Siegmund

So you told us partner's pass of 4H was more encouraging than 4S would have been... What would partner's double of 4H be? What would our double of 4H have been when partner passed it around? (In two of my partnerships, the answer is that pass and double are used in some fashion to have a cuebidding auction, and it seems like one or the other of us ought to have used that space here.) If the answer is 'penalty' I suppose that's a good reason to not do it on these cards... but I have a hard time seeing any situation where we would sell out to 4HX here.

Do you have an agreement how you escape from 1NTX? If you pass and LHO doubles, that is good news for you, in a way: you can come back in on the second round, and play two of a minor, instead of three. Most people would play 1NT-p-p-x-p-p-2C/2D as natural, and 1NT-p-p-x-p-p-xx can be used for "pick your better minor" or "bid 4-card suits up the line" or some similar agreement. (More complicated toys are possible, but most everybody does SOMEthing with xx, 2c, and 2d here.) If the opps happily compete to 2M, 1NT-p-p-2M-p-p-2NT should be for the minors, not natural, since you failed to raise the first time.

Matchpoints, opps silent. ♠AQxx ♥97xxx ♦AKx ♣x ♠K ♥T ♦QTx ♣AKQJ9xxx Responder was generally afraid to go on after 1C-1H-3NT, and of course passed an overly heavy Gambling 3NT opening. But I wouldn't even be sure what responder's 4-level suit bids mean after 1C-1H-3NT, to be honest. Anybody have cool tools to find this one? 3NT made 8, on the SJ lead (though they only scored it as 520, not 550.) Hearts were Jxx-AKQx with Jxx on lead.

Nice to see someone is experimenting with what to do after a non-GF 2/1. I've been playing something similar in one partnership. The gist of it is that 1M-2m is natural inv+, and won't include 4 of the unbid major unless GF. 1M-2m-2M is now passable with six hearts, and 1M-2m-2OM says "If you bid 2NT or 3m or 3M, I might pass", while 1M-2m-2N and 1M-2m-3m remain GF, and the 2OM bid takes care of some stopper-fishing too. I could squeeze a bit more out of the system especially when two steps rather than one are available below 2NT but went for a bit of simplicity.

A lot of folks in my area play the aforementioned "3-3-4-4" method. Personally I think it's a very wasteful method, as it's only a rather specific awkward unbalanced hand that routinely raises with 3 here (in my style). I am not sure it is worth catering to avoiding 4-3 fits at all; partner should only raise on 3 when he has a reason, believing he will get ruffs in the short hand, and while you probably do want a path to 3NT instead of 4M, I would gladly give up the possibility of 2NT or 3m.

Don't know OP's style, but I know that my weak twos are such that if there are two spade losers there is zero chance we are making 4S. Given the bidding as stated I am endplayed into 3NT, which at least might make on a miracle (1+1+3+4 tricks, or something like that.) Quite sure I don't like the proposed style though:)

Taking a lot of bids to get nowhere. I am not enthused about all the slow exploration when I have a flat hand and am not going anywhere except notrump (provided there is a spade stopper, that is.) I would have liked an Inverted bid or a natural notrump bid a lot better on the first round. I am shocked not to see a notrump raise on the second round. On the other hand, I AM willing to just jump to 6NT opposite an 18-19 hand. Every additional bid I make improves the chance they will find the best lead against the 6NT contract we are headed for anyway.

I think the 'general consensus' that a typical splinter is a minimum GF, 3-suited, is very strong. Lots of shapely 11/12/13 HCP hands, most 15s with a singleton will look too strong to me. I played two ranges of splinters for a long time... then pondered whether I needed 3 or 4 :)

If you don't care about how pretty the hand looks, you can save deals from BBO, then run a lin-to-PBN converter on the batch of saved deals. If you do care about pretty hand diagrams but aren't tied to MS Word, you can then convert the PBN file a second time into some other format -- there are free PBN to HTML converters, and I wrote one for PBN to LaTeX once.

