notproven

MrAce: Start with Barry Crane. Over the yearsI played at least 2,000 practice hands against him when he wanted to break in a new partner for a major tournament. I'm not pretending that I was in his class, but he didn't believe in wasting his time with fools. I'll try, sometimes. In your case, I suggest you actually read Mike Lawrence, Marty Bergen, Eddie Kantar, Fred Stewart. Almost any bid that forces to the 2 level promises more than a minimum. Basic Bridge, as taught by world class players.

This series of posts illustrates why bidding on BBO is so horrendous: most players make up their own systems and call it "Bridge". The original post is a beginner question about 2/1. So I went to Mike Lawrence's book on 2/1 - THE BOOK. You might also want to read Eddie Kantar or Marty Bergen or some other World Class player/writer, but they'll all give you the same answer to this beginner problem. Check my posts; I didn't just make up something, I confirmed all of it in Mike's book first. Granted, many of truly expert pairs have adopted useful variations: supported by pages of system notes and hours of discussion and play. But, first they all read about the system and thoroughly understood the principles. That's why they win world class events, not because they've picked up a few dubious tips from the local club. If you want to deviate from standard, fine, but make clear what is standard first, then tell us why your variation plays better.

Addition - see prior post: 4) A negative double at the one level shows 6+ points. A negative double at the two level shows 10+ points. West doesn't come close on this hand, even if you like to shade your bids. 3♣ is the bid. If East has a big hand with 4♠, you'll hear 3♠ next.

1) In standard American, SAYC or 2/1, a negative double guarantees tolerance for the other two suits, unless you have 5+ cards in a major and are too weak to bid at the two level (say, Axxxx Qx xx Qxxx). No exceptions. Period. If West had 10+ points and a slightly chunkier suit, most experts play that a 2♠ bid would be acceptable. Over 1♣ 1♦ West absolutely should bid 1♠ with this hand; it only promises 4♠ and tends to deny ♥. 2) In this auction, I don't mind opening 1♣. However, 2♥ would be a reverse (given West's pass). 3♥ shows a more shapely hand. 3) West's initial pass is strange. 3♣ is 100%.

One way (non-standard) to treat these hands is to open 1m, then jump in the major. It promises shape only. With 17+ points, reverse normally. Your point count can therefore be 9 to 16 (use Rule of 20), you get your suits in, and you jam the opponents' auction. Lacking that it becomes a matter of partnership style whether to open the minor or major. At IMPS I strongly prefer to open the minor, as minor suit games are more in play than at matchpoints. I would then repeat the minor, unless the bidding allows me to introduce the major without promising extras (e.g. 1♣, 1♦, X, pass, 1♥/♠).

Pass. With that shape and 9 points I'd usually X. Big but...that doubleton KQ is so unappealing. This hand might play for only one trick.

Open 1♠. You have the shape and strength, and the rebid problems are minor because you have so much offense. Opening 2♣ is a travesty. First, the classic definition of that bid includes "4 defensive tricks". This hand isn't even close, because you can't count defensive tricks in a long suit at full value. The defensive component becomes crucial when deciding whether to saw off a high level sacrifice. As for NAMYATS, there is a system where you open 3NT instead if 4 of a minor. The downside is that it's complicated (a lot of responses to investigate a possible slam) and it gives up the gambling 3NT.

It looks as if the original double was "cards". If you check the convention cards on this site, support doubles stop at 2♠. I'd guess that South was trying to get a Drury-like response from North (bid game with extras, pass with a hand that North wouldn't have opened in first seat). I definitely wouldn't call this double responsive. Therefore, I'd guess that South would then pass 4♦. Pure conjecture, don't assume I have the slightest idea what was in South's head. Not how I'd bid with an unfamiliar partner. I'd bid 4♠ over 3♦.

Pass. I agree with Nige1, except #4, because you're either getting doubled (-800 or worse) or they'll use it to springboard to slam. Bidding 4♣, as mcphee suggests, doesn't take away anything: opener can double to show first round control, cuebid ♦ or ♥, or take a forcing pass (better talk to your partner about that last one beforehand, it's not standard), or just bid game to show a complete lack of slam interest.

Double, but I'm wary of showing extras later in the bidding. A Moysian fit in any suit with no shortness will not play well. I have sympathy for 2♣ on the off chance that I'm not on lead, because it is a chunky suit. I'd never consider 1 NT because (as already mentioned), it wrong sides the NT contract.

1♠. Most writers discourage opening a weak 2 with two outside quick tricks. No one advocates opening such a hand at the three level. The problem is that you make it impossible for partner to judge whether to sacrifice, defend or double.

With regard to an "official system": I was told that SAYC is the default, but there is no official system. However, I can't find any mention of that in the "Help" section. I know that the robots play GIB (badly) and that some free tournaments require that you play 2/1. That's why it's best to announce the system that you wish to play when you sit down with a new partner. It also helps a lot to review the basic convention cards (click on "My BBO") to see how closely your idea of a system matches the BBO suggestions.

Welcome to the forum. First, you have to develop a thick skin: some players have limited social skills and you can't do much about that, but many more have limited language skills. Many lack the ability to delicately phrase their comments, so that statements intended as constructive come out harsh. Always check the players country, then judge if language might be a barrier. Another help might be to go to the BIL program, which is intended specifically for advancing players like yourself. They try to improve your game in a friendly atmosphere and help you meet other players who are working on their game. BIL runs teaching programs, play and tournaments. In social games it might help to "introduce" yourself before you bid, by stating your system (standard american, SAYC, etc.) so partner has some idea. The important part is to keep your cool, even under trying circumstances. It gets better.:)

Pass. I'm allergic to telephone numbers. Even if partner and I could mess up their auction (more than with a natural 2♣ call) by playing a systemic interference over their Precision 1♣ the colors and lack of shape would scare me off. Partner has to have a good hand to avoid -500, and if his hand is that good opener may not even make game. Much too big a gamble at these colors.

