EricK

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

Exactly right. You will almost never miss a ♠ fit on this sequence if you pass as partner will almost always be able to double. But if you double, you will end up declaring a lot of times when you ought to be defending. And you won't even necessarily be declaring in the right suit (partner may bid a 3 card ♠ suit instead of repeating his ♦ suit, or if partner has both minors, you might end up in 3♣ on a 4-3 fit). Eric

That argument is unsound. If you get to pass a 2♥ cue-bid then now you know partner has a very strong hand. But on the first round, you don't know he has a strong hand. Suppose partner had passed 1♠, then you know partner has a weak hand and that passing 1♥X would have been a bad idea. I agree that it is a good idea to plan your auction in advance, but it is a consistent position for that plan to be "take out 1♥X in case partner is weak, but let partner play in 2♥ if he has significant extras". Eric

Partner was in balancing position so he could be very light for his initial double. Now he is telling me he isn't light. I don't have enough to force to game, but I shall tell him about my ♣ to see if that helps him decide the corrrect level. The benefit of bidding 3♣ as the game try is that it gives partner room to make a descriptive bid below the level of 3♠. Eric

If I'm playing a weak 2 in ♣ then I'll open that. Otherwise pass. Eric

This construction assumes partner overcalled 1♥ with Jxx QJxxx xxx xx. Is that plausible? And why would declarer not win first ♥ in dummy to try the ♣ finesse? The bidding and play are really only consistent with declarer having a singleton A♥ - giving partner at least something like an overcall and declarer a reason to win the first trick in hand. This in turn means that declarer can't be void in ♦ as he would then have supressed a 5 card ♠ suit. Maybe he has a 3 or 4 card ♠ suit including the KJ and doesn't know that the ♦ finesse is winning (he probably thinks it's losing becuase of the overcall) or which way to finesse ♠ (again he may expect North to hold the Queen). He may hope for 6♣ 2♥ 3♠ and 1♦ trick. If we retrun a ♥ declarer will probably discard his 4th ♠ or 2nd ♦, play ♠A and ♠K and then play for the automatic squeeze (which works against you even though declarer was expecting it to work against your partner). If we return a ♦, declaler has a genuine guess to make. He can finesse, or he can go up with the Ace and then try to guess ♠. If he was planning to squeeze North, he may simply finesse the ♠Q now. Eric

Passing 1♠ was certainly an odd decision. Since a 1♦ overcall nearly always shows opening strength (else it is a rather pointless bid) there is a lot to be said for having the agreement that bidding continues as if partner had opened 1♦: (1♣) 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♦ (assuming opps stay silent) Eric

I have played in 2 3-3 fits that I recall 3♦ making and 2♥ which I should have been one off for a top but I misplayed and got a bottom. Not the fault of the 3-3 fit though! Eric

Exactly what would you bid after 1♣ 1♥ 2♠? Give partner a "GF" 4225 or 4135 and you will surely end up too high. Eric

The problem is very simple... You are overloading the channel Your alerts are so frequent that they provide no useful information You are obsessing over form while ignoring function Online and FTF are different. Online I alert 2♣ and immediately write "Stayman" or "Keri" or whatever, and opps know (or know to ask more). In FTF the opponents don't know to ask, and I can't say without their asking. This is why the "English" way may be bad in a FTF environment, but is OK online (as long as the bids are explained (or at least named) at the same time). Eric

This is very simple, alerts has nothing to do with how many cards in the suit you have, alert is your duty to tell your opponents that the bid is not what they think it is. So if for example you play 2c to be natural you should alert, if you play 1nT-2H as natural you should alert, if you play 1d to show 3 cards you shouldnt alert because this is what they think it show but 1h-1s-2d they think its 4 cards and if you play it as 3 cards or even if you play it as 5 cards you must alert. Another good example is the polish 1d which we must alert although it show 4+ usally 5+ diamonds more natural then sayc, but we still alert. When you are playing under the auspices of eg the ACBL or EBU or whatever you should know what opponents expect and alert accordingly. But at somewhere like BBO, I think it is important that leeway is given by all sides. Bids which are intended as natural needn't be alerted even if their definition of natural is slightly different to yours. Eric I dont think so When im playing on BBO i assume sayc and anything else including opening of 1d that show 4-5 cards, or 2/1 which is GF i alert. There is a smart statment about alerting: when in doubt there is no doubt, meaning you should alert whenever in doubt. I am thinking more from the point of view of the opponents of players who don't alert. If my opponents fail to alert a bid which to them is probably "natural" I am not going to claim they have done anything wrong. If they do alert a bid because they realise that, although natural, it might be natural in an unexpected way, then that is, of course, very decent of them. That seems to be the issue which started the thread: Were NS right to complain about the lack of alert? Eric

