GrahamJson

The current fashion in modern expert Acol is to open or rebid NT on all balanced hands (except when you have support for partner's suit). This means that if you bid two suits you are usually showing 5-4, even on sequences such as 1C-1H-1S. The exception to this are 4441 distributions. Personally I have not completely bought into this style and generally prefer to bid "up the line", especially if my values are in two suits. However, going back to the original question, yes a rebid of two of a second suit guarantees an original five carder. As an aside, a common error of beginners is to find fits by rebidding their long suits, I.e. They won't find a 5-3 fit until the long suit has been rebid, or a 6-2 fit until it has been rebid twice. More advanced players are more reluctant to rebid suits in this way, finding their fits by means of delayed support, second round support showing 3 cards and third round support two cards.

As with many questions on BBO forums there are at least two answers, in this case because there are two questions:- 1/ Is it best to agree with partner that we do not open a weak two holding two aces? and 2/ Is it ok to open a weak two with two aces when playing with a pick up partner? I think the answer to 1/ is that there is no answer; just make sure you both agree on your approach. My view is that this is just one factor to be considered. However it is not a good idea to open a weak two with two aces if your trump suit is poor, so xx AJ10874 Ax xxx is ok but xx A75432 Ax xxx is not. As for 2/, I would suggest that you don't open with two aces simply because many others do not so your partner will probably be taken by surprise.

With Ax it is best for the lead to come up to you, especially if LHO has bid the suit. If partner has QJ, or Qx or Jxx you will likely have two stops in the suit whereas if partner declares then the lead comes through Ax so LHO will win the K and force out the then bare ace. So a 2NT bid right sides the contract making it a close decision between it and double.

What do you bid with a huge two or three suiter short in spades? I think most would double then bid 2S. Unless you have a very firm agreement with partner that a tox followed by a bid of the doubled suit shows that suit, doubling here is likely to lead to a very muddled auction.

I recall Terence Reece commenting, when his partner raised to 2C rather than responding 1S on a suit like this, "I see no sense in bidding bad suits on bad hands when there is a sound alternative". Maybe this is old school and things have moved on, but I think he still has a point. A suit such as 5432 can be bid if there is no good alternative, but only as a last resort. As a consequence I dislike the assumption that goes along the line "partner can't have four spades (or whatever) because he didn't bid 1S".

Like a lot of questions asked on BBO it perhaps should be asked along the lines of "what is the best agreement that covers situations like this?" In the absence of any agreement usually the simplest bid that is least open to misunderstanding is best. In this case I would suggest a pass. Perhaps 2S should show a hand such as this, but if partner believes you are showing a two suited things are likely to end badly.

I'm not sure why the poster thinks this is such an unusual hand; it looks fairly routine to me. The obvious bid is 3NT, but given the vulnerability I can see the attraction of passing. As it went three off clearly pass would have been my choice. If oppo weren't vulnerable I would choose 3NT.

As a weak 2D is natural.....

I'm not familiar with this chart, but it does state that it refers to conventional bids. As a weak 2C is natural it is not mentioned. Neither are opening bids of 1H and 1S, which I assume are allowed.

Trying to predict what will happen at other tables, and particularly assuming that they will all be the same, can be a mugs game. Yes, if everyone else is making 2H then you need to double 2S, but the chances are that they are not. Some may not open partner's hand, or may open 1H, or 3H. Others might overcall 3S, or double. In partscore situations like this a plus score is king so I feel that getting 2S one off will be fine, maybe not 100% but well above average. Clearly 2S doubled making will be a zero.

3C looks obvious but I'm wondering about the merit of 3H. If 2NT is two places to play then they are most likely the red suits, so 3H will immediately find your fit. Also, if opponents compete with 3S you can follow up with 4C. If you had bid 3C you might find it more difficult to compete further. As to hanging partner for protecting, I don't see that as a huge worry. Even opposite xx x KQxxx xxxxx 4C is only one off, and makes on a spade lead, and partner should surely have something a bit better than that.

1 is a clear pass. Why make a dodgy preempt when you hold the other major. Change your heart suit to one of the minors and I would consider opening three, especially third position, but not as it stands. I wouldn't criticise a 1H opening on 2, but I'd probably pass, although again a preempt comes into consideration in 3rd. I'd definitely open 3H on 3.

