EricK

We very occasionally get to the second best part-score but make constructive bidding of games and slams much easier. Why should we worry?! Eric

With self-alerts this can get really confusing. In F2F bridge you sometimes get the situation where a player alerts his partner's bid but can't say what it means because they have no agreement and there are at least two possible conventional meanings for the bid. But equally in F2F bridge, you shouldn't leave it at "No agreement" if you have some prior partnership experience of similar situations. So for example you could say "We have no agreement about this particular situation but in a fairly similar situation that bid would be a splinter" With self-alerts, if you make a conventional bid which you hope partner will understand what do you do? Do you alert and when asked say "No agreement". That sounds plain crazy. Even worse, if you go along the lines of "In a similar situation ..." then you are effectively telling the opponents what your bid means anyway. Eric

I think the chance of making a slam is higher than the chance of going down in 5, so a slam try is reasonable. Of course, if your 4 level openers could be so weak that even 5♠ is unlikely to make then pass is probably in order. But note that Axxxxxx xx xx Kx gives you a good slam, and Qxxxxxx x xxx Kx will probably allow you to make 5♠ Eric

I would bid 2♥. I appreciate that both methods have up-sides and down-sides, but I believe that this one (raising on minima and bidding out shape with extras) is the better one. Eric

Responder should cuebid 5♣. Eric

I simply bid 4♠. We might miss a slam. We might prevent opps from finding their slam. Eric

2♠ for me. If partner is weak with 5 ♠ then 2♠ is certainly better than 1NT. If he is weak with 4♠ then 2♠ is probably at least as good as 1NT. If he is stronger then we should be able to sort out exactly where to play. Eric

Ben, you are not out on a limb by yourself. I would bid 3♥ in this situation as well (whether you actually want me on a limb with you is another matter altogether, of course). I doubt 4♥ is making. We might defeat any contract they get to. I don't see why I should risk -200 or -500 just to show I know LOTT and can count to ten. Eric

A ♥ lead surely stands out against 6♠. It also looks right against 4♠ on the strong bidding given in the OP. With the opps marked with almost all the outstanding points, a ♣ lead just gives the position away more often than it gains anything. Eric

I don't have my copy of RS handy, but don't they allow the cue to also include various GF hands in places where a new suit would be NF? Eric

If you are going to use two different artificial raises then you might as well make them the cuebid and the jump cuebid and keep 2NT as natural. Eric

I wouldn't have been keen to suggest NT once with the South hand let alone twice! When the hands are a misfit, you often need extra points to make a NT contract. Here, with North having at most 15 HCP and likely having a singleton in one of your suits the chance of 3NT making are slight. As far as the comments are concerned, North's seem largely accurate and South's seem like a desperate effort to avoid admitting to a mistake. North has told South about his major suits and South has bid NT twice. North has a doubleton in South's first suit and (what appears to him to be) a fitting honour in the Club suit. To take out 3NT into 4M would be crazy IMO. Eric

Personally I don't think opener should be raising ♥ at all! 1♣ 1♥ 2NT looks like the correct start. If partner raises to 3NT or 4NT I would pass rather than correct to ♥. If partner bids another suit I will show my ♥ support. So much can go wrong in a trump contract when your trumps are weak. Eric

If your vulnerable weak twos are "respectable" then I would invite (2NT) with this hand. Eric

One benefit of playing SJS is that they immediately tell opener which features of his hand are likely to be important and which unimportant. eg ♠Kx ♥xx ♦AKQxx ♣Jxxx If the bidding starts 1♦ 1♠ then you will likely bid 2♣ because you don't know yet if partner is interested in part score, game or slam or what strain he wants to play in. But if he responds 2♠ instead then you know that he isn't interested in your measly ♣ suit so you can rebid 3♦ and then support his ♠, showing him exactly what help you have for him. Eric

I see that nearly everybody (including some very fine players indeed) is opening the first hand, and I say WTP. In this case meaning "What's the point?". I have a defensive hand so I want to defend. I don't want to help them place the cards if they do end up in a contract. The bid is not very pre-emptive. It is not particularly lead-directing. If I open hands like this it makes it harder for partner when I have a genuine opening bid in this position (I realise that for Ben this is a genuine opening bid!). It may be because of the level of opponents I generally play against, but if I open this sort of hand, then either we end up playing for a minus score or the opponents end up at a lower, safer level than they would if I had passed (because they are more scared of the -200 if they think I have some points). Whereas passing often leads to a nice +100 when opponents bid slightly too high or misplay because they don't expect me to have quite so much. So what is your reasoning for opening this hand? Eric

It looks like he could respond 7NT straight away... ... although that way he doesn't get to play it redoubled, of course. Eric

It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. 1) I would doubt South is bidding a grand slam on a finesse. 2) If he needed to know about Kings he could have asked. 3) There is no guarantee that Dummy has the ♣A 4) If South needs the ♣ finesse (despite point 1) he will have to take it later anyway. 5) If he has a choice of finesses (despite point 1) you have told him which one of them will fail. 6) The likely gain (if you gain at all) is only 100 points the likely loss (and you are likely to lose) is much more. So the odds have to be really in your favour to double. Eric

The 5♦ sacrifice is like putting your head on the block. If partner isn't going to read it as a sacrifice then it is like sharpening the axe, handing it to the executioner, drawing a dotted line on your neck and then putting your head on the block. Eric

[hv=w=skqjxxhjxxdakxxcx&e=saxxxhxdxxxxcqxxx]266|100|[/hv] [hv=w=skqjxxhjxxdakxxcx&e=saxxxhxdxxxxcqxxx]266|100|[/hv] If the bidding starts 1♠ 2♠, then opener can make a trial bid of 3♥ to see if partner can help him with his ♥ losers. In the first hand partner will accept in the second he will reject. If responder bids immediately to the three level, then there will not be enough room for trial bids in each suit. Eric

But what about auctions which would have gone eg: 1♠ 2♠ 3♣ 4♠ (3♣ = Need help in ♣; 4♠ = I have help) Now they go 1♠ 3♣ "Insert guess here" When opener has extras and partner has a minimum hand with support, the location of responder's honours is of paramount importance - bidding to the three level immediately will eliminate opener's ability to find out. Eric

Can someone tell me how Bergen squares Bergen raises (where 3C and 3D are differentiated simply by their point counts) with "Points Schmoints" (where he claims that point counts are much less important than distribution and location of points)? Eric

I admit this is the cost playing 1S=5 and x=4 has to pay. On the other hand you can raise to 2M wihtout costing much. Furthermore I gain when LHO is going to raise to 2H or 3H. For example, 1C-1H-1S(4+)-3H(4H) ?? S: ATX H: XXX D: A C: AKJTXX Each method has merits. I assume that 1♣ (P) 1♠ only promises 4 in your methods, so on your given hand you bid exactly the same as if the bidding had started 1♣ (P) 1♠ (3♥). If your system doesn't have a bid for this hand then you may want to consider playing that 1♣ (P) 1♠ promises 5 as well :) Eric

What is the word for "I have to bid but have no good bid to make, therefore I'll double"? Because that is exactly the sort of double this is. Eric