This particular declarer was not the type to be cute with 1444. She almost certainly has 5+ clubs, 4 diamonds, and not 4 hearts. At the table I felt it was a close choice between diamonds, hearts, and spades. I reluctantly chose a diamond. My logic was that, while partner's shape will be approximately 4-5-3-1, I need him to have two honours in whatever major I lead for it to turn out, while I only need one high diamond. Partner was furious, of course, and loudly proclaimed how obvious an opening spade lead was. I did a sim this afternoon, trying several different sets of constraints on opener and responder, and each time, a spade came out a tiny bit better than a heart, which in turn was a whole lot better than a diamond, which was better than a club. (Something like 1, 1½, 4, and 5 imps lost vs. the double-dummy best lead, on average.) There are certainly good arguments against a diamond lead, but I do still have a hard time seeing why I should expect a spade to be better than a heart.

You are dealt a moderate hand with diamond length in second seat. RHO passes, you pass, LHO passes, partner opens 1S in 4th seat. You are playing 2/1. A weak 2D is available, but disciplined (good suit, no 4CM, etc). Not playing two-way Drury. Where is your cutoff between --- Responding 2D; Responding 1NT intending to pass/correct to 2S/whatever; Responding 1NT intending to rebid 3D over 2H/2S/2NT. In particular, would you characterize the passed-hand 2D response as being the same strength on average as a 1NT response, on average stronger but with a lot of overlap, or as consistently stronger than 1NT?

IMPs, none vul. ♠ 982 ♥ 972 ♦ KJ43 ♣ Q65 Your good opponents have the following auction: 1♣ - 1♠ 2♦ - 2♠ 2NT - 3NT Your lead.

The two I have been happiest with have been CRASH(or CHASM or SCUM, to make it GCC legal), and "BROOSS" from Kleinman's NT Zone. The latter is useful mostly as being one of the few conventional methods to keep all three of 2D,2H, and 2S natural. (X=clubs, or a two-suiter without clubs, while 2C=C+M.) I am a big believer in having 2M be natural. Beyond that, I like showing as many hand-types as I can with the cheap overcalls. Multi-Landy's 2C bid is great for constructive purposes, and is the sort of thing I'd like over a weak notrump, but I think is just too valuable of a bid to give to only one hand pattern in a primarily obstructive auction. I've wanted to try a system that could distinguish all of the 4-5s from the 5-4s (maybe X=4M5+m, while 2C promises 5M+another, or something) but never found one I liked.

I am a big fan, but there doesn't seem to be much written about it. Currently I am using 11-14 no 4CM, with 2C = diamonds any strength, or invitational any shape; Keri-like 2D, 2H = Jacoby (signoff or GF, some extra followups for the GF hands) 2S = both minors 2N = clubs, weak or strong 3x = natural, forcing but there is certainly merit in using 2M to play, if you can decide how you want to arrange other hands between 2C and 2D. It feels really odd not needing Stayman!

Apologizing for being off-topic, but replying to mike777: Yes, Sheraton is still a hotel chain. Emphasizing the downtown convention market. Several years ago the ACBL signed some sort of 5- or 10-year contract to have at least one NABC a year with them. I have had to stay in five of them in the last five years (Anchorage, Atlanta, Chicago, Kansas City, and Seattle -- an annual conference I had to attend for work had the same kind of multiyear contract with them, accounting for 4 of the 5 stays) and every time I was in a small uncomfortable room at a relatively high price, charged an arm and a leg for wifi (in my room only, none in the meeting room even if I had paid), charged an arm and a leg for parking, and charged an arm and a leg for refreshments even by big-city convention standards ($5 per drink even for soft drinks at an evening cash bar.) Admittedly four of the five did have working coffee makers and plumbing that didn't back up. Only Kansas City struck out in those two departments. I have had isolated bad experiences at individual units of other hotel chains, but Sheraton is unique in batting .000. I have no experience with the Phoenix facility, or with playing bridge at a Sheraton (but the Kansas City and Atlanta facilities have hosted previous NABCs.) But I am in a mindset where I expect there to be legitimate complaints underlying whatever incidents occurred. Again, I hope someone who actually stayed there chimes in.

