MickyB

Indeed. It would also be nice if all of the characters were the same width, it would make the hand shape much more obvious.

Whereagles, how do you plan to make a delayed double of 2♦ on this auction? ;) Paul, I imagine that they give up on penalties when the long trumps are under the diamond bidder. It might work to play that responder's double is also two-way, but sometimes opener will have a penalty pass when responder's diamonds are too long for a takeout double.

Ok, I've logged out and in again with no change. Edit: And again, now it's fixed. No idea what changed.

I'm playing at a table and it won't let me chat to anyone, as far as I can tell. I bring up the chat window, type a message, but when I press return the message isn't sent and a sound is produced. I can still type descriptions for my bids. I'll see what happens when I leave the table shortly.

I had an error at first, something about file size. I've downloaded it again and it's fine now.

It would be an interesting decision to "just bid 3m as a forcing bid", because I'm fairly sure it should be NF! Opener is already limited by his failure to jump to 3♥ so is just patterning out with a game-try, why shouldn't responder pass if that looks likely to be the best spot? I agree with those who are bidding 2♥ on relatively strong hands, leaving extra space makes it much more likely that you will reach the correct strain. At the table I bid 2♠, pard had the dreaded minimum 5-5 with weakish spades and 2♠ drifted 3 off. I'm still not sure if I'll pass or bid 2♠ the next time I am dealt a hand like this!

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=saht43dat853cj975]133|100|Scoring: XIMP 1♠:1N 2♥:? What's your call? What changes to a hand of this shape would persuade you to switch between pass, 2♠ and 3♥?[/hv]

Yup 6♥ looks reasonable to me. I usually play Multi-Landy against a gambling 3NT, I suspect most defences to 1NT would work over 3NT as well.

Wouldn't redoubling 3♣ show a 2-suiter on this sequence? I'd expect a 4450 to be best off sticking out 3♣ doubled.

This may or may not be true, but I don't see how it applies any more to 2/1 GF than Standard American - the same light distributional hands are responding 1NT and having to play there. I prefer a semi-forcing NT, because I'm yet to be convinced that rebidding 2♣ on a minimum 4522 tends to lead a better spot than 1NT would have been.

Thanks everyone :D Yesterday was nice if fairly uneventful, but as Mark said, last weekend more than made up for that. Roland got his wish this morning B)

Ok, so I'm currently playing 1♣ 1st vul/2nd as 11-13 bal, 17-19 bal (both may have 4-5♦) or 11+unbal (pretty much denies 4♦). Would it be better to pass 11-12 point hands with primary clubs? In order to show your club length, you will need to volunteer a bid on the second round. Perhaps it is better to limit your hand first. Now whenever a 1♣ opener volunteers a second bid, he is promising some extras. It may also be useful in competition, as partner of the 1♣ opener, to know that he will have either at least a doubleton tolerance for your suit or some extra values. On the other hand, by not opening 1♣ we are letting opps use their opening structure more often; We also deny partner the chance to show a club fit with a non-forcing fit-jump (we play 1♣ (1♦) 2♥, for example, as 5+♥3+♣ NF). Any thoughts?

I believe that there is a flaw in the logic of the second half of this paragraph. You are correct that the opponents should stretch to bid 4♥ over 4♦, but this isn't in itself an undesireable thing. When they bid what appears to be a 30% game, a large proportion of the time they are going to go negative when, if you had passed, they might have made a comfortable 140. You are pushing them into bidding game more often than they would choose to do so; in absence of any other information, this has to be a good thing. You can be fairly sure that 4♥ is making and it can still be right to bid 4♦ - after all, the opponents are probably about to bid it themselves, and if not, do you still have reason to believe that 4♥ is making? IMO, there are three ways in which you might stand to lose from pushing the opponents into game - - If you are playing against weak, fairly conservative players, then they may fail (or in RHO's case, already have failed) to make an obvious 4♥ bid if you keep quiet. - Showing your diamond length may help the opponents to evaluate whether to bid 4♥ or not. - If you think the cards are lying particularly well for your opponents, or you are certain that they have game values, then you don't want to encourage them to bid on.

I'm sure many strong club players would still compete to 3H on the second auction, despite their 1H opening being limited. The difference is that 2D is a lot more likely to end the auction, so an offensive hand might have to find an alternative call, but given that game in a minor requires a trick more I see nothing wrong with opening 2♦ and intending to take another call with a hand too good for 4♦ but not offensive enough for 5♦.

I'm not sure I agree with that Flame - if pard has a couple of diamonds, 4 decent hearts and a stiff spade, he might raise to try to keep oppos from finding their spade fit? I think this is close between 4♦ and pass.

