EricK

I wouldn't bid 4♠ over 2NT. But I have painted myself into a corner, because whatever I bid over 2NT I won't have described my hand (weak hand; semi-solid 8 card suit). And if opener's rebid is something other than 2NT (as is overwhelmingly likely) I can make all the artificial forcing bids I want (FSF, Bourke relay, TSAR or whatever) and I still won't have described my hand. The closest I can ever come to describing it is to jump to 4♠, and the best time to do that (as suggested by the small sample of hands I mentioned earlier) is immediately. You keep collecting your +100s from defending 5♥X or conceding -50s from 5♠. I'll settle for my +420s Eric

I don't like support doubles but I think they may be a necessary evil in a lot of systems (Strong NT, 5cd Majors especially). Well, not quite necessary, but... If your minimum balanced hands are opened with 1m, then you have placed yourself in a bind. You often do not have quite enough playing strength to support partner's 1M bid with only 3 card support. So you are left with two choices. Pass which suggests you have a balanced minimum, but hides your support from partner. Or compete with 2M which means that partner risks overcompeting or undercompeting later in the auction. Personally, I prefer a system where minimum balanced hands are opened with 1NT. This means that I will always have the playing strength to support partner (If minimum I will have an outside singleton). I also think that support doubles are overused even in systems where they are useful. They shouldn't be used to simply show 3 card support, but they should be used to show 3 card support in a hand which has no other reasonable bid. I haven't voted in the poll because no option exactly matches my POV. Eric

I see we are not playing support doubles. That's a shame, as they are very useful when playing strong NT/5 cd major systems. Especially if playing Walsh repsonses. We are also not playing a weak NT. That is also a shame, since we have been dealt one of them :) I would probably bid 2♠ as partner probably has four of them, and it will play OK if he only has three. Really though any of 2♦/2♥/2♠ is OK. 2♦ is an excellent bid if your aim is to win the post mortem, but I don't think it has all the advantages claimed in normal play with an average partner. Eric

Sigh, why are you guys are stubborn like this? I am not saying 4S is always a poor bid or good bid. All I want to point out is that your claim is no true if there is no overcall. a slam can be easily bid without much complicate stuff. That's why I called it's a false claim. You can do whatever you like in bidding, but I don't really like claims like even without overcalls, there is no way to find a slam and responder should always jump to 4S the next round. It just doesn't make sense to me. At the risk of appearing even more stubborn... I was no longer talking about whether slam would be found on this hand with no interference, so introducing the sequence you did is neither here nor there. It doesn't even falsify a claim I made : In the sequence you have proposed, South has not told North about the 2 extra trumps he has, and I don't think he can; and South has not discovered from North that he has cover for all the ♣ losers and I don't think that is going to be easy (unless playing sophisticated methods). Eric

Possibly you misunderstand the way you are supposed to use Jack. You cannot define your own bidding system nor your own defence to one of Jack's systems. You must always use one of Jack's predefined base systems - but you have a lot of choice in developing that system by adding whatever conventions you wish from Jack's large list. To have a user defined bidding system or defence you would need to consider something like Oxford Bridge but the effort involved is tremendous and then you might find that Oxford is not such a good card player as Jack :) Deniso How does it manage to cope in the world championship where presumably the other programs could have any system or defense etc? Eric

I draw the inference that partner can decide on the contract knowing about our number of keycards and the presence or absence of the ♥Q, with the knowledge that we have 3 or 4 trumps. Eric

I have just used Jack 2.04 to deal out 10 hands where dealer has a 1♣ opening, next hand passes and you have the long spade hand (none vulnerable). The results are as follows: 1) 4♠ makes exactly; 5♦ is down 2 2) 4♠ makes exactly; 5♦/5♥ are down 1 3) 5♠ makes; 6♥ is down 1 4) 4♠ makes plus 1, opponents can only make 3♦ 5) 4♠ makes exactly; 5♥ is down 1 6) 5♠ makes; 6♦/6♥ are down 2 7) 4♠ makes plus one; 9 tricks for opposition 8) 5♠ makes; 6♦/6♥ are down 1 9) 5♠ makes; 6♥ is down 2 10) 4♠ is down 1; 4♥ makes exactly Not a large sample, I know, but the results seem pretty clear to me. Eric

