EricK

I don't understand what you are saying. A 4432 hand is just as suited to defense whether you call it a 3 suiter or a 2 suiter. If you want to defend with it, then pass. If you want to try to declare with it why does it matter if it called a 2 suiter or a 3 suiter? Eric

Certainly Terence Reese was against bidding stayman on balanced hands. What happens a lot in practice is this: 1NT 3NT. Field is in 3NT, everyone makes the same number of tricks partner doesn't comment. 1NT 3NT. Field is in 3NT, you make an overtrick because of your bidding, partner doesn't comment 1NT 3NT. Field is in 4M and get a better score, partner moans at you for not using Stayman. So next time 1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3NT Eric

Personally I prefer number 4. Bidding is much easier if 1♦, 1♥ & 1♠ promise unbalanced hands. To that end, I reckon that if you also include all 5332 hands in with 1♣ and swap 1♠ and 1NT response to 1♥, the net positives (eg being able to play in 1NT; having 1♠ 1NT 2♣ promise a 4 card suit; not having to rebid 2♠ or bid 3♣ after 1♠ 2♦ with a minimum 5314 hand) outweigh the negatives (missing an occasional major part score). "Balanced hands should be bid as balanced hands" - that is much easier if they are all bundled into a single opening. Eric

If I were playing in a new/pick-up partnership then I would just bid 3NT. It is right on values, and I doubt we would be able to exchange the correct information to bid a ♦ slam with any confidence. I don't like XX on any hand with a fit, nor do I like bidding a major suit I don't have. Does BBO basic or SAYC play 1♦ (X) 2NT as natural or as some sort of ♦ raise? If the latter then that is a good start for exploring a ♦ slam. If partner simply bids 3♦ as a sign off, you can bid 3NT now and partner will have a fair idea of your hand (or think you have forgotten the system :) ). If 2NT would be natural, then, playing with an understanding partner, the only sensible way I can see of exploring for a ♦ slam is to pass here. Opps are in a forcing auction so you can afford to pass. Then you will almost certainly have a chance to cue bid the opp's suit to get more info from partner. Since LHO has about 0-4 points, and likely nearer the lower end, I am not really worried that he can give any useful information to his partner. Eric

But an interesting phenomenon I have observed is that many partnerships have better, more complete, agreements after 1NT than they do after 1x 1y 1NT. If those partnerships were at least to use there exact same methods after 1x 1y 1NT as they do over 1NT then there bidding would automatically improve. Eric

OK, I give. I play every trump, sluffing a heart, followed by three rounds of clubs and the HA. If the H KQ have been dumped, I cash the jack. If they haven't, hopefully the person with the long diamonds also had the HKQ so now the diamonds cash out, or the diamonds were 3-3 to begin with. Or somebody made a foolish discard on the spades- it happens. This must be wrong, because it's too easy. What did I miss? How do you play the spades? Eric

Just because LOTT says it is safe, doesn't mean that is where you have to get to. Maybe 3♠ is the par contract and 4♥ is down one. Then, if the opps aren't going to bid to 3♠, you are better off in 3♥. Maybe LOTT is off by one or more. Certainly your minor honours outside ♥ would suggest it. Eric

What did you do when 3NT came back to you? Eric At my table, LHO raised diamonds rather than trying for a NT game. I eventually declared 4♠X, making on a mis-defense. Diamond ruffed, trump, diamond ruffed, trump, Heart ducked, heart continuation? Eric

What did you do when 3NT came back to you? Eric

I think it would be in most partnerships who played splinters in other sequences Eric

I don't like this agreement. Doubling 4♥ simply gives them more room to explore for slam. I'm not sure that sending the message "the suit I bid at the 3 level is a good one to lead" is worth enough to handicap oneself in this way. Eric

The bidding was OK. North might want to show his ♦ suit rather than his ♣ shortage. Both 6♥ and 6♠ would have made on a slightly different lie of the cards. Eric

You need two tricks to beat 6♦. Obviosuly, you are not to know that partner has two Aces, and opps have bid a slam without any sort of control in ♠. So what is the best chance of 2 tricks? I expect it is either a club ruff plus a heart or spade, or a heart and a spade. If partner had a void club, he might have made a lightner double of 6♦, so I would go for a heart and spade. It is likely that the ♥ trick needs setting up ready to cash when we get in with a spade, so I would lead a ♥. Eric

Most 8 card suits are sound 4 level overcalls. Especially where they are headed by 3 of the top five honours. Good bid! Opps have a laydown 3NT (in fact they make 5NT), and you are only 2 down in 4Sx. It looks a good result to me. Eric

