EricK

It would never occur to me that 5♣ could be anything other as natural. Whether it is the correct bid on his hand is another matter of course. Your point about his having other ways to get to ♣ holds equally well for ♥, so there is no reason to think that this need be some sort of obscure support for your first suit.

0 - 2NT 1 - missing a card 2 - 1♦ 1♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♥ 3NT 3 - 1♣ 1♥ 3♣ 3♦ 3NT

In number one, the first and most serious mistake was when partner accidentally selected "Expert" as his rating. He made a couple more after that, of course. In number two, I would have bid 3♥. But it probably doesn't matter what I do - if partner behaves like he did in number one, then every bad result will, apparently, be my fault anyway. As for number three, a small mind can only hold a limited amount of information. So it is to be expected that once he has installed his agreements up there, there is no room left for the contemplation of alternatives.

Are you saying that a 1♦ opening like this is legal, but a 1♦ opening promising ♥ is illegal?

Bidding 2♥ on this and on a dead minimum with the same shape seems wrong. if partner does bid 2♠ then you have no fully satisfactory way to show or deny extras. By bidding 2♠ on this and 2♥ (followed, if applicable, by a raise of the ♠) on weaker hands you let partner in on the possible slam potential of various hands.

It's no more a 3rd seat opening than it is a 1st/2nd seat opening. Opening light in third seat is (should be!) best done for lead directional reasons, (that's why many people switch to 4-card majors in 3rd seat, so you can open 1S on AKJx Kxx xxx Jxx). There's really no point at all in opening random balanced rubbish opposite a passed hand.. I had presumed that the 3rd seat opening he had in mind was 1♠.

This may be a slight derail, but is there any way in standard 2/1 to look for a possible 4-4 ♥ fit before committing to ♠. Obviously one can manufacture a 2/1 bid in a minor, but I don't think that is standard (yet!).

When playing MP, overtricks, especially on "normal" hands, are very important. But how should one determine how many overtricks to try for? Here is a hand from "More Killing defence at Bridge" by Hugh Kelsey.[hv=d=s&v=e&n=saqj6h83dakt43c94&w=s52hkj742d85cjt65&e=sk873hq95dj962ck8&s=st94hat6dq7caq732]399|300|Scoring: IMP South opens the bidding and NS have an unopposed auction to 3NT. West leads ♥4[/hv] In the book, this isn't a MP hand. The defence kicks off with a ♥ and declarer holds up until the 3rd round and then takes a losing ♠ finesse. The point of the hand is that East, who can place South with ♦Q and ♣AQ must now switch to the ♣8 to present declarer with a decision - risk the ♣ finesse or hop up with the Ace and hope the ♦ come in. Very nice. But I am interested in how one should play this sort of hand at MP. You are in the normal contract and have got what looks like the normal lead. You have 6 tricks on top, but if everything is right you might make all 13 tricks (eg ♥A, 4 ♠ tricks 5 ♦s and a ♣/♥ squeeze on West for the last 3). On other layouts the maximum number of tricks might be 12, 11 10, 9 or fewer! So what thought processes should one go through at MP when the contract you are in isn't laydown, but even so there might be overtricks galore up for grabs?

I hate the "It's just bridge" excuse. Even if it is "just bridge" why shouldn't you still precisely explain your agreements?

Nonsense. Monday I held as dealer: [hv=d=s&v=a&s=sxxxhxxdkjtxxcajx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Calling this an opening bid even when "opening light" is just ridiculous. Your bid after P P 1♠ P ? You can choose between: * 2♠ (underbid) * 2♦ (not forcing) * 1NT (denies fit) Have fun! That is how the cookie crumbles! Which might be a bad idea if it's only a 4-3 fit. Replaced by 2NT which now shows ♣. Opposite my hand from Monday, I'd want to play 2♠ not 3 opposite a standard Rule-of-20 minimum. Being able to invite without going to the 3-level saves MP and IMPs alike. Not if you now open rule-of-18 hands now rather than rule-of-20 which you couldn't before because partner on the hand above would force to the 3-level to invite, fearing to miss a very cold game. The cowards are the ones standing in the end when the brave have died in battle! On your hand, 2♠ isn't really an underbid - a 9 loser hand with 3 small in support. Obviously it would accept any game try but if partner passes I doubt you'd be too high. But note that if you play fit non jumps here, so that 2♦ would show the raise to 2♠ plus a ♦ suit then that is a massive improvement on Drury. For one thing, it allows partner the chance to evaluate the ♦Q or singleton ♦. As to some of my original 6 points, 1. It must be an advantage for them to be able to balance at the 2 level rather than the guess whether to balance at the 3 level. Even if you have a 4-3 fit you have to decide whether to bid to 2M (which might make) or let them play or double them. And I don't think either player will generally have enough info to make consistently good choices. 2. If the benefit of Drury is that it allows you to play at the 2 level instead of the 3 level, I am surprised you are so blase about replacing a bid which allows you to play at the 2 level with one which forces you to the 3 level! Especially as Drury is used when you have a known fit but your 2NT bid may be on a total misfit. 3. But this applies whether you are a passed hand or not. You are really making a case for an artificial low-level invitational raise of partner's suit in all positions.

