EricK

I said I hadn't put it in legal language and not to look for loopholes. Point 1 does not allow 2♥ = ♥ and another becasue it shows length in an unspecified suit. And point 6 says combinations are allowed if the combination is AND not OR.

The problem of what methods to allow is a vexed one, and I do see both sides of the argument. Whatever is decided though I do think that certain types of bid should be allowed at every level (unless perhaps a country institutes a novices level in which they wish to restrict players to the country's "standard" methods). Those types are: 1. Any bid which shows a minimum number of cards in one or more specified suits. 2. Any bid which shows a minimum and/or maximum number of points. 3. Any bid which shows a minimum and or maximum number of controls in a specific suit or hand as a whole. 4. Any bid which asks a specific question of partner. 5. Bids which show a "balanced" hand. 6. Bids which show a combination (AND not OR) of the above types. Note I have not put this into legal terminology so please don't try looking for loopholes! The idea is that "nebulous" bids i.e. bids which show A or B are not automatically allowed. 1. allows transfer openings and things like 2NT = both minors. It would not allow eg 2♥ = ♥ and an unspecified minor. 2. allows eg Precision ♣ and 1♦ negative. It also allows forcing pass and fert bids. It would not allow eg 1♣ = 17+ or weak NT 3. Allows cue bids. It does not allow the 0 or 3 RKCB response 4. Allows Blackwood etc. It also allows relay methods. I am not saying that other types of bids shouldn't be allowed as well, it is just that it is only "nebulous" bids which need special preparation to defend against. Eric

IMO, when partner A forces partner B to bid, and B makes a non-jump bid, A should never expect B to have something rather than nothing. So all three sequences (2♣ 3♣; 2♣ 2♠ and 2♠ 3♠) promise nothing except length in the suit(s) bid. I am almost certain that if I doubled and then cue-bid on the North hand and partner bid ♠ twice, then I would at least invite the ♠ game (and if I had a working Q instead of ♦Q I would just bid the ♠ game). What else am I supposed to do? Make another nebulous forcing bid and hope that this time partner tells me what suit he really has? I have a lot of respect for the people who are advocating 1♠, 2♠ but on this occasion I don't see the merit to their approach. Eric

First round I bid 2C. Partner has suggested I bid my longest suit and after careful checking I have decided that that is clubs. Second round I bid 2S. Partner has forced me to bid again. My clubs aren't great(!) and spades is my next best suit. By this sequence I have fortuitously managed to inform partner about the location of my hard card strength as well ;) Eric

In general, if partner makes a take out double and you are not strong (inv+) you should bid to the limit of the hand straight away. So bidding 2♣ followed by 4♣ sounds wrong to me. Having told partner that you want to play in ♣ or ♣, the only sensible meaning of double is penalty. It doesn't show a trump stack however, as you expect partner to have something in trumps for his first round double. I don't think much of partner's double, BTW, but I know there are lots of people who would make the same bid.

I used to do that, but now I've put all that behind me.

I am not suggesting overcalls as sound. More like the same minimum as somebody who plays a very light opening bid strcuture. So one avoids it on hands like ♠KQJTx and out (either make a WJO or pass) but would definitely do it if there is an Ace outside. You say you play 1♦ as sound. But do you play partner's bids as forcing or not forcing? If you overcall with eg a 1462 distribution and partner has a 5413 distribution without much strength can you find the 4-4 fit (assuming you are not playing Raptor, in this instance)?

Let's assume opps are playing a "standard" system (Strong NT, 5 card majors) so that 1♣ is often a minimum balanced hand. Let's also assume we play a similar system (5 card majors, Strong NT, forcing NT). It seems to me that it might be a good idea to play "systems on" when opponent's open 1♣. In other words, 1 level bids show opening strength (where this can be interpreted as maybe rule of 19), and responses are forcing as usual. Hands which are too weak for a one level overcall must make a WJO or pass. One of the gains is after the auction (1♣) 1♦ (P) where partner can bid any 4 or 5 card major on any hand he would have repsonded to an opening bid so there is less danger of missing a fit. Another gain is in auctions like (1♣) 1♠ (P) where responder can bid a forcing NT on a reasonable but misfitting or partially fitting hand (eg 2542 distribution). The losses would appear to come mainly on hands which are too weak to make a one level overcall and not right for a WJO. But it is not clear to me how much of a loss this will turn out to be and whether the constructive gains will outweigh them. What do you guys think? Eric

These are not my methods at all so I may be talking rubbish, but if North was planning on making a jump raise in ♥ on the second round then surely he worth a move over partners 4♥. After all, he would bid also bid 1NT with hands like ♠QJx ♥x ♦QJxxx ♣Jxxx and his actual hand is at least a couple of tricks better than this. Eric

A question for the doublers. If you double, and partner bids 1♠, what would 2♣ show? Is it a hand like this or a single suited hand with ♣? For those who say a single suited hand with ♣, what a rebid of 3♣ instead of 2♣ show?

