GrahamJson

I much prefer 2H to double. If hearts are the right strain then somebody has got to bid them and that is unlikely to be west.. If south continues with 3C then both east and west are worth a double (negative) after which it should be easy to reach 4S. You certainly don't want to be in six of anything.

I think making adjustments for working and non-working cards can be overdone. Yes, the HK could be waste paper, but then partner has opened 1NT so it could well be pulling its weight. If not, then the remaining seven points should fit well. So, overall I think you are worth going to the three level.

3H surely shows this sort of hand and can hardly be misinterpreted too badly.

With 55 in the majors opposite a TOX it seems automatic to bid game unless you chose to stay lower for tactical reasons. However I do see that partner might expect more in high cards if you were to bid 4D whereas a 4S bid does sound more like a shutout. On balance I would bid 4D, but it is close.

Completely agree with The Badger. BBO is full of "Experts" who list all manner of conventions in their profile but who clearly have not mastered the basics of the game. Learn the basics first before adding toys. One other thing. When you do add a convention make sure you discuss details with your partner. What do various rebids mean? What do you do if oppo intervene? Conventions are of little use if you go off the rails later in the auction.

This is textbook stuff. Bid 1H confidently and hope for the best. Partner should only hid on with a good hand. True, that seems likely given the auction so far, but he should be aware that you could be this weak. One way of telling the better players from the beginners is how they bid after a TOX. So often partner responds, say, 1H and the doubler looks at his four card support and 13 points and thinks, "what a great fit" and raises to two, three or even four. He forgets that he only holds what he has already promised. Similarly responder so often just bids one of a suit when a jump or cue bid would be right. Often the overbid so by the doubler compensate for the underbids by responder so all ends well. But of course other times it can end in disaster. As for a 1NT response, yes it should show about 7-10. However sometimes you do have to bid it on less because nothing else appeals. However it should never be as weak as the example here.

Unfortunately this sort of thing does happen. I have reported two persons for cheating, one behaved very similarly to how you describe (maybe it's the same person under a different user name) and seems to have been banned. The other still plays but I am now less sure about their behaviour. Maybe they were warned and are now being honest. The one who was banned was easy to spot. For example, with oppo bidding 1NT-3NT holding KQJ10xx xx Axx xx he lead the diamond ace, finding partner's KQxxx. Of course on a spade lead declarer takes the ace and cashes nine tricks. On another hand he pressed on to seven spades with a trump holding of xx opposite AKJxxx. With plenty of entries he cashed the top honours and dropped the offside queen. Even more blatantly twice he used Blackwood, found an ace missing but went on to bid seven. In both cases partner had an undisclosed void. What made this cheater particularly bad was the abuse he gave partners, which is why I suspect he may be the same person that you have spotted. One last piece of evidence. The banned guy played in three tournaments in which kibitzers weren't allowed. He came in the bottom three in each with scores of around 40%. I suggest that you go to "hand records" and look at how your suspect has done over the last month. Did he ever miss guess a finesse, or fail to reach a good game or slam? Then send the evidence to BBO Abuse. Good luck. We need to keep this site clean.

Presumably you should alert the fact that 2C is Stayman but does not guarentee a four card major. As a direct bid of 2NT shows diamonds going through Stayman is the only way of raising to 2NT.

No system can cope with every situation. In this case the argument is that with a weak hand and a misfit you pass 3D. Once you bid on it should be game forcing. This is a much more useful, and frequent, use of a 3H bid rather than trying to land on a pinhead in 3H. Sure, occasionally it might be nice to be able to end the auction in 3H, as in the example given, but that will be pretty rare.

Having played Acol for many years I can confirm that 3H in this sequence is forcing, so is the obvious bid. On a related matter, I used to play a jump rebid of three of a minor as forcing. This was combined with strong openings of 3C and 3D, similar to the 3C opening in Blue Club, whilst an opening 2NT showed a minor suit pre-empt. Obviously this was not standard Acol, but it worked well. (Other two level openings were multi and Tartan Twos, which led to various adventures.)

The last post, which is completely reasonable, just highlights how different players have different views on what is "normal". I think the main lesson of the hand is not to make bids that are potentially ambiguous, particularly with an unfamiliar partner. So in this case, if you have a splinter either bid 4D, which I think nearly all experienced players will recognise as showing a shortage, or make a simple raise. With the 55 hand either bid and rebid diamonds, with the risk of getting too high, or find another bid, even if it not the perfect one.

If you play 2D as GF then I would take 3D to be a splinter in support of spades (this is the Bridge Magazine standard system used in its Bidding Challenge treatment). Of course it could have other meanings, by agreement

Definitely not a negative double, which should have at least tolerance for both unbidden suits, unless you play a style when you double on most strong hands. Also, doubling with good support for partner is not usually a good idea. Partner may pass the double and his experted tricks in clubs (in this example) will not materialise. It seems to me that W should bid 3C, after which it should be easy to reach six.

Look at it another way. Assuming that you play a 3C response to an opening one bid as weak, would you bid it on this hand? You certainly wouldn't opposite 1H or 1D as you have already found a good fit. You might opposite 1S, but I think 1NT more likely as a better option to keep the bidding low and finding a fit. So, if you would not respond 3C why open it when partner could easily have an opening hand? One other factor is, who are the opps? Off beat pre-empts are common in high level play because you can rely on oppo to bid to the best contract (well, generally). Playing on BBO that is rarely the case. Why make things difficult for them when they are perfectly able to do that for themselves? Finally, why be too concerned about oppo buying the contract when three suits look like they will be breaking badly? Exchange two of your diamonds for spades and a pre-empt makes far more sense.