I have heard such stories in the past ... but I have to say that the only time I heard this "be nicer to the hotel staff" statement during a tournament I attended... it was at a hotel with a hideously inadequate space and hideously-behaving staff (among other things, a casino venue, and the Keno girls were coming through our ballroom bellowing every half hour.) The organizers knew in no uncertain terms it was not a place to ever go back to. Voting with one's feet is certainly wise. And, have to say, having been to a few conferences at Sheratons and milked for everything they could get out of me every time, it's one chain I will never voluntarily give a dime to. I have written to the ACBL a few times in the past asking them not to contract with Sheraton for future NABCs. Didn't do any good. They keep going there, and I keep not going to NABCs :) Bottom line is, I am sure there are two sides to this story, and hope we will hear the other side of it sooner rather than later.

"Traveling" trophies belong on the wall of the clubhouse, engraved at the sponsor's expense each year, not in someone's living room. Practical trophies of some kind for all the winners are a very nice idea that is out of fashion most places now. The Montana tournaments all give them: last year we got copper knickknacks in Butte, handcrafted pottery in Helena, engraved glasses in Great Falls, metal water bottles in Missoula... but the idea hasn't spread south. Except for the occasional novice game, nobody in Idaho or Utah gives anything. This year Missoula gave free plays (good for a year, if you need to use them at next year's tournament) instead of buying a product to give away... it was a nice gesture, but it didn't feel as special as what they used to do. Of course that may be because I played for years in a club where the winners every week got either a free play or their entry fee back in cash. I was sort of offended the first time I won somewhere else and got nothing but a weird look from the club manager after the session when I came up to him with my hand out... found out the hard way that is rare too.

Depends a lot on the rest of your system. Reverse Flannery has a place to avoid a rebid problem after 1m-1M-2m. The mixed raise takes care of some awkward 8 counts and is remarkably frequent compared to some of the alternatives. And in general, fit-jumps are a fine use for otherwise idle jumps. They do work best if you have a set of three, rather than just one or two spare ones. 2NT natural and forcing is very handy, over both minors and majors. I personally intensely dislike 1M-3m invitational, but I understand some 2/1ers find it to be a necessary evil. If the rest of your system includes a badly overstressed 1NTF bid, so be it.

rivlinj: If you scroll way down the list of discussion forums , about the 15th one down is "Find a Partner/Teacher." In that thread you can post a description of what level you are at, what you are hoping to learn, what kind of a schedule you have in mind... it is a low-traffic forum, but it is, in principle, dedicated to this sort of request. There are some dozens of quality teachers on BBO (and I like to think I am one of them). Most of us will be happy to chat with you or play a few hands with you to see where we are starting from, I think.

If my only choices are Bergen and natural 2-bids, or Drury and natural 3-bids, I will definitely choose the Bergen. What I really want to play are fit-jumps in a structure similar to the one hrothgar posted. I hear lots of people saying "do you really want to get to the 3-level with only 8 spades?" ... well.... I'd much rather get to the 3-level with 8 spades than get to the 3-level on a hideous misfit because my system says x Kxx xxx KQxxxx has to jump to 3C!

2D is not GF to everybody in the USA either. But whichever way you play FSF, this sequence appears to show 4 spades and whichever strength of hand 1C-1H-1S-2S and 1C-1H-1S-3S do not show. Also want to reiterate helene's point that IF we are going to play a 4-3 fit, it needs to be the one where the person with 3 trumps is doing the ruffing, and that looks to only be the case in hearts, where opener can easily be 4315.

I think 3S is very likely to be a hand like the ones Frances posted, a 4-3-1-5 or 4-3-2-4 with xxx in hearts, offering a second place to play since partner was unable to bid 3NT himself. I do think 3S is forcing, too - if 2H didnt already set up a GF it came very close to it- and I will just go for a nice quiet 5C.4C would sound slammish.

