Siegmund

Very close decision between pass and 4S. You have the tricks for it. You'd be happier if your diamonds were shorter (=possible void opposite). If partner really is classical, I go.

Yup, sounds like slam try in diamonds, giving up after knowing there's a high diamond honor (or two) missing.

Yup, sounds like slam try in diamonds, giving up after knowing there's a high diamond honor (or two) missing.

Mine is extra distribution but not extra strength. More or less the same strength as a 2C free bid here, ~6-10ish. After 1banana-X-1grape most all my bidding except cuebids is based on the "assume points are 20 and 20, let's talk about distribution" theory. Against habitual psychers / ultralight responders, the invitational meaning may still be better.

+1 for wanting to see T and not 10. A configuration option for the diagrams would be nice; but if there isnt an option I would have (very strongly) preferred T. Having number of characters not equal to number of cards is a BIG program for some of us. No need to worry about "100% -> T0%" since there isnt any need for text replacements, only for how it is shown on the screen.

I've played all 4 combinations of 11 or 12 to 14 or 15. Usually put down 11-14 now. Have no strong feelings it is best, just its what I learned as normal. Is "systems on" (or the 2C inquiry) legal over a super-wide-ranged NT overcall, when the same system would not be legal over a NT opening bid with the same range?

The main mistake here IMO is that you have a partner. Neither 1H nor 2H requires him to pass. He presumably has a 10- or 11-point hand. A lot of the time you want to make 2H you are going to get to go down in 3H or 4H instead, or guess what to do after the opps bid and raise diamonds, or tear your hair out after partner bids diamonds; the times you actually get dumped in 2H may well be the times you come up a trick short. It does depend (a lot) on your style and agreements. For me that hand is more than a full trick light for a fourth-seat 2-level opening. And for me, I am allowed to open a light 1H in 3rd or 4th on a hand like Kxx AQxxx xx xxx planning to pass any response from partner, but if it goes 1H-1S-2H or 1H-1S-2S or 1H-2D(diamonds)-2H partner will expect a full opening bid from me and we'll be off to the races if we have a fit. If you play Drury maybe you'll be safe; on the other hand, maybe because you play Drury your partner will feel obligated to leap to 3 of a minor, or respond 1NT and follow up with 3D on his 3-0-6-4 that he didnt open 2D because of the diamond void, or...

Sounds to me like declarer's own statement is that she believed two clubs were out and the finesse and the drop were equivalent lines of play leading to winning one trick and losing the other. I see no reason to let her choose the successful line over the unsuccessful one and am fine with -1 if clubs are trump or East's last card is a small heart and -2 otherwise. Normal sometimes includes really, really bad lines of play. I consider this a close parallel to the question about what to do if declarer claims all the rest with a KQ9x opposite ATxxx suit, where the only technically correct line is 100% but real-life evidence is that even very good declarers call for the wrong honour surprisingly often. Before we discussed that card combination on BLML I had been a believer in some sort of "declarer is assigned the worst of all non-dominated strategies for the rest of the play of the hand" rule to mechanically replace the normal-vs-irrational debate, but the discussion of that card combination convinced me that normal sometimes has to include plays declarer makes as a result of miscounting (or simple sloppiness) that, if he had counted correctly, would never be considered.

Gotta define "better." If you mean in the statistical sense of estimating as accurately as possible what the distribution of results on the board should be if played many times, no, throwing out results is a Bad Thing. If you mean some very specialized sense like trying to estimate what par should be on a board, you can make a case for it, but you can make even better cases for all of means, medians, and modes than you can for trimmed means, except in a few really odd situations.

The cruise happened in fall of 1925. Many of us from the bridge laws mailing list celebrate 31 October 1925, date of the ship arriving in Panama, as the 'birthday' of contract bridge. But that's as artificial a date as Christmas is. But the new rules of contract bridge are already published in the 1924 "Hoyle," and are not explicitly highlighted as a brand-new variant in that edition, though they are listed as subsidiary to the auction bridge section. I don't know what level of popularity a game had to achieve to merit publication then, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are obscure published sources from 1923 or 1922. Whatever Vanderbilt and his passengers did was only popularizing the game / adding zeroes to the end of the scores, not inventing anything. As for the date of oldest events, the now-Reisinger started in 1929, and I think it's often cited as the oldest continuously contested event in ACBLand. I've always assumed it was contract from the star, but I don't honestly know if it was an auction or contract event the first year or two.

I am shamelessly classical: a 4-card major and a void is two strikes against my hand for a weak two. I open 2H in 3rd seat only, and pass in the other 3 seats. (If its NV-vs-V, you can make a case for 3H instead of 2H in 3rd.) In my club game I'd be in a minority for passing because most the field doesn't know better; on the forum I may well be in a minority anyway for playing a stricter style than a lot of people like these days.

Doesn't exactly the same criticism apply to Wilcosz, only more so since you know it's 5-5? As already mentioned, Wilkosz is more abiguous at least on opening lead, with no anchor suit; and, perhaps more importantly to me, it puts all of the 'criticism' on one opening, rather than on both 2H and 2S (and maybe also a third bid,if you want to cover all two-suiters.)