Penalty. If I had a takeout type hand, I would have doubled 1♣. However, I would expect a double by partner to be pure takeout. To double 2♣, I would have Ax Axx Axx KJ109x at a minimum. I'm still not sure that I would double, though, because opps might have a place to run, and I'd lose my plus score.

Bidding in direct seat is insane (pass out seat is another matter entirely) if you are playing any standard American system. A bid in direct seat promises (as Eddie Kantar writes) "a solid opening hand, in blood." Bidding 2♠ because you would open such a hand 1♠ is contrary to standard bidding principles, because you would only open such a hand as a kind of pre-empt (to use up the one level). To overcall 2 ♠ would therefore be "pre-empting over a pre-empt;" not standard practice. I won't criticize players who do bid 2♠, if they have special agreements with partner and appropriately alert them. It can work well, but only if the partnership has ways to get out at a low level if fourth seat has a moderate hand. If you spring a 2♠ bid, or any bid, with this hand on a partner who isn't expecting it, you'll probably be looking for a new partner. In the pass out seat, I'd overcall this hand without hesitation.

Given that this is an intermediate question, my reply is to stay within the system and bid 3♠. I'm assuming that partner asked the right question, so I'm going to give him the right reply. KISS applies. In established partnerships or advanced++/expert games I'd bid 3♦ to show top of my 2♠ bid, no ♣ help and a ♦ control, then let partner decide.

Advice is nice, but where's the proof? I don't know the answer, but is is possible for someone to run 1,000 hands through a computer simulator? Say, 250 hands for each possible singleton. I'd like to know how often you go plus (just don't put any restrictions on responder's hand in first or second seat, but see if there is a difference when partner is a passed hand). Also, does the simulator say that it matters which singleton you have?

PhilKing has it exactly right. Not hard, if he reads the Bridge Bulletin like I do: this exact hand was in last months "It's Your Call" competition. The plurality of the super expert panel bid 3♠. Lou Bluhm championed the bid to show a balanced hand, maximum for his first two (weak) calls, with nothing wasted in spades and all cards working. It is forcing to game in a minor, and leaves it to opener to decide if a minor suit slam is possible.

Absolutely clear 2♥ bid, unless you're playing multi or have special agreements. By the way, I hope that you're not counting the singleton when evaluating the HCPs. I ask because I can't understand how anyone could consider this hand to be "too strong" for 2♥.

I vote for 4 Ace Blackwood. The 1♣ bid is not a suit (since it could be short). Partner knows what he's looking for, and if he doesn't, I vote for 1eyedjack's fifth option. In regular partnerships I play this sequence one of three ways, depending upon specific prior agreement: a) 4 Ace Blackwood (always with a short club or strong club system); b) quantitative (shows about a 20 count, balanced, all suits at least second round control) (how often does that happen?); c) RKC for clubs (if opener promises 3+♣).

Of course, there's also a matter of ethics. I wouldn't think of psyching or using very aggressive tactics against beginners. It's too disruptive and upsetting. There my partner and I try to limit ourselves to conventions that they play. BBO "experts" are another matter entirely. I also feel that players in top brackets of tournaments should be able to handle top level treatments (because I never saw a pro take it easy on me).

To Vampyr (assuming that you meant me): I psyche about twice a decade, and never a pre-empt. It is my understanding that pre-empting into a very short suit is banned as "purely destructive". As for "very aggressive" pre-empts; if well discussed and agreed upon, we will open a four card suit at the 2 level (in 3rd seat), or a five card suit at the 3 level. We mark our convention card (3/4 level pre-empts) as "very light", and in the box for 2 level bids we note "may be as short as 4" in red ink. No alert or pre-alert has ever been required since we tend to pre-empt "normally" in first or second seat, and third seat pre-empts are expected to be wide ranging. Jump overcalls are different. We mark our cards, "very aggressive" in red in the appropriate box and always alert.

Back in the old days, when frequent psyches were standard, players often pre-empted their singleton or void (intending to run to their real suit if doubled). That's a big reason why frequent psyches were outlawed. Now, (last I looked) ACBL rules require that pre-empts be within two cards of expected length and within an announced point range. Obviously, the tendency has been for pre-empts to drift more and more into the destructive category, because they're effective and only very practiced partnerships have developed tools to deal with them. (Meckwell, for instance, both uses frequent, light pre-empts, and has tools to fight opponents' pre-empts). The point is that pre-empts tend to be devastating against weak players or casual partnerships, so stretching the lower limits pays off. It's also a good idea to have a "slow down" mechanism in your system if your partner pre-empts (like pre-emptor re-bidding his suit means, "I have nothing"), because bidding a weak 2 or 3 in first or second seat may catch your partner with a huge hand. As for pre-empting when playing with an unfamiliar partner: I always stick to the rules. A new partner will never figure out what you're doing, and you end up causing trouble for yourself when partner takes you seriously.

Partner's last bid ("you should have passed") is forcing to a new partner. The double was acceptable but risky. The 3♠ bid was reasonable. It didn't work out.