EricK

Certain competitive auctions require you to bid both minors. The typical example is 1m (2♥) X (P) Now rebidding 2NT would be absolutely sick. On top of that, partner has just four spades and there aren't that many hearts left in the deck, so you are extremely likely to have a minor suit fit. So obviously you would rather have opened 1♦ so you can bid 3♣ now rather than the other way around. But if you have eg a 2434 hand you will (presumably) have opened 1♣, and now you are in the same position. In some ways you are in a worse position as your hand has even less offensive potential. I don't really see why 2NT is much less sick here than if you are 1444. The truth is that if an opening can be a weak balanced-ish hand, a weak distributional hand, or any number of medium strength or strong hands, you are going to come a cropper in some competitive auctions.

If the bidding starts 1M-2M or 1m-1M-2M many pairs have methods to invite game while at the same time directing partner as to what cards are likely to be useful (there are long suit game tries, short suit game tries, help suit game tries, two-way game tries and probably more). If the bidding starts 1NT, however, I have never seen any methods which attempt the same thing. The trouble is, of course, that Stayman and transfers don't actually let both partners know that a fit has been identified. Eg after 1NT 2♥ 2♠, opener knows if there is a major suit fit but responder doesn't. So responder can not make a specific game try for spades he can only make a general game tries with 2NT or 3♠ - neither of which tells partner what cards are useful. Or after 1NT 2♣ 2♠, responder knows whether there is a fit but opener doesn't. So again, any game tries by responder are general rather than specific. How big an issue is this? Obviously it mightn't be noticeable as an issue if everybody is using similar methods and the same NT range as you will be missing the same games as everybody else (or getting into the same bad games). Is it possible to design methods which allow for this sort of game try without losing too much on other hands? p.s. The hand which made me think of this was one in which responder had 6-4 in the majors, 3 small in one minor and a void in other and only 5 or 6 points. If partner had strength in the void suit game was atrocious if he had weakness in the void suit, game was excellent.

Damn you. I hadn't lost for ages - probably well over a year.

no. Really? I thought they were. eg in the old days people would double an opening bid with many strong hands which today would make a simple overcall. Why the change? Because it is more important to get your shape across than your strength. eg manyt people will open 1M on hands which in the old days would have been opened 2♣ (especially two suited hands). Why? Because it is more important to get your suits into the auction than just your strength eg hardly anybody play control responses to a strong club anymore. Why not? Because it is more important to bid your suits.

Why exactly? Because my dad taught me to play bridge and he only knew Acol. My question was targeted at the first half of your statement, not the last!

Why exactly? Aren't "Colours first" and "Shape before points" both cornerstones of modern bidding theory? In many ways, Acol was way ahead of its time. Especially in regards to its 4-handed rather than 2-handed approach to bidding.

Playing traditional Acol (where 2/1 can be much lighter than most modern systems) this is a minimum 2♥ bid. That style is quite rare nowadays though, so I don't know if your pick-up partner would be playing it. If partner opens all 12-14 balanced hands with 1NT then there is a good chance that 2♥ might actually lead to a playable contract even if partner expects a stronger hand. Note that you have a guaranteed 8+ fit in one of the majors (assuming partner doesn't open 4-1-4-4 hands with 1♠)

"Titanic Days" by Kirsty MacColl

I seem to recall the ending in the OP being described in a book I read once as a "Nosittej" squeeze. If that became the standard name then bridge would have two examples of this phenomenon - a word/name being coined because it was the reverse of another (Stamyan/Namyats being the other). The only example I can think of from outside bridge is Ohm/Mho for the units of electrical resistance and conductance.

I think that I would have bid 3NT over the 2♣ (i.e raise to game denying a ♥ stop) just as I would have bid without the interference. I still would probably have been in this predicament now and 5♣ is probably correct in either sequence. I am quite likely to have 11 tricks, I think. The question is whether they have 3 tricks first.

Or maybe with 1000 channels with a variety people are watching niche channels (eg cooking channels, fashion channels, wildlife channels etc) which cater to their specific needs rather than the "generic" channels which try to cater to everybody.

