MickyB

Do you expect opener to pass on any hand? Because a double showing an offensive hand seems just as risky as a 3H bid showing an offensive hand, if partner has rubbish he will just bid 3H and hope that he isn't doubled. I don't see how you can judge when to push to 3H and when to pass out 2S (doubled) if opener is passing over 2S whether he 2344, 4351 or 1453. I can see where you are coming from, but I think you are worrying too much about an occasional big loss (we wrongly compete to 3H *and* get doubled - not likely when they have little idea whose hand it is) rather than a much more frequent if slightly smaller loss (judging whether to compete). I suspect you also get fewer penalties of 2S.

For me, it is for penalties. While it feels wrong to describe it as "pure" penalties I don't expect it to be pulled, because partner would already have competed to 3H with any hand that is sufficiently offensive.

Redouble is normally described as 10+ in the states and 9+ here. I could easily imagine a hand that would want to take penalties of 1NT but sell out to 2♠, so if XX would have set up a forcing pass situation you might choose to pass initially.

Reminds me of a hand in MSC. I forget the exact details, but one hand doubled, the other showed invitational values, and the doubler bid a new suit. Much of the panel considered it obvious that the doubler had a hand too strong to overcall initially, but the Director felt he was showing a 5431 15 count with 3 card support.

Worst of all, they relocated Glasgow to England for a contestant in one of the other events. Good way to annoy 50 million people at once.

Hmm, like Gerben, I wasn't going to take one at present even if it was available, but for some reason the idea has just become a lot more attractive :)

The hand was taken from the Spring Fours last year, the opponents were Robson-Bakhshi. The person who held this hand said he "bottled it" when he only bid 6♥ - Partner's hand was x AKQxx AKxxxxx void. I felt that his partner should have started with 5♣ trying to elicit a spade cue, as that is all he needs for the grand, and that 6♣ should be looking for something else from partner other than the spade ace. How would partner bid with, for example, x AKQxxx AKxxxx? Having said that, maybe a 40% grand wouldn't have been a bad idea as the underdogs!

That assumes that you were making your part-score, and that you won't get doubled in game.

I've also played for two countries, both in the same (my only) international competition! Scotland had illness problems so drew on the spare England players as subs :P

Playing a solid opening style, your bidding looks absolutely fine.

Sorry, I should have said that this is not a pick-up partnership and partner is decent. He *will* have the red suits.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakhxxxxxdxxxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♣)-2NT-(3♥)-4♥ (4♠)-6♣-(P) World class opposition. 2NT showed both reds (weak or strong) 3♥ was a strong 3♠ bid. What might partner have? What's your call?[/hv]

I predict that, within the next decade, we will see the first gay bridge movie.

It certainly does have its advantages - when I've got a balanced hand opposite, I'd be much happier preempting to the level of total trumps if I know opener can't be 5332.

I considered that Eric, and I'm currently looking through one of Glen's ETM systems that does just that. I'm not too sure though - IIRC a 5332 with 11-13 makes up more than 10% of potential 1M openings, not sure I really want to lose that much frequency from what is a fairly well defined bid. It's a bit different from opening 1NT with a 5 card major, because that is much better defined than a 1m opening.

Oh yeah, I knew there was an option I missed - transfer rebids after 1♥:1♠ (whether playing natural or KI). Using 1NT to show diamonds instead of regular transfers makes a lot of sense to me. Think I'd prefer to somehow fit in two ways of making a 2♥ rebid though, even if it was at the expense of having two ways to raise - this would also solve the BWDH.

I've been thinking about this sequence in a 2/1 context. 1♥:1♠, 1N as 12-14 balanced seems a bit wasteful for the cheapest bid available, particularly as many of these hands won't object to raising 1♠ instead. Some alternatives... 1) Allow 1NT to be off-shape, typically with 1-2 spades. This has some inferences for your 2m rebids - they will either have honours concentrated in the suits bid, 5-5 shape or extra values. 2) Kaplan Inversion (1♠ = forcing NT without 5♠, 1NT = 5♠). I certainly think this is better than using a forcing 1NT response as rebidding a 2 card club suit isn't my cup of tea. 3) Have 1♥:1♠, 1NT show any 15+ or similar, like Gazzilli but without the ambiguity. 2♣ can be 3 cards, but 35(32) normally raises. Edit - I missed option 4, which was to be transfer rebids after 1♥:1♠. Option 2 allows you to play a "forcing NT" without rebidding a 2 card suit, but I've never really felt the need for a flat 13 count to keep bidding opposite a 1NT response. The problem hands that it solves are those with 4♠5♥ - otherwise you need to choose the lesser evil of passing, bidding a 3 card minor, raising to 2NT or possibly the occasional 2♥ rebid. I quite like option 3, as otherwise 1♥:1♠, 2X has all the normal range problems of bidding two suits, as does 1♥:1NT, 2X playing KI, whereas 1♥:1NT, 2X leaves responder's 2♠ rebid free as a raise. You also have a lot more room than over a 15+ 1NT rebid than a Gazzilli 2♣. Any thoughts?

Why do the passers think that they can describe their hand better having passed first? For passing first and then taking action at a high level, I'd expect some kind of 2 suiter. I'm really torn on this one. 1♠ will get you too high when partner has a stiff (but with two aces I don't mind defending). 2♠ is about right on ODR, but the hand is too strong. 3♠ is about right on playing strength, but I've got too much defence. I prefer 1♠ or 3♠ to 2♠.

Yes - why have you not got her playing bridge yet, Mark?

It wouldn't have occured to me to bid anything other than 3♥ on my partner's hand.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=st9hakqtxxxdjct8x&w=sjxxxxhjdkxxxxcxx&e=sakxhxdaxxxxcqj97&s=sqxxhxxxxdqxcakxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP I took the push to 5♥, hating it - I think I would have doubled if West had shown only 5-4. East doubled for 1 off, 5♠ was 2 off at the other table.[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sakj87hqt4dajtc84&w=s653hk65d752cjt93&e=st92haj72dk98ck72&s=sq4h983dq643caq65]399|300|Scoring: IMP P:1♠; 2♣:2N; 3N I led the 8♦, which was not a success.[/hv]

Han, I agree that 2♣ would have been a better call on my partner's hand. At the table, I took the K♠ and led a club up, which held. At the other table, the contract was played the other way around - the K♣ was led from dummy at trick 2, and my teammate (not unreasonably) ducked. I'm fairly certain that my line isn't the best way to fool LHO into ducking, but it is reasonable in that he is likely to play low in tempo, whereas other options may cause him to think!

Playing in a pick-up partnership with a US star, against a top Israeli pair - [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqxxhxxxxdqxcakxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 2♠-3♥-4♠-? 2♠ shows a weak 5-5.[/hv]

I double. Opposite a real 2D overcall, I do not expect this to make, and have no reason to believe we have a game of our own on.