The_Badger

The frequency for using 2NT as unusual is far, far greater than for using it to describe a strong balanced hand after an opening bid by the opponents. In fact, very, very few partnerships (and certainly no-one of intermediate and above level) should even use 2NT except as an unusual two suited hand. With a very strong balanced hand (>18+), you should double first and then bid no-trumps at the appropriate level over an opposition bid.

There are many different ways of interpreting these bids. A previous BBO forum post shown below http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/66431-3rd-level-responses-to-1nt-opening/ and bridgeguys http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/three_level_response_methods_to_1nt.html Take your pick

Not quite exactly what you are requesting, but a bridge book that won a major bridge award recently may be a good stepping-stone for children to learn bridge. By Julian Laderman, it's called Play Bumblepuppy Bridge. And getting more young people interested in our game is only a good thing.

Great quiz, Timo. And well done for getting 380 out of 400. Personally the one bid I do find awkward to swallow is the 2♠ on hand 3 - all your comments on the forum duly noted. Just why would you want to play in a Moysian fit knowing that West is long in ♥ and could well be short in ♠? It could be a small disaster. For all we know East could have a singleton (even potentially a void) in ♥s, with no place to go, and a stack of ♠s, but with a hand that just wasn't good enough to overcall at the one level.

1. 2♣ 2. Dbl 3. Pass 4. 5♥

Personally it all depends on your system. If a new suit after a superaccept is GF, then I really cannot see how you can miss out on a small slam.

Deleted. Thought South was dealer - Thank you NickRW

Well done Timo. I can take you seriously :) but I can't take some of the results on the boards seriously. (Sorry to put a damper on things but I'd rather be honest.) I have looked through the movies and the travellers as a results' merchant/bridge completist, and frankly I find some of the things happening quite bizarre. No wonder you won!

I tend to agree with Barry (barmar) above. I think the way forward perhaps - just a suggestion - is to ask posters to be a bit more specific in their titles. I am guilty as charged myself (as commentators have rightly pointed out to me in my post 'In The Absence of a Support Double'). That post should be named "Raising Responder's Major with Three Card Support". Technically it had nothing to do with a Support Double as a SD wasn't used. Yet I am sure most commentators understood what I was getting at but, at the end of the day, it wasn't correct. And I'll be more careful in the future.

Beyond what the best bid is here - a values double seems the only option, as others have said - is the other problem of having such a wide range of distributional hands suitable for a 1NT opening: with five card majors, six card minors, and even singleton honours these days. But given that 1NT openers with 5 card majors are certainly more prevalent these days, this situation is probably a little easier to handle than in times gone by. Opener will already knows that you will have values for game, without a ♦ stop (or you would have bid 3NT yourself) and no 5 card major yourself (or you would have bid that too). In effect, the value double is also a takeout double is also an optional double. Pre-empts are not there to make your life easy, and you just have to accept that sometimes you will get it wrong but it doesn't mean the other table will get it right. They will probably be under the same pressure to find the correct bid.

Agree a ♦ lead is best but playing 4 card majors respectfully - this must be a first - disagree that declarer's likely to hold a ♠ suit. How was North to know that South was a bare minimum and was going to pass 1NT? And maybe South is 4-4 in the majors and by opening 1♥ gave his partner an opportunity to find both a ♥ or ♠ fit? East holds 10HCPs, East/West are vulnerable, West might have just about have enough values to overcall 1♠ over 1♥ but has (possibly) decided against it because A) he is red against white with a passed partner B) his suit could be poor C) his hand is possibly as balanced as the others around the table. As for the lead of the ♠4, well speculative leads work some of the time, but playing teams I would go with what other players would normally do.

Nige1. Is Balminnoch a whisky that lubricates the brain cells which enables one to develop new and wonderful bridge systems? If so, mine's a case :)

So right steve. Apologies. I didn't analyse all the bidding sequences available before posting. (I was more interested in the shapes beyond 5-4-3-1 which to my mind is my perfect shape to make a 3 card major raise.)

I agree with everything you say in your post, Kaitlyn. Perhaps it was a bit of a generalisation on my part saying that 4♥ is a reasonable contract, but it only takes a card 'tweak or two' on both East/West hands for 4♥ to be not just reasonable but makeable, with the bidding remaining the same. This is the part of the point I am driving at in the post: when is it permissible to raise with even off-shaped hands such as 7-3-2-1 or even 6-4-3-0, or even the balanced 4-4-3-2 as awm suggested?

A nine card 3NT opener is one too many card as far as I am concerned. Have seen it in many text books with either AKQJxxx or AKQxxxxx but never with 9 cards. So I am inclined towards bidding 5 of a minor whatever the vulnerability. As for IMPs or MPs, I might possibly vary my bid if one opponent has passed, even considering opening at the one level and rebidding at the five level, though I don't quite genuinely like that option as there are no defensive tricks outside the main suit (and maybe no defensive tricks whatsoever).