This is very simple, alerts has nothing to do with how many cards in the suit you have, alert is your duty to tell your opponents that the bid is not what they think it is. So if for example you play 2c to be natural you should alert, if you play 1nT-2H as natural you should alert, if you play 1d to show 3 cards you shouldnt alert because this is what they think it show but 1h-1s-2d they think its 4 cards and if you play it as 3 cards or even if you play it as 5 cards you must alert. Another good example is the polish 1d which we must alert although it show 4+ usally 5+ diamonds more natural then sayc, but we still alert. When you are playing under the auspices of eg the ACBL or EBU or whatever you should know what opponents expect and alert accordingly. But at somewhere like BBO, I think it is important that leeway is given by all sides. Bids which are intended as natural needn't be alerted even if their definition of natural is slightly different to yours. Eric

If you didn't have an agreement that 2♦ could be a three card suit then there is definitely no need to alert. I am not sure there is a need to alert anyway. If a 1♦ opening without an alert can be a 3 card suit, then I don't see why this 2♦ rebid needs to be 4. I don't really see what they are complaing about anyway. 4♠ always makes, and I don't see how your exact ♦ count would aid them in cashing the ♥ before you get a discard on the ♣. Eric

Well, I looked at over 4 million auctions, so this isn't a very high frequency....that is, it isn't often. Often the spade bidder found another bid, or the 1♠ passer now found he had a few points and three spades and raised. There was a fair number of 2♦X (some left in btw) when overcaller had clubs. Ben I suppose the situation where 4th hand fails to raise on the first round is the one to worry about, especially against weak opposition. But less so in this situation, where we have 5 spades. Eric

I put this hypothesis to the test by using REC software Inc's Bridgebrowser onto the problem. I asked it to check for auctions that begin specifically 1♥ (1♠) P (P) X (P) 2♦, And examined how many were followed by three passes. In my initial test using recent BBO data, I found this auction occured 96 times, but 2♦ ended the auction only 16 times (just more than 16%). The overcaller (the spade bidder) side played the hand a total of 25 times (meaning they outbid your side of course). Sometimes the extra bidding was by opener without any interference, but on 62 of the 97 hands the overcaller side took another action in the auction after the 2♦ call, and on a few where they didn't it was openers rebid that scared them off in my opinion. So I think the auction is not over after a 2♦ call from either your partner's side of the table or the opponents. IT might be, be the odds of that are fairly low. If partner has diamonds, they will find a reason to bid, if partner is strong, he might bid again, if he is not, they will bid again. This seems to be a trueism... If you bid 2♦ and overcaller has fair clubs and nice spades, he will reopen with a double over 2♦ and find their fit.. and if you don't belong in diamonds, he might reopen and the next hand might have enough diamonds (behind you) to find the pass. ben I am genuinely surprised by this! Partly by how often this particular auction occured. I don't suppose you could say why the opponent's didn't have a bid on the last round but suddenly find that they do now. If it is becasue overcaller has a medium strength hand with 6♠, then we can probably discount that from our thinking on this particular hand. As I wouldn't be too worried about their bidding on in ♠. Eric

If you were playing a 4 card major system and partner opened 1♠, would you pass? Eric

