The_Badger

Yes, Tramticket is spot on. The exact auction will depend on your methods. There are other bids like Minor Suit Stayman, etc. out there, too, but a popular method these days is for 3♦ to show at least 5-5 in the minors, and be game forcing. Yes, a slam will fail on the right lead, but there's too much that needs to go right on this hand generally for slam to be a good bet. It's usually difficult to find key honours on these types of minor suited auctions I feel. Even though you're good distributionally, there cannot be more than 26HCPs between the two hands, so that leaves a lot of gaps for Ace/King controls to be with opponents, and you're missing four of them in the minor suits already (looking from the East seat).

You can probably get some snapshot of the age of BBO forum members by scrolling down to the bottom of the forums and seeing the ages of players/commentators who are celebrating their birthdays. If you added all the ages together over a period of a month, let's say, then divided by the number of players it would give provide at least some approximate figure to work on. However, that is only for BBO Forum members who have registered. I believe the reality is that on the whole of BBO the age would be significantly higher, given that many bridge players are of a certain generation.

My understanding is a 2 level bid after a takeout double is non-forcing so 2♣ (although not a great bid in my opinion) is an option. I'm never keen leaving partner in a suit contract - 1♥X might turn out to be the final contract - with a void (except if he has indicated length and/or strength in his bid suit) so even though you have raised the level of the bidding by one level, there's more chance that you will find partner with some ♣ support (but that's not guaranteed). The vulnerability has to be taken into consideration as well. The last thing you want after passing is partner to rebid ♥ and be doubled at a higher level. So fingers crossed, from me, a grudgingly horrible bid of 2♣ most of the time.

It's always helpful to play with someone better than you who can analyse the boards with you. Note down the boards that you want to analyse: Bidding, Play, etc. And they can also make a note of the boards where advice is needed. It works well with a friend - intermediate level - who I play bridge with occasionally on here. It's an exercise in constructive analysis, and it's good if you have someone who recognises their own mistakes - as I do - and who's friendly because the last thing you want to be told as a newish player is 'this is wrong, that is wrong, why did you do this, etc...'

Apologies all, and thanks Gordon. Seat nav pointing in wrong direction again. Got disoriented :)

East is worth a lot more than 2♥. With all those controls East is as near as damn it worth 4♥ immediately with a partner who has negative doubled a 2 level overcall vulnerable. 3♣ from East provides West with an opportunity to describe his hand further.

"MP Pairs game, 2♠ is a transfer to clubs from me, which pard encourages" in el mister's original post. "I'm assuming 2NT indicates 3 card ♣ support" in my original post, and yes that is usually the meaning of an 2NT acceptance bid, not that just opener has a maximum NT opener. And usually that 3 card ♣ support must include at least A or K.

As this post is in the Novice and Beginner Forum, I would advocate (at this level) a Double as, in my opinion, the best bid available over a (presumably) weak 2♠ opening. Double at least keeps the option of finishing in a ♥ contract, whereas bidding 3♣ may not. More advanced players have at their disposal a convention called Leaping Michael's where a bid of 4♣ would show a good 5-5 or more distributional hand for ♣s+♥s. Some play it as forcing, some not.

Michael's can be employed using strong hands - either Michael's is a weak 5-5 (c.6-10), or strong 5-5 (16+): intermediate c.11-15 5-5 (except at adverse vulnerability) are usually but not exclusively handled by an overcall. The choice ultimately lies with the partnership. As you indicated in this auction 1♠ - 2♠, partner has no way of knowing whether you have a weak or the strong variety, and you have no way of knowing if he is minimum with his bid, or has enough values to press home to game. Just on a statistical basis, the weak 5-5 hand is likely to happen far, far more often, so personally I'm not keen on using Michael's with strong hands. So doubling and then bidding ♥s and then ♦s would show this good two suiter better in my opinion.

My take on it is that if you are going to underlead an ace against a suit contract, you certainly wouldn't do it in your longest suit. Dead lucky in my opinion, especially as declarer opened 2NT. More likely to go wrong than right I feel. But I would be interested in other players' take on this. Maybe I am missing something?

Exactly how I feel about the hand, too. I think maybe some of the problem lies with the opening mini Tartan-style bid having a 5♥ suit and possibly a 4♠ suit to accompany it, especially as shown here when the opponents overcall 3 of a minor. As far as I am aware, the original Tartan 5-5 2♥ opener was always 5♥/5m, never 5♥/5♠.