But how often does opener have a 2NT opening? And even then how many of those have three losers in a side suit? I think that catering for that sort of special hand is a losing proposition on all the other hands. Eric

I wouldn't "lie". Partner has taken control when I am sure he had other options and asked me a question. I shall answer it accurately. Didn't I have a bid which promised 4♥ though? eg 3♠ (showing ♠A as well!). Eric

A lot of people are saying the hand is too strong, or otherwise wrong, for an immediate 4♠ bid. Personally I think a 1♠ bid has almost no upside and many downsides :- 1) This hand is never going to stop short of game 2) If you bid 1♠ and opponents rapidly bid to a high level you will never know what to do, nor will your partner. Bidding 4♠ allows you to trust partner's subsequent decisions. 3) Even if the opponents don't intervene you will never be able to describe this hand to partner except by blasting to 4♠ at some point. Nor are you likely to be able to get the relevant information from partner to enable you to be confident about slam. 4) Bidding an immediate 4♠ only loses if slam makes AND partner is not able to probe for slam having heard your bid. Bidding 4♠ immediately might gain if partner is able to make a probe for slam because he knows about your long strong ♠ (eg if he has singleton ♠) Bearing all this in mind, I think 4♠ is the correct first round bid from both a constructive and competitive point of view. Eric

I think the strong hand should raise 4♠ to 5♠ to ask if partner has a ♦ control and take the small risk of there being 3 ♦ losers. But I don't much like the 1♠ bid on your hand (although it can hardly be blamed for your missing the slam, it would have made it too easy for the opps to come in on a lot of other hands). It looks more like a 4♠ response to me: 1♣ 4♠ 5♣ 5♦ 6♠ is about right. That being said, you could have made a splinter bid on the second round of 4♦. This immediately agrees ♠, whereas a 3♦ bid might be a probe for more information on a hand with only 4♠. On another point, what would a bid of 3♦ instead of the support double show? If you are not using it for something better, you could use it for GF hands with 3 card support (using the support double only as a competitive tool). Then you could get a controlled auction like 1♣ 1♠ (2♦) 3♦ 3♥ (cue) 4♣ (cue) 4♦ (cue) 4NT etc Eric

Interesting hand: On best defense, 5♦ can be made by West but not by East. Eric

Your 1NT was correct IMO. Firstly, it hides from the opponents how weak you are Secondly, it makes it harder for North to bid his spades Thirdly, with the current trend to open big two and three-suited hands with a one level bid rather than 2♣ it gives you a chance to find game if it is there. However, you were lucky to get a good score! Once you pass 2♦, North should certainly have bid 2♠. Eric

Yes, but if there is no ruff and discard possibility then this is just a "throw-in". At least that is the normal usage here. It maybe that the exact terminology is different in other places. It seems like a good idea for there to be different terms to describe these different sorts of end-plays. Eric

An elimination play is where a defender is thrown-in and his options are either to give a ruff and discard or lead into a tenace. It is called an elimination play because declarer eliminates one or more suita from his hand and dummy before performing the throw in so that the defender can't play that suit without conceding a ruff and discard. Eric

The lead directing double is authorised information. Anything which you deduce simply from partner's bids rather than his mannerisms etc is authorised. At the stage he made the double you thought he had what you thought he had shown i.e a heart suit but a hand which wanted a ♠ lead. You continued to bid (and defend) as though that is what he had. Nothing unethical happened at all. Eric

Whether partner should have opened or not (he should) or whether his 3NT bid was correct or not (it wasn't), it must surely be clear after 4♦ and 5♦ that he has approximately this hand. Furthermore, whatever you imagine his hand to be how can it be right to play in 5♠ when your partner has already told you he doesn't want to play in 4♠X? When partner makes "impossible" bids, there is always the possibility that he misclicked, or his mind was wandering etc. And maybe he was just trying to "catch up" - after all once he has passed, 2♦ would be NF. Eric

