MickyB

In my opinion, this is an absolute disgrace. My partner and I put a lot of work into our inverted hesitations, now I wish we hadn't bothered.

Penalties. If responder wanted to compete to 3♥ over 2♠ he should have bid 2♠ in the first place.

Will we be able to describe this hand better by passing first? Will we be better placed once we hear what others have to say? I doubt it. My style is to get involved immediately with the most appropriate bid. I'd often open this hand 3♠, but 2nd seat vulnerable this would be too much! I wouldn't need much more to open 1♠, but as it is I'm opening 2♠ and missing game.

Pass looks absolutely routine. Why would I prebalance with a doubleton, both vul at MPs, when we are far from certain to land in the right strain?

This belongs in the other thread really, but never mind. Ron, I think that a large proportion of players will routinely respond on 4 counts, describe 2♠ as GF, then pass it because they "don't have their bid". This is nonsense IMO - they do have their bid but they are treating 2♠ as NF. I prefer to honour the force, so require a better hand for a 2♠ bid - usually a 20 count if only 4-5 shape.

I'm not sure that's an advantage - I find it helps hand evaluation if the unbalanced hand bids out its shape. However, there's no confusion after responder shows two suits - it is obvious which suit opener is cuebidding for.

I got asked to play this by one of the Dutch juniors in a pick-up partnership, so I'd imagine it's reasonably common there. The main upside that has occurred to me so far is that, with a balanced hand, responder can offer to play 3NT after a 5-3 fit has been located. The downside is that if responder was just trying to improve the contract then he has failed, but given some of the trick-based 2N openings that are commonly opened now 3N may stand as good a chance as 3M in a weak 5-2 fit.

IME, the analysis tends to be pretty slow while there are still 52 cards to be played, so you would rarely see any data before the next bid is made.

As you say, NFBs or transfers are clearly the best way to introduce suits at the 2 level opposite a Polish Club. You are well placed - you have competed quickly to a sensible contract opposite the weak NT, and if partner doesn't have at least a doubleton in support of your suit he will have 15+points. You don't have this last inference in standard or short club systems, but I still think it's important to be able to stop at the 2 level opposite a weak NT - you want to be bidding your suits immediately on these hands in spite of the risk of finding partner with a misfitting minimum. Obviously, transfers have their advantages and their disadvantages. They put less pressure on opps than NFBs, and you lose a bid that could have been NF. After 1♣ (2♦), you don't really want to lose a way of playing in 2♥. On the other hand, I'm not keen on NFB structures where you don't have a way to show your suit immediately on a stronger hand. That usually means using up a lot of space and losing fit-jumps, but I think it's worth it. Anyway, if you try to optimise your structure for all sequences it becomes quite hard work :P

Erm, yes, I'm very sure :P I found that making a "one-under" transfer include invitational hands wasn't playable, because now opener needs to find something else to bid any time he has a little bit extra. "Two-under" transfers, on the other hand, leave plenty of room to sort these hands out, and to distinguish minimum misfitting opening hands from those with extras. Btw, 3♥ is a stop-ask, we've had a couple of nice results with it but I'm not convinced that it's the best meaning.

It seems obvious to use an artificial method here, as it's pretty useful for responder to be able to show hearts constructively (especially when 5-5) but with the ability to stop in 2♥. Any pet methods around? If it makes any difference, 2♣ almost denies 4♦ for me. A few possibilities: 2♦ artificial and forcing 2♥ natural and non-forcing, but constructive 2♦ showing ♥ 2♥ artificial and forcing, denying 4♥ 2♦ showing ♥ 2♥ showing ♠ 2♠ balanced or wanting partner to declare NT 2NT raising ♣ 3♣ showing ♦ Over 1♦:1♠, 2♦ there is less room available, although there's still a case for using 2♥ as artificial and forcing even there. In fact, it's almost certainly right for me to do so as I play that the 2♦ denies 4 hearts. Any thoughts on methods in these auctions would be appreciated.

It sounds like a poor method, you are getting very high on potential misfits, but I can see it has it's advantages. 3♥ is usually a splinter of some sort, my preference is for 3♥ to show a stiff (INV+) and 4♥ a void.

