MickyB

I am sure it would be right to pass if I knew pard had clubs, or if I knew oppo wouldn't phantom in 5S, but in the real world I think I have to bid.

I assume you play 2N as 20-22 and 2C then 2N as 23-24? It is better to play the more frequent range as more precise, so 2N as 20-21 and 2C then 2N as 22-24. If your instinct was to show this as 20-22 balanced, I think you should be even happier to show it as 22-24. Anyway, I open 1C and rebid 2S, but 2C then 2N is fine.

I would double on both and I think I would bid on both, I am finding it hard to be objective on the 2155 given the thread. A Paca double would work well on the second.

I cannot imagine that bidding 3H was not an LA to bidding 4S on the hand described. Having pulled out the stop card, your LHO can still make any call that he chooses, he has simply given UI to his partner. Once he chooses to overcall 2S, and has given UI to his partner that his hand is (sub-)minimum with a sixth spade, his partner is worse-placed than if he had just bid 2S without transmitting UI. As it happens, the UI [arguably] doesn't hinder his partner on this board, but that doesn't mean that you have been damaged by the UI being passed - you have simply lost out because LHO chose to make an aggressive bid.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqhjt97datcq97542&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1dp1hp3dp]133|200[/hv]

I agree with the theory of passing "forcing" bids when it looks right. Obviously that requires having a partner who won't be upset by it. I would never pass an auction like 1D:1H, 2S, because opener can rebid 1S on a normal 19 without any problems. It can definitely be percentage to pass reverses.

This is non-standard and without any merit that I can see, Jilly. For most, 1NT denies four spades. If you play 1H:2H as showing 8-10 points, you might start with a forcing 1NT with 4S3H and seven-or-fewer points, but on that auction you will rebid 2H over 2m.

To play.

4% was referring to 2-5-3-3 precisely [as you seemed to be arguing that it was reasonable to play a natural 1NT rebid even if you chose to raise on 3-5-(32)]. Also, many 14s will get upgraded, and some 11s won't get opened. Even so, your figures look too high to me, I get 11-14 5H(332) at 1.1% of total hands and 11-13 2533 as 0.3% of total hands. A conservative [11+] definition for a 1H opening gives 11-14 bal as one time in six, while rule-of-19 makes it less than one time in seven.

This structure is massively better than Gazilli. You have more room on your strong hands, you can stop in 2C, you have more flexibility when you have diamonds and you have two ways of raising spades. All this for losing the option to rebid a natural 1NT the one time in twenty-five that you are dealt a 2533 weak NT.

Difficult defensive problem IMO...just goes to show that even world class defenders need to be allowed to see the dummy

I have spent most of my bridge life playing the standard carding methods amongst young(ish) UK players - Ace for attitude, K for count [or unblock vs NT], and probably playing more count at T1 than the rest of the world is used to - and until now I have put little thought into the theory behind it [despite/because of the amount of time I've spent thinking about bidding theory!]. I am, initially, looking for a method that would suit an advanced/advancing pair, based primarily on standard honour leads. They are used to giving count quite a lot of the time, but it feels to me that giving attitude in most situations is superior. It feels like K for unblock/count vs NT works well [as you get both attitude and count], and is probably worth the loss of the ambiguous queen [not being able to encourage holding the ten, and not being able to overtake and switch when it would otherwise be obvious to cash out]. As an aside, it seems right to lead Q from AKQx to get attitude for the jack, is this normal? Is there a case for leading J from QJ987 asking for unblock of the ten? In contrast, K for count vs a suit contract seems wrong, as You really need attitude when leading from KQ to avoid Bath Coups Ambiguous queen isn't used vs suit contracts, as far as I am aware, and this seems to be with good reason Whether you want count or attitude when leading from AK is more dependent on dummy than your own 13 cards If you are going to allow the lead of either A or K from AK, it seems better to differentiate between AK and AKJ, or holding an even and odd number of cards, and then let partner give attitude So, in short, A from AK, K from KQ seems the way to go vs a suit contract, and showing attitude in most situations. A couple of obvious situations where I think count should be given instead - Partner leads the A, the Q is in the dummy, and it is obvious not to try to give us a ruff/trump promo. Partner leads the K and the J is in the dummy - or should we again be signalling for a ruff in some situations? Both count and attitude seem useful when partner leads the K and the T is in the dummy, I guess most show attitude here? Any obvious count situations that I've missed? I know many switch to K from AK or KQ asking for count when at the five-level, any other situations where this switch should be made? Anything else I've missed? Obviously I will need to encourage the pair in question to show residual count a lot more, hopefully that will get them over the loss of their initial count signals! Thanks

Yup, pass all three playing 2/1, amazed so many have said otherwise. I'd open all three playing sensible methods.

Why constrain responder to 4-2-(4-3)? Other hands would pass both 1NT and 2S. I'd be interested to see how 2H in the 5-2 fares compared with 1NT and 2S, if you are running any more sims :)

I think Free was asking why you rebid 1NT instead of 2C on a 2533.

I agree completely that this is a sequence where it is wasteful to use 1NT as natural. I have played several different versions of transfers and forcing 1NT rebids here, but this is remarkably similar to the structure that I have just switched to playing. So, in short, I approve!

Great, thanks. Anyone else with experiences of this? Or anyone who can make a case for this being better or worse than other methods?

I see that Meckwell lead J from QJxx(x) but Q from QJ(x) vs NT, what is the logic behind this?

Can 2524 bid 2NT instead of 2S in your circles? If so, what would you tend to bid with Qx in diamonds? Would the spade holding make a difference?

My pard cost an overtrick playing teams [of 8] trying [and failing] to make the beer, does this mean he owes me one? This is in addition to earning three beers in two boards myself, it is getting close to playing professionally IMO

I agree with the first two points, I think the last two are just randomness though, either range can work better on a specific hand. Yes, 14-16 allows you to comfortably open 1D with 11-13. Flat seventeens do just fine being opened 1C. I too prefer 15-17 in third and fourth, but my main reason for this isn't one of the two put forward by Adam. If you are opening bal 11s and unbal 10s with 5M/6m in 1st and 2nd, then you will never be investigating game after P:1D, 1M:1NT. This allows you some leeway with the 1D opening, leads to fewer 2NT contracts and allows responder's 2m rebid to be natural and NF, as you have no need for checkback.

[hv=d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1h1sdp1ndpp2cpp2hppp]133|100|I believe this was the full auction.[/hv]

1. Pard didn't play QH so I switch to the KC. 2. Agree with not missing a vul game, especially as we are NV. Still, I bid 4H, inviting isn't going to achieve much when we can't help partner evaluate his cards. 3. Diamond. Glad we have four of them, it reduces the chance that LHO has a long solid suit. Table feel and knowledge of the oppo should tell you whether they have spades or not, but I think I would lead a diamond either way. 4. Pass, feels clear with both a balanced hand and the heart ace, it might be right even if partner is void. 5. Not 2S, it is too encouraging. I guess I'll try 1NT at the conditions. If we systemically opened 1S with 4S4m I would pass as this would increase the chances of hearing 2NT or 3NT from partner.

Playing 1D as 11-13 balanced or 11+natural, what should responder's bids mean after a 1NT overcall? If 2C shows both majors, should 2D now be natural or "pick-a-major"? I guess the closest comparison would be with Precision, does anyone know how Meckwell play this, for example? Thanks

Samsung's "Super-AMOLED" screen technology is supposed to be much easier to read in sunlight and from an angle than most smartphones. The Galaxy S has a 4" screen, slightly bigger than the iPhone's, so I suspect that it would be much better than the iPhone for reading e-books.