This was my partner's hand, I had something like ♠Txx ♥Jxx ♦QJ9xx ♣xx. Opposite this, if you open 2NT, you will probably play there and be 1 or 2 down (If you tackle ♦ by leading A and another, opps will not hold up the K. If you start with a small one, they might). If you open 2♣, you will be in 3NT and 2 or 3 down. Obviously, one hand doesn't prove anything, but isn't it more likely that if partner has a bare minimum raise to game opposite 2♣ 2♦ 2NT then his few points and length are likely to be in ♦ and/or ♥ and therefore potentially useless to you? At MPs, if partner passes 1♣ (or 1♣ 1♦ 1♠), aren't you probably better off than if you had opened 2NT or 2♣? If partner doesn't have a pass over 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ you aren't worse off, are you? And isn't that what MPs is all about - doing what works most often? So, unlike Fluffy, I am not so sure this was an easy hand! Eric

♠AKxx ♥Axx ♦Ax ♣AKxx The x are really small. What is your plan (NV at MPs if it matters)? Eric

WARNING : The following might be meant as a joke: You don't even need to make a single psyche! If you alert some of partner's bids and point out they may be psyches, you will get pretty much the same effect. And as long as you and your partner have not made an agreement not to psyche, then you are telling the truth! Even if you and your partner have agreed never to psyche, you can still alert some of partner's bids and say "people have been known to psyche in this position". Eric

If it were undiscussed, I would never bid this way! A good use for it may very well be some sort of spade suit. That way you can differentiate your single-suited spade hands between very weak hands (1H 2S), weak hands (1H 1NT 2x 2S), invitational hands (1H 1S any 2S) and GF hands (1H 1S any 3S). Eric

Since 2NT forces us to 3H, Pass is forcing, double is penalty-ish and 3H is weakest action. 4C is primarily helping partner decide what to do if opps bid 4S i.e. a FNJ Eric

It is a hand without 3♠, without 4♦ and not suitable for an immediate NT bid (i.e a bad or non-existent ♥ stop, or too unbalanced). Also, is 2/1 absolutely GF or is a repeat of the♣ NF? If the latter, then you need some way of showing the true GF hand. This might also need to go via the fourth suit. If 2/1 is 100% GF, then the 2♥ bid will also deny a good 6 card ♣ suit. So really it is a process of elimination. If you have no descriptive natural bid then bid FSF. It might or might not have a ♥ suit, but many 2425 hands will bid NT instead, so not bidding it does not deny 4♥ (I hope that last clause is clear, there are an awful lot of negatives in it!) Eric

It would seem that partner is behaving illegally under this law - he will bid one way if you bid quickly and another if you bid slowly. I wonder if he realises that? You should, of course try and make all your bids in tempo. You also shouldn't play any conventions which partner is liable to forget - it just isn't worth it! Eric

I have just had a thought! After opps bid 1H 1NT (forcing) might it be better for a double by fourth hand to simply show ♠ (ie a hand which would have overcalled 1♥ with 1♠) rather than as a normal take out double of 1♥? This sort of hand (strong enough to overcall 1♠ but not strong enough to overcall 2♠ may be the most likely hand to be able to compete for the part score. What do you think? Eric

This is a reasonable idea. I would suggest you tailor your responses based on the answers to these two question. How often will partner raise to 2M on 3 card support instead of bidding 1NT? (For some pairs the answer is never, for others it is whenever he has a small doubleton, for others it is if he has no tenaces to protect, and so on) How often will partner rebid 1NT with a singleton in your suit? (Again some pairs will never do this, others will do it sometimes, others will do it frequently). Depending on your answers, you might decide you have little need to rebid a 5 card suit (if partner is unlikley to have 3) or unwise to do so (if partner may have a singleton), so the second round transfer would suggest a six card suit. For the second question (or possibly in any case), you might want to have a bid to show that your suit is weak, so he shouldn't rely on it to be a stop in 3NT - maybe you could use the "impossible" splinter (eg 1♣ 1♥ 1NT 3♦) to show that. I don't know whether telling opps about this is a good idea though! Eric

That 1S might end the auction is the least of concerns. Much worse is the fact that 1S fails to mention the only thing might help pard in opps compete: the heart fit. If you don't rescue partner from his own overcalls, then a change of suit will imply tolerance for his suit a lot of the time. A fit in his suit is not necessarily the only thing of use to partner. He might have a fit in your suit! Eric

Do you not have a natural way to force to game after a 1NT rebid? If not, that would appear to be a flaw in the system. Maybe as a default you should play exactly the same system over a 1NT rebid as you do over a 1NT opening. Eric