RSClyde

Thank you. What criteria might a regulating authority use on such a matter?

Can a partnership vary the meaning of bids based on which partner makes the call? For example, say a pro and client. If the client bids something in a certain auction it is a transfer, if the pro bids makes the same call, it is natural. I can't find anything which addresses this directly. But is such a system allowed?

This seems like a pretty clear double to me. 2♥ certainly might work, but double seems correct. 10 HCP seems a little odd as a standard. I'm no historian but my understanding is that when this rule was probably written was in the days of 16-18 no trumps and generally sounder opening bids. In such a system where that was enough to invite game opposite an opener. As opening bids have softened, this hasn't really changed to balance that. The lighter you open, the sounder your two level bids in competition should be. Otherwise you end up too high for no reason. On this hand for example, you rate to be too high the second partner doesn't have a heart fit (unless he has long diamonds). Then when partner has to routinely hold himself back opposite your 2 level call, you'll have to bid again when you have an invitational hand because you won't have communicated those values the first time. I understand that violating this can work when there's a suit that you're dying to get off your chest. But a 5 card suit and a balanced hand?

The second problem is interesting. Here is a side question: Do you think they will make 4♠? I'm getting that many players view this as a clear "no". I'm not so sure at all. This auction really does sound impossible, how can you bid 4♠ now at these colors? At least if you bid it right away it would have given the opponents a chance to go wrong (or at least not double you), even if you did think it likely to go off one. So I'd have to think that the 4♠ bidder didn't bid his hand very well. It such case, he may just not be a very good player, that was sort my impression. So the fact that he (bid as if he) doesn't believe that 4♠ is making, may mean very little. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was a hand where most were raising to 4♠ right away. The question of whether you should double is a more complex one.

1) I don't have a clear picture of who's making what. They're at the 5 level so I'm happy. 2) This auction is almost unbelievable at these colors. I would say it's a clear pass. Technically something other than pass probably is right, but your hand doesn't suggest a different call and you aren't required to guess.

I don't really get the issue with having 2 aces. Is it a lot of defense? Sure but so is an A, a K and a Q: unless you don't think that's a weak 2 either. Standard weak 2's are wide ranging, most people write (at least where I'm from) 5-10HCP. Obviously when you're making any bid that flexible you can cause yourself issues. But I don't see any reason to pick on the 2 aces case specifically. One of my partners opens weak twos with bad 5 card suits. He normally plays with his girlfriend who's pretty weak so he's just trying to generate swings. He loves them in general though. It's too much for me. I want to be able to know the extent of our trump fit to take my best shot at the LTT. Another partner finds all kinds of reasons to talk himself out of opening a weak two. So he passes and the opponent's get to exchange information freely. But my most regular partner and I open weak 2's on anything, but require 6 cards. If we have extra shape: like 6-5, we are willing to bid again/ double depending on the level. I love it. I just apply the LTT as best I can. Beyond that I avoid any decision that will make me look like a hero. If they make their way to a normal contract thereafter, then pass should guarantee about an average board. But I must stay alive to the fact that we may have rammed them into an abnormal contract: if so then double is often unnecessary and saving offers no hope. So our general approach is to make our best guess and then let it go afterwards unless a call seems clear.

I just Dealmastered the hand. 6♠ is 82% opposite a random hand in this situation.

I play that 3♠ over 2♥ can be passed: just invitational. I thought that was standard, am I wrong? I think you just have to use some judgment: you virtually have slam in your own hand. With nothing else to go on 6♠ is a better guess than 4♠. As far as getting to the right slam, that depends on your system. I play 3♥ as Michaels here. So I'd bid that and then over 3♠ continue with 5♥ exclusion to try to reach 7♠. If partner asks for the minor it's not as clear how to proceed but we will at least play 6♦. Of course I'm not used to playing with GIBs so if that's what you're asking then I'm not really sure. I think you just have to bid it. BTW I love the description of the double of 4♥.

I think there is a fallacy that occurs here however. Which hand is better if partner has a long suit to play in? 4333 or 4432? It's not automatically the latter, because that suit is frequently your short one. Yes the 4432 shape is better opposite the 5(+) card spade suit (than the 4333) if spades isn't the short suit, otherwise the 4333 is better.

Talking about game tries one of my partners asked "we're playing 4-way invites right?" I replied that I didn't care as long as we weren't playing 3-way invites: because I never turn one of those down. Bridge is a strange game: A strip-squeeze isn't near as much fun as it sounds, a cheap hooker is just someone who takes deep finesses, and splintering with a stiff in your hand doesn't refer to Pinocchio watching porn.

These things may cause the simulator to be a little off center, but it's not clear that this would be a significant error. The things you mention can be true when you have a 5 card suit as well just to a slightly lesser extent. I'm open to the possibility that upgrading is right, I'd just like a clear reason to believe this beyond something like "all the good player's know..." or "It's always worked for me" or "It's obvious that this hand is worth more than...". I get that the logistics of testing such a thing would be difficult, so like I say I opened minded on this. I do however find it suspicious that the one test I can run doesn't bear out the that upgrading is right.

Why didn't you give responder the K of clubs instead of the K of diamonds? Now bid slam (slightly worse I know). He wouldn't dream of moving with xx Axxxx xxx AKx, and certainly not with Kx Jxxxx, xxx, AKx. There are lots of slams missed starting with a splinter, even excluding stiff spades. Then of course, since you want partner to go nuts with the hand above (a hefty assumption), why not Kxx, Axxxx, KQ, xxx? It kind of looks like the same hand to opener. Just pointing out that no bid is perfect doesn't make any bid equally good.

The problem with bidding spades is that you can lose the ability to put hearts in focus. Let partner rebid 2♥. Now what? Or 2♦, now 3nt over 4thSF. Plus if you aren't committed to slam it can be tough to return to hearts if spades gets raised.

I agree when you have fast controls complimenting your long suit: I mean Ax xxx Axx AKQxx Is a very fine 17 count and I'll agree is too good for 1nt. I mean you basically have 7 tricks in your hand, partner could easily have the goods for game and not find a call over 1nt. But when you start to turn some of those aces into softer cards: Qx QJx Kxx AKQxx It kind of feels like I need just as much help from my partner for game as with an 17 count.

My simulations have found that balanced hands with 5 card suits aren't particularly stronger than those without for play no trump. Has anyone found an data to the contrary? Those of you who do this, what makes you think that a 14 count with a 5 card suit is worth 15 without one? I understand that discussions like this are difficult because it is impossible to weigh all of the possible ways that a hand can play. Having an extra card is often an extra winner, but sometimes that isn't useful (there's nothing left to pitch). It also means that you have short suits, which means weak spots in your hand for them to attack. Plus there's a loss of flexibility: If I have AKxxx of clubs then it looks great but it's also kind of unilateral, if we're in a 3nt contract that partner stretched to bid because I upgraded, I almost have to make the clubs work and when partner's fit there is poor I have little chance. People also like "honor concentration" in long suits, but those cards can be wasted. AKQJx looks great. But it also ties up 10 of your HCPs. AKQxx frees up a point to go elsewhere in the hand and still plays for 5 tricks much of the time. Even AKxxx might play for 5 tricks and that frees up an entire K! Of course this all just depends on frequency, you could go back and forth and possibilities all day. Which is why having some hard data would be helpful. I'm open to changing my view on this topic, I'd just like something more than intuition.