EricK

Some people play 1NT as forcing (which means absolutely forcing); some only play it as semi-forcing. Is there anybody who plays it as forcing who would pass if it weren't for the questions trying to determine which it was? I can't see how you can ethically justify passing a bid which would you otherwise wouldn't just because RHO asks questions. It's not like you would have taken that option if they knew your actual agreements (or if it were played behind screens, or online, so you didn't know that partner was answering these questions).

But I think passing a forcing bid solely because RHO asks questions to try to ascertain your system is against the spirit of bridge. In an ideal world, RHO would have known without asking whether the 1NT is absolutely forcing and would have been able to pass in tempo, and there is almost zero chance that opener would then pass. I don't think it is fair to take advantage of your opponents' not knowing your conventional agreements. It is even worse because the laws do not look kindly on RHO asking questions for no apparent reason. If one of the possible hand types for responder is a very strong balanced hand, and 4th hand has nothing much but asks loads of questions about whether 1NT is absolutely forcing and as a result persuades opener to pass, then the director will probably not look kindly at 4th hand's actions. But if that's the case you shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

There's a difference between "opener must reopen with shortage" and "unconditionally forcing". It doesn't make much difference when 3rd hand does have a "trap pass" type of hand, but what about when he has a yarborough? Now, knowing that opener must re-open allows 4th hand to try various tactics with strong hands, whereas he can't afford to do that if opener doesn't have to re-open.

I don't know what strength it should be either! Probably anything will do as long as you come to an agreement beforehand. But what about 3NT now? Mustn't that be a mild slam try for ♠(given that if you had no fit for ♠ you would just have bid it last round)?

Surely there should be a distinction between "wdp" and "wpp" (or even "vwpp")? The former ("well done, partner") being used for when the contract makes, the latter ("(very) well played, partner") for when partner has played (very) well.

What would 4♥ on previous round have shown?

Well I'm glad we've settled that one.

I don't see anything else you can do. In a sense it is risky to even look for slam because as far as you are concerned the defense could easily start ♥A, ♥K, ♥ ruff. Which is why, IMO, partner needed to do something more descriptive than 4♠.

About 10 years ago or so, I remember playing the same deal at the local club as the previous week (if I recall it had 8 ♥ to the J). Since this was about half way through the evening, and nobody else seems to have noticed, I didn't bother pointing it out. The first week the opps had the long hearts, the second week I had them. I think I made more of the opportunity than they had done :)

Playing a weak NT, I might venture 1NT. But otherwise 1♦ is clear.

South is to blame as his hand is a GF opposite a weak NT (6 losers and a guranteed 8 card major fit). If I didn't have full agreements opposite 1NT, I would bid 2♣ followed by either 4♥ or 4♠ (depending on response!)

Against well-prepared opponents, it causes fewer problems than natural weak 2s would (as they have extra room, and an extra round of bidding). Against poorly prepared opponents it will probably give you a few extra good scores! I use 2♦ as a weak 2 in ♦. Pre-empts in a minor are surprisingly effective. For instance, if LHO is 5-3 in the majors, he can overcall in his longer one and risk missing a fit in the other, or make a take out double and risk ending up in the wrong major. This is especially true at the 3 and 4 level, but still true at the 2 level.

Have you ever considered taking up bridge? You might like it.

At least.

The trouble with 2/1 auctions in 2/1 GF is that often neither player finds it easy to show extras. So after 2 or three rounds each player has a great idea of their partner's distribution, but little or no idea of exactly how strong they are. In very simple terms, 13v13 is game; 17v17 is slam; and 13v17 is game or slam depending on degree of fit, number of controls etc. If the player(s) with extras can't show that, their partner can never be sure it is OK to bid on. It is very acute on slightly misfitting hands, because you often want to play these in 3NT, and that is the game that leaves the smallest amount of room for exploration. This hand is a good example of the problems. If opener can jump to 3♥ to show a strong 5-5 and go via 2♥ 3♥ to show a minimum 5-5, then you are well placed in either scenario. If they have to go via 2♥ then 3♥ to show any 5-5 you are facing the very problem you have presented us with. Whereas raising to 3♦ on any hand with support (whether or not it has a singleton) presents you with fewer problems (IMO) as now you know there is a fit, there is less need to find out partner's strength below 3NT. As an aside, I don't like partner's opening bid on the hand you gave.!

