasonable enough to rebid 1♠. Hand 3. 1♣-1♦(hearts). If partner bids 1♥(balanced or various hand types) I bid 1♠, which asks partner to bid 1NT with the balanced type. I can then puppet to 2♦.

I'm just going to bid 4♠. I don't see how partner can ever play us for an ace, a king, a singleton, four trumps, the Holy Grail and Flight 19. He has shown a good hand, so take the pressure off. Also, by bidding game now, you do not allow East to find out his partner holds the reds.

Yep. This hand is a textbook splinter for me, showing a mild slam try. For me, you can bid Three Hearts (non specific raise) with this shape with a raise to four or a full-blooded slam try.

Gazilli is too aggressive in that the 2♦ relay starts at 8+. I think the threshold should be 9. Then partner's 2♠ bid can be tapered down to 11-14 ♠s and ♣s.