BritTim

I open the first hand. Assuming no 2-suited opener is available, I am in two minds as to whether to open 1♠ or 1♣. The trouble with suppressing the 6-card club suit is that a big part of the reason for opening is to find a potential sacrifice and a 6-4 club fit may well get lost. On the second hand, I am going to disagree with the posters to date. IMHO, all of the following are true A suitable near minimum (e.g. AKx Ax xxxxx xxx) can make slam a laydown 3NT will often be the wrong game Assuming you are playing with a good regular partner, there is room to investigate below 3NT and make an informed decision As against that, you may help the defense with a slow approach. Change one of the clubs into a low spade and I would just bid 3NT.

I think I understand how restrictions on psyches and non standard bidding systems evolved. It is a matter of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For social bridge players, dealing with the unknown is typically not intellectually stimulating, but disruptive to their pleasant afternoon game. Thus, to protect the enjoyment of these players, the regulating authorities try to prevent unfamiliar conditions from affecting the game of social players. In the US, the ACBL even tried to introduce the idea of games where everyone plays exactly the same system -- though this will not work with social players as they will never know the system properly. For strong and ambitious players, these restrictions are a major drag. As far as psyches are concerned, putting opponents under pressure is part of the game. If we are going to prevent "disruptive bidding methods", perhaps we should ban preempts. (Actually, some attempts to regulate "undisciplined" preempts have been made.) Even more annoying is that a pair is prevented from trying to develop new and improved bidding methods, or from having fun with some interesting old systems from the past (e.g. Roman Club). I think that many highly creative people have been lost to the game because their creative energies have been deemed unwelcome. For me, the rise of Internet bridge, where it is easy to arrange games with like minded individuals, has been wonderful. Finally, for the first time in over 30 years, we can play bridge again.

I always try very hard to bid in tempo. That said, there are certain situations that are not all that common that require a lot of thinking about the situation in general. On the bidding 2♣-2♦ (waiting?); 3♥, I doubt I would make a bid in tempo on any hand. What would 3NT mean? What would 4NT mean? What is the minimum strength for 3♥? Does 3♥ demand a cue bid? If so, does 3NT show a trump cue? Should I only cue bid with significant values? Should a first cue bid here in principle be 1st round control? I would let the 4♥ stand. If I had been E/W, I would not even have called the director as I consider it a normal situation to think.

In both these cases, it depends a little on what partner will expect. Take the 2♣ bid first. It is only risky if partner will expect a stronger hand. It will be rare that opponents could severely penalise you in 2♣. If partner knows you are prone to such bids, then once in a while it allows you to compete effectively. Of course, you may then be unable to get across your strength on those rare occasions when you really have the goods. On the 2♠ bid, if partner knows you would always push to the 3-level with 4 trumps and sometimes raise to 2♠ with a doubleton, then the bid is a little unsound but an interesting pressure bid. The trouble is that, if partner knows these things, you ought to announce them to opponents also (and that reduces the chance of opponents misjudging the position). As in many competitive situations, psychology has a part to play here. Persuading opponents to compete to the 3-level when your hand is primarily defensive will often be a gain of 5 IMPs. Neither of these bids is really my style, but I try to keep an open mind and would not castigate my partners for trying them.

Frankly, if declarer is competent, the hand makes little sense. Assume declarer holds ♠KQJxx ♥Ax ♦KQx ♣Jxx. Wouldn't he try a diamond towards hand in place of an immediate heart finesse? It would seem right even with ♦KJx. If, instead, he has ♥Axx and ♦Axx, he should play ♥A and low towards table. On the other hand, if partner has ♦A, I would have expected him to cash it here. So what are we missing?