Err, I think that is pretty much what I said.

Presumably after the sequence 2C - 2D -3NT Stayman and transfers would apply, in which case 4S ought to indicate a minor suited hand with slam interest. With a highly suitable hand east can then bid 5NT; pick a slam. West can then complete the good work with a bid of 6C. It seems to me that this is a sequence that a good pair could produce without prior agreements, although I can imagine a certain amount of head scratching, particularly following the 4S bid.

As far as I can tell compatibility stars mean very little. I have nothing listed in my profile. This results in others who have nothing listed having three or more compatibility stars. Make sense of that.

Like many questions that get asked on the BBO forums I think that there is more than one answer, depending on who the others at the table are. Playing with random players of largely unknown ability perhaps 4C is the best bid, on the basis that the hand is clearly too good for 3C but not good enough for 5. Playing with a strong partner 5C becomes the better bid as I would not expect him to bid 2C on complete garbage and he would not expect me to have a better hand than this. I don't think 2H, or some other invented bid, is right playing with any partner. It is unlikely that you can make 3NT unless partner can provide help in both majors, in which case he would probably have bid 1NT or redoubled. A weaker player may have bid 2C on a hand suitable for 3NT, and a bid of 2H might get you there, but then it might also get you to 4H. And even if it did get you there your partner would be playing it with less than optimal outcome. (The only time 2 or 3 H would be correct is if playing with an established partner with whom you have agreements covering this situation.) As for the best opening bid I might consider 1NT if the hand were weaker and you were playing a 12-14 NT, in which case the preemptive argument has merit. But playing a strong NT there is no need to bend the system so 1D is clearly correct.

Ok, I accept that mine was an extreme example but it was meant to illustrate a principle. If you open 4H partner will never imagine that you are lacking any honour. This could turn out badly in a number of ways, such as partner doubling oppo or competing too high.

One of the risks of opening 4H, and to a lesser extent 3H, is that partner could hold something like AKxx Q AK Axxxxx and will bid six trusting you for a suit headed by at least KJ.

With hands like this I usually consider doing something clever, such as bidding 3H, but always end up making the obvious bid, in this case 4H. It usually turns out to be the winning tactic, or at least the one that doesn't lose. I note that when hands like this come up in bidding competitions, in which your bid is compared with a panel of experts, the straightforward bid usually gets the most support, and 10/10.

In general I would say that the player with trumps should double. If that gives away the bad break, to declarer's advantage, then it is a bad double. I.e. You should be doubling on something like QJ109, not Qxxx. Doubling on shortage risks partner holding xxxx in trumps, which may not embarrass declarer. Of course if oppo have scraped into a contract you might stretch to double, especially if you can see other suits are breaking badly. This is one area where doubling good players is safer than doubling bad players. Bad players might have underbid such that your imagined riches in partner's hand aren't in fact there.

Sacrificing is not generally recommended at rubber bridge. In this case you could easily go for 500 or 700 and still be 2/1 to lose the rubber, being one game down. And whilst it is likely that oppo have a slam, it is not a certainty. Partner could have a trump trick or you might even make a ruff. Then there are personal factors to consider. How good are your partner and the opposition? It would be silly to prolong a rubber if you were playing with a weak partner against strong opponents. Conversely a sacrifice is more tempting if your partner is a good player and opponents are not. Playing imps you would almost certainly bid as high as you dare. However playing rubber it might be wiser to go quietly.

You could also pass and see what partner does. You'd probably still bid 5S next but it would have a different meaning. I think that an immediate 5S should show two suits whilst an initial pass shows three. Or perhaps they show different strengths. One to discuss with a regular partner.

I voted "Other" as it has more than one of the meanings given. It is basically an hand where you think penalising the opponents will result in a better score than bidding on. So is could be a poor hand or a good one, but it should have some defence, maybe just a few trumps, and not be useful in another strain. There is one widely kib bed player on BBZo who make it a rule to always overcall over 2C. He gets away with it, and sometimes gets a good score, because oppo never double, largely because of this idea that all early doubles must be for take out.

I think I would end up defending 4CX probably going -3.

Nick's system is my preference with the one addition that if responder takes out and subsequently redoubles it is SOS. The problem with most other systems is that you can often end up one level higher in a 43 fit, which may not generate an extra trick, let alone two.