EricK

Just swapping the final two clauses around to give 11-15 points, 5♣ and 4M or 6♣ would remove the ambiguity (unless anyone is obtuse enough to claim they thought the 11-15 only applies in the 5♣/4M case).

I think that if you have a strong fitting hand on this auction, the correct call is often Pass. Opponents are in a forcing auction, and LHO will have nothing. A lot of the time he will be in a rather uncomfortable position, especially if his partner is in the habit of making low-level offshape doubles. I don't see any need to rescue him from the burden of having to come up with a bid. The chances are that he will bid at the one-level and either partner will bid again, or it will be passed round to me. It is very unlikley that RHO, with an obvioulsy minimum double, will be able to scrape up another bid. When it is my next turn to bid, I will have a cheap cue-bid to show a strong hand. I will later support Clubs. When we finally declare the hand, we will have a better idea of the distribution of the opposing hands because we have forced LHO to bid.

Unless they know that you do this. In which case it makes it easier.

Interestingly, par on this hand looks to be 5♣X -1. Maybe there is something in the theory that 7-4 hands should open at the game level! It applies to both NS and EW on this hand.

Really? You don't make any discount for the singleton A? It is certainly a weaker hand than eg ATxxxxx Axxx x x. I would call it 27 Zars (and so still open it something!)

IMO the best approach in many situations if you are going to split the Inv+ hands between two bids is to use one bid to show either Inv or slam interest and the other to show GF but no real slam interest. Over the Inv/slam interest bid opener needs a bid to show minimum over which responder signs off or confirms slam interest. If opener denies a minimum, then responder can show slam interest (in the knowledge that opener is above minimum) or explore for the best game. Over the GF bid, opener needs a bid to show slam interest if he has any, otherewise they are just exploring for the best game (alternatively opener uses a single bid to deny slam interest and immediate bids are exploring for the best game).

For a 12 point hand, this is immensely strong. It looks to me to be the equivalent in playing strength of a 16 or 17 point hand. There are a lot of minimum hands for partner where game is a laydown. I know it is the modern American way to play reverses as very strong (almost GF, in fact), I prefer to play them a little weaker than that, so playing with an understanding partner I will try 2♥.

I am not saying that bids to show those sort of hands are a waste. In fact I am saying the opposite. It is important to show those sort of hands but they are the type of hands you need extra space on to get to the right contract, so it is wrong to use a high level bid to show them.

Don't try to find excuses not to bid game. If anything you should be looking for excuses to bid game.

This hand is worth game opposite a 15-17 NT. Why? Well it has ten points. In fact it has a good ten points - Aces are worth more than 4 points each, and there is a Ten in a long suit headed by an honour.

Why does Heeman waste those same bids on (13)(45) hands? It seems more sensible to use the higher bids for hands where there is a simple choice of contract (4M/3NT) rather than on hands where there are 7 target contracts (3NT/4m/4M/5m). The extra room obtained by using a lower bid for these hands might be genuinely useful.

To those of you think looking for a 4-4 fit is a good idea, is 2♣ the best way to go about it? If the final choice is going to be between 4M and 3NT then there is no reason to give the opponents so much room to compete or give them an artificial call to double. It is surely better to use something like: 1NT 3♠ as asking partner to choose between 3N and 4♠ 1NT 3♥ as asking partner to choose between 4♥ and 3NT or bid 3♠ with four of them.

And do you have a way of asking opener if he has slow or fast tricks? :)

Following on from my post about transfers, I want to start a discussion about Stayman. How useful, in practice, is Stayman on balanced hands? I am particualrly concerned with GF balanced hands where the choice is between 3NT or 4M. The benefit of Stayman is that you might find a better major suit contract. The disadvantages are: 1. You might find a worse major suit contract (especially if the major breaks badly) 2. You always give away information about opener's hand and your hand too. 3. You allow a lead directing double or cheap overcall. 4. The opening lead is harder when leader can't make any assumptions about responder's major suit lengths. 5. If Stayman promises an unbalanced hand you can undoubtedly make better use of the follow ups as certain hand types are eliminated. So, does the sole advantage outweigh these disadvantages? It might do when the hands are only considered double dummy, but what about "at the table"?

