The_Badger

I'm bidding 1♦ too. It's a grim hand, and a grim bid, and it doesn't disrupt the opponents' bidding in the slightest, but at this vulnerability, and assuming the ♣K is worth a trick - no guarantee mind you - I'd rather communicate my longest suit to partner than leave him on a guess to a lead. The lack of intermediates and 4254 shape make it more of an 8 count than a 9, but it's the only time you might get into the auction, so I'd rather be aggressive at favourable vulnerability than passive. At red/red, red/white it's a definite no-no, no-go.

Agreed. Totally Ridiculous. Twice. But good result for lycier :)

That is a good question I cannot answer, Cyberyeti. I suppose that sometimes you have to accept that with two eight card fits you're bound to play in the wrong trump suit occasionally. Our Stayman followed by three of a minor usually shows 4-6 at least, slam-orientated as opposed to just game, though I concede it could show 4-5. Back to the drawing board...

Quite agree, Steve. When I wrote "7♦ If trumps don't break too badly this should make" I was trying to provide North's thoughts after all the bidding whether 7♦ was a sound contract. Thanks, I have amended the original post.

Please read my post in full! I don't care one iota what your interpretation is. It states quite clearly our partnership

This would be our partnership's way of reaching the grand, other commentators will no doubt have different routes depending on their systems. I assume opponents are silent. 1NT (15-17) 2♣ Stayman 2♥ 4+ ♥ 3♦ longer minor than major (GF) 3♥ good ♦ fit 3+ cards, first round control in ♥. Cue bid by inference shows support for ♦s 3♠ first round control. By inference confirms responder is slam-orientated, not interested in 3NT. 4♣ first round control 4♥ second round control of ♥s 4NT Roman Key Card Blackwood 0314 5♣ Showing 3 of 5 'aces' including ♦K 5NT Queen ask (3rd round control), excluding trump queen. Either the ♣Q or ♠Q will be a useful card 6♣ ♣Q (partner bids 6♦ without any Q) 7♦ North will now think after all the bidding but not knowing quite exactly South's hand, "The grand slam is a fair bet, if trumps don't break too badly this should make."

What would you do if an opponent opened a 1♣ (natural) and partner made a takeout double? At this vulnerability and with the opponents bidding at the 2 level I'd pass, pass, pass. Just because partner has a minimum 17 count doesn't mean he has the right cards for slam to be made. Nothing idiotic in the slightest.

With a ♠ void and after North bids 3♦, East is easily worth 5♥. You've bid your hand as West. Actually I prefer 3♠ to 4♥, though whether that could be interpreted as a Western Cue Bid in a sequence with takeout/responsive doubles who knows? Though GIBster probably hasn't got that level of sophistication. As for reaching 6♥ that's awkward, I feel.

Better than a good guess, Graham. Responder bid 2♠ and the partnership reached the wrong slam. Apologies for not being able to remember the whole hand - diamonds being declarer's suit - but when dummy was tabled I thought "I don't think I'd would have bid 2♠ with such a poor suit". The reason I posted this hand is how I was thinking about the usual bugbear question of opening 5/5 with ♣s + ♠s, not that we need to say anything more on this subject as it has been discussed to death on BBO forums. By bidding 3♣ first actually made it easier to describe the hand, and easier to rebid after declarer's 3♦. Responder's ♣ suit never got mentioned in the actual bidding.

It is alertable, as Cyberyeti says, and either you or your partner should have asked the TD to intervene, even after the board was played. Luckily, as you say, it made no difference to the play, but club professionals who use systemic bids that deviate miles from the 'norm' should at least get a rap across the knuckles for forgetting or being blasé about alerting. Sadly, many years ago, I came across a degree of arrogance with a few experienced players who just used their systemic bids as some sort of Enigma code for their own benefit. Obviously as opponents, before playing a card, we had a right to know what every bid meant, yet a few looked down their noses patronisingly. I remember one experienced older player - we were only in our teens - after a lengthy bidding sequence saying "For Pete's sake, lead a card!" not allowing either myself or my partner to discover the meanings of their later bids. It is, sadly, that sort of attitude of taking lesser players for granted that perhaps drives inexperienced players away from clubs.

I'd let BBO support give you a definitive answer on this one, but Windows 7 was issued about 10 years ago and free Microsoft support ceased about 3 years ago. I think you probably need to upgrade.

Rubber bridge, love all - small cards approximately shown - I was an opponent. My opponents are an experienced partnership who use slightly unusual methods. Play Reverse Benji where a 2♦ opener is usually any eight playing trick hand with a good 6+ suit (an old Acol strong 2 opener), and a 2NT response is either negative or waiting. This was responder's hand. What do you feel is the best bid here? Thanks in advance. [hv=pc=n&s=sq6532hk9djckq987&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2d(see%20comment)p]133|200[/hv]

I'm not sure what your first sentence means, but I'm not going to get into a slanging match over this, and given many other commentators agree too that 3NT is not the right bid with the North cards I will prove it. The original poster, Dinarius, stated "If North bids 3NT..." and having posted this in the Expert-Class bridge forum, I assume Dinarius welcomes expert comments. And plenty of my fellow expert commentators are of the same opinion as I that this is the incorrect way of attempting to reach the slam. Let's say the South hand is instead ♠KJxx ♥void ♦KQ10xx ♣Kxxx what can you bid over North's 3NT then? Nothing. But you miss out on a 6♦ contract. Obviously the correct bidding sequence is a priority. That is stating the obvious. The OP, Dinarius, did state "If North bids 3NT..." and it is only a suggestion on his part, or alternatively this might have actually happened on the hand, we're not to know, but we are also at liberty to point out that realistically it is a poor choice of bid, and South only advances beyond 3NT as he has 5062 shape as opposed to the 4054 shape given above.