The double of 2NT said "I don't think he can make 2NT". Undiscussed, the way I would read the next bid is as follows: Pass = Whether we make this or not I don't see anything better than 2NTX. XX = I think we can make 2NT and I don't think they can profitably rescue themselves either. Might as well increase the score we get. 3♣/3♦/3♠ = I don't think we can make 2NT either and this might be better. Other bids would be rare, I think, and would show unbalanced hands looking for game or slam, probablyl worred that the doubler has a running suit of his own.

The code for this is ": p h 3 4 r :" and ph34r is leet speak for "fear". So I presume it is related to that in some way.

It is not generally a good idea to make very light overcalls of 1♦ over 1♣. They don't take up much room (in fact they can give the opps more options) and rarely lead to a good save. If you believe this and are in the habit of opening fairly light, a 1♦ overcall will look very like a 1♦ opening (but better defined in terms of length). In that case, it must make some sort of sense to treat the 1♦ as if it were an opening and play systems on.

I think the chess computer v computer matches took place even when chess computers sucked too. And wouldn't this sort of competition encourage improvements in the software?

I'm not a big fan of manufacturing suits to bid, but if you are going to bid a suit you don't have, why not bid 2♣? It might discourage a ♣ lead and if partner vigorously supports ♣ then you can always put him back into ♦ without raising the level.

But this still doesn't explain why nobody appears to be running computer v computer bridge tournaments with the programmes which are already written. is it that nobody is really interested in the results?

But the people who are running the chess engine v chess engine tournaments aren't doing it for money. They are strcitly hobbyists. Why aren't there any people running Jack v GIB v Bridge Baron v WBridge etc tournaments? Surely bridge freaks are just as bad as chess freaks!

There are a lot of chess playing programmes out there, and there are also people who spend much of their time playing one programme against another to work out which is the best and by how much etc. (see eg http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/) But apart from the annual world championship there seems to be almost no bridge programme v. bridge programme matches. Why is that?

I want a weak NT to open 1NT. But that is a discussion for another thread. I might even want the strong 3424 to open 1♥ but that is a discussion for yet another thread!

With the 3424 hand you can double over 1♠ and then partner can bid 3♥ over 2♠. Obviously you can come up with hands without such a simple solution, but I don't think isolated hands prove anything anyway. Being pre-empted out of a game (or pre-empted into a non-making game are likely to be more costly than being pre-empted out of a making part-score or out of a good partscore sacrifice. Also, if they have ♠ we are likely to lose the part score battle anyway, but if we have ♠ we might very well be able to get them into play later. Not all the time, granted - but we won't miss out on them all the time either. The fact that if they have a fit then so do we will still apply, and both players will still be able to balance or pre-balance. We will just have a greater idea of our combined assets.

awm, I appreciate what you are saying. But every system involves compromises. Whereas you in principle lose over all the hands which have to reply with step 1 (as they are not now as well defined), you in principle gain over all the hands which don't have to answer step 1 (as they are now better defined). Since the weaker hands are less likely to be hands which you want to play anyway, there is a reasonable chance that the gains will outweigh the losses. It is not enough to say a method is bad simply because there is a class of hand which it handles worse than other methods. You must also consider those hands it handles better than the other methods and make an overall comparison. If RHO is going to compete over 1♣ 1♥, I would be much happier if I knew partner had at least invitational values. I can make a forcing pass in some cases, for instance, or can make a penalty double in others. If RHO competes over 1♣ 1♦(negative), I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that partner is weak. I will not be tempted to overcompete the hand in case partner has more than a minimum. And if partner does come back in after making the initial negative I will still not be tempted to overcompete.

But where, then, is the difference between this and my proposed method? I overload the first step but the other steps now show strength and shape. Indeed one could play that over 1♣, a 1M response shows inv+ values and 5+ cards, with balanced hands with or without a 4 card major going into 1NT. This is even more in line with emphasising showing shape than normal methods. You are right that there was no need to be sarcastic, but equally there was no need not to be sarcastic. I had to make a choice on the whole sarcasm issue. I apologise if my choice upset you in any way.

Why isn't this strategically wrong, violating as it does the principle that shape is more important than HCP?

I like to play it as a raise to 3 or 5+ i.e invitational or more than just a GF. The raises to precisely game being done via splinters for unbalanced hands and 3NT for balanced hands. Basically it's a hybrid of the methods mentioned by inquiry and blackshoe. And the reasons for playing it are a hybrid of the reasons they mention!