Wackojack

I have to say that looking at your hand Wayne I wouldnt think twice about bidding 4♠. Then looking at partner's hand confirms this evaluation as it is just about "worst case" to fit with your hand and game is still very close to 50%.

My choice of opening lead loses me more points than anything else. So thats what I should concentrate on, but i don't.

[hv=d=s&v=n&w=sq1075ha104d2ckq532&e=sk984h85da10763ca4]266|100|Scoring: MP Unapposed 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 4♠ [/hv] LHO leads 10♣. How do you tackle this hand? Would you do the same if it were IMP scoring?

Thanks for the replies. I have to say that I learned way back in time that redouble in this situation shows shortage in partner's suit some strength and no biddable suit of my own. The only source of new ideas on bidding theory for me come from reading this forum from time to time. And since my pick up partner was "high profile" (not a poster to the forums I might add) I wondered if there was a more modern expert view on the role of redouble here. Evidently not it seems. The previous and first hand btw. You have opened a weak 2♠ LHO doubles and partner bids 3♠passed out. You need to tackle a hearts Q62 opposite A10875. I ran the Q covered by K A and 3. Got back to my hand with a trump and played 2 4 and rose with the 10. Surprise! It lost to the jack. Comment by partner: "ace h then towards q is correct"

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sa854hak42d5c9873&w=sk1063h10dk10842cak2&e=sqj7hqj876daq73cj&s=s92h953dj96cq10654]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] I was invited by a good friend to join him as an opp and found myself in a high profile encounter with lots of kibs. With no prior agreements with partner, this hand came up and I was sitting East. The bidding went: 1♦, (dbl) 1♥ pass 1♠ pass 2♣ pass pass pass Here is some chat that went with it: p:See another part score wadayathink?" opp: this sounded F to me p: i guess ill leave p: didnt to me p:failing to xx.. for me.. p: is never forcing after 1 round kib: of course it's forcing in 2/1. he's nuts! There was more support for my position later. Ofcourse my first response could have been a jump fit with 2♥ to get the message across, but I am not sure how that would have been taken. Having made what I thought was a safe response of 1♥, I thought I could do no better that just force with 2♣ and next show support for ♦. Looks a bit messy but, what else? Having had time to reflect, partner's (sic) remark about failing to redouble has got me thinking. My knowledge of a redouble in this situation comes from way back when you redoubled to show strength in the other 3 suits and a shortage in partner's opening suit. Is it now an "expert standard" to redouble with any strong hand where you know you can outbid the opps? In which case, how do you later get to tell partner that you have this type of hand with good support for his suit and also a good side suit, rather than say a 12 count 4414 type of hand? What would you have done in my situation?

This hand came up last Wednesday in a sims MP event where I believe at least 90% play 12-14 NT Acol. You are 4th in hand at game all and all pass to you. ♠ Q85 ♥ Q43 ♦ Q74 ♣ AQ104 Of course all weak no trumpers will quite correctly open 1NT. We were playing 14-16NT and my partner who held this hand, took the view that the risk of opps buying the contract in a major was too great and passed. As the cards lay the opps can make 2♠ on normal play and we can make 1NT on normal play. ♠AK742 ♥952 ♦96 ♣ K96 was 1st in hand and would obviously overcall partner's 1♣ but would be reckless to overcall 1NT. Our way +90 scored 75%, allpass scored 25% and -110 scored 8%. Even without looking at the opps cards, clearly you would want to be playing 12-14NT on this hand. What's more these types of hand come up very often. Even if a convincing roundabouts and swings argument could be made about the difference between Acol and 5 card major strong no trump systems it is clear that if you are in a field of weak no trumpers and you dont want to risk a bad result then you should play with the field. Just to repeat; playing Acol in a field of mainly Acol players is rational. That is a good reason (but not the only reason) why Acol persists

Yes indeed. So most players brought up with Acol, play against other Acol players and do not want to be bothered with learning something else. Thats a rational decision. Irrational or ostrich like are those that believe Acol weak no-trump is the best system.

