EricK

I don't think much of North's opening bid (Aceless hand, KQ doubleton in ♣, unsupported ♥Q). I don't like 2NT rebid either with two unstopped unbid suits. If 2NT is mandated by the system then I think even less of the opening bid, since two of the likeliest responses (1NT, 2♣) will force me to make a bid I don't want to. I don't like North's 3NT. Since he has denied holding 4 ♥ he could bid 3♥ here to warn of the ♦ weakness. All in all, I blame North. Eric

Quote from "Hamlet" (Shakespeare), where philosophy in this context means "science". Although Hamlet may have been a viking, I don't think he played Viking Club. But I do know that he and Ophelia were in contention in all mixed events at the time. Maybe they played a simple system? :) They played a very complicated system but used rosemary (that's for remembrance) Act IV Scene 5 Eric

The key question as far as I am concerned is not "Will the correct system allow a weak pair to beat a strong pair?" but "Will the correct system allow a weak pair to beat another weak pair?" and "Will the correct system allow a strong pair to beat another strong pair?" Certainly a lot of weak pairs would improve their results if they simply had more agreements, especially in competitive auctions. Another point is that matches are generally too short to determine if one system is better than another - the victory is overwhelmingly likely to be due to the short term distribution of errors between the two teams. I know that when Matt Ginsberg was changing the bidding database on his GIB software he would run very long matches between the new version and the old version. This demonstrates that given equal playing skill, bidding will make the difference in the long run (just as given equal bidding skill, play and defense will make the difference!). Eric

I play the jump to 3♦ as a splinter. I use 2♦ as an artificial GF (Bourke Relay) so in each of these hands responder will bid 2♦ and opener will make the most descriptive rebid (2♥, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦), responder will rebid/raise ♦ to show his hand and I will leave you to fill in the rest of these convincing auctions! Eric

Almost everybody is going to open this hand. But whether it is with 1♠, 2♠ or even 3♠ is more a matter of style and temperament than a question of right or wrong. The lack of HCP opposite a passed partner points in the direction of a pre-empt, but the fact that you have the master suit (so can outbid opponents at the same level) and a reasonable amount of defense points more in the direction of 1♠. Your opponent has no right to criticise your bidding anyway. Was he upset that he got a bad result and wanted someone to blame? Eric

I also voted for 3♦ and it seemed obvious to me (which shows what I know)! It may be because of what I expect from the double, but why should I look for a fit in a suit promised by my RHO when I have a minimum hand and a guaranteed fit in partner's suit. Also I want to make an effort to prevent opps finding their practically guaranteed ♥ fit, or at least prevent them from accurately determing what level to play at. I think the 1♠ are rather optimistic on two fronts - how their auction is likely to develop, and how their opponents' auction is likely to develop. Eric

It is one thing doing this when simply playing bridge in the main bridge club, it is quite another doing it in a tournament. But in either case, if you know that you haven't agreed on something then don't bid it and agree after the hand, or bid it anyway and apologize if partner guesses wrong. Eric

If bidding Blackwood in this situation is commonly accepted behaviour in an individual then I am definitiely not playing in them. Eric

Out of step with the majority. Again. But I voted for 2♦. I didn't pay my entrance fee to just sit around discussing what I might have bid so I am not passing! But I want to make it hard for the opponents to find a 5-4 spade fit. Because a 4th seat 2♦ pre-empt can be quite strong, it is dangerous for LHO to overcall 2♠ on a borderline hand. 2♦ might cause us to miss 4♥ but as it is MP I want to make the bid which scores well most often, without worrying about "mights". Eric

yep. Could be Q as well. I prefer A or K. It might be different if his bid was at the two level where his suit is likely to be stronger. I definitely agree that we shouldn't be showing a singleton. If partner has a game going hand with slam interest in ♣ then he has no right introducing a very weak outside suit. "Don't bid weak suits on strong hands" Eric

It is standard. But as always you should try to "work out" as much of the whole hand first. eg who is likely to get in first? Is it important for partner to cash out if he has the Q? Might partner be underleading the Ace!? Might it be more important not to let declarer know what honours we have? etc Eric

Negative doubles work well if the overcall has been in a major, but if it is in a minor then you can easily end up in the wrong fit or missing a fit altogether (eg give opener a minimum 4423 hand and responder a minimum 4324 hand after 1♣ (2♦) X ) Eric

