EricK

This sounds plausible, but if this was really your attitude, then you wouldn't open a natural 1NT at all if you held a 4 card major. If you are prepared to open 1NT on a 4432 shape, then why aren't you prepared to rebid 1NT on the same shape? Eric

In "Polish Club" by Matula, he describes something similar except 3D shows 3 card support and 2NT denies it. Do you think it matters which way round you play them? Eric

Hi Roland, I for one like to play cheapest new suit after 1x 1y 2x as a forcing relay for two main reasons 1) So I can show slam interest in partner's suit at a low level eg 1C 1H 2C 2D 2NT 3C 2) So I can show slam interest in my suit at a low level eg 1C 1H 2C 2D 2NT 3H In hands where I am just looking for stops for NT the loss of room in sometimes bidding eg 2S instead of 2D is less important. Others may have other reasons. Eric

I would make a slight lie and bid 2D. If partner bids 2NT I will bid 3C. There is a lot of slam potential here (eg Axx Jx Kx QJxxxx). Absolutely. How can it go wrong? I don't believe it is necessary. Either approach will work. I believe it is "standard" in most natural systems, without discussion, that new suits show either length or values. In your example hand xxx AKQxx Jxx AK, If I were playing asks without discussion I would be very unsure what the following showed/denied 1C 1H 2C 2D 2S, 1C 1H 2C 2D 2NT, 1C 1H 2C 2D 2H, 1C 1H 2C 2D 3C, not to mention higher actions by opener. Playing "shows" rather than "asks" with a pick-up advanced/expert partner, I think I would know what the follow ups meant. BTW, in my preferred methods, I like many others here, use eg 1C 1H 2C 2D as an artificial relay. But obviously this needs discussion, and is far from standard yet. Eric

Sorry. I wasn't complete in my response. 2S can also be made with a spade suit and opener should certainly raise to 3S on the hand you give (even in Standard Martian). But since opener has practically denied 4S, it doesn't make sense to reserve a 2S bid for hands with 4S. And I don't think 2D is non-forcing in this sequence. It is natural, forcing, but may not be a genuine suit, just a stop (just like 2S, in fact!). Eric

Why does 2D ask "Do you stop Diamonds?" rather than "Do you stop spades?" or "do you stop "Diamonds and spades?"? 2S in any natural system (Acol, SAYC, standard Martian etc) shows GF strength, spades stopped, diamonds not stopped. Simple. Eric

You're bidding seems fine. But partner should have bid 3H. There was no reason for him to jump to game when you are already in a game-forcing auction. I wouldn't have then bid 4NT on your hand because there is a chance that partner has 2 small clubs. I like 2C 2D 2S 3C 3H 5H 6H 5H shows excellent support in the context of a negative response, so partner can see a good chance for 12 tricks. Eric

I can understand readers of this forum immediately looking for a squeeze (why post a hand if the solution is to take a finesse), but this doesn't explain why the simple play wasn't noticed at the table. The lack of a diamond lead pretty much marks DK with East, and the double means that East is very unlikely to hold the Heart K as well. Counting your tricks and taking account of the bidding and opening lead are what every competent declarer does on every hand (I would have thought). To be honest, I am not a very competent declarer. I would have spotted the simple squeeze on the lead of the Diamond Ace, but I don't think the more complicated squeeze would ever have occured to me. This actually is a nice hand for an intermediate group, but the story should be told the other way around (i.e. one table got the Club lead and made the hand via diamond discard and Heart finesse, how did the declarer who got the DA lead also make the slam?). Eric

I have played EHAA a few times at BBO with Mycroft, and I can honestly say that I don't recall there being many bad hands as a result of the system - certainly no more than one would expect if one is playing any anti-field system. On the other hand, I wonder if EHAA would be improved if 5332 hands were counted as balanced (as is the modern tendency in many other systems). So 10-12 hands are opened 1NT, and weaker 5332 hands are passed. This would mean that 2 level bids are either 6+ or two suited which must increase your chances of landing in a playable suit. Eric

Have I gone mad? Why can't declare just draw trumps, discard the diamond on the third club and lead up towards the Heart Q? Eric

