EricK

Another option is not to open the 5 card major on 5332 hands, but to open 1m instead! A bit radical, but the advantages are that you no longer need the 1NT rebid as natural and (if you play Kaplan inversion) you always have a shape showing rebid over 1♥ 1♠. The downside is you miss the occasional 5-3 fit (but by no means all of them, and it's not necessarily bad when you do). I suppose it's similar logic to opening 1NT with a 5 card major. Dividing your hands between balanced and non-balanced is very often useful information for partner.

I bid 4♥. 1♥ leaves them too much room to explore for 4♠ or 5♦ (or 4♥X!). They need the room much more than we do. Eric

Let me expand somewhat on my one-liner. It was in response to the claim that a weak NT was good because a) it is more frequent than a strong NT and :D that allows you to use your 1NT structure more often. Now a) is obviously true, and is a benefit. But B) is not really a benefit. The point is that you can use an equally good strucutre over a 1NT rebid as you do over a 1NT opening. In fact, as you point out, you have more infirmation already, so you can play a better structure over a 1NT rebid (as you need to differentiate between fewer hand types for responder). So although it would be silly to use precisely the same 1NT structure opposite the 1NT rebid, you still get all the benefits of using some 1NT structure. Thus the ability to use a 1NT structure more often is not an advantage of any particular strength range.

You can of course play all your gadgets after a 1NT rebid, so this is not a particularly good reason. The benefits of a weak NT as I see it are as follows (in no particular order): 1. It is pre-emptive - It will often be the opps' hand. Don't give them an easy 1M overcall. 2. It guarantes some "bite" to all your other 1 level openings. They will be either shapely or have extra strength. 3. It poses a problem for opps in that they need to compete the part score but also find their games. 4. 1NT in practice makes more often than it should - especially if there have been no suit bids on the way there.

I'm a little late in replying, but I agree with the 4♠ bidders. In a competitive situation like this you have to take the pressure off partner.

When partner opens 1♦, you should immediately be thinking about a slam - your hand has about 25 support points assuming partner has a genuine ♦ suit. The likely deniminations are ♦, ♥ and ♠. You have now eliminated ♠ as a possibility, so tell partner about your ♦ and see what he can offer. 3♦ is my bid.

Personally I think that bidding 4S on a hand like this is fine even if you are not playing a strong club system. You have a balanced, aceless 12 count. How often is there going to be a slam? You will always bid game and any other approach runs the risk of directing the defense.

Why should this be alerted? You had ♠ support. You had the strength for game. You bid game.

I think that 5-5 with good suits is the better agreement. But this is one of the situations where you should play the one your partnership is going to remember as the difference is very slight. If I hadn't discussed this sequence I would not make the bid (Just bid 2H with the 5-5 and 3D with the support)

It is almost impossible to bid a lot of hands without take-out/negative doubles. Other things are nice, but nothing else is as necessary. Actually, for the last couple of weeks I have been playing an incredibly simple system with a new partner at a local club. The only convention we have used so far is one instance of Stayman - and that didn't actually help us. If we had been playing a 2m response to 1NT as naturalish (3+, invitational) we would have done better on that hand. On only one hand would a convention have come in handy and that is a cue-bid of opponents suit as an artificial force. But even that wasn't necessary.

I don't think some of your examples are what I would call advanced cue bids. An example of an advanced cue bid (as I understand the term) is something like 1♠ 2♠ 3♦ 3♠ 4♣ The 3♦ is ostensibly a game try. But by overruling partner's decision you are showing that it was in fact a cue bid. Another is 1♦ 3♦ 3♥ 3NT 4♣ Here, 3♥ is ostensibly a probe for NT. When partner duly bids NT, your 4♣ bid reveals the 3♥ bid to be an advanced cue bid. Your examples seem to be of a different type. i.e where support is implied by the cue bid. I don't know the term for this. Maybe "implicit cue bid" would do.

3NT - Hamman's Rule :D

I understand your concerns. But if the rules about taking advantage of UI were strictly enforced, then these unnecessary questions would help your side much more than the opposition. So if you have any complaints they should be aimed at the TD for letting these people get away with it, or for not educating them.