Normally when signalling with a high card you should play the highest card you can afford. What this means is that you often use the second highest from four because you may need to keep the highest. Eric

I don't think your thinking is "wrong". It is just that many pairs want to differentiate between two sorts of 3NT hand 1. Balanced hand with a lot of HCP (X then 3NT) 2. Running suit and stops outside (Direct 3NT) Eric

Unless I have not followed the play correctly, at the stage when the ♦ is played, everybody has a complete count of the hand, so nobody would be putting up any honour in second position. Eric

I agree that it is reasonable to teach transfers to beginners, but not for his reason. IMO the feeling that opening 1NT entitles you to play the contract arises *because* of transfers. The problem that beginners have with weak takeouts is that they are so different to any other part of bidding - all other responses at the 2 level are forcing, searching for the best strain. Also, they have usually been taught that they should play in 8+card trump fits only, so when opener has a doubleton he feels compelled to rescue his partner. But this is because beginners aren't (generally) taught any reasons for bids meaning what they do. If they were taught that once one player has limited his hand in shape and strength then his partner is in a better position to place the contract (an idea which should make sense even to someone who is new to the game) then they would understand the reasons why it is right to pass a sign off in 2M. Eric

It seems a ridiculous rule, whether or not you change it for redoubled contracts. Really, what is the point of it? If we bid to a making slam and they sacrifice we always do worse no matter how many they go off! Eric

On a hand like ♠AKxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣AKQx it would be nice if we opened 1♣ and heard an (unopposed) auction like 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 2NT 3NT so the lead comes round to partner's red suit tenaces rather than through them. However, we wouldn't like to hear something like 1♣ (2♦) P (3♦) where anything we do now is just a guess. In "the old days" you were much more likely to get unopposed auctions when you held the balance of points, so the first approach had a lot of merit. Nowadays unopposed auctions are much rarer, so the emphasis has to be on giving partner as much useful information as one can as soon as possible. Which is why things like right-siding the contract have to take a backseat. Anyway, right-siding is more complicated than having the strong hand as declarer. After an auction like 1NT 4♥ the defense will be totally in the dark as to how strong or distributional declarer is, so it will be much harder for them to formulate the best strategy. If the bidding goes 1NT 4♦ (transfer) 4♥ they will know much more about declarer's assets because the NT bid was so revealing. Eric

Would it be fair to say 4th suit is gameforce,3rd suit is roundforce? Or is that wrong,based on what you guys say? I think that playing 3rd suit as RF is fairly standard, but I don't think there is a standard answer to the question of how far fourth suit is forcing. Some play it as GF others as simply RF. My personal feeling is that a compromise is best:- if opener bids above 2 of his first suit then we are GF. This means that opener doesn't have to jump to 3NT to show slight extras in a sequence like 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♦. Eric

Yes he was unpassed Actually he held Kxxxxx KQx AQx x Opener had AQ Axx KJ10xx xxx B) Once opener has rebid his diamonds (a mistake IMO as he has a balanced hand) responder can simply splinter in ♣ and they get to the easy slam. Bidding a "natural" 3 card suit should be a last resort. If they were playing Bourke Relay where the responder's cheapest new suit re-bid is a non-natural GF then I could understand the 2♥ bid. Eric

I think that this forcing in any modern standard system. I certainly wouldn't pass as opener if a pick-up partner bid it. With a 5-4-1-3 9 point hand I would simply pass as responder. Partner almost certainly has a 6 card suit so we are not yet in a hopeless contract. We might get to a hopeless contract if I try to "improve" matters. Eric

Even playing MAFIA should you bid 1♥ rather than 1♠? "Don't bid bad suits on good hands" is a useful precept IMO. Eric

I bid 2♥. It is unlikley to be wrong to make the cheaper bid if it also shows a significant feature of your hand. The only problem I can see is if responder is able to rebid a non-forcing 3♣. Now we might belong in 3♣, 5♣, 3NT (or possibly even 4M), and would have no way to investigate. But bidding an immediate 3♣ doesn't really solve that problem anyway - it just transfers it to partner! Eric

Whatever you consider partner's hand to be, I doubt it is correct to make an insufficient bid. :blink: Eric

4♣ v 5♣ is a difficult decision. Are we sure that we don't want LHO to stretch to 4♠? Partner may have a good penalty double and maybe we have an unexpected good lead (♥K). Eric