I assumed that the first option was really for 2C. On my screen it shows as an "n" with a tilde (~) on top. It seemed more likely that that was a mistype for 2C, than for 2NT (since 2NT makes no sense on the hand). If I am wrong, I would like to change my vote! Eric

In general, once you have pre-empted, partner's doubles are penalty, and you shouldn't take them out. Here North has an incredibly defensive hand for a 2H opening, so should certainly not be taking out a double. On that subject, I don't like much of the bidding as quoted here. West bid his hand particularly well, but apart from that I don't really approve. Norths hand is either a 1H opener or a pass, there is far too little in the Heart suit, and far too much outside for a 2H bid. East's double is strange. He is strong but not that strong. If he was prepared to bid up to 4S by himself, then he should have bid it straightaway. Similarly, South should have bid to 4H straightaway. Eric

Is partner allowed to make a decision over X? Well obviously on very offensive hands he is, but on most hands he will pass the double. And what about hands where you are bidding to make 4S, but have no real reason to believe that you can defeat 5H? Do you double anyway? Anyone who posts on the "Advanced and Expert" forum would have agreements with a regular partner as to what a pre-empt shows, so would have no reason to ask others what he should bid. Or so I thought. So it wasn't at all clear to me that the post was in the context of a regular partnership. Eric

If your "Who says I am not bidding to make" is a valid comment, then over 5H by LHO, partner may get it wrong by bidding 5S, as he doesn't know at this stage who is sacrificing over whom. This hand is all about partnership agreements. Playing with a pick-up partner, I would bid 3S. Playing with a regular partner I would bid whatever pre-empt fitted in with the style we agreed. BTW, for those who bid 4S, what would a 3S bid look like? Eric

I am not sure I understand your post. One of them has clubs and one of them has hearts, but your partner might have clubs and hearts (eg 1-4-3-5). Also, whether you bid 3S or 4S, you force the last guess on the opps I find that when I bid 4S vulnerable on a hand which isn't quite worth it, then the opps make the final guess to double me, and they turn out to be right! 3S is my bid Eric

What about "Pass"? Have you calculated using absolute scores, or IMPs, or what? Eric

I did a little experiment with this hand. Using the bridge program Jack (v2.02), I set it up so that South and West had passes and North had the given hand, then I dealt 9 hands and saw how the bidding might go with each of four bids by North (Pass, 1S, 2S or 3S). I didn't try either of the psyches suggested (1NT or 2H) because there would be too many judgement calls in the bidding. If North started with a pass, I assumed he would come in at the two level (if it looked right) but not the three level. For South, I assumed that he would assume a 5 card suit for a 2S pre-empt, and a 6 card suit for a 3S pre-empt. I let Jack bid the East/West hands to simulate playing against a reasonable, but not expert, pair. The raw scores were as follows (all scores are double dummy results). Pass 1S 2S 3S -620 -620 -620 -620 +100 -140 -50 -100 +110 +110 -110 -150 +420 +420 +420 +420 +140 +140 -50 -50 -660 -620/-500 -600 -600 -130 +140 +140 +500 +100 +140 -50 -50 -650 -650 -650 -200 The choice in row 6 is because I genuinely couldn't decide whether North would sacrifice over 4H. I realise 9 hands is not a very large sample, but this sort of experiment takes a while per hand! Now I have these results, I am not entirely sure what, if anything, they show! Assuming this is a representative sample, what does the data suggest? Eric

Suppose you are playing the first of your suggestions Compare (3S) X All pass with (3H) 3S (p) ? ??? This is surely a gain for the transfer pre-empt (if the pass of the negative double was correct) Also, right siding the contract (after eg 3H (p) 3S All pass) must be worth about half a trick per hand in the long term. And keeping the unknown hand hidden must be worth a further fraction of a trick. And if you play transfer pre-empts, you can include other hands (eg with a 6-6 two suiter you can transfer into the higher then bid the lower) How have you arrived at your opinion that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages? Was it experience at the table (which surely didn't cover a statistically significant sample, and is notoriously prone to mis-analysis) or was it via a simulation? Note, I am not saying you are wrong (I have never played them, nor done a simulation!), but it has always struck me that this is closer than the nay-sayers seem to think. Eric