A similar situation is where one player makes a lead directing bid at the six level with the intention of running to the known fit if doubled, but having indicated the defense if the opponents bid to their slam.

2NT can't have been a misclick unless the alert and description were also misclicks! So if your description of events is correct, I find it hard to understand the TDs comment.

I was slightly tempted by 3♣ for the pre-emptive effect. 1NT has too many flaws - off-shape, below strength, two totally unstopped suits, and possibly wrong sides the final contract.

Terrence Reese's Little Major system used a 1♣ bid to show ♥ and a 1♦ bid to show ♠. This seems like a sensible idea (use the two lowest bids to give information about the two most important suits). If a modern system designer were to use these two bids as the basis of a system, what might the rest of the system be like (i.e. meanings of other opening bids and basic response structure to all openings)?

If I were playing 4 weak twos I would probably go with 2♣. As it is I pass. But it is very close. Make the ♠ AJ7x and I think I would open 1♣, but if instead you make one of the side suits Jx, I still pass.

Partner asked me to pick a suit, so I pick a suit. 1♥. I really don't see the benefit of any other action.

I am not sure why you singled out 2/1? What exactly is opener suppossed to rebid after 1S-2H in standard american or acol? If he takes over and key cards, he can never figure out if he really belongs in spades or in NT on many hands. For instance if Responder had: Qxx Kxxxx Ax Kxx there are 13 tricks in NT, but you will never get to 7N if opener bids rkc in hearts. After 1♠ 2♥ opener can rebid 3♠ which is forcing after a 2/1 in most systems. Then responder can cuebid 4♦ (I at least play this as a cuebid rather than natural, I suppose some might play it the other way). The 3S bid pretty much gives up on hearts. Suppose responder had: x KQJxx Axxx Kxx or x KJxxx QJxx Kxx or something in between. After 1S-2H-3S-3N opener bids what???? 4H isn't forcing 4N is natural and not forcing I don't think jumping to 3S solves many problems. A forcing 2S bid (e.g. SAYC) helps some and maybe a forcing 3H bid might also help some. Flexible hands with extra strength are problems in most bidding methods. This pair of hands are a good pair for a strong club since the game force actually occurs at the 1 level. On the auction you give, I think 4NT is about right. The second hand passes. The first hand cue bids on the way to slam. But I don't really want to get into this discussion. I am not saying that 2/1 is a bad system or has more flaws than other systems or anything like that. It is just that this is a flaw in 2/1. When opener is very strong and responder is invitational, the auction is much harder to get right in 2/1. Move an honour from opener's hand to responder's, and suddenly it is easier to get it right in 2/1.

I like 99 ( http://www.pagat.com/exact/99.html ), although I have only played the three-handed version (any chance your wife would play that?). It has bidding (of sorts), tricks, trumps and some partnership element on occasion as well.

Is nobody opening 1♠ to ensure the best lead against the opponent's 6♥ bid? :P

This is true but it is much easier for them to compete if you show your ♥. This points to a recurrent dilemma in bidding: Competitive auctions are harder than non-competitive ones. So should you, at the expense of your constructive bidding, try to make it difficult for opponents to safely compete and take your lumps on some of the occasions when they do compete? Or should you make bids which let the opponents in more easily but will lead to easier auctions if they don't compete?

I am not sure why you singled out 2/1? What exactly is opener suppossed to rebid after 1S-2H in standard american or acol? If he takes over and key cards, he can never figure out if he really belongs in spades or in NT on many hands. For instance if Responder had: Qxx Kxxxx Ax Kxx there are 13 tricks in NT, but you will never get to 7N if opener bids rkc in hearts. After 1♠ 2♥ opener can rebid 3♠ which is forcing after a 2/1 in most systems. Then responder can cuebid 4♦ (I at least play this as a cuebid rather than natural, I suppose some might play it the other way).