Although a second double is for take out, partner will often pass it at the 4 level. Especially, as here when we have pretty much denied a 5 card suit by our initial double of 1♦. I think partner will do the right thing quite often here if I double, and I am just too strong to let them play 4♦ undoubled. Eric

Assume you have a 2-5-4-2 hand and partner has less than invitational values. The sort of hands where opening 1NT are better are: Where partner has a non-descript hand with exactly 2♥ as you will often play in 2♥ instead of 1NT Where partner has 4♠ and 6♣ as after 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ partner will be stuck for a bid. Where partner has a subminimum hand with 6♠ as he will pass 1♥ but transfer to 2♠ over 1NT. If you feel that you have an invitational hand after 1♥ 2♥, you may end up in 3♥ down 1 instead of 1NT making There are also gains when partner has a stronger hand. eg: If the bidding starts 1NT 3NT (or even 1NT 6NT) you will have given away much less information than after almost any auction beginning 1♥, and you will probably have right-sided the contract. If partner has a strong 2-suiter he will be able to show his hand much better after a 1NT opening. They may well be other advantages but these are the first few that occurred to me! Eric

1NT is fine. The big loss from opening 1♦ is if partner turns up with something like a 9 point 5431 hand where you want to be in 4M. Not easy to reach after 1♦ 1M 1NT. Also, the opps are unlikley to have a very long suit once they have both passed, so even if partner is weak in one of your suits you will have good chances to make 1NT (or 2NT if partner has some strength) Bidding is very easy if you have a bid which tells partner almost everything about your hand! Eric

If I were playing MUD and deemed this suit the one I should open and partner hadn't bid the suit, then I would (probably): Lead low Lead T MUD MUD MUD But there are various scenarios where I would lead high from 1 3 and 5 Eric

Something like this seems simple to explain, simple to understand and suitable for people starting out in the game: Balanced hands: 13-15 1NT 16-18 1x followed by 1NT, where x is the lower (or only) 4 card suit (possible exception: open 1♣ on 4333 with weak 4 card major) 19-20 1x followed by 2NT, where x is the lower (or only) 4 card suit (possible exception: open 1♣ on 4333 with weak 4 card major) 21-22 2NT 23+ 2♣ Unbalanced hands: Rule of 21 Open longest suit (possible exception: weak hands with 5 card suit higher than 6 card suit) Open higher of 2 equally long suits (except for 4441 types) Responses: Bid a 4 card major (good 5HCP +) or Raise opener's suit (only needs three cards to raise to 2 level even in a minor) or Bid 1NT (6-bad 9) 2/1 needs at least good 9 HCP, if it bypasses 4cM then GF Subsequent bidding is essentially natural (strong balanced hands always rebid NT at the appropriate level unless responder's 1M bid has uncovered a major fit) Obviously the details need to be fleshed out a bit more, but I'm sure you get the idea. Eric

I think if you are going to allow offshape hands (eg 6 card minor or 5422) into NT then you shouldn't use them with maximum hands. The extra shape adds too much playing strength. I would be happy opening a 10 or 11 point hand with these shapes if playing 10-13 but less happy if it had 12 points and wouldn't do it if it had 13 points. Eric

What is the purpose of pointing out, in isolation, the risks of this pre-empt? Nearly all bids have risks, and nearly all players know that. Pre-empts are especially risky. The risk of their bidding a game which they would otherwise miss and that game making don't seem particularly high on this hand. I think it is about as likely as their bidding a game which they would otherwise miss and it failing. But if their fit is in another suit pre-empting makes a big difference to their abilities to diagnose the fit and find the right level. Eric

That is true. But you don't know partner has a 7 card suit when you double. So you have to allow for all manner of possible hands for partner if you contemplate a double. Eric what mike means is that the 7-card holder should bid it out even knowing there is a 44fit. So in the case where he is 7-4 it works OK. But if he is 5-4 in the minors he will surely bid the ♣, and if he is 6-4 probably then as well. Eric