Here is something interesting (if slightly off-topic): In traditional Acol a 2/1 showed about 8+ points. In traditional SA a 2/1 shows about 10/11+ points. In both cases the 2/1 bid shows enough strength to have a shot at 2NT should partner turn up with a minimum balanced hand (15 points in Acol, 12 in SA). In more modern versions of Acol the 2/1 shows about 10+ points, whereas in more modern American systems the 2/1 shows 12/13+ points. i.e in both cases the 2/1 has become just strong enough to have a shot at 3NT should opener have a minimum balanced hand. The ability for opener to simply rebid a forcing 2NT after a 2/1 and not have to jump to 3NT with a little extra is, IMO, the biggest reason for the shift in both cases.

If you have no agreements with partner you are pretty much screwed on this hand. Just raise to 3NT. If you have agreed that 3♠ shows both minors and is slam interested (as I sometimes play) then obviously this hand is perfect for 3♠. It is not, IMO, good enough to bid again if partner signs off in 3NT. Obviously your partner did not think 3♠ showed both minors (or was a poor judge of a bridge hand) as his hand looks very good for a high level ♦ contract. I haven't analysed the hand properly but isn't the best play to eliminate the major suits and then exit with the third round of ♦, rather than try to guess the ♣? Eric

West's hand started out as junk. He then discovers that nearly half his points are facing a shortage in partner's hand, so he makes a slam try. This is ridiculous, IMO For slam he needs partner to hold ♦A, ♥A and great spades, or just one of the aces and solid spades. That seems rather unlikely to put it mildly. With such a good hand partner would use Jacoby 2NT, rather than leap to the 4 level.

I think 2NT is the right bid here. On most hands, the auction will be much easier after this start. If I bid 2♣ and partner bids 2♦ or 2♥ I will have to bid again, but what? If I choose 2♠, I will have shown partner (and everyone else!) my exact shape but will he expect that my ♥ singleton is the A? If I choose a NT rebid on the third round, I don't see how I am better off having given the opposition a clearer idea of my distribution. Now suppose partner actually supports our ♣ which would appear to be the best scenario for the 2♣ rebid. I am still not sure how to proceed. 3NT might be the best place to play these hands but if I bid it now, we will still often miss 6♣ as I am at least a trick better than I might be. If I don't bid it now, we might end up going past 3NT if, as is likely partner doesn't have a ♠ stop.

Nobody wants to play in 3♠ but that doesn't make 4♠ the correct bid. Partner won't particularly want to play in 3♠ either, so if he decides to leave himself in 3♠ there is a good chance that 4♠ would be a terrible contract.

I would lead a spade. A legal question has just sprung to mind: If partner makes a lead directing double and I think a bit before leading his suit, what are the UI implications for partner? Would he ever "get into trouble" if he plays me for a hand which has an alternative plausible lead.

There is a greater benefit of opening the strong hands with 1♣ when there is competition. After eg 1♠ (3♥) P (4♥) you would have to show your second suit at the five level. But after 1♣ (3♥) P (4♥) you can bid 4♠. Eric

This makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy though. If he thinks you will read it as Aces he won't bid it when he has a quantitative hand. Nor will you for that matter. I would read as as quantitative whoever bid it (unless we had a specific agreement that it was Aces, of course). I would rather go wrong by assuming a pick-up partner is a good player than by assuming he doesn't know how to bid. After playing a few hands, I might switch to assuming he can't bid ;)

There is already a list on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_%28bridge%29 Only a few of the coups listed have articles/examples attached to them. Maybe those of us with the inclination can fill some more in, or expand on (or improve) the definitions there. Eric

Playing SAYC, North will respond with a GF 2♦. Next round he will show a solid suit. South can then ask for Aces and bid 7NT.

Most criticism of Gerber comes in sequences other than in response to 1/2NT (eg 1♠ 3♠ 4♣). I think the main reason for the criticism is that there is normally a better use for 4♣ (eg as a control bid). A further point, is that many pairs seem to play 4♣ is always Gerber eg 1♣ (3♠) 4♣! I personally think that you don't really need Gerber after 1NT, and especially not after 2NT. In the latter case, what you are effectively saying to partner is "I know you have 21 or so points but all I am really interested in is how many Aces you have." How often do you really get a hand like that? i.e. one where you can place both the suit and level of the contract with just that information. SA Texas is possibly better than Gerber opposite 1NT (especially if you play a weak NT) as it allows responder to bid to the 4 level immediately but still leave the option to play 4M himself (by bidding 4M directly) or let opener play it (by bidding 4♣/♦) Eric

What happens if you pass now, and after LHO passes you make a double out of turn? Don't the laws force partner to pass at every turn now? :P Eric