You will be rewarded for that magnanimity. If (s)he is a true beginner I will consider if I want to play with him/her. But if (s)he is in fact a better player, may I say that I dislike that kind of humility ? Erkson The novice and the beginner know that they are novice or beginners. That part seems clear to me. It is true there is one gold star player who list himself as a beginner, but I think this is an abboration. Few good players list themselves as beginners. On the otherhand, there are people who never once played in a tournment or read a book who "always win" when they play with their group in their little small towns. They truely think themselves experts, everyone they know tells them so. Sure they never heard of a jacoby and wouldn't have a chance of reconizing the simpliest of simple squeezes, and they have never counted out a hand other than for trumps. But they truely consider themselves experts. A few weeks on the BBO should resolve these delusions, but of course it doesn't.... the reason they lose here JUST HAS TO BE the oponents cheat or the partners they get are so bad what chance did they have? :D I can forgive people thinking they are experts because they always win against the select group of people they have always played against. But there is really no excuse for them marking themselves as "Expert" on BBO, since it is clearly stated that an "Expert" is someone who has done well in regional/national competition. Whether or not I play at an expert level, I wouldn't put myself down as an expert because I have never entered any regional/national tournaments. But since I do consistently well at my local level I put myself down as "Advanced". How hard can it be for people to pick their correct level from the BBO options?! Eric

1) I pass. 2)Close between a Heart and a Spade ... ... ... OK. Spade 7 3) No. Game is likely to be close and I am worried about a spade lead through Kx 4) Sign off in 3H. If I had passed on the first round would LHO have balanced? Then I might buy it in 2H. 5) I wouldn't have bid 4S. I would have bid 3C. Now I bid 5C, I suppose. But I don't like it. Eric

I think you are overestimating how hard it is for East to unguard the CQ, as this is really an easy hand for East to count too (the lead, plus South's not ruffing a spade gives him a 3532 hand with the JT of diamonds). I am willing to grant that a fair number of players would hesitate in East's seat, but a large number of players who were not even close to being real pros would get it right. Eric

I don't think this helps. After 3 rounds of Spades, 1 Diamond and 5 rounds of trumps, East comes down to DKQ CQ9 and South, who will know that clubs were originally 5-3 (assuming he reads the diamond lead as a singleton) will still finesse. Or am I missing something? Eric

When playing Acol, the question you should keep asking yourself is "What single bid does most to describe my hand?". If my hand looks like a NT hand eg strong doubletons/weak long suits then I will open or rebid 1NT If my 5 card suit is respectable, I will bid it and then rebid it if I can't mention my 4 card suit. If my 4 card suit is strong I will bid it as long as I have a clear rebid over any response of partners. This last point means that I will rarely start with the 4 card suit. eg in a 2-4-2-5 minimum hand, if you open 1H and partner rebids 2D you are stuck. The dangers of rebidding weak 5 card suits are exaggerated. You will occasionally end up in a 5-1 fit at the two level, but often on those hands there was no good spot for you to play in anyway! Eric

In traditional Acol (variable NT, 4 card majors, light 2/1 bids) this is a 1S opening, of course. One only opened a prepared Club when playing a strong No Trump (i.e. when vulnerable). e.g make the CK into the C2 in your hand. This is because there would be no sensible rebid if partner made a 2/1 bid. Eric

The advice not to double for penalties unless you are confident of setting them two tricks mainly applies to situations where it is their hand. In other words, they have bid to a contract they are happy with, but you have a nasty surprise for them. Often this sort of double does give information away, and declarer can often get an extra trick as a result of it. "Matchpoint" doubles are generally made on hands where you think you can make some contract, but the opponents have outbid you. Now, if they go down undoubled or make the contract, you are probably set for a bad score anyway so you have little to lose by the double. As a result, these doubles don't really say much about your hand, they say more about your partnership's potential (which has usually already been revealed in the auction anway). An example might be 1H (1S) 2S (3S) X, where 2S shows 3 card Heart support and enough strength for the 3 level. In this auction, everybody knows you and your partner have the strength for 3H (and +140), your double simply says that you don't think you can make 4H and they probably can't make 3S. It doesn't give away the position of any spade honours (you may or may not have them!). But you have to double or else you are booked for a bad score. Eric