Yes, fly is correct jimmy. You MUST not leave a reopening double in with this hand. Bid 2♥ or if you want, 2♦... but don't pass. Why do you prefer 2♥ to 2♦ after partner's re-opening double? I would have thought that being able to ruff the ♠ in the short trump hand on a probable 9 card fit is worth a trick or two more than whatever partner can make in his 5-2 fit. If partner subsequently hints at more than a part score I can mention my ♥ then, but it seems wrong to hide my 5 card suit from partner. Eric I didn't mean so much to prefer hearts as to warn partner not to bid again. My long spades, in theory will stop the spade force. And the fact that I didn't raise hearts at first, will keep partner from participating further in the auction. If they will leave me alone, I would prefer 2♦, but I suspect 2♦ will not be the end of the bidding. In the specific auction 1♥ (1♠) P (P) X (P) 2♦, it strikes me as very unlikely that the opps are suddenly going to come to life! Once both opponents have passed consecutively, it is much more likely that partner has a very strong hand, so we might as well describe our hand as best we can. Eric

I agree that SJS over majors really aren't necessary in a 2/1 GF system. However, I find them very useful over 1♣ and 1♦ openings SJS at the 2 level seem to me a natural adjunct to a 2/1 system! 1♠ 2♥ is GF with 5♥ and 1♦ 2♥ would be GF with 5♥ too! And note how much easier the follow ups to this latter sequence are often going to be: if opener is 54 in ♠♦ it will start 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ (and we are at 3 level) or 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ (and we haven't mentioned our ♦ yet). But if he were 45, it would go 1♦ 2♥ 2♠ If you make this agreement that all GF hands bid at the 2-level immediately, then you can make 1-level responses non-forcing (which is better in principle), and you can get rid of all your complex XYZ conventions. Eric

Yes, fly is correct jimmy. You MUST not leave a reopening double in with this hand. Bid 2♥ or if you want, 2♦... but don't pass. Why do you prefer 2♥ to 2♦ after partner's re-opening double? I would have thought that being able to ruff the ♠ in the short trump hand on a probable 9 card fit is worth a trick or two more than whatever partner can make in his 5-2 fit. If partner subsequently hints at more than a part score I can mention my ♥ then, but it seems wrong to hide my 5 card suit from partner. Eric

Can I use the phrase "Forcing, in principle"? Suppose we are playing XYZ (so a 2♣ rebid by responder is a puppet to 2♦), then it is tempting to respond 1♥ to 1♣ with a very weak 4450 hand. If playing Walsh responses and the first bid is 1♦, then I suppose responder could have a very weak 3361 hand, trying to bail out in Moysian 1M or, failing that, 2♦. But if responder had a genuine response initially, then he has to bid. Eric

The last disadvantage should be written in bold italic CAPITALS. And not only might you bid a natural 3NT when you should have bid 3♠, but partner might pass 3NT when he should have bid 4M. Technically the system may be sound, but in practice it should only be used if partners have good memories and are very forgiving! Eric

I would pass. I am too weak for 1NT or 2D, and I don't like 2♥ as it may encourage partner to compete too high when I want to defend. The bidding isn't over yet. I may still get to tell partner about my meagre posessions. Eric

It looks like East has 7♦ (since he pre-empted, and West didn't lead one but made a risky ♥ lead) 1♣ 3♥ (as West would probably have overcalled with 6♥ to the Q and an outside A) and so 2♠. A player who pre-empts on 7 to the J will not let the presence or absence of an outside J influence them, so unless the many discards they are forced to make persuade me otherwise (or tell me my inferential count is wrong), I don't see any reason not to eventually take the finesse. Eric

At this vulnerability, 3♦ looks more normal. But it does depend on how low the x's are. Eric

I don't know about whether EW should sacrifice (if South has a ♦ void - quite likely on his bidding - then even 6♠ might make), but East had already made a fundamental error. What is the purpose of passing and then sacrifing in 5♦? If he simply bids 5♦ on the first round he puts South in a difficult position. From South's point of view, the par contract might easily be 6♠, or even 7♠. After all the actual North hand is sub-minimum for a double. Give North the ♥A extra and a ♦ fewer and 7♠ is cold. If South guesses to bid cautiously with 5♠ he would win in this instance, but otherwise EW stand a good chance of getting a plus score. Eric