EricK

I am on the side of Finessing the Queen = Finessing against (or for) the King. American English has a habit of leaving out prepositions in situations where British English uses them. eg "I'll write you" compared with "I'll write to you".

The structure can't be much worse than if you had opened 4m though! Opening at that level makes it impossible to scientifically investigate game. One possible structure is: 4♣/5♣/6♣ as pass/correct 4♦ as p/c but partner can cue-bid if he has ♣ 4NT as RKCB for partner's suit Other games or slams to play.

I give most, if not all, the blame to North. South thinks he can make 3NT opposite what might be a weak balanced hand. North has at least 3 tricks more than he has promised. It is perfectly safe for him to make a slam try with 4♣ because even if South signs off in 4NT (not that he would with this hand, of course!), 10 tricks should be a cinch.

Yeah I hate finding those 4-4 major suit fits everyone talks about. That can happen on occasions (but of course it is less likely to happen if systemically you are allowed to bypass such suits). On the other hand you can get disasters such as playing in 3NT with no stop in the suit, or getting to 4♠ with xxxx opposite xxxx. Maybe these things don't happen to you because you are an expert playing with an expert partner. But at most levels of bridge below expert I am doubtful there is a gain from bidding terrible suits on hands like this.

I wouldn't be surprised if bidding 1♠ on this sort of hand loses more than it gains at most levels of bridge.

I was asking about sequences like 1♥ (X) P (1♠) P (P) 3♥. Is it worth trying to distinguish between high card raises to 3M (or 2M or 4M) with high ODR and those with low ODR? ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦AJxx ♣xxx and ♠QJxx ♥xxxx ♦KJx ♣Kx are both raises to 3♥, but very different hand types. Where we are defensive, and so not particularly worried about opponents competing too highly, it might make sense to force fourth hand to bid in a situation where he would prefer to be able to pass.

Further question: What (if anything) does Pass followed by 3 of partner's major on the next round mean?

The main reason people open 1♦ is that so that after 1m (1M) X (P) they have a sensible rebid. So with eg ♠xxx ♥Kx ♦KQxx ♣AJxx, they prefer 1♦ (1♠) X (P) 2♣ to 1♣ (1♠) X (P) ???

I think the key auction is 1x 2y 2NT. Traditionally, playing 4cd major and strong NT, 2NT in the above auction was non-forcing. That put responder in a difficult position if he had a balanced 11 points - the partnership might have 25 points, or might have only 23 points. The only real way around that is to play 2/1 as GF. Playing 5 card majors with a strong NT, you have the alternative option of rebidding the major on a balanced 5332 hand. So if you don't want to play 2/1 as GF, 4cd majors and strong NT doesn't really work well. But if you are happy to play 2/1 as GF then it certainly does work.

Bidding is a matter of trade-offs.And this question touches on the major one - how much emphasis do you place on uncontested bidding; how much do you place on contested bidding; and how much do you place on trying to prevent the opponents from contesting in the first place. If you knew for a fact that the opponents were going to stay silent on a deal, then you would arrange your bidding system such that each potential opening bid was more likely than the next higher bid, and that higher bids are more descriptive than lower bids. Of the systems under discussion, 5 card majors especially with a strong NT best fits this pattern. If, on the other hand, you knew for certain that LHO was going to make some overcall, you would like to be playing a system where your first bid gives as much description as possible. If, for example you knew LHO was going to overcall 2♣, you would like to be playing a system where all the 1 level opening bids were equally likely to occur and equally (maximally) descriptive of hand type. Playing 4 card majors really helps in this regard.. Even more so with a weak NT. But note the paradox - The system which hopes opponents won't intervene contains a lot of 1m openings, so is the one they are most easily able to intervene over. Whereas the system which assumes the opponents will come in actually makes it harder for them to come in! But perhaps 4cd M plus weak NT is overkill. It is the weaker hands where it pays most to keep the opponenets out, and weak balanced hands can often open 1M anyway. Similarly, 5card majors and strong NT, despite it's popularity, is perhaps going too far the other way, in ignoring the opponents. Of the remaing systems, 5cd M plus Weak NT is more geared towards scientific, constructive bidding than 4cd majors plus strong NT. The latter is more geared towards bashing to likely looking contracts and leaving the defense in the dark as much as possible. Probably what is most important though, is knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen system. If for instance you play strong NT and 5cd majors, it is vital to ensure you make the most of whatever uncontested auctions you do have otherwise you are throwing away your main advantage.

