EricK

Small doubletons may not be as bad as you think! Compare, for example, xx opposite KQx with Qx opposite Kxx. The former has a 50% chance of two tricks; the latter doesn't. Also, if the suit is lead, you are much better placed in the former case than the latter. Honours work better in combination, so if eg you replaced the ♦J with the ♣J (so that you no longer had a small doubleton ♣ your hand is now worse. And if you were to make the minor suits Jxxx and Ax so you have a guaranteed ♣ stop, your hand has become much worse! Eric

As usual, Frances and I are in agreement. I suspect it is to do with the land of our birth. As Bertrand Russell said, "John Locke invented common sense and only Englishmen have had it ever since." (although, if he were around today, I suppose he would use a non-gender-specific phrase such as "the English")

As a matter of terminology, there is a difference between "Non-Forcing" and "Sign off". A Sign-off places the contract and tells partner not to bid any more, a non-forcing bid simply allows partner not to bid anymore. A 1NT opening is non-forcing, but it is a descriptive bid and doesn't place the contract. Just as a NF 2NT in this sequence is a descriptive bid. The person who is in position to decide the contract is responder, not opener. Eric

I've never really understood why a lot of people who insist on 5 card major openings suddenly allow 4 card major overcalls. That just seems the wrong way round. When you open the bidding there is at least a reasonable chance that the auction will be uncontested so you can afford to have bids which contain more options (indeed by opening a major instead of a minor you make it more likely that the auction is uncompetitive as overcalling is harder). When you overcall, the auction is by definition already competitive and it is very rare that you get the rest of the auction to yourself, so it makes sense to have your bids be as descriptive as possible. Can somebody who favours 5 card openings but 4 card overcalls explain the flaws in my reasoning? Eric

You have a massive 2-suiter. If you are not prepared to show it as a 2-suiter after 2♣ (and whatever partner repsonds, this pretty much involves your bidding 3♦ followed by 4♣), then you shouldn't have opened 2♣. I would have bid 1♦ followed by 3♣, but had I opened 2♣, I would have gone through with the description of my hand and bid 4♣. Is it really in your methods that a waiting bid is correct on a strong 6-5 hand? If so, then I think he has to bid 4♠. After all, you could have a 3-1-6-3 hand for your bidding. But really he should be making some effort to describe his hand immediately. I think it's just one of those things. 2♣ auctions crop up very rarely. 2♣ auctions where responder has a strong hand are even rarer. Misfits are notoriously hard to bid even along well-trodden paths. There are a few bids you didn't mention in your questions. I think the 5♣ bid is just an acceptance of the fact that you should have shown them the round before (or thought about the auction before opening 2♣!). And 6♥ is a better shot than 6NT. You may need the ruffing power of the ♥ as entries or to prevent a minor suit loser. Eric

Ok Frances, my take - I can't see how 2NT can be non forcing in a practiced, serious partnership. You are contracting to make exactly 8 tricks. How often can this be right? Personally I would prefer to play 2NT as a Ruben's advance, but obviously this is not possible in a non expert partnership. It is a nice ideal in a non-competitive auction to only play in 1NT or 3NT and never 2NT. It is harder to achieve that if the opponents overcall 2♦. By making 2NT forcing you are effectively making the opponents' overcalls even more pre-emptive than they already are, because now you have to sell out or get to game. The last thing you should want to do is have methods which encourage the opponents to compete more. Eric

1NT with only a weak stop or a partial stop isn't really dangerous at all. If partner has a strong hand there is plenty of room to explore for the best game. If he passes 1NT and we lose the first 5 ♥ tricks, then there is still a reasonable chance that we will be able to gather 7 tricks. Eric

In SAYC a 2/1 rebid promise a rebid. The reason it can afford to do that is that opener can always rebid his suit or make a 2 level bid in a lower ranking suit on a minimum hand thus allowing certain hands to stop short of game (eg 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT 3♥ is NF but 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ is forcing as you said). In the sequence under discussion, opener hasn't the luxury of rebidding his suit at the two level, so you can't afford to make responder's bid promise a rebid (unless you effectively make it GF). Eric

Whether you play a cue-bid as guaranteeing support or not, this hand isn't strong enough to use it. A balancing overcall can be very weak. I would probably bid 1NT. Eric

2♠ seems very feeble after South has made a free bid. Eric

Certianly it is nice to have these as forcing if you pick up a strong hand, and nice to have them as NF if you pick up a weak hand. But if you pick up a weak hand and you are playing them as forcing you have left yourself with no escape, but if you play them as non-forcing and pick up a strong hand you still have other bids, so the situation isn't so bad. In my experience I pick up weak hands far more often than strong hands, so obviously I have to have a system which caters for them. YMMV. Eric

