MickyB

As I said before, there is a case for this, but you lose your scramble with 15(43) opposite 3244. Also, this removes the option of playing 2NT as good/bad.

If their suit is higher than ours, a pure takeout double will never get passed, so perhaps X should be values here. Certainly 1D-P-1NT-2H, X as strong balanced feels right. 1H-P-1NT-2S is a bit different because you need a takeout bid for 15(43) and you want a scrambling bid opposite this.

Takeout is best imo. Opener has no idea of responder's shape so you need it to be takeout.

I have just moved in with my girlfriend, my previous landlord/housemate had a decent espresso machine but I decided to go one better and get a separate grinder and machine. It's a bit fiddley but so worth it.

Gnasher - if you don't have Stayman available over 1NT, do youhave a sensible way to bid unbalanced hands with both majors and about a 7-count (assuming a 15-17 NT)? Perhaps something along the lines of 2C = spades, 2D = hearts, 2H = both majors constructive NF?

1NT or 2♣ depending on conditions, make it slightly stronger and I would always bid 1NT.

Didn't you discard that principle when you agreed to play Stayman? Sorry, careless post before. The principle should probably be "unbalanced hands should describe themselves to balanced hands in game-forcing auctions". I play Stayman because of the hands where responder has both majors and just wants to play game in a 4-4/5-4 fit if there is one and in a part-score/invite if there is not. When an unbalanced hand describes itself to a balanced hand, you can often place the contract once you know shape and strength. When the opposite occurs, honour concentration becomes much more significant, as the unbalanced hand needs to know what honours are opposite its shortage. Therefore, it feels wrong to just play 3♣ as a shape ask.

I have played it in one partnership that might be described as semi-regular. My partner, who suggested it, is from Romania, I have not seen it played by anyone else in the UK. Afraid I can't remember the responses, but playing this as asking seems wrong, on the principle that unbalanced hands should describe themselves to balanced hands.

As others have said - this is a 2♥ bid immediately, describing this as a three-card limit is an overbid. If you were 4=3=3=3 with a limit raise then I would have a lot of sympathy for 1NT - you would be left slightly fixed by 1♥:1♠, 2♠, as this could well be a 4-3 fit and I would expect 3♥ now to be forcing without discussion. Similarly, if you play constructive raises (so that 1♥:2♥ shows 8-10 points), on a 4=3=3=3 too weak to bid 2♥ immediately I would start with 1NT, to ensure we played our 5-3 heart fit rather than our 4-3 spade fit.

On this hand, I would definitely pass 2♣. Besides anything else, bidding on this hand puts more pressure on the 2♥ rebid, now partner will find it difficult to know when to pull 2♥ and when to raise with interest in game. I much prefer to play a semi-forcing NT. If I have a flat 12-count and bid again, partner's most likely actions are to give preference back to a 5-2 fit, raise my minor and rebid 2NT on his flat 11. None of these make me particularly happy. Of course, a lot of this depends on your other responses to 1M - I quite like to bid 2m then 3m as natural and invitational, and to have 1M:3D as a three-card limit raise, which ties in well.

I recently won a swiss pairs event when our oppo got below avg for bidding and making 6S when 6NT would also make - highly improbable in an EBU pairs event. Eventually, it was pointed out to me that the field was opening 1C and missing their 5-3 spade fit :)

If you open 1C with 3-3 and 1D with 4-4, is 1C actually more frequent?

Just a tentative enquiry here - my (probable) mixed pairs partner, a member of the England Girls' Team, is considering staying on after that event finishes, and she would like to form a junior team for either the Open or Women's teams - teams comprising solely of members born 1984 or later get free entry. Is there anyone interested in forming such a team? Thanks!

I wasn't actually suggesting that anyone (apart from OleBerg) would open a weak two - just that you wouldn't have any decisions to make later, and that you might well have kept oppo out of spades. I am also aware that many will play this as a fit-jump. I am mainly interested in the judgement call of, having splintered, what the right thing to do over 4♠ is.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqxhqxxxxxdxxxcj]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-P-1H-1S Do you bid 4H, or 4C splinter? If I can stick you with the splinter, it continues 4S on your left, passed back to you. What now?[/hv]

I would have thought it unusual for the cue to be forcing *to game* by a passed hand.

Very nice post, Csaba, but you are a passed hand

After 2N:3C, 3M, bidding 3S over 3H or 4H over 3S should be slam-try for the major. 4m is natural. Playing regular Stayman, opener doesn't know which major responder has after 2N:3C, 3D:4m, and while you're not likely to want to play in it, it can still be useful to know. Most versions of puppet don't have this issue.

You might decide to defend with that :D And yes, minors, but 4-5 is definitely not enough.

David - Say you were the director in this sort of situation, and due to your knowledge of the players involved, you suspected that an experienced declarer was trying to take advantage of the low-standard opposition, who may have - forgotten the first discard not known that a second discard could mean something, and struggled to understand the question suspected declarer of having missed the first discard, and not known how to deal with the situation Would you really allow declarer to get away with this sort of sharp practice, and penalise the defenders on top of this? Even if you saw the same declarer pull the same trick more than once?

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think that declarer was pretty likely to be trying something on with his line of questioning. Why would you ever ask what the two of spades meant if you knew the first discard was the five of spades?

Sorry, are you implying that the defender should ensure that declarer knows that his partner failed to follow suit on the previous round? I don't understand this at all.

Most players who play this discard system in the UK probably aren't even aware that a second discard can be played to mean something.

BTW, anyone who plays that discard system in the UK is guaranteed to be terrible at bridge. If that isn't the case here then my opinion may change slightly.

Given the previous discussion, replying "meaningless" would basically give away that it wasn't the first discard. I'm not saying that what he did was right, just that he was put into a non-trivial position.