So much depends on overall system. What has opener shown? For some, this could be a 4-2-4-3 hand with no club stop; for others, it will promise 45 in ♠♦ but could still be showing a doubleton ♥ (usually Hx or better); for others it pretty much guarantees a 4351 hand. What is the agreement on 2♣? For some it is GF; for others it is just 1RF; yet others play a middle ground - eg GF unless opener rebids 2M, and responder doesn't bid NT or higher. In most systems, this hand would be a 3♦ bid. But in others 2♠ or 2NT could be correct.

I think it would improve the game immensely if people reported their psyching tendencies in this sort of situation. I obviously wouldn't expect them to say when they are psyching, but to self alert every 2♠ bid in this sequence (for example) and say "I have been known to psyche this on occasion" seems to be true to the spirit of full disclosure in an online setting.

I would force to game. There is a risk of getting to high if partner is absolutely minimum, but there is also a risk of staying too low if you simply invite and partner has a little bit more than an absolute minimum.

Why 10 seconds though? This has always seemed ridiculously long to me, and is probably at the root of all the problems with the procedure.

Shouldn't East be bidding 2♣ on the first round? Partner has asked me to bid a suit, I have a suit. The points look to be evenly split between the 2 sides, and we should be able to scramble quite a few tricks.

If I were making the rules I would try to differentiate between calls which show two or more different hand types and calls which do not. So OK by default would be: -Calls which show a continuous length range in one or more known suits (eg covered by this rule would be things like ">=3"; "<5"; "between 4 and 6";" 4+ in both majors"; but not covered would be something like "<2 or >5" or "5♥ and a 4 card minor") -Calls which show a continuous point range (eg 16+; <7; 12-14; but not "<7 or >16" -Calls which show a balanced hand -Calls which ask for information of the above type (so eg Stayman is allowed because the responses from 2♠ downwards show 4-5♠; 4-5♥; 2-3♠ & 2-3♥ all of which are allowed) And anything which could be made by joining these together by "And" but not "Or" (thus preventing multiple meaings bids like ">16points or <4 spades" from creeping in). That's not to say that multiple hand type bids would not be allowed - they would be sanctioned on a case by case basis - just that single hand type bids wouldn't be disallowed.

The issue is not how well they do when their copmanies do well, but how well they do when their companies do badly.

If failure to alert was an irregularity, then doesn't partner (and everyone else) have a legal obligation to call the directly as soon as they realise this?

I remember a time when I played the J from QJ and the declarer "accused" me of being tricky!

As long as partner doesn't take advantage of the UI. And you are on dubious ground if you psyche this call in an attempt to deceive the opposition.

To what extent are system restrictions slowing down the improvement of bidding? eg if transfer Walsh is clearly an improvement over Walsh, then surely there is a reasonable chance that transfer openings are an improvement over standard.

You don't actually have to randomize as long as declarer believes you randomize. If they believe you randomize they will always take the finesse in restricted choice situations. Note also that if declarer doesn't believe you randomize and you have a good idea how they think you differ from truly random then you can gain an edge by differing from random in a different way.

Whatever "standard" happens to be in your area, these should all be take out. The general idea in responding is to only bid if you feel there is a chance of making the contract - which usually means you have quite a bit of shape. Balanced hands, including weak balanced hands, should pass. 4 tricks in defense is a much more attainable target than 11 as declarer. If on one of those hands it turns out that they can make 4♠x, then the chances are you were going for even more at the 5 level.

I think pass in this situation should be forcing. Yes, you have only made a limit raise rather than a GF raise, but partner has had a chance to speak since then, and he has shown sufficient extras to have bid game. Having said that, this is an obvious double whatever Pass would have meant.

I, as declarer, lead toward KJ in dummy and LHO plays small without any apparent thought. I naturally finesse the Jack and it loses, and LHO turns out to have the Ace after all. Is there any chance I could get a ruling in my favour based on his trying to deceive me with the speed of his play and nonchalant manner? It seems to me that such behaviour by LHO is perceived as admirable by the bridge world, but the only difference that I can see between this and the situation where LHO hesitates with the Queen but not the Ace (which is essentially the sort of situaiton the OP is talking about) is that this is harder to do.