But 2S is often the par score (in fact it is the sixth most common par score at none vulnerable), so not letting them play in 2S may give them a better score! Eric

The trouble with the lead-directing argument is that if you are playing Strong NT, 5cd major system you will also be opening 1C on a load of hands when you don't particularly want a club lead and on a load of hands when you positively don't want partner to lead a club (especially from something like Kx). How is partner meant to know the difference? Eric

2♠ is forcing me to bid but it isn't GF. I need a bid to show a balanced minimum (assuming I am not opening these 1NT) - I shall choose 2NT for this purpose. I also need a bid to show a minimum hand with long clubs and no spade support - I shall choose 3C for this. If I make these forcing, then I am effectively playing 2S as a GF. It is a bit of an American disease making more and more bids more and more forcing. The idea, presumably, is to avoid missing games at IMPS, but the arguments aren't that convincing. After all, partner knows about the game bonus just as much as we do, so he will be keen to bid game even if I make NF bids (as long as they are reasonable descriptive ones), but we at least give ourselves the chance to stop in a part score if either player thinks game is low odds. Eric

3♠. This seems standard. If partner has the wrong minimum we may even go down (eg Qxxx QJx Jx Jxxx with ♠ finesse off). If he has the right minimum we will make game. But making the value bid should get us to the right spot most often. Eric

My sanity has been repeatedly questioned, and yet I too Pass. Eric

From my perspective, the biggest flaw with this entire line of argument rests in the fundamental assumption that bidding is "constructive". The authors are assuming that bidding systems are designed in order to facilitate a flow of information between two players. Luckily, the opposing pair isn't interested in winning... With this said and done: The easiest way to critique this line of reasoning is to examine whether the authors are consitently applying the same philosophy throughout the entire bidding system. Alternatively, is this simply a random factoid that they have dredged out in this one case but conveniently ignore throughout the rest of the system. Even if the line of reasoning implicitly assumes that bidding is "constructive" (and I am not convinced it does), it still ends up with a conclusion more in line with 4-handed than 2-handed biddding. After all, given a 4 card major, weak NT system with light 2/1s you will often get an auction starting like 1♠ 2♦ where a 5cd major, Strong NT, 2/1GF system might well have started 1♣ 1♦. And if they do not consistently apply the argument to the rest of the system it may be because the rest of the system needs critiquing rather than this bit! Eric

A lot of mocking, but nobody has actually said why the OP's argument (simplistic though it may be) isn't reasonable. Here is a similar argument which gives a reasonable conclusion: If as dealer we have x points, partner will have on average (40-x)/3, so we will in total have (40+2x)/3. To make the majority of tricks we will, on average, need at least 7/13 of the 40 points, so we solve (40+2x)/3 = 280/13 => x = 12.31. So we should generally need a bit better than a minimum 12 count to open. Note that the site isn't saying that is the only way to play, but it is a reasonable, logical way to play. Eric

Before making an invitational bid ask yourself if you have told partner where your values are. If you haven't it may not be a good idea to invite. eg the bidding starts 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 2♠ and you want to invite game in ♠. If your ♣ are something like Txxxx then your partner might very well go wrong (passing with a singleton ♣, but upgrading ♣Qx) so it might be a good idea to pass or blast game. But if your ♣ are KJxxx then partner is likely to be able to make the correct decision if you invite. Eric

I wouldn't make a fit jump, but I would make a ♠ splinter as it tells my partner that despite my opening pass my hand has become HUGE. Make the ♣ suit KQxxx and I would FJ rather than splinter as it is more helpful to partner. Eric

East did nothing wrong IMO. West made one dubious action (2♠) and one appaling action (3♦). I make that 150% of the blame to West. Eric

But what is the chance of a ten card suit given that you have two voids?

Try to do your thinking in advance. When you make a bid decide what you are going to do over the most common replies from partner and spot any problems that may arise. Not only will you avoid giving UI to partner, but you will also make it harder for opponents to know what problems you have with the hand. eg When opening 1NT, decide in advance whether you will accept a 2NT invitation. If you hesitate at your second turn, opponents will have a much better idea of your hand whether you bid on or pass. eg you have a 5044 hand and partner opens 1♥. You will obviously respond 1♠, but you should have decided in advance what you are going to do if partner rebids 2♥. If you pass in tempo on a hand just short of invitational values maybe you will get a balance from opponents and a juicy penalty. Eric

Scene from Yes Minister: Bernard: It's one of those irregular verbs isn't it? We make tactical bids; You psyche; They have an undisclosed partnership agreement.

"Accidents will happen in the best regulated partnerships" - Charles Dickens, David Copperfield. "Happy partnerships are all alike, every unhappy partnership is unhappy in its own way" - Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina. The first is true. I don't know about the second. Eric