MickyB

I agree that it takes ages for them to put on make-up, but does it always help? Rarely. Mark, was your point that most people look like sex symbols in comparison to you? :P

1♦:2♣, 2N has to be forcing unless you are using a lot of system. 1♦:2♣, 2♦:2N can be NF. 2♣ isn't ridiculous given the benefits of right-siding it but I'll stick with 1NT. I'm not a fan of 2NT, which is likely to get us too high from the wrong side.

I suspect that this advantage is less significant at MPs than at IMPs. At IMPs, you are aiming to take the contract down, and that may be best achieved with a passive or aggressive lead. At MPs, your lead will normally be (comparatively) passive because letting through the 11th trick can be as costly as letting through the 9th.

Given the source, it is unsurprising that this sounds reasonable! I'm not convinced though - the difference between an unbalanced 12 with 3 card support and a balanced 17 with 3 card support is massive, particularly if responder only has a 4 card suit. Also, how would the "pass and wait" strategy work if LHO puts in a raise?

Thanks for the responses so far. Agreed, Josh, and that is without even mentioning direct seat WJOs :) 5 is also a STR NT dbl, and there again, bidding NT shows better stoppers.6 you've got me - I think I would assume DBL was a strong NT, but this is a somewhat different auction, since for us 1♦-(P)-2♣ creates a game force. So there's actually a good argument for DBL to be penalty - I'll have to see what my partners think about this one! Jan, I am surprised to hear that you play 1♦-(P)-2♣ as GF - I think standard among weak NTers is for it to be GF opposite 15-16 balanced (this handtype would pass a 1NT response), forcing to 2♦ opposite an unbalanced hand. How else do you arrange to reach your 15 opposite 10 games? For this reason, I'm inclined to think that it is best to play that sequence 5 is not a STR NT dbl, because 15-16 flat was always intending to pass. The flip-side is that, playing weak NT, there are sequences where if you do not act, you must be unbalanced. I'm not quite sure quite how useful this is in practice.

Playing weak NT, what should opener's double mean on these auctions? 1. 1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠) 2. 1♦-(P)-1♠-(2♣) 3. 1♦-(P)-1♥-(2♠) 4. 1♦-(1♠)-X-(2♠) 5. 1♦-(P)-1NT-(2♥) 6. 1♦-(P)-2♣-(2♠) I think some of these should be showing 15+ balanced - on 2 and 3 at least, what else are you bidding otherwise on a balanced 15-16? If you do play "Strong NT doubles", what do NT bids now show? I've seen 2NT on the second and third defined as 18-19 with a stop but that seems fairly useless when you could just have doubled. Particularly on the third, there seems to be a good case for 2NT (Reverse) Lebensohl.

Agreed David, that was quite useful before. I thought I was going mad when you mentioned that feature, Matt - I've never seen it. A little investigation shows that it only works when you have the pictures of cards up, not the hand diagram.

It wasn't "especially" at matchpoints, it was only at matchpoints IMO - all the IMPs related findings were not too shocking (e.g. don't use Stayman with a 4333). I think the article reached this conclusion because most of hands had extra values, so often there was the same number of tricks in both strains. Of course, with a long suit and a lot of points this number will often be 12, and without bidding out your hand you will struggle to evaluate slam potential.

Similarly, preventing enemies from sending an invite to play in a tournament would seem wise. Not something that particularly matters, of course.

I can't see any way to involve partner in the 5 level decision, so just bid 4♠ and hope you buy it. The more interesting question comes on the next round.

Zero. Having no anti-percentage happenings to your name is very anti-percentage.

Ok, I don't feel so bad now - the first one is a very nice combination. More hidden below.

Second one: Cash the ace then run the ten. Cashing the ace first allows you to pick up Kx onside, running the ten (as opposed to small to the queen) gives you the extra chance of KJxx onside. First one: Hmm. I don't like it when I disagree with Suitplay :P

While I can understand your frustration about the lead, I also dislike your 5♣ bid. If you are going to act it has to be with a double IMO, and at the table I would be more worried if partner bid 5♣ than if he passed.

I'm passing. For 3NT to be a favourite we will probably need 9 cashing tricks, which means 6 running diamonds and the ace of hearts, or 7 running diamonds and an outside ace. Give partner the AJ spades and we are finessing into the overcaller. Despite no wastage in clubs, 5♦ will likely need a 15 count or a 7th diamond with partner to make it better than a finesse.

