EricK

I think 4♦ clearly shows ♦ and ♥ on the principle that if you couldn't bid your ♦ on the previous round, then the only reason you can bid them now is because of your ♥ support. On the other hand, will this particual partner understand this reasoning? He didn't bid his ♥ at the first opportunity, so what possible reason can he have for bidding them after the opponents have announced their strength and got a couple of natural bids in? On the second hand, 3NT looks the sensible practical bid.

Do we know partner's tendencies for 3rd hand openers? Could he be balanced with only 4♥ for instance?

If fourth suit is GF then this should be 5-5 invitational (5-5 GF goes via 2♣ then 3♣). If FS is invitational plus then this should be 5-5 GF.

Sometimes they get a freer ride if you open. Many people holding eg KQxxx Kxx Jxxx x in second hand won't open if you pass but will overcall 1♠ if you open 1m. And if you play that a pass can hold a fairly strong minor oriented balanced hand then partner can play you for it. And another time you will open your 3334 12 point hand, LHO will overcall 2♠ your partner will double and you won't have a clue what to do. I am not saying that my idea will work all the time. I do know that no method works all the time though, so that is hardly a point against what I am advocating. I am not suggesting sound openings. I am advocating sounder openings on a particular group of hands. Specifically those hands of "opening strength" where we are least likely to actually want to play the hand (balanced hands with length only in minor suits). I think as many hands as possible with a major suit should be opened.

But if opener doesn't have 4 ♥ or 3♠ repsonder is better off not bidding checkback or 2♥!

Not if they hadn't thought of it! It is clear (isn't it?) that given any HCP strength of hand, it is better that the long suits are majors rather than minors. Hence whatever your minimum HCP strength is for a hand with a major suit it makes sense (doesn't it?) that your minimum HCP strength should be somewhat better for opening hands without a major suit. Is Qx xxx KQJx KJxx as strong as KQJx KJxx xxx Qx? Just because it pays to open one does it follow that it pays to open the other?

If responder responds 1♠ with 54 in the majors and you rebid 1NT he knows there is a 4-4 ♥ fit. If he responds 1♥ and you have 4♠ you can bid 1NT with a balanced hand and 1♠ with an unbalanced hand. Notice that this hand type - the balanced hand with 4♠ - is a major source of controversy (whether to rebid 1♠ or 1NT), and this method solves it. It is not clear to me though why, in principle, passing can't win IMPS. If it is not your hand then you will likely win IMPS by not bidding, and if it is your hand you might win IMPS (when LHO has an overcall but not an opening bid) or you might lose IMPS or (most likely) you won't gain or lose. That doesn't mean I am convinced that this method would gain IMPS, but why are you convinced it would lose IMPS?

I would probably only try this if I were playing 14-16 NT (which I prefer to 15-17 anyway) - thus restricting the "problem" hands to the 12-13 range. Obviously one would have to adjust the system to cater for this sort of hand. Depending on what sort of hands you open in third seat, either a forcing NT (which opener is only allowed to pass if he is subminimum) or an old-fashioned Drury which doesn't promise a fit. You are right that 12-13 point hands are not easy to show in competition, but that is also often the case if you are forced to open them 1m!

Assuming you play strong NT, in first seat, is it worth opening balanced minimum hands without a 4 card major? Here, in no particular order, are some reasons why it might not be: If you have a game, partner is almost bound to have an opening bid in third seat, so there is no particular rush to open. If it is a part score hand your way, then the chances are it is because partner has a reasonable hand with a long major. In those instances he will have a third seat opener or enough to bid over LHO If the par score is their way then bidding will only help them to place the cards, and might also encourage partner to overcompete. If LHO has an opening bid of 1 of a major he will still be able to bid it over your 1m. But the reverse is not necessarily true - he may have a hand which would bid over your 1m but would pass if you pass. If you don't open these hands, then a 1NT rebid by you when you do open 1m will promise length in the other major (so eg 1♣ 1♠ 1NT will show 4♥ in a balanced hand. Similarly 1♣ 1♥ 1NT can promise 4♠ and 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ can promise 5♣ and 4♠). If you do open 1m and the bidding goes eg (1♠) X (P) you will often not have a reasonable bid. Have I convinced anyone?

Ir would start 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ (FS GF) 2NT 3♦ 3♥ (Cue bid) ........4♦ (RKCB a la Kantar) From here, responder can find two Aces, ask for specific Kings find both of them and count 13 tricks (5♦ 2♠ 2♥ 2♣ and 2 ♣ ruffs) so can bid 7. I can find 7NT though.