Just my opinion, but this is an over-analysis. At equal vulnerability, vulnerable, I just use LOTT-1 as the trick expectation level in a ding-dong 4♥ vs. 4♠ slugfest. It's surprising how many times if one side is making game, the other side can make at least eight tricks.

The word 'Snowflake' springs to mind if you don't double. You're not forced to bid again and you've stated your hand in one bid. Rmnka447's analysis is where I'm at too. Of course it could go wrong, I'm not disagreeing with that but 5-0 trump breaks happen too...

Apologies for saying this but Maybe doesn't even enter the equation as far as I am concerned: 3NT with the North cards is a truly terrible bid. Even without Cyberyeti's personalised system, North can always bid 2♣ (assuming this isn't a limited free bid) or even Dbl. to keep things ticking along.

I think you have to accept that shotgun partnerships, especially at basic club level (playing for enjoyment primarily) do make incorrect bids, do not know when to alert and do not know what they are doing. South has probably looked at his hand and thought "Oh goody! I can use one of my conventional toys, The Unusual No Trump" totally forgetting that it isn't used over a weak two (or maybe he has a bizarre agreement with another partner in the club that 2NT here is for the minors.) Who knows? So I say nothing other than they are an inexperienced partnership is demonstrably suggested by the failure to alert.

Welcome to the forum, goodkrma :) All the points above the line do count towards the total score in a rubber, but a rubber is concluded when two games have been scored below the line by one pair. The points above the line are for overtricks, undertricks, bonuses for holding honours in a trump suit, four aces in a no-trump contract, and the rubber bonus as well. So a pair can win two games in a rubber, but surprisingly can also lose overall (very occasionally) on total points when all the points for a rubber are totted up. The difference in total points is the amount you have to pay your opponent depending on the stake agreed.

3NT with the North cards is a terrible bid

The results suggest - and I'm only guessing here - that they abandoned the boards. Boards 11-16 of session 19 are all passed out. Could be a genuine reason like illness why these boards weren't played. I trust someone else can elucidate further. Unusual, as you say.

You were gazumped. I would trust my partner not to come into the auction after a 3rd in hand opener with tram tickets just for a lead at equal vulnerability, especially vulnerable, so would take a chance and bid 4♠ on this hand, even with its horrible shape. I feel it is more difficult for the opening bidder and responder to work out if their 1♥ - 4♥ is a solid auction or a pre-emptive auction, and obviously I'd rather put them to a guess than duck out without a squeak. If they are making 4♥, you can accept a two trick loss doubled for a profit, and to me that's playing the odds.

when in doubt, bid 4H over 4S I think the tournament director would be called at that juncture :)

Given that the 2m responding hand is stronger in a GF scenario, instead of opener showing stoppers, singletons or a desire to play in a minor suit contract as opposed to 3NT opposite an invitational raise, opener could show controls as opposed to stoppers maybe? I am sure a more-experienced 2/1 player than me has a detailed way of handling this auction. But there isn't anything to stop an invitational responder hand in a crossover auction (1♣ - 2♦, 1♦ - 3♣) proceeding beyond the original invitation too? To my mind, I think you need to clarify the different hand types where you would use a GF, possibly slam force, after 1m-2m; and, those hands where you may be more borderline, where you'd use a crossover bid then a new suit bid (extra values) scenario. After a 1m-2m GF bid, there's also the possibility obviously of using this bid as a relay to define opener's shape and strength, controls could come later.

Being disabled myself (arthritis), I wonder how I would react if the English Bridge Union insisted that I have to move every two boards in a pairs tournament, instead of being given a stationary seat? (Though I can't play in tournaments anymore, sadly) I might challenge them that they are not accommodating or being receptive to my disability and accuse them of disability discrimination. Isn't your situation similar, except that your disability is different? Obviously, I am not familiar with American tournaments, but surely given the age profile of bridge players there will be plenty of players who use hearing aids. And some of them are very sophisticated. And aren't these electronic equipment, too? I would contact the ACBL especially if you have a clinician's letter detailing your tinnitus and explaining that white noise has been clinically proved to help. Say that you would be willing to show your white noise equipment to tournament officials every time you play, and whether they will make an exception in your case. If they don't I would find an attorney who would take your case on a no win/no fee basis as there are discriminating against you. Even if you are unsuccessful, the outcome would be interesting.

The 3♥ bid is ludicrous I know, but please don't take this personally because my comments on this forum are designed to be constructive, not critical, but I don't see any value in doubling a second time on your hand. It's got a potentially duff doubleton in the opponents suit, and the opponents have bid the anchor suit ♠s. East has already stated extra values by bidding 2♠ so that leaves your partner with not a lot. Partner didn't show any preference for ♥s on the first round of bidding, so why force him now?