1NT is not an option IMO, as well as wrong-siding NT (with overcaller's partner on lead) it will cause partner to misevaluate. At IMPs I would definitely bid 2♣. Opposite a weak NT I'm happy to play there, opposite an unbalanced hand partner knows we have a 9 card fit so he will make another move of some description. It is more difficult at MPs. Depending upon style I might double, but not if partner might "raise" on 3 card support in ♥ as I prefer. That leaves 2♠ - occasionally pard will go minus in 2NT or 3♣, but more likely is that +120 or +150 will outscore both NT from my side and ♣.

All very interesting. For the most part, I agree with Adam and Stephen, apart from... I agree that you need some way to cope with invitational single-suiters (either invitational jump-shifts or 1M:2m, blah:3m invitational) but otherwise I don't see the problem with a NF 1NT response. Over 1♠, it is only being passed by 5332 minima, where do you think you are heading? I don't even see the problem with including 3 card limit raises, at IMPs at least. A 1♥ opening is a bit more complicated - now I certainly don't want to include 3 card limit raises for fear that partner passes with a well-fitting 45(31), and 4522 15 counts are painful, but it still seems like a reasonable method - certainly better than forcing partner to find a call on a 4522 12 count. Of course, Kaplan Inversion deals with this problem. Is it clear that 1M:2m, 2M:3M should be NF? I think there is a lot to be said for just bidding marginal games based on the fit, and it makes slam-tries much easier (particularly if the sequence sets the major suit as trumps). I've been thinking about what should be forcing when playing strong NT, 4 card majors. Unless you use some complex methods, all 12-14 hands with 4333/4432 shape have to rebid 2NT, which should clearly be forcing (I suggest GF unless responder rebids his suit). This is fine until you come to deal with 3 card limit raises of opener's major - they often don't want to go past 2M opposite a balanced minimum. The options seem to be to start off with a 1NT bid (fine opposite a 1♠ opening but not opposite a 1♥ opening IMO for the reasons given above - Kaplan Inversion isn't an option when playing 4cM) or give 1M:2M a very high top end, possibly putting the weaker raises into a 1NT response.

Clear 1♥ for me, I'm very unlikely to miss a game and I'm much better placed to find the right level and strain if the auction continues. I had a similar hand not long ago, and had to choose between 1♥ and a 2♣ opener along the lines of the one described by Ben. I chose 1♥, on the basis that after 2♣:2♥ I would fear we belonged in spades. Also, partner might play me for a stronger hand after 2♣:2♦, 2♥:..., 3♠, and there is no room to clarify major suit lengths below game. We missed a reasonable game that was bid at the other table, but there was a happy ending - the opponents misdefended for the 4th overtrick in 1♥, which saved an imp that won the match :rolleyes:

After 1♦:1♥, the 1NT and 2♣ rebids can both be used to show minor two-suiters. In Siege (1♦ = 11+, 4+♦ unbal, may have longer ♣) I encourage responder to keep the auction open by having a 2♣ rebid promise longer ♦. After 1♦:1♠, I use 1NT to show both minors and 2♣ to show both red suits. Giving opener a 3rd chance to bid isn't anything like as important when he is limited, so I don't know if this is optimal in this scenario.

I don't like this at all, but then I've never seen much benefit in moving balanced 16/17 counts from the strong club - the worst hand a strong club opener can have for partner is a misfitting minimum, so what help is it removing those balanced hands? In fact, I like opening them a strong club - it is the only time that I feel that 1♣ has shown my hand with one bid, I can now sit back and await events. Putting 15-17 balanced into 1♦ gives you the traditional problem of a weak NT - having to get across your extra strength in competition. I have some symapthy for an 11-13 NT (although I still consider 14-16 to be superior) but 12-14? Just stretch it slightly and you have a natural 1♦ opening, surely that is worth it?

What is an involuntary psyche?

Coventry BC doesn't permit shorts either. Nor, for that matter, does the EBU (except at Brighton) so I don't think you can have a particular gripe against the Bristol clubs.

2♥:2♠ pass or correct is vital. Giving this up will cause 10 times as many problems as it solves. There aren't perfect answers to your questions, but there are reasonable ones.

IMO there are three sensible ranges - 14-16. This is clearly right in 3rd+4th seat. 12/13-15, with a natural 1♦ opening. 9-12, 1st (and possibly 2nd) NV only.

Me too, Han. I've played half a dozen and only finished positive once. Maybe 18 hands in 25 minutes isn't a good idea after all...