My first reaction was instapass. We're likely down 1 or 2 in hearts, and if partner has 1 defensive trick and my minors cough up 2 tricks, they're likely making 4S. Double is better only when they go down - which is possible but I am not convinced it is 50% -- and 5H is only right when they make and we're down only 1, or when we make -- which I don't think is anywhere remotely close to 50%. That's kind of an odd setup, really. 5H and 4S both make: 5H > pass > double. 4S makes, we are down 1: 5H > pass > double 4S makes, we are down 2: pass > 5H > double 4S makes, we are down 3: pass > double > 5H 4S fails, we are down: double > pass > 5H If you are shooting for a top, 5H has a plurality. If you are avoiding a bottom, pass is the standout. It's going to depend a lot on your preempting style. But you need hyper-soundness, not just classical preempting, to make 5H make more than half the time, and you need a fair bit of defense from partner to make doubling right more than half the time. On reflection I still think it's a pretty clear matchpoint pass. (Though you can construct partners and fields that make each of the 3 actions right.) Most fields I've ever seen, there is no such thing as a unanimous 1st or 2nd seat 4H opening -- invariably a third of them will prefer 3H or a third of them will prefer 1H. At those other tables there's a lower-level decision going on, which IMO makes 5H an even worse bid, because even when it's a good sacrifice it will be down one more than people in 4H and won't be a good sacrifice against 3S.

I am sufficiently excited by the distribution to commit to game. If we play 1H-1S-4H the same way as 1D-1S-4D, that works. (I don't, but that's two threads in one day where it is useful... hmmm....) If not, I guess I am going with 4C. I am a little scared of overheating partner, but that'll only turn real ugly if he has a void in hearts and cuebids it, and there ARE some number of magic slams if partner has 10 working points. As for why the opps didn't bid - I won't be surprised at all if partner is 4-1-3-5 or similar. At least he won't have an ugly 6-count.

At the table I am leaping to 3NT, especially in a new partnership where we haven't talked about our inverted minor followups in detail. (A 1D response would be a very distant third choice behind a forcing club raise or a natural notrump call for me.) I tend to assume Walsh style with an unknown 2/1 partner but it is not universal. That said... ...imo, no, the 1S bid *usually* shows longer clubs, but may also be used to convey the message "hearts are wide open so I don't want to offer to declare notrump," and even playing Walsh I rebid 1S on the posted opener's hand.

I voted 2NT but have no strong feeling between 2N and 3D. With so many intermediates in diamonds 3D may well be better. If they were xxxxxx and xxxxx I'd be more confident in 2N.

Amazed to see a number of people calling this a 2½♥ hand. For me it's a tip-top maximum for 3♥. Swap the SJ with a spot card in any of the other 3 suits and I would try 3♠ splinter. I would consider 3♠ on the actual cards agressive but not insane. Recall the 1m-1S-2S-4S hand from last week for an example of where the cutoff between the 2M and 3M raise is. Disclaimer: my 1♥ responses are never on ugly 3-HCP hands.

I would bid 1NT, but would be fine if my partner preferred to pass on these cards. I would not be fine if my partner so much as looked at the double card before bypassing it. As for the actual cards - I dont feel too bad at all about how it came out (and if you do start with a double all sorts of awkward things, and no nice things, can happen.)

Natural preempts are very valuable; opps only get one chance to bid over them, and they get two over transfer and artificial preempts! In the end it comes down to whether you get enough from your new 2H and 2S openings to justify using Multi -- and if all you're doing is using them to show bid-suit-and-a-minor, I dont think you are getting great value from them. (And given the choice between Wilkosz+natural 2M, or Multi+two-suited 2M, I'd much rather have Wilkosz plus natural weak twos.)

I could give as much as 400% to North, for doubling, RKCing, and asking for HQ and extra kings when two key cards are missing :) South on the other hand UNDERbid, by failing to show HQ over 5D. Flip a coin between an offshape 2NT or an overstrength 3D. Either one could work or not work on any given day.

Interesting idea. Especially since opposite a preempt it's relatively safe to use XX->transfer to cheapest step, and you avoid the usual problem of only having room for them over club openings but not diamonds. On the other hand, if you want to allow transfers on completely awful hands, you lose the standard invitational meaning where preempter raises you to game when he has a fitting trump honour for you... 2-under transfers, anyone? :) On the actual posted hand, I pass, and 3S is still forcing with my regular partner (but I'd assume it was NF with most my others - based mostly on how many of them play new suits NF after weak twos.)

If you somehow magically knew that partner was 4333, you'd prefer 3NT unless you had some significant shape in your own hand (any singleton, and perhaps a small doubleton - here you had Kx.) In a real-life non-relay system you'll never know that, and responder's choice of the major with 4432 and no extra values is completely normal.

I will settle for an unimaginative 2C on the first round. Don't like 1NT with 3 lies (extra hcp, both majors unstopped), and think a cuebid on a 9-loser hand and no guaranteed fit is a shocking overbid.

Forcing with my regular p, following the nice simple "we voluntarily bid game on strength" rule. With a random strong pickup partner, I would be on shaky ground, but might gamble on partner applying that same principle. In general, it seems not too many folks have nice clear forcing pass agreements for these can-go-either-way situations.

If you are already accustomed to cuebidding and have a cuebidding structure you know well and like, you may find it easiest to just agree "everything from the response to 5N upwards is a cuebid." Cuts way down on misunderstandings, and saves you from memorizing another long list of rules about how a reply in a previously bid suit vs. a previously bypassed suit is different. (That is, it is my preference for 6D not to ask about DK, but to show DK and imply concern about HK or CQ; for 6H to show hearts and in effect be an asking bid for the missing diamond, etc.) The effect of maximally efficient cuebidding is practically the same as spiral scan: each step upward by one partner changes what the first card he asks about it, each step upward by the other promises one additional useful feature. The difference is whether the bid that initiates the sequence - 6D in your example - is asking about diamonds or saying not to worry about diamonds. I read about Spiral Scan in the Romex books and never quite wrapped my head around it for a long time (part of the problem was that a lot of spiral scan users have an artificial order for scanning, rather than scanning the suit named by each step)... then when I read Brashler's "Sweep Q-Bids" I suddenly became an instant believer in that version of the concept.