Pass seems automatic as dealer. After that I suggest 2C-2D-2H-3H followed by some cue bids. Ending in 6H should be easy. Or, if you don't like 2D, which tends to be used as a waiting bid these days, 2C-3C-3H-4H .... This auction gives a better chance of reaching seven, which is a good contract. A 3C opener might be reasonable in third position but as dealer is as likely to screw up partner as the oppo.

Depends somewhat on oppo. But playing against random BBO pairs I would pass as they could well be playing in a silly contract. On the other hand, partnering certain players that I have kibbed I would double, as they seem to need a big hand before they consider over calling.

The short answer to this is that in a regular partnership you can play whatever methods you like, and there are several to choose from. With a pick up partner "normal" methods are assumed, I.i rdbl is strong, suits are natural and 2NT shows a good unbalanced hand. Also, if I took 1NT doubled out into 2C, say, and then redoubled, I would hope that partner had the wit to realise that I was trying to scramble Ito a playable spot with something like Qxxx xxxx J10xx x.

A new suit at the three lever is usually forcing in a constructive auction, i.e no opposition bidding. There are one or two exceptions, such as 1S-1NT-2S (or 2H/D)-3C. In this sequence the 1NT bidder is showing a weakish hand with long clubs, e.g X xx Qxx Kxxxxxx. When opponents are bidding, especially if they have opened, such rules go out of the window and new suits are often just an attempt to find a safe spot. In such cases cue bids of oppo's suit are used to show strength. However, as usual in bridge there are no hard and fast rules; you have to use your logic and judgment. For example, if an experienced partner introduces a new suit at a high level you sometimes have to ask yourself whether it can realistically be an attempt to play there. For example, if you overcall 2H and partner, who has previously passed, competes at some stage with 2C it is unlikely that he holds just lots of clubs as if so he would have bid them earlier. He is more likely showing a heart fit and a good club holding, such as X Kxxx xx AKxxxx. This information could be very helpful when judging to pass/double/bid on over oppo's 4S bid. Of course, this requires your partner to be a good player and one who trusts you tou make the correct inference.

Agree that 2NT would show the minors, although some play that it can be any big two suiter or even two way; minors or big two suitor. As things went 2D was reasonable, especially if playing with an unfamiliar partner. However 3C was a bit feeble. 4C would show your values better. 3NT would be a reasonable gamble. E did not take out 1NT so it is unlikely that there is a five card major around. Also the 1NT opening should help you place the oppo cards possibly enabling you to make 3NT on less than the normal values. You say that you play a weak NT. I assume that this applies to oppo too. If the opening was 15-17 then your 3C bid is maybe more reasonable. However in this case it seems unlikely that partner will have values for his 2NT bid. I trust he is not one of those that you see on BBO who like to make "clever" bids and then blame partner for not reading their minds.

You can 5NT with step responses, much like Blackwood, I.e. 6C=no top honour, 6D=1 top honour, 6H=2. Problem solved.

For what it is worth, Robson and Segal in "Partnership bidding in bridge" use 4C (over 3D) as a "fit non jump" showing this sort of hand. Sally Horton, in "Double trouble" uses a double after a raise by responder to show any hand that has no clear bid. Usually the two other suits but can have support.

I guess I am old fashioned, but I would have bid 4S first time around, particularly with an unfamiliar partner. It puts maximum pressure on oppo, and you will know what to do if they go to the five level. Partner should not bid on in front of you unless he has a very distributional hand. As Terrence Reece said "A pre-empt that is known to be weak is a blunt sword." Playing 4S as a pre-empt in this position merely tells oppo that it is safe for them to go on.

The problem with opening 2C on this sort of hand is that partner, holding something like X KQxx xxx KQxx will add his ten points to your assumed twenty odd and start heading for an unmakable slam. And you can't really get around this by having agreements that a 2C bid can be this weak as this would take away much of the advantage of the bid. This is that, holding a big hand you can open 2C and then sit back, knowing that partner will bid on if he has a few values. If you were to open this hand 2C how do you bid a hand like AKJ10xx AKx AQx KQ where just X QJxxxx Kx xxx opposite is enough for six. I still prefer Acol twos (or, better, Tartan Twos in which 2M is two way; strong or weak 55). It's not so much that Acol twos are great in themselves, but they take a lot of strain off opening one bids.

According to the Goren method this hand would be worth 7 pts (or 6) plus 3 for the void, giving a total of 9 or 10; not enough to open. However opposite an opening of 1H or 1S you would add 5 pts for the void, giving a total of 11 or 12; sufficient for a raise to 3.

If I recall correctly, Goren recommended the 5-3-1 evaluation many years ago, but only for the supporting hand. In the long trump hand it was 3-2-1. The actual example shows that there is more to bidding than just adding up points. Swap South's black suits around and 4H is a much better contract, yet the point count remains the same. I doubt if any experienced players use anything but the simple 4321 point count system. They then use their judgement to re-evaluate their holding as the bidding goes on. For example a side suit of Qxx would gain in value if partner bids the suit but would be worthless if it becomes clear that partner is short. Personally I like to use the most basic loosing trick count as a back up. This involves having a maximum of three losers in each suit, with one loser subtracted for each high honour card (A, K or Q). A typical minimum opening suit bid will have 7 losers. A single raise 9 losers, double raise 8, etc. Using the example given, S has 6 losers and N has 9, not quite enough to justify a four level contract, which needs a total of 14 losers or less. In general I would say that the simple point count works best for balanced hands and the LTC is better for distributional hands. However, they all need to be combined with large amounts of judgement. I'm afraid that no point count system will substitute for experience.