pstansbu

I agree with those saying the balanced hands shouldn't be ignored and 2NT is the natural option - this also fits the desire for consistency, I'd usually play puppet stayman over a 2NT opener - this feels like a good option to use in this case too. The remaining decision is therefore whether to use the delayed bid for the 5-5mm hands or the balanced hand. The advantage of bidding 5-5mm immediately and delaying the balanced hand is you will know their suit and the stopper position. The disadvantage is Responder will now know the long suit and being able to act more confidently. An immediate balanced overcall will leave Responder a bit more in the dark and having decide whether to bid on, guess the lead etc. I reallise my earlier suggestion of bidding immediately with a heart stopper is a bit rubbish, a good chance they will pass the 2NT regardless and responder will be able to tell when they hold spades and lead this. Does the uncertainty mean you can be a bit more liberal with you stops/lack of stops?

That hadn't even occurred to me :( I assume by fert. you mean forcing pass as there isn't technically a fert. in that sequence. If the pass includes the strong hands would this have to be alerted and would it even be allowed? I thought regulations only cover a forcing pass by opener, but I'm happy to be corrected. I hadn't thought of making the pass forcing - in both types of Multi I would have thought if the auction is passed out opponents are going to be in the wrong contract in nearly all cases and we're better off defending.

As posted yes <_< The balanced hands are bothering me - 15-18 and 19 as you say. One thought was to keep 2NT more traditional as, say 15-18 with a stop and then you either upgrade of downgrade the odd 19 count. I'm rubbish at combined probabilities so haven't worked out probability of this balanced type hand vs the 5-5mm hand. I suspect the balanced hand is more likely. You could then use the immediate / delayed approach to bidding with the balanced option. Bid 2NT immediately with both Majors stopped, otherwise wait for the bidding to come around and see if you have a stop (edited to take out my silly point about bidding with only hearts stopped - that doesn't work) This defeats the complete consistency but it's not an artificial bid to rack your brains over. I hadn't thought of an upper limit for the Muiderberg - what strength do you see as the challenge? I'm guessing something like 16+ when partner might pass you out with < 9 but game is on etc. This is the auction when responder is most likely to pass - they might make a "stolen bid" double but would probably pass - as opposed to the 2♦ doubled where I suspect a bid is more likely.

Seeing an increasing number of players using a Multi 2 (usually diamonds and occasionally clubs) I have been looking into various defences as the only tool for me currently is Leaping Michaels. I like the look of multi vs. multi but that is relatively complex for what remains a rare occurrence. I then had the idea of just reusing our own multi 2d and related 2 level bids (Muiderberg/Woo and UNT style minors)- but resizing them (for strength) without reshaping them. This would virtually eliminate misunderstandings and forgetfulness. However the fact I haven't seen this suggested anywhere concerns me - so was wondering what people think the drawbacks are. Assume they open a Multi 2♦ which is standard 3 way (weak 2 in Major, strong NT and strong 4-4-4-1 or at least not a mini Multi). The assumption would be that this will mostly be a weak 2 and if it's a strong option the likelihood of holding an opening hand is very low (at some point this won't hold and we could find ourselves declaring something awful and doubled, but on occasions that's a fair price to pay). Therefore the multi becomes: X = Multi 6 card Major - opening hand NT opener - 20-22 - something to stop Majors 4-4-4-1 hand 16+ (could be 5-4-4-0) [*]2♥/ ♠ - 5 in the bid Major and 4+ in unspecified minor - opening hand [*]2NT - 5-5 in the minors - opening hand So basically turned the weak options into stronger ones. Next assumption - LHO will bid 2♥ so our continuations barely change pass - I would have bid 2H - nothing much to say - 0-9? 2NT - asking bid - 9+ X - I have hearts - I haven't thought this through vs showing shortness in hearts, but for ease of remembering we use doubles of artificial bids as lead directing / showing that suit so this is simple. LHO could pass so more bids available pass - I have diamonds and values 2♥ - not much to say pass or correct 2♠ - invitational in hearts 2NT - asking 9+ Against a Multi 2♣ (e.g. showing an Acol strong 2 in any suit, weak 2 in diamonds, a strong balanced hand) the odds change slightly but I imagine the weak 2 is still most likely (assuming the strong balanced is top end. So I think the only things that change are: You bid 2♦ for the Multi LHO might double and partner mustn't forget they probably have a weak 2 in ♦ if passing This also leaves other options open - e.g. Leaping Michaels and delayed bidding options where you have a takeout of spades (or diamonds in the latter case) that doesn't much the hand patterns - you know you'll gat a chance for a takeout double when the bidding comes back around. There are still some hand patterns missing (e.g. weak and strong NT hands, takeout of hearts) but I'd rather miss these out to get the bidding right than include them and get the bidding wrong.