I agree with everything you say, Cyberyeti. But maybe I should have explained the expression "I don't think 3NT especially in a pairs game is such a bad bid, shooting for a few tops" in Badgerspeak. When my most-experienced partner and myself were young guns on the bridge circuit, we usually had a feeling with about 6-8 boards to go (in a 24 board pairs tourney) how we were fairing. If things were going ok, but not brilliantly, we switched into a different mode where the bidding became a bit more aggressive, trying to create some 'tops' out of nothing. This sometimes worked, and sometimes we ended up further down the field. In our young eyes, coming 18th was no different than coming 4th, but coming 1st was our objective and that's what we were trying to do.

I read somewhere that you should bid vulnerable games when there is a 40%+ chance of succeeding, and naturally a 2-2♣ split [40%] would help you possibly make game. The problem is that any savvy opponents will automatically recognise after the a ♥ lead and return (not guaranteed though) that if the ♣s are going to split 2-2 due to the bidding (I'm assuming 2NT indicates 3 card ♣ support) they will false card so as declarer you are left in doubt whether to play for the drop or possible finesse if an honour drops. I don't think 3NT especially in a pairs game is such a bad bid, shooting for a few tops, but it is well into Meckwellian territory of squeezing 9 tricks from less than 25HCPs.

Distribution most always compensates, especially any 6-5, for lack of strength so it's an easy 4♥ for me too, even vulnerable opposite a passed partner.

No. I don't like X for penalties. It might work on this hand - and it could equally be disastrous too - but opportunities for takeout doubles occur far more frequently than penalty. South has overcalled 3♦ vulnerable with a passed partner so beware. As to what to bid on this hand, I'll let Nige1 do his bid-by-bid analysis. Even I'm not sure.

My way of playing it would have been different. Second trick taken by ♦K, small ♠ to the ♠A followed by a ♣ to the 9 in dummy (East gives it a brief look and seemingly ducks again.) Then bash out ♣AQ followed by a ♠ to the K and ♠J. Nine tricks (3♣, 2♦ and 4♠) when ♠4-2 and it avoids the ♠ finesse, and also caters for East attempting some sort of pseudo-Grosvenor.

You forgot the Crowhurst convention, Stephen :) I have a feeling the late Eric Crowhurst of England was the first to devise a 2♣ checkback.

In the absence of knowing the answer specifically - at least I am honest - I would hope to view the hand in the same vein as the auction 1NT - Pass - 2♣ - X - XX where opener is showing the willingness to play in a ♣ contract redoubled with good clubs and a maximum hand. However, here where the opening ♣ suit could be 2+ redouble could have various meanings or agreements I feel. I still like the idea it shows 5♣ and a balanced hand in the range of 18-19HCPs. I am interested as you Stephen how other players interpret it.

Not just LOL, but ROFL :) (I said to myself I wouldn't comment on Robot hands - as we all know full well that GIB has 'idiosyncrasies' - but I have commented on three in as many days.)

It's interesting to say the least, but personally I'm not keen on the unlimited 1♦/1♥ bids being transfers. It goes against the basic principle of transfers allowing the (usually) stronger hand to be concealed. But I assume you are using a relay system where the distribution/strength of the stronger hand is always known before an opening lead, so there will be total concealment for declarer with the (usually) weaker hand without the opponents knowing basically anything. That does have advantages, but the disadvantage is that the defence needs to pinpoint less key honours in declarer's hand (certainly in part score and game contracts) to make their defensive strategy effective. And on opening leads, I would rather it comes up to a strong hand than through it.

That made me laugh. It would have been really funny if his 80+ yo partner had an actual 2NT opener at the table and just bid 7NT. (I think emergency services might have had to be called after the hand though.)

As I said in a previous post today, GIB has 'idiosyncrasies' and is far from perfect, but so are many human players. I agree in hand 1 that the 2♠ bid is, to me, nonsense. Hand 2 is different though. I believe that quite a few players would open a weak 2♥ on North's hand. GIB's parameters are differently set so it passes. However having passed, the most important consideration now is to support your ♠ suit. A bid of 2♥ would be non-forcing to many players.

5 ♣ My thinking is: It might make your partner's life difficult, but there are twice as many opponents that it could make life difficult too. Play the odds. Any other bid just makes it easier for the opponents to compete.

I don't normally comment on robot hands these days, Wayne, because we all know that GIB has numerous 'idiosyncrasies' but what makes this horribly worse, in my view, is not the bidding (which isn't it's best) but the principle of using 2/1 and leaving you below a game contract. If it doesn't understand the basic principle of 2/1 is forcing to game then anything else is merely secondary.

I do see a degree of logic with this approach as North didn't have to bid 2♣ after the second double if he had a different hand, so 2♣ here (in this type of auction) probably indicates (by agreement) a 6+ carder with some extra values, and the double of 3♥ a little bit more. Far too subtle for me, I admit, but interesting.