I'll share a story about myself, from the very first sectional I ever played in. Partner and I were playing SA and a few basic conventions. Partner was very new to duplicate. I was also very new to duplicate, but had read Root and Pavlicek's "Modern Bridge Conventions" cover to cover, tried out a few things with friends, played with ideas on paper, but had no experience with real-world good bridge players. Opps had an auction.. something something 4NT 5S, some slam. I asked what kind of Blackwood. "Keycard," they said. Partner went to bed with her ace of something, because I had misdefended. "What? Partner had an ace? But declarer said she had three key cards. How could I possibly play my partner for that ace?" Declarer laughed. I was insulted. I called the director. I explained my opponent had lied to me about what kind of Blackwood she played. Director laughed. I was even more insulted. You see, I had never played anything but regular Blackwood myself. But I had read and remembered Root and Pavlicek cover to cover. I knew that "Roman Blackwood" in the appendix was 0 or 3, 1 or 4, 2 touching, 2 nontouching - and this was something I wanted to try. I knew that "Keycard Blackwood" in the appendix treated the king of trumps as a fifth ace, but still used the standard 0 or 4, 1 (or 5), 2, 3 scale of responses, and I knew that "Roman Keycard Blackwood" in the main text treated the king of trumps as the ace AND used the 0 or 3, 1 or 4, 2-, 2+ responses. My opponent clearly stated "Keycard," NOT "Roman Keycard." The book clearly stated that 5S in "Keycard Blackwood" shows 3 key cards. I had absolutely no hint that Keycard Blackwood was an obscure idea that hardly anybody ever used, while Roman Keycard was so common that it was the only kind of non-standard Blackwood anybody played. I came to the tournament prepared to face all four kinds of Blackwood I had read about. Neither the opponent nor the director had ever run into (non-Roman) Keycard and couldn't imagine I could have. Surely I was just misremembering! But I wasn't. I still feel I was damaged. I at least know why I wasn't able to convince the director of it now, but it is burned into my memory forever.

Once upon a time, the standard meaning for a free bid of 5M was "go on to six if you have 1st or 2nd round control of the opps suit", and partner's 5NT was specifically to show Kx of the opps' suit, warning you that 6 would make only from his side of the table and not yours. That still leaves you to choose whether you believe 6C or 6NT is the safer gamble, and I would probably choose 6NT, since there are lots of ways partner can have a slow sure trump loser in his AKTxxxx-or-whatever clubs but still have 12 winners. If we are off two aces... well... that's too bad. We made our bed when we bid 5M and committed ourselves to six of something if we had only one diamond loser. We knew it was a gamble but believed it to be a 80% (or whatever) shot when we did it. I believe neither pass nor 7-of-anything is on the table, after 5M-5NT.

The mix does vary strongly by region. The overwhelming favorite in Idaho is 2/1+Bergen. The occasional weak notrump experimenter; very very few Precisionists (and the few there are are the ones who learned it in the 60s.) Montana sectionals, on the other hand, still run about 75-25 in favor of SA, plus a pool of young and enthusiastic Precisionists mostly in Missoula. (Several other regional quirks: lots of people who play Jacoby but not Texas, and lots of people who play 'Crack' discards -- a lavinthal variation I can never quite remember, but something like a high spot asks for a switch to the other suit of the same color while a low spot asks for a switch to the plain suit of the opposite color.) Both Montana and Wyoming have a few adherents of Montreal Relay. None of whom are able to explain it properly. A trip to the big city (Salt Lake) will still be mostly 2/1 but bring a few more weak NT folks into the mix. When I moved to Fairbanks AK in 1993, the club was about 2/3 SA and 1/3 Precision. The Precision faction was dying faster than it was attracting converts by the time I left in 2011. There was one pair of true believers in 2/1 there in 1993, but they moved away in 1994 and were never replaced ---- despite the fact that Anchorage was at least 50-50 in favor of 2/1 that whole time. In most every smallish town there is a group of people who play the pet treatment of one of the local strong pairs. In Idaho Falls there was a fad for intermediate jump shifts; in Fairbanks it was short club (everyone opened 1C on 4-4-3-2; the diehards opened 1C on 4-4-4-1 because they had no 5-card suit, and partner was more likely to respond to 1C than to 1D on his Qxxx xxx xxx xxx. Heh.)