Agreed, whilst fans of David Bird and Taf Anthias might leap at the chance, anyone else might easily find this as the best lead - if you are weak then partner is more likely to have a long suit opposite your short Spades than opposite your longest suit (particularly if that's a minor when no Stayman or transfer used). This wouldn't need to be a specific agreement nor could I see a need for this to be on the convention card (and even then where would it go - just because you've said what you'll lead from length doesn't oblige you to lead a long suit). The only time something might need to be said is if a question is asked. In my experience people of ask something like "standard leads?" which isn't a great question IMHO but I would still answer "yes". If asked something specific like "will that be 4th highest from a long suit" then you might need to throw in the option.

My omission - forgot to say Matchpoints, we did set the contract but -2 the norm, only kept off rock bottom by one pair settled in 3♦ making. A fitting reward for our silliness :(.

That wouldn't help us sadly - playing standard count and attitude, and agreement to give count when unable to cover. Suit preference would only apply where count wouldn't make sense, and I think it still makes sense here.

This seems worth consideration - along with Zelandakh's post on the variations Aberration independent of the original problem (we never got as far as discussing this) - my 2 is effectively both - our approach is to give count when you can't cover the card from dummy - so this, in effect, discouraging showing the 8 as my highest possible card. I'm now sure declarer finessed as I don't recall being able to signal - we've just adopted Italian discards so I would have been highly relieved and surprised to see an odd spade and an even card in both minors all available. I wondered before as I couldn't think of much reason for declarer to go against the odds but you give good enough reasons.

When you put it like that I feel embarrassed about posting and even more so for not spotting all of those cards either at the time or in post mortem ;) Excellent reminder to concentrate!

Thanks - I have updated accordingly (I hope) Declarer is a very good player in this case.

Partner and I couldn't agree on this one so though I'd get some good advice from forum members (NB added full diagram as suggested and slightly amended later play as I'd confused that with a different board) Defending against 3NT partner leads 10♥, covered by the Queen and I win with the Ace (I don't remember whether the 2 or 5 was played by declarer, which is a bad sign I know...). We play standard present count so I return the 6, partner wins with the 8 and changes to Jack♣ covered by the Queen and I play the 2. Diamonds are played and partner wins with the Queen (I forget if a finesse or drop played for). Partner plays a second club and we are sunk from there. He switched suits as he believes declarer has the Jack as I haven't played it, the 6 isn't obviously a low card so I might have started with A6 or A6x, hence he felt the Jack was a better card for me to return, whilst I felt the Jack was only right from Jx or J10x. [hv=pc=n&s=sq9h52dakt984cak6&w=st852hkt98dq32cj9&n=sk764hq43dj75cqt5&e=saj3haj76d6c87432&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1dp1sp2np3nppp]399|300[/hv] What would people advise here?