Many of our best bowlers are injured and we insist on picking "bits and pieces" players rather than quality players. Why, for instance, is Panesar not playing? You need wicket-taking bowlers to win these days; you can't just try to rely on containment.

Maybe it's best to occasionally go slow with this sort of hand (I am sure it is best to vary your bidding plan somehow). What would happen if I bid a pre-emptive 3♠?

Would we be in a better situation if we had passed originally? I imagine the bidding would have started P (P) 1♣ (1♦) 1♠ (P). Now partner will probably not be strong enough to reverse (if he is then anybody who passes in the original problem has made the wrong choice!), so will probably rebid 2♣. Now what are we going to do? maybe cuebid 2♦ and get 2♥ from partner. So we are in the same situation as in the OP.

Do you really have garbage? You have the K (albeit singelton) in partner's first suit; the Ace and some length in his second; three of the top five honours in your suit and no wasted values in ♦.

This looks like a borderline hand between 2♠ and 3♠. 4♠ is an overbid (as is a splinter of 4♣). 4NT is bad in all the auctions. North should show his ♦ and the strength of his hand and then South can bid Blackwood if he so desires, as he knows there are not two quick losers in any suit. As to whether 1430 is better than 0314, it pays to have the 5♣ response turn up as often as possible. To this end, Kantar, in his latest book on the topic, suggests that you use both 1430 and 0314 depending on whether the strong hand is asking the weak one (use 1430) or the weak hand is asking the strong one (use 0314). He also gives various rules for deciding which hand is deemed to be strong and which weak. The idea being that you need most room when the weak hand has 1 card (because with 0 you are unlikley to want to explore further). Similarly, you need most room to explore when the strong hand has 3 keycards.

So what is the minimum hand that opener would accept a game invitation on in your system?

1♠ followed by 3NT anyone? No? Didn't think so! But it's what the Hideous Hog might do. I like to play a 3NT response to 1M as a minimum balanced (i.e. no splinter) game raise. Partner can then cue with extras, just bid game or even pass if he fancies 3NT. I am not stopping this hand short of game unless I need swings. The room is going to be in game so staying in 3♥ is playing for a top or a bottom.

For anything concerning weak 2 bids Chris Ryall's page is a useful start. Here is his page on defenses to the multi 2♦ http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/defend-multi-2d.htm He has a special page related to his multi vs multi defense which links from there.

Another vote for 3♦. I wouldn't be too upset if partner rebid 2NT on this sort of hand though. Even if you are open in one of the majors you still might 3NT when the wrong suit is lead. The fact that there have been no overcalls slightly suggests that LHO doesn't have a totally obvious lead in one of the majors. An opening 2NT is too rich for me.

I double. If partner bids 3♥ I will bid 4♣ which hopefully shows this sort of hand. If, however, he bids 4♥ I will pass. It could, of course, go badly wrong, but then so could anything else. At least double keeps 3NT in the frame and allows us to find a spade fit if partner happens to have both majors (and is longer in spades OR has enough strength to cue-bid)

Do you always answer questions about the location of honour cards?

I just bid 4♥ as I doubt I could diagnose a good slam if it were there. I hope we are not playing this as a transfer. Personally I think the benefits of keeping the distributional hand hidden from the defense outweigh the benefits of having the strong but well-defined hand as declarer. The unrevealed diamond void and/or 4 card spade holding could well be worth a trick or two on misdefense.

One plausible explanation: because he was referring to a team of firefighters (What should I do with my team? Pull it) Another plausible explanation: He said the wrong word in the middle of a crisis. What plausible explanation is there for the Conspiracy Theory? eg Who was he telling to "pull it"? Why would he need to tell anyone to "pull it" if it was already planned?

I think it is pretty likely from seeing the lead up to the Silverstein quote that he was talking about pulling the remaining firefighters out of the building to prevent any more needless loss of life. Anyway, if the plan was already in place to blow up this building (and it would have to have been if there were explosives already in place) then why would he have had to tell people to "pull it"?

What is the situation if, say, fairly early on in a hand, after losing one trick, you claim saying something like "I claim 12 tricks on the double squeeze"? There really is a double squeeze, but the purpose of the claim is primarily to prevent yourself mucking up the ending by miscounting one of the suits or whatever. It doesn't seem fair that you should be allowed to get away with this, but then there is also the rule about it being unethical to continue the hand and not claim, forcing your opponents to use up more mental energy, when you know all the remaining tricks are yours.