That was my sequence too.

We'll wait and see what version 4 includes. On the plus side, it never complains about my mistakes (either to me or anybody else).

I put this deal into Jack 3.01. Left to its own devices it bids the EW cards to 6♥. In 7♥ on the lead of ♦K it takes Frances' line (ii) and makes the contract. Not bad at all, I'd say!

To be good at bridge you need to be able to count AND you need to be a reasonably good double dummy solver. After all it is no good placing all the cards accurately if you then still can't see how to make your contract. Neither of these is easy. But it is worse than that: To be good at bridge you have to be a reasonably good double dummy solver while only seeing one or two hands properly and imagining the rest. And I just don't believe people who say that "Anybody can get good at these things". People's brains are different. They store and handle data in different ways, and I am sure some ways are more conducive to good bridge than others. I was a good chess player, but I could never become a really good chess player because my brain was not capable of accurately picturing the postion a few moves down the line, so my analysis would always be full of flaws. Show me a position and I can come up with good moves with no obvious flaws. But if that same position is one I am only picturing in my mind, then the moves I come up with will often have glaringly obvious flaws. With bridge it is the same. I just can't seem to be able to accurately hold in my head all the necessary inferences about two or three unseen hands and then mentally play through a few tricks to see what end game position I am going to reach.

Who is complaining and about what? Is East complaing that opener has too few trumps and so trumps break better than he could have hoped? Or is North complaining that the opponents should be left in 3NTX? Eric

Pre-empts work. On the other hand, how likely is it that the weak hand will provide a twelfth trick? If diamonds don't provide 5 tricks (and I think it is against the odds that they do) slam seems a bit optimistic. Eric

Same here... Once again, happy to be proven wrong It was my first thought until I saw the post had been marked with a " :) ".

I have been thinking along the same lines. The type of hand that started me off is a balanced 5332 or 4432 at the top of one's NT range with a good 5 card suit or two good 4 card suits. If there is a fit, the hand can be very strong for a suit contract - stronger than partner will expect for a 1NT opening. But if you upgrade the hand (eg with 1x followed by 2NT) and there is no fit, partner will drive to game when it isn't there. Eric

I bid 3NT. It is possible that 4H is better (as here), but the way to find out is not via Stayman. If partner has QJx in ♠ and xxxx in ♥ then I am not sure that 4♥ is the place to be. Eric

It's not even worth 26 ZAR points, is it? 2♥ for me. Eric 25 ZAR points.... But, I upgrade it due to T9 or hearts and 98 of spades. Change it to Qxx QTxxxx AQ xx and I would not open it 1♥. But don't you also downgrade it for the AQ tight in ♦?

It's not even worth 26 ZAR points, is it? 2♥ for me. Eric

Of course it was intended as just a joke. And what about those jokes about Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Indians, Poles, Protestants, Belgians, Aborigines, women, fat people, the handicapped, Blondes, Asians, Catholics, Iraqis, the French etc etc? Do you think they are just jokes or really really offensive? nickf sydney The original joke wasn't making fun of the child abuse victim. It was making fun of B & L. Whereas, the offensive jokes about Arabs, lawyers or fat people, for instance, are intended to mock some perceived aspect about these groups. So while child abuse is no laughing matter, that doesn't mean that a joke can't mention child abuse without being offensive. Eric

Does the serious 3NT bid deny 5+♥ and ♠K? Eric

It depends how much strength is promised by the 2♣ opener. Many people play that it is one trick short of game (or stronger) and so would be forcing to 2NT, 3M or 4m. It is not clear to me why playing a double negative should affect this. After all, not playing a double negative doesn't prevent partner from actually holding a zero point hand! Eric

I think it is clear that declarer is not allowed to finesse. Call me a cynic, but I also think it is clear that he was trying to "pull a fast one". Eric