That's a reason for playing a more comprehensive variant such as Ghestem or Questem (assuming this isn't a strong 1♣ opener when you probably want a different convention so you could show a 2 suiter holding clubs). This will encourage your partner to bid as your bids tend to show suits other than the one you bid (you would bid either 2 ♣ or 3♣, depending on convention, in this case). I tend to play these weak or strong (else overcall with higher ranking suit) so that would work nicely here.

I've heard advice previously that it's a bad idea to splinter with a singleton Ace - I only realised I hadn't discussed this with partner when I bid heeded the advice and bid 2NT on the following hand. Clearly lesson 1 is to agree :). Aside from that, a general and a specific question: What do people think of that advice? What should I have bid on this hand? Second question might be automaticall answered by the first of course... Partner opens 1♥ and RHO passes. [hv=pc=n&n=sqt73hk985dqj87ca]133|100[/hv] We play 4 card Majors, so there is a reasonable chance of a 5-4 fit but not guaranteed. In the light of that partner felt I was too light to bid 2NT as well as preferring a splinter.

Good points, you've articulated some concerns that have been niggling but not properly formed in my mind. Showing 2 of top 3 honours is also a bad idea as it helps paint a very accurate picture of the HCP distribution of the closed hand (at least most likely to be the closed hand). Once dummy goes down it will probably be obvious which these are, and with a weak NT you've pinpointed up to half of your high card points. Showing a doubleton also helps count out the hand, at least on a presumed basis. Admittedly the opener could have 2 doubletons or a singleton but the odds are now in favour of a 5332 or 4432 shape. I'm growing to like the idea of amorphous bids in various places rather than highly descriptive bids that help defenders as much, if not more than partner

I played with a new partner who had a new take on breaking transfers. So just wanted to post and see what experiences, pros and cons people had on both fronts. Also I've only played this over weak NT. Approach I've known - you open 1NT and partner initiates a Jacoby transfer 2♦ or 2♥. Under certain circumstance opener will break the transfer: Max hand 4+ support in target suit With this in mind the "breaking" options are: 3♥/♠ - show 2 of top 3 trump honours New suit - useless doubleton (Jx or worse) in the bid suit 2NT - denies 2 of top 3 honours and denies worthless doubleton There is also the option to "re-transfer" to allow the strong hand to play - but there isn't always room. The variation I encountered is the a bid of [*]3♥/♠ - shows 4+ card support but Min hand on the basis that holding 2 of top 3 honours and support is exceedingly rare and the jump bid is preemptive in a case when responder is weak.

Great thanks - I don't think I'll forget this in a hurry and neither will partner :angry: as he played in 3 ♦s with the rest of the room in 6♠s apart from one pair who stopped in 4 ♠s and are probably the only people in the room who really liked my bidding.......

Playing recently in the sequence 1♦ - (p) - 1♠ - (p) - 2♠ - (p) I intended to bid 4♦ pulled out my stop card and then proceeded to put the 3♦ card down. After LHO had passed RHO said "that's not a stop". I wasn't sure what my options were in this position rather than me noticing on putting it down and then correcting the bid (which I believe would be allowed assuming I could demonstrate the bid had been made in error). Could I still change my bid at this stage?

Do you play 5 card Majors and strong NT, and what was the strength of the overcall? Playing 4 card Majors I think this is a clear pass as I think that increases the odds of you holding a hand like you did (particularly if you agree to bid the Major over the minor when looking to rebid a strong NT hand) . With 5 card Majors there is a better chance of a lurking 4 card Major in your hand. If the jump overcall weak this increases the problem for partner and exactly the scenario the overcaller would hope to create! I would pass regardless but not without sweating over missed opportunities. In your position I agree with your ♥ bid after the double and likewise would balance in ♦s if partner passed.