Playing this version of Acol, partner has either: Balanced 15-19HCP 3433, 4432 or 4423 or Unbalanced 5+♥ from min opener up to less than Acol 2 in strength. 2♥ looks like the right response as double would show 4♠s and the hand is too weak for a forcing 3♣. Partner with around 17-19 points balanced with a ♦ stop could try 2NT confirming a 4 card major. You now have a difficult choice (as with any other system) Feeling lucky that you can get clubs going or not determines your next bid. If you play (i believe) the more normal style and open a 4 card major if you have one with a balanced 15-19, 2♥ still looks like the best bid.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=s84hq8dakqj6cakqj&w=s96h107d1095432c1085&e=sj753hkj632d7c943&s=sakq102ha954d8c762]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] An enjoyable contest but he bidding of many hands tied the contestants in knots. (I suppose it to be expected in an Indiv tourney, even with knowledgable players) This is one of them. 6♣ +1 against us at our table. Only beaten by 6♠= at another table. 4♠+3, 4♥ and 7NT-1 were the other results. Any suggestions on how to bid with your favorite partner? Declarer had a routine squeeze play for 13 tricks. I led 3♥ declarer playing the Ace (Vienna coup preparation). Top diamonds and clubs left me on the last club with ♠J753 ♥K and dummy had ♠AKQ102. Declarer claimed the remainder when playing the last club before I had the chance to discard my ♥K. I conceded seeing the queen with declarer. Later this got me thinking. How did declarer know for certain that I was squeeezed because partner kept his last heart? I dont think he can. Also from a results POV it was a pity this routine squeeze was not repeated at any other table. A general comment. Sad to see a couple of hopeless doubled redoubled contracts. Thought they were confined to the Main Club.

God told me a secret. It was that all humans were his slaves. Then He decided to give humans free will, with the option to rescind this concession at any time He chooses. God has recently been noticing trouble makers who have been inventing hypothetical worlds. God has no power over hypothetical worlds as hypothetically, you can invent universal happiness, you can disinvent God and you can disinvent the God's Law of Unintended Consequences. God is displeased and might at any time break into your house and drag you away

Only God and Satan can sell you happiness. Satan's price is eternal damnation. God's price is you. Gods sacrificed himself to "save" the world. Oddly that didn't bring universal happiness. I will have to invent a hypothetical world in which universal happiness is possible. Then I will be God.

The point though is that you have a huge number of sequences available. Even if the sum total of your discussion is that 2♦ is artificial game force and 2♣ puppets to 2♦, after which any call is invitational, look what you've accomplished: (1) You can game force at the two-level, leading to an easy negotiation about fit. (2) You can invite and play 2M. (3) You now have three ways to bid 3M (1c-1M-1N-3M and 1c-1M-1N-2c-2d-3M and 1c-1M-1N-2d-2N-3M). Clearly the second is invitational and the third is GF. You can define the first how you want, or not even discuss it. Even if that sequence "no longer exists" you are ahead of people who play "no methods" here and have only one way to bid 3M. While getting the most out of 2-way NMF requires assigning meanings to all these many sequences, you are already ahead of people playing "regular NMF" even if a lot of those sequences are meaningless. Perhaps you are right that even if many sequences are not defined we are way ahead of those not playing it. But unless I am playing with a true expert, I have my doubts.

Ok lets go through what I might do had we agreed 2-way check-back. I am trying to learn, how much in the way of agreements we need and how much we can just use intelligent bridge logic. Lets say we have agreed that all invitational hands must go via 2♣ and so we have 2 pathways for game force hands. I want to play in at least 4♠. So my first decision after 1♣-1♠-1NT, is do I force with 3♠ or do I force with 2♦? If I force with 2♦, I expect partner to respond 2♠ with 3. That would be very welcome, then with spades agreed I could cue 3♣ and if I hear partner cue 3♦ we are on our way finally checking with RKB. If I hear 2♥, 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦ I am not much further forward. Partner could have 1 or 2 spades, and if I next bid 3♠ and partner bids 3NT, I will still not know. Better then to tell than to ask and I will force with a direct 3♠ rather than go through the 2♦ route. I believe that should show a 6 card suit but how good it should be I am not sure. If partner has Hx spade support, I would expect her to start cue bidding. If partner has a singleton spade I would expect her to bid 3NT and I will then sign off in 4♠. If partner has a small doubleton spade, I am not sure. Nevertheless a dirct 3♠ looks like the best bid. Now I look at the FD file for BBO Adv. It says 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♠ shows 5 spades + 6 hearts and is forcing and 1♣-1♠-1NT -3♥ shows 6 hearts with 2 top honours. OK an obvious case of mixing up hearts and spades and I take it that the intention was that 1♣-1♠-1NT-3♠ shows 6 spades with 2 top honours. This disturbs me, because it seems to mean that BBOAdv wants me to go through the 2♦ route with my hand. So I look up 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-2NT and unfortunately the continuation to 3♠ is undefined. So I stick with my original intention and force directly with 3♠. Right, suppose otoh that partner agrees to play simple NMF. As was pointed out you need to be clear which sequences are forcing and which are not. Suppose I bid 2♦ NMF. I expect partner to respond 2♥ with 5 and 2♠ with 3 and denying 5 hearts. However, if partner responds 2NT is 3♠ forcing or invitational? Is a direct bid of 3♠ forcing. As phil has pointed out, there are lots of conflicting views. What I am coming down to is that not everybody wants to be bothered with putting in all this work. If someone wants to play 2 play check back with me, I would be delighted, but I dont want to impose this on my partners unless they are really keen to play it. I think it is a big step to play this. otoh it is a small step to play the hated Gerber in this situation. btw I would be very happy to be corrected if my analysis of 2 way check-back is faulty. I like to learn. Oh and thanks Skaeren for your interpretation of the sequences I mentioned earlier.