There are quite a few issues Drury: 1. It allows LHO a cheap pre-balance at the two level on a known fit auction (eg P (P) 1S (P) 2C allows LHO to bid X, 2D or 2H). 2. It takes away a natural bid. 3. The hands where you are most likely to benefit (i.e. where partner has opened very light) are the hands where you are least likely to be able to use it - because your RHO, with the strongest hand at the table, will probably bid. 4. Conversely, the hands where you get to use it (i.e. where RHO ha passed) are likely to be the hands where you don't need it - because partner will probably have the strongest hand at the table 5. If, because you play Drury, you open some hands which you otherwise wouldn't, then it does look like you are using it as a psychic control. 6. On the other hand, if you would open those hands anyway, then agreeing to play Drury is rather cowardly! Most people think the upsides compensate for these. Some don't.

People do funny things when they are dealing with "free" money. I happened to see the end of an episode of "Deal or No Deal" a few months back. Down to the last two boxes, which were (if I remember correctly) £15,000 and £35,000, the banker offered £25,000 which the player declined. Now how many people who had £25,000 of "spare" money would gamble £10,000 on the toss of a coin? But this is what the player was effectively doing.

As your post implies, there is no such thing as "Standard" Acol. However, I think that traditionally this sort of hand (weak 4 card major, strong support for the minor, overall weak hand) would raise ♣ straightaway. For what it's worth, here is an extract from "Acol in the 90s" by Reese & Bird:

It becomes clearer if you restrict the problem to just one day: Professor: "I will give you a surprise test tomorrow" Now the student can either believe this statement or not. But if he tries to believe it he arrives at a contradiction - i.e. he believes that there will be a test tomorrow and he believes that he will be surprised by there being a test, which contradicts his believing that there will be a test. So he is forced to disbelieve the statement. But since the professor's statement was a compound one, there are two ways to disbelieve it - he can disbelieve that there will be a test, or he can disbelieve that he will be surprised. And the student has no rational way of deciding which way to disbelieve the professor's statement. So, test or no test, whatever happens the next day, the student will be surprised in some way or another - although it seems to me that he will be less surprised in either scenario than if the professor hadn't made a statement at all.

What does the 2♠ bid mean? I'm not sure this was necessarily an invitational auction.

It always seems to me that there is just too much information to remember in order to accurately build up a picture of the hands. So only people whose brain is wired in just the correct way can ever really do it. Let's say you are declarer. The first thing you do is see how many cards are outstanding in each suit. You need to remember these as the hand progresses. Then, as a few tricks are played you will discover how one suit breaks, so you remember that. You will also probably have seen a discard in another suit. Now you not only have to remember this discard, but you also have to adjust your memory of how many cards are outstanding in that suit. But also, when somebody shows out of a suit, not only do you know how the suit breaks, you also discover how many cards his partner still holds. And this is another thing you need to remember - if you lose track of that, then at the end of the hand you might know that he had eg 5 spades to begin with but you won't know if he still has any left. And this is ignoring the rank of the cards outstanding. Is your ♦8 good? Well if there are still ♦s outstanding you need to know if any of them are higher. And of course, even if you can manage all this and accurately build up a picture of what each defender holds, to work out the winning line you still have to be able to hold that picture solidly enough in your head that you can try out various play options in your mind without mixing this up with the reality of what tricks have actually been played.

To make game in ♠ or NT you will almost certainly need a few tricks from partner's ♠. Whereas they are bound to provide tricks in a ♠ contract, there is no guarantee that he has enough entries to provide the tricks in NT. Another point against 3NT is that you are unlikely to have 9 tricks on top, so that a ♥ lead looks quite dangerous for a 3NT contract. On the other hand, if you do have 9 tricks on top, then you will probably make the spade game anyway!

This is a rather simplistic viewpoint. "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" is true enough. But you might still need to give him some fish while he is still learning lest he starve to death on the riverbank.

The trouble with 4NT as RKB with a minor agreed is that you have no room for further asks. If 4♥ can be used as RKB here (as recommended in Kantar's book on RKB) then you have room for a Queen ask. But this does require a lot of discussion with partner.

I don't like a pre-emptive 5♦ on that hand - I would want a ♦ more and weaker ♠. A nice auction would start 1♦ 1♠ 2NT 3♦ (as long as you play that as forcing) then the bidding can continue 3♥ 3♠ 4♣ 4♥ 4♠ with all these bids being control showing. ........5♦ North signs off because has nothing more to cue 6♦ small slam must be good, but if partner doesn't have second round ♣ then grand won't be.

I went to a baseball game when I was in Atlanta a couple of years ago. The game kept stopping and starting for no apparent reason. I didn't realise until now that it was because the coach was asking for advice on a random internet forum.

This is what I know of as Cansino except the penalty double has been replaced by the two suited double.

I don't often play these methods (firstly, I prefer a weak NT, and secondly I like the double here to deny the majors - as recommended by Robson and Segal), so perhaps my opinion isn't worth much. But I would only bid 1NT here if I had the ♦ well stopped. How wrong can it be to bid 1♥ though?

Not to detract from your lesson (I agree that 2♠ is the "correct" bid here), but 3♥ might very well make on these hands. It needs the ♥K lead to beat it double dummy.

I don't like 3♦ as it makes it almost impossible to find a ♥ contract (assuming that 1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 3♥ isn't necessarily a suit but might only be showing a stopper and looking for NT or be an advanced cue bid). That being said, I don't like 4♣ either. Partner has pretty much denied a ♣ suit (although to be fair, he has pretty much denied a ♥ suit as well - but just happens to hold one), and so 4♣ is ripe for misinterpretation (either a cue-bid agreeing ♦, or at least 6-5 in the blacks). Any of these starts should find the ♠ slam 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 3♠ even 1♦ 2♠ (if that would be strong)