As others have said, there isn't a single right answer. If the opening bid could be short (2 or sometimes even 1) this could have an impact - you would need partnership agreement as to whether you treat these as natural, in which case the cue bid would not show clubs. Alternatively some do play the 2 ♣ would be natural in this case. In the absence of an agreement I suggest the default position is that cue bids aren't natural. I agree with the options given - there is an alternative more precise, albeit more complex and memory intensive (i.e. be cautious if not a regular partnership, this won't come up a lot): Dbl is responsive - 4-4 in the unbid suits (remembering this sequence isn't always responsive - as the classic treatment is when responder raises rather than bids a new suit) NT bids are sandwich - 5-5 in the unbid suits Cue bids are 5-4 in the unbid suits with the cue bid representing the longer suit (higher for higher and lower for lower - so 2♣ shows 5 ♦s and 4 ♠s whilst 2♥ shows 5 ♠s and 4 ♦s) This takes full advantage of the fact you have 2 suits available to cue bid. This also points to a wider discussion with partner as there are various situations when you have 2 suits to cue bid: As above, but partner passed As above, but partner overcalled Opponents make a 2 suited overcall But that wasn't the question :)

Whilst I prefer to keep quiet/go slow with a misfit I took a risky call at the table (sitting South - Matchpoints) - I probably shouldn't have broken silence but wondered if there was any merit to my action: [hv=pc=n&s=s8753ha95dq97543c&w=s42ht72dj8cq75432&n=sk6hkq8da2ckjt986&e=saqjt9hj643dkt6ca&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1c1spp2cd2d]399|300[/hv] I passed my second round as we don't play negative free bids so felt I was too weak to show diamonds On the third round I would normally like a second diamond honour to bid but in this case I feared LHO would convert the double for penalties East was clearly short in clubs so West must have (most of) the rest With my void it didn’t matter West's clubs sitting under North's as he’d always be leading away from his hand So I was gambling on improving the contract with a 2♦ bid with this ropy suit North was probably short in spades so rated to hold at least a couple of diamonds and some values, Also West might give me a better diamond suit and chip in with a heart bid if there was no juicy club penalty looming On the flip side 2♣ might be our only making contract.... I was lucky, in this case, that partner held Ax, but interested in views on the level of my lunacy. :unsure:

I'm growing to like this Flannery option :) Do you keep your strong options in the 2D - or just use it as Flannery?

Thanks for the list - two follow up questions : Are you suggesting that there is a benefit to dropping the Multi 2♦ in the 4th seat and assigning one of the other meanings or are you giving a list of options without making any point on the pros and cons of the Multi bid in this seat? Flannery is an interesting option we hadn't considered. Would you then use a simplified response to reflect the fact you don't want to start preempting and there will hardly ever be a game on (similar vein to Tramticket's comment)?

Please elaborate on the fantunes piece - I'm not familiar with this (2 non clubs that is rather than fantunes generally) but keen to know more

I'm interested in fourth seat options and advice when playing the following: Multi-2♦ which includes weak 2 in Majors and Muiderberg/Woo twos where 2M shows 5 in the bid Major and 4+ in a minor and weak Previously playing standard weak twos we would have used 2M to show an intermediate (10-14) hand with a reasonable 6 card suit. Playing 2M as an intermediate 5-4 as above feels risky but may not be in practice The Multi could now inlcude the intermediate 6 carder or the 2M bid could be re-purposed for this and the 2♦ showing the strong options only (No Trump or 4-4-4-1 in our case).

Two good last things :rolleyes: This was a general club night with a playing director so the form seems to be to agree locally whether to call the director and most players (clearly apart from me) have a generally good understanding of their rights etc. Unsurprisingly they decided not to call the Director in this case. At the risk of digressing / starting a new thread I don't usually answer in this way, the combination of realising the error and the wording of the question threw me. I have been corrected once before on giving an answer of the the "I took it that..." variety after saying we didn't have an agreement. I was advised to just say we didn't have an agreement. There has been a third case when we didn't have an agreement, but we have played together enough as a partnership for me to have a good idea what was meant from similar situations (I forget the details). Is that a case where you should say something like "We don't have a specific agreement, but I took it...." or is that still the wrong thing?