Playing 2-way cb whats the difference between: 1c-1M-1nt-2c-2d-2nt and 1c-1M-1NT-2NT? 1c-1M -1nt-2d-2nt-3s and 1c-1M-1nt-3S when 1c-1M-1nt- 2c-2d-3s is invitational? I could go on with lots of different sequences that require discussion. The different meanings you can assign to these bids can be very powerful. I dont think the partner I was playing with is ready for this level of complexity or would welcome it either. Don't get me wrong, I value the answers all posters give as a fantastic opportunity for learning. Just this time I wanted to get a point over about Gerber in the context of easy bidding.

No, check back (particularly 2-way cb) I said was great for system nuts, not specifically for system nuts. But check-back does require detailed agreements that you have to spend some time on. He said with a voice as though talking to a child.

Yes indeed. The difference is that use of Gerber is an add-on. It does not change the rest of the system. Contrast this with 2♣ and 2♦ check-back. Here a plethora of new ways of showing your hand are opened up, requiring detailed agreement. Great for "system nuts" but not practical unless you and your partner are likeminded and are prepared to spend a lot of time on it. Even using 3♠ forcing, you could argue needs system tinkering. say play 1m-2s as 0-5 1m-1s-1nt-2s as 6-8 invite, releasing 1m-1s-1nt-3s as agame force.

This divide in methods does get me wondering which is superior. Or are they roughly equal and you do whatever makes you feel most comfortable? I have the feeling that knowing 1m-1h-1s is unbalanced is not sufficiently large benefit for the cost of foregoing playing in a part score 4-4 spade fit. Pehaps at imp scoring it is not so important, but at match point you want to give yourself the chance of the best score. This is just a feeling. Worse still, say after 1c-1h-1nt-pass, then opps come in with 2♦. You cannot reach a 2♠ 4-4 fit +110 and if you defend against 2♦ you are likely to be looking at -90. As I said this is just a feeling and I am willing to be convinced that bypassing the 4 card spade suit with a balanced 12-14 is at least as good or better than not doing so.

I have to say that I have been surprised by the caution of so many of the replies (with some encouraging exceptions) and my Gerber suggestion either ignored or dismissed. Maybe not only jdonn did not take in the 15-17 HCP. Lets say that you have agreed that 4♣ is straight gerber. You hear: Zero aces: Almost vanishingly unlikely, partner must have QJ, QJ, kQJ, QJ 1 Ace: Sign off in 4♠. Yes partner could have AQJ, QJ, QJ, QJ and 4♠ will fail. 2 Aces: Pass 3 Aces: 12 tricks must be about 75% even allowing for a possible stiff ♠A or xx. 4 Aces: 13 tricks off the top unless stiff ♠A. This seems to me to be a practical method to find a possible slam when you do not have any sophisticated agreements as is likely when you are not playing in a serious competition and playing with a non expert. Yes, a purist would say that ace or key card conventions are "last check" conventions to be used to keep you out of bad slams, and accuse me of misusing Gerber. Yes, if you play 3♠ as forcing you may be able to cue bid and get to the best spot. Better still if you play 2♦ as a game force(as in xyz or 2 way NMF) you might be able to agree spades at the 2 level and then employ fancy asking bids that are way above my head. Not having these tools, it seems defeatist to just give up and bid 4♠. As to how you would take a bid of 4♣ without any prior agreement, perhaps most experts would take it as a splinter. However, I would bet that the vast majority of BBO players would take it as the dreaded G word. btw Hog would you like Mr Gerber to ask your grandfather if she is a woman?

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sk10976432hkd95ck7]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] pass 1♦ pass 1♠ pass 1NT pass ? The 1NT rebid shows 15-17. You are not playing any check-back system to enable a force below game and a bid of 4♠ at this point looks tame. So how do you make a slam try? I believe 4NT should be taken as quantitative, so thats out. Is this a time for the much derided Gerber convention? How else could you take 4♣ now? One possible problem is the partner's could bid this way with a 1444 distribution. Any opinions on how to bid without any fancy agreements?