What would 3♥ have shown by pard on previous round? If the answer is 5/5 plus extras, then I think 3NT is reasonable now. If it would have been a splinter in support of ♦ (which I don't like, but understand it is the more popular treatment), then 3NT looks like an underbid. On the other hand, 3♠ might make it difficult for pard to bid 3NT, especially as you would bid 3♠ with xxx in ♣ instead of Kxx; and 4NT is a bit precipitate with such a meagre ♣ stopper. I'm not an expert on 2/1 (as may be apparent from the previous paragraph!). What would 2NT or 3♣ have shown on previous round. Does 2NT deny 6♦? Does 3♣ promise 4, show a fragment, or just ask pard to carry on bidding? Depending on the meaning of those, pard might draw some inference from my failure to use either of those sequences, which might help the decision now. If I had bid 2NT on previous round, I would be very happy with 3♠ now for instance - but will pard assume I don't have a ♣ stopper because I didn't use that route?

Is there a bidding book for beginners which comes close to this: It gives a full, workable system - not too complicated, but as many sequences covered as possible; and it explains the logic behind the bids so the reader not only learns what to bid in a situation but why. It seems to me that system books are aimed at people who already understand bidding somewhat; whereas beginners books leave so many sequences uncovered that players who are starting out are left floundering in even some relatively simple sequences.

On the first hand, 2♣ is not good opposite a passed hand (it's not good opposite a non-passed hand either!). But supporting with North, assuming South actually has his bid, is not bad, IMO. On this auction, I would expect him to have, say, the ♣K extra and a ♥ fewer, when 3♣ is fine. Actually, I think North should bid 2♠. Since he has already passed up the opportunity to open a weak 2, this must show 5 reasonable ♠ plus ♣ tolerance. I will now let the better players tell me why I am wrong :)

2♣ is an overbid IMO. It is hard enough to show everything in a 5431 hand without starting to describe the shape 2 levels higher. Opener should be able to predict that he will be stymied into bidding 3NT on his 3rd turn, or risk partner taking the bidding past 3NT if he shows ♣ and then ♠ But partner did choose 2♣ and this is where we found ourselves! Now 2♥ if it is natural and positive stands out. You need to show partner what you have, and it is easy to predict the likely course of the auction if you make a waiting bid here Having made the 2♦ bid though, you need to start showing your shape at the 3 level. 3♥ is fine, but then you must bid your ♦ over partners 3NT. This is a very instructive hand for beginners. Both players were given opportunities to plan ahead in the auction, and both failed that test.

If you took 4♥ to be a splinter, you should in no way be signing off in 4♠. For a weak 2, your hand is massive opposite a ♥ splinter, and a 5♣ cue seems clear. Your hand is pretty good opposite a natural 4♥ bid too, so you might very well have survived a 5♣ bid on the actual hand too.

To sidetrack the thread a little bit (as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, anyway): I have never quite understood the benefit in Precision of an immediate trump raise by opener asking for suit length and quality. What does opener do with support if he is not immediately interested in those things? And even if he is interested, is it worth wasting a whole level of bidding in a GF auction just to find out?

The way I play 2♠ almost guarantees doubleton support. With 3 card support, I would generally have raised on the previous round (the exception being something like ♠xxx ♥Ax ♦KQJxxx ♣Jx where the only reason I opened was because of the great diamond suit)

3NT for me. Lots of ways it could be right; lots of ways it could be wrong. But the same could be said for every other call.

I wonder if his comment about being in 7 caused him to try to prove to his partner that he could make 7.

This is pretty much what I wanted to say.