1. The old fashioned way was to play 1♠:2♣, 2♦ as NF, but now the vast majority of tournament players play 2♣ as forcing to at least 2♠. 2. No, bid your shape out. You can show a minimum by passing partner's next bid (unless he uses 4th suit forcing). 3. 1M:2X, 2M:2N is invitational, a dead minimum will pass 2M. 4. Yup, 1M:2m, 3m is NF. With extras, either raise to 4m, splinter, or bid a slightly off-shape 2N. I quite like 1M:2m, 3N as a NF raise of the minor that is unsuitable for any other bid. 5. 1M:2m, blah:3m is invitational. If opener has rebid in a new suit, responder can bid the 4th suit on the GF hand; If opener has rebid his own suit, responder has to invent a second suit.

I'm not convinced this is true. You are reasonably likely to land up in 4M; When you do not, the contract will frequently be right-sided because the 2NT bidder is likely to have doubleton honours that will appreciate being led up to.

1♥-2♦-3♥ is ? ;) :P GF raise

I agree that 2NT as 12-14 is *awful*. With one (relatively inexperienced, Acol-bred) partner I play a 2NT rebid as 15-19 GF (edit: and 3NT as NF, 4 card support, extras, that can't/doesn't wish to splinter) this is better IMO, but I'd rather play 2NT as a GF single suiter as David is advocating. The first decision is whether to play Acol style or SAYC style 2/1s. Acol 2/1s are forcing only to two of opener's suit, so a 2♠ rebid and a 3♣ raise are both NF; SAYC 2/1s promise a rebid, so 1♠:2♣, 3♣ is GF showing some extras and 1♠:2♣, 2♠ is F1R and could be a min with 4 card ♣ support. With David, I played Acol style 2/1s, and we were forced to open 1NT on any 5332 in the 15-17 range. - 2NT shows a GF single suiter. If either hand bids 3♠, that sets trumps. - One step above responder's suit (so 3♦ in this case) is a GF raise. - Opener jump-rebidding his own suit shows a splinter in the "lost" suit, so diamonds in this case. - 3NT shows 18-19 balanced, now 4♣ is enquiring how suitable opener is for slam in responder's suit. If you want to play that a 2/1 promises a rebid, then you obviously have more options.

Over a Namyats opening, your main priority should be judging when to compete. They are giving you the option to show a (relatively weak) takeout double without the risk of offering partner a choice between 990 and 1100, IMO it is clear to take advantage of this. With a strong balanced hand, pass then double 4♠. This hand is a clear 5♥ bid, well, actually it may depend what the 13th card is.

How many of those millions of bridge players are juniors? How many of the EBU TDs do you think have been playing bridge for less than, say, ten years? Without wanting to put words into Matt (Echognome)'s mouth, I suspect that part of the reason that he plays with juniors so much is that he is a uni lecturer and plays at the university club, therefore all of the juniors are his friends or friends of friends. He is also closer in age to us than he is to the majority of bridge players. The more juniors who play, the more young people will at least be exposed to the game, and as Adam said, these people will often take it up later in life. And as for the sex life comment...from what I've heard, there was more than just bridge going on at the world junior camp! Relationships between the juniors are very common, and from what I've heard from the previous generation, most of the girls will land up married to one!

If he's one of the top TDs, then he must have started a fair while before he was 25. People who haven't been playing for long are unlikely to be TDs. Juniors are less likely to have been playing for a long time and are more likely to have other exams, etc to be worrying about. I bet that if you did a survey of TDs, that most of them took up the game at a comparatively young age.

Make it a 0544 and I'm definitely bidding 3♦, but here I'm worried that we should be bidding spades over their hearts; even if we can take a trick more in diamonds than in spades, we may well fail to compete without knowledge of the double fit. Otoh, bidding 1♠ may well leave us not knowing if we have a fit at all, especially if LHO bids a large number of hearts immediately. Maybe there is something to be said for an initial 2♦ bid, followed up with a spade bid!

IMO, it is terrible to put an invite with no 4cM through Stayman when playing a 3 point range 1NT opening; If I don't have a way of inviting without giving a huge amount of information to the opponents, I'd much rather just choose between passing 1NT and bidding 3NT. Having said that, I'm sure there are still other uses for that sequence, e.g. using 2♠ as 4♠5+m invitational (typically quite light on HCP) and 2N as a balanced invite with 4♠; However, I still don't think this is as useful as having 2♠ as a 5 card invite.

Why not make all invites with 5♠ bid Stayman then 2♠? It's not like 1N:2♣, 2♥:2♠ is particularly useful for anything else, and it's nice to be able to stay at the 2 level. This also frees up 1N:2♥, 2♠:2N for transfer extensions or something else of your choice.