99-1 On our way to a glorious victory :D

I play 1♠ (2♣) 2♦/♥ as NF with 2N+ showing stronger hands: 2N = ♦ 3♣ = ♥ 3♦ = ♠ raise I'm fine with 2♦ and 2♥ being forcing here because you can still stop in 2♠, but if 1♦ (2♣) 2♥ and similar are forcing then you are getting uncomfortably high considering that's the only way to show the suit.

It's probably getting a bit technical for much practical use, but at MPs you should bid game iff Probability (you making enough tricks) plus Expected value of (proportion of the field to make enough tricks) is greater than 100%. That's regardless of whether you think that the other tables will bid the game. I think that must assume that everyone is in the same strain...if your anti-field methods have found a 4-4 fit when others will be in NT, say, your +140/+170 might be a pretty good score already.

Interesting - My instinct is to bid 5♦, based mainly on the often-repeated advice that these hands play best in their long suit. However, when I asked a few good players at the local club (one of the strongest clubs in the UK) there were maybe 6 votes for 4♠, 2 votes for 4NT, and none for 5♦. One of the 4♠ voters put it thus - "If partner doesn't have spades, you aren't making 5♦", which only seems to fall down when partner has rather more than his fair share of diamonds! So, any theories as to why one group of players leaned so heavily towards playing in 4♠ and the other to playing at the 5 level? I wonder if a player who discusses hands in a group will feel that a bid is right partly because they know that the rest of their group would make the same bid! This has some benefits (e.g. none of the players I asked considered that partner would return to 5♠ if you ran from 4♠ X to 5♦, maybe because they expect partner to place you with a 5-7), but it still seems a bit weird. Any thoughts? Anyone want to try giving this hand to other groups of players? :rolleyes:

I'd be inclined to make 1NT forcing and bid 1NT on these hands. Usually you'll be happy to play in a 5-2 ♥ fit or a 4-3 ♠ fit. Even if 1NT is NF, it is still my bid on 6♥4♠.

Oops, misread...ignore the vote for ace then small to the queen

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=satxxxhdkqt9xxxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP RHO opens 4♥[/hv]

This is all rather complicated. I'm really not sure what lead the UI suggests. If pard was tanking with spades he rates to not have strength in the suit, otherwise he would have bid it earlier? So I wonder if the UI does suggest a club lead after all - if pard has spades, we might need to get at our club tricks before they go on spades, and if pard has clubs the passive club lead rates to be correct (despite RHO's void). However, I can understand your annoyance, particularly if the director hasn't explained why he thinks the UI suggests a club lead.

Going rather off-topic here, sorry Adam. IMO the greater benefit of puppet is not being able to find 5-3 fits, but that responder can show 4M5m with ease. Compare this with the Stayman auction 2N:3♣, 3♦:4m which hasn't specified responder's major suit. Still, it in no way deserves a place in this thread.

Some of this will vary wildly between countries and even regions, particularly in terms of being able to play the conventions that potential partners might insist on. 1. Takeout doubles 2. Stayman 3. Transfers 4. 4th suit forcing 5. Blackwood 6. Cuebids primarily as stop asks 7. Cuebids (and 1suit-(X)-2NT - thx Gerben) as good raises 8. Lebensohl 9. Jacoby 10. RKCB 11. NMF 12. Michaels/UNT 13. Cuebid controls (deserves to be higher up but requires more effort than the others) Do weak twos and reverses-showing-extras really count as conventions? NMF will be higher up if living in a region that advocates Walsh (are there such regions in the US?). I'd put Landy quite high up if it wasn't so underrated, it does pretty well both in terms of effectiveness and simplicity.

I wouldn't have taken 4♥ as a cuebid. Maybe it should be. That's quite a nice hand for a NF 3♠.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sat8652hakqdq6c92&w=skj974h853d943ca7&e=s3h94dakjt872c543&s=sqhjt762d5ckqjt86]399|300|Scoring: MP 1♠-(3♦)-X-(P); 3♠-AP. Presumably, if I had bid 4♣, partner would have bid 4♥ and we would have played there.[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sk82h42da2caqj872&w=s9743hq53dqjt74c4&e=sat5hakjt97dk6ckt&s=sqj6h86d9853c9653]399|300|Scoring: MP Glad to see my 5♣ bid had some support. Apologies for the lead question - at the table I decided that a club lead would have let 4♥ make, I've only just realised that it does not![/hv]