If you play NMF, it is normal to bypass a 4 card major when you have a balanced hand. Even if you had agreed to play NMF, I believe that if your partner has a choice between an ask and a tell bid it is better to tell. Thus I think your partner was showing 4♠ +5♥ forcing. On the actual hand he could have rebid 2♦ to find a possible 4-4 ♠fit.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqj8753hj8daq3cj2&w=sh65dj10864cakq1084&e=sk96hq107432d9c763&s=sa1042hak9dk752c95]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♣ 1♠ Dbl 3♠ 5♦ pass pass Dbl pass pass 5♥ Dbl all pass[/hv] Sitting East this came up. Partner is a regular poster, and after an intervention we play a new suit as forcing. 1. Do agree with my double after the 1♠ intervention? 2. Regardless of answer to 1, what should partner bid after 3♠? 3. Given the opps bidding can you construct a reasonable auction to 4♥ Thanks

I am in the mood to back down. Yes I see why I should have rebid 2♠. However, the bit of my rant that still stands is to hate the use of a 1NT response to include among the the things a "piece of crap raise". Thanks Helene for the translation from Rexfordian into English.

I am ambivalent about this. To some extent I agree with you about bashing games. However what is poor partner supposed to do over 3NT with xxx xx x KQJxxxx How are you going to have a chance to reach 6C, when pd could have a huge variety of hand shapes. Playing MPs I think you DO have a valid point. I am in the mood for argument. Yes indeed. Suppose I do bid 2♠ on this hand and partner responds 3♣. What do I bid now? 4♣? I dont think we would have the machinery to get to 6♣ with any certainty. In any case partner would probably remove my 3NT bid to 5♣. Going back to what partner might have for his bid in the actual auction, I have no idea what a 3-piece POC raise is. Also if partner removed my 3NT to 4♣ I would assume it was the weak clubs type of hand above. BTW I know my partner does not play constructive raises. That is why I assumed that he would raise with 3 cards below invitational level. I have always assumed that a 1NT response would deny 3 card support unless it was up to the invitational level. After my partner informs me that a 1NT response is 5-12HCP and a raise 6-10. Frankly, I hate this. I hate the sneaky 1NT response with 3 card support to show weakeness. Maybe this is an old fashioned view, but I like partner to support immediately with 3 card support and 5HCP. With less normally pass. I hate making 1NT a dustbin bid. The advantage of 2/1 as I saw it is thet you could more easily get to slams after a 2/1 bid. Thus you have to load up the 1NT response. But dont load it up more than you need. Going back to my 3NT bid supposedly showing a solid heart suit. OK I did not know this. I was only aware that it would be so after a minor suit opening. Nevertheless, suppose partner had a 3334 and decided not to raise, prefering to go through the 1NT route. Then I would not expect him to take out 3NT. After all if he reads me for solid hearts, then 3NT may well be the only making game. Quote"rebid 2s over 1nt... why invent 3nt? I try and bid my hand partner tries to bid hers" I always thought that when you bid 3NT it meant "I think I can make 3NT based on information so far" Hardly seems invented. Indeed the solid suit notion is the invention. End of rant for the time being. Maybe I should not try to play 2/1 and stick to Acol SAYC or variable club. Will respond further, but may not have access to a computer fo a week.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sak62hak1087dq4ca5]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] We are playing 2/1. Partner, although not a very experienced player, I know has been well coached in the system. I haven't. RHO passes. Slightly tempted to open 2NT, but decide on opening 1♥. LHO passes and partner responds 1NT. RHO passes. Since I know my partner does not have 4 spades I jump to 3NT not expecting any further bidding. LHO passes and now partner bids 4♥. RHO passes. I think. Why did partner not respond 2♥ in the first place? It must be that he was planning to jump on the next round to 3♥ with an invitational hand with 3 hearts. Now I can see a likely slam, so I cue 4♠. LHO doubles. Just a noise since he did not overcall. Partner passes. RHO passes. I cue 5♣. LHO passes and partner bids 5♦. RHO passes. Just what I wanted to hear. Partner has something like xx, Qxx, AKxx, Jxxx. I will just content myself with 6♥. LHO and partner pass and surprisingly RHO doubles. I think bad break in hearts, and possibly KQ to a few clubs. Glad that I have been warned. Am I off beam or not? What did partner really have?

Quote"Doesn't flash photography rely on a condensator as an intermediate electricity storage?" Yes. Its actually called a capacitor and it is discharged through a xenon tube to create the flash.