Support doubles are useful but when you can't use them how ready are you to raise partner's assumed 4 card major response with only 3 card support? I recognise there are many hands that might warrant this, the vulnerability, knowing what your partner bids, etc. but generally what types of distribution do you feel confident raising with just 3 card support. This is the hand that elicited this question. Let's assume IMPs, all non vulnerable for all answers. [hv=pc=n&w=saqh983dqckqt5432]133|100[/hv] The bidding went 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - Pass - and West instead of rebidding 2♣ bid 2♥ (Things didn't go well after that but I share part of the blame for being overenthusiastic.) But was 2♥ a feasible bid given that there are plenty of hands where partner will pass 2♣ and 4♥ is a reasonable contract But let's modified that hand slightly [hv=pc=n&w=sakh983dkcq765432]133|100[/hv] Now would 2♥ be such a bad rebid by West with this hand, for example? I have had a quick check of the forums, and there doesn't seem to be any post that covers this. And I'll be interested in your views, even beyond the poll.

The options are unhelpful, but I wonder if X is penalty on this auction as your robot partner has opened the suit? Swap the ♣ and ♦ around on both the East and South hands, and East now overcalls 3♦ over 1♣. Would X be still penalty, or the eminently more sensible takeout double showing the majors? Maybe someone who plays against the bots regularly will shed light on this possible auction.

If you have two bids with the same (or a similar) meaning, you are wasting a bid (which sounds so obvious I don't know why I am highlighting it.) Whether it is allowed I don't know, but it's quite unusual in my opinion inasmuch it is at your discretion whether to use one or the other.

An awesome bit of analysis, Rainer. Another +1 The only thing missing is a name for that (potential) endplay in the second diagram, if the defence do go wrong. (And even I missed the potential for an uppercut in diagram 1 if North holds QJx to put declarer two down.) By the way, I was surprised that East didn't cash a second round of trumps when in with the Ace. Obviously worried about a 4-1 split and totally losing control of the hand, I assume. And swapping the ♠8 and ♠9 between North and East would make a difference too. Which brings me neatly around again to the point that all cards matter, however small. And I am sure you are in agreement with that.

Rainer is absolutely right. Small cards matter... But in the absence of these a ♠ continuation seems best as declarer has shown up with the ♠A so you hope to gain one♠, one ♠ruff, 2♥,♦A, and hope that partner has ♣Qxx for the setting trick. (But truthfully I am a bit bemused what is happening in the ♥ suit at trick 3.)

I looked at this forum post before there were any replies, and thought best to see what other players thought of the auction before commenting. I particularly smiled at nullve's reply of 2NT being non-forcing Lebensohl - so 2NT is actually (for once) natural. And to be honest, why can't 2NT be natural in this auction - to play? Using it as some Lebensohl-style bid to denote good or bad club support by the doubler just seems pointless to me (just my opinion). As Helene_t indicates, that the free bid of 2♣ in this competitive auction is so limited in strength that the doubler should know where the auction is heading, and should bid accordingly.

True if he rebids 3♣, but a jump rebid of 4♣ virtually does, however, it doesn't mean the partnership cannot find another contract utilising that specific information that opener's ♣ suit is solid. As I have written previously, SAYC in principle does allow a partnership to reside in a final contract of three of a major, or four of a minor, if through exchanging information, opener finds partner with a bust, and opener does not have any good fit with partner. The 2♣ bid is not unconditionally forcing to game as many believe (but many players do play it as such - their choice). However, a jump rebid of 3♥, 3♠, 4♣, 4♦ after a 2 ♣ opener is unconditionally forcing, even if partner has a bust. This is my understanding of the situation (and what I have read in quite a few books), but I respect that other players may play their sequences differently these days, especially with a 2♦ waiting bid.

First sequence is opener's second suit, ♣s Second sequence is a solid suit, as Stephen says, and sets trumps. Actually any jump by a 2♣ opener after a positive or negative or waiting response should be a solid suit and sets trumps. Third sequence might be one by agreement. I actually don't like 4♣ as a second suit here. The positive 2♥ responder had an opportunity after opener's 2♠ rebid to bid his second suit ♣. In an experienced partnership I would take 4♣ here as an advanced cue bid in ♣ agreeing ♠ as trumps, now that opener has shown at least 6+ p.s. In none of these sequences is 4♣ Gerber :D

Apologies for saying this so crudely, but if you're not in a slam of 6♣ or preferably 6♠ (or even 6NT) on these cards you should consider giving up bridge. Long suits plus controls and intermediates equals slam. Be positive. There's a 4 to 1 (probably slightly less giving the bidding) chance the opponents will find the only lead that might defeat the contract - a ♥. Otherwise it is a very good slam.

I, for one, agree it sounds unfair - and I am not totally familiar how all tournaments on BBO work, but...if you put yourself down as a substitute to play in these matches you have to abide by the rules governing these matches. You could say that a similar situation occurs when you and your partner are playing as a third pair on a team of four that is losing. You get called up into the team to replace a pair that has played badly, and you have to take on board the results that happened previously. The simplest solution without tweaking the software (which might be mighty difficult) seems to me not to agree to play as a substitute. Easier said than done as some tournaments are over-subscribed, but if you are unhappy with being a substitute picking up some other player's 'leftovers' then, just my personal opinion, it's time to stop.