Joe_Old

You're arguing in circles. "A singleton Ace is less valuable" - exactly! Rules and ODR and such crutches are meant to aid beginners understand the game. Watch the USBC matches on vugragh. Those are top experts, and when they evaluate a hand before the bidding starts, the first things they consider are, "what do I need from partner to make game or slam? Do I have a picture bid (a bid that gives partner an accurate view of your hand, like a fourth seat 2♠ holding AQxxxx Axx Qx xx). Open at the one level or jam the auction with a pre-empt? As the auction proceeds, experts fill in the blanks, not in terms of HCPs, but in terms of probable offensive and defensive tricks. The question of whether to open at the one level or a weak 2 usually boils down to how much offensive potential the hand has, and not all two Ace hands are born equal. Hands with better offensive potential should receive more consideration for a one level bid than a hand with equal HCPs but less trick taking value. Rigid rules are fine for people learning the game, but simply don't exist for top players. They evaluate the specific cards in front of them, not "the general case". Yesterday Meckstroth heard 2♥ from RHO, and overcalled 2NT. He held a balanced 16 HCP with 2♠ and AK10x of ♥. He got punished; -200. His opponent said that he would have doubled at pairs, and Meck replied, "I wouldn't have bid 2NT at pairs." Bidding is situational, not mechanical. You bid your hand's trick taking value.

Sorry, you missed the point. A stiff Ace tends to make partner's honors in that suit "wasted honors." The thread here is whether to open a weak two with two Aces. My point is that even if you accept the "rule" never to open a weak two with two Aces (I don't buy it myself), a stiff Ace should be viewed as an exception to the rule, because it tends to be less valuable in the total partnership assets, both offensively and defensively. And don't be mislead by my example hand. It was only meant to illustrate a very limited point. It was not meant in any way to suggest that it was a likely holding, that you should be bidding hoping for a perfect fit, or any other concept other than K8765 plays better opposite A92 than a stiff Ace. Period.

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between a stiff Ace and an Ace combination that might build side suit tricks. If you have: AQ5432 432 432 A opposite K876 5 876 K8765 you're not going to make game. But, AQ5432 432 2 A92 opposite K876 5 876 K8765 probably makes game. Therefore, whatever your style, you should consider the probable value (or lack thereof) of stiff honors, and pre-empt more aggressively when it looks as if they won't carry their weight.

Glad to help. Semi-balanced or balanced 16 HCP opposite 16 HCP hands are notoriously difficult to evaluate for slam purposes. You might also want to look at Marty Bergen's suggestions for finding minor suit slams after a NT opener or rebid; they have relevance here.

duplicate

When you play FSF as a GF, the rule of fast arrival doesn't apply. Since responder's hand is unlimited, opener makes minimum bids with minimum openers, but jumps with extras. For example, 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3NT should show 15-17 semi-balanced (1534 or the like).

Agreed. Pass.

Agree with Cyberyeti, plus the void -- KT764 can't be picked up if you cover the 9 with the 10. So covering either first or second round works (very small quibble).

Aawk makes a good point: after three passes, you don't pre-empt. Ever. Why take a bid where you expect to go minus when you can just pass out the hand? However, there is a standard meaning for a fourth seat, two level call in 2/1, SAYC and Standard American: six cards and the minimum HCP's your partnership requires for a one level opener. GIB plays 10-12 HCP; the original concept was more like 12-14 HCP. The original idea was to make a picture bid, attempting to find skinny, distributional games opposite a passed partner. Now the trend seems to lean toward part scores. So pass hand #1 in fourth seat. Hands #2 and #3 barely qualify for a 2♥ bid (if partner has agreed to fight part score battles like this), particularly since it's a near guarantee that partner has 10-12 HCP. The downside would be that the opps have most of the HCP, and probably the spade suit.

I agree that partner forgot the agreement, so any action is a guess. If partner is playing the wriggling convention - pass. If partner thought the XX was SOS and is bidding up the line looking for an eight card fit, then pass might be the least dangerous guess. If partner has a minimum, unbalanced 1 NT and is worried about stoppers; you should be, too. Pass. If partner thought the bid was forward-going, it appears that he was the only one.

Was is Edgar Kaplan who said, "what do you call an eight card suit? Trump." Hard to believe that a nine card suit would be any different.

Worst case scenario: you have five tricks, -1400 in 4♥. But in that case it is hard to construct a hand where the opponents don't make 12 or 13 tricks unless all finesses lose to partner. Assuming that your 4 level openers deny an A or K outside, a 4♥ bid here gives partner a good picture (I admit that having a 9 card suit makes me bolder, any color but red v white). It would never occur to me to bid 2 or 3 here, absent special agreements like Cyberyeti's, because the suit length calls for a bigger pre-empt. When you have a hand that can most accurately be described in one bid, take it. This is MP's, and a bad guess on one board will not throw a match. I'm not sure that I would chance bidding on this mess if the game were IMP's because partner could have enough stuff sitting behind North to defeat a high level contract, and still be of no use to you. Also, if you pass initially, a hand with a very long, weak suit and zero defense is very difficult to show. If you pass, then bid and partner makes a high level penalty double, you will be (almost) 100% obligated to pull it. Further, you have no support for any suit partner might have, and your hand is valueless on offense except in ♥. On defense the hand doesn't even offer a first round ruff. I vote 4♥.

I agree that this is a standard treatment, but it is no longer "standard expert". As noted in my post above, now many writers advocate X to be penalty, with a weak (4-8 HCP) hand. For instance, Larry Cohen plays responses Mike's way, but Richard Pavlicek plays X as penalty. The ACBL teacher manual (not to be confused with expert play) goes along with Pavlicek. At the NABC that just concluded I saw both styles in the premier events, so I'd have to say that you can't presume how a top expert plays that bid without asking. For what it's worth, I play it Mike's way unless partner wants something different.

There is no consensus. In Goren, with strong 2's and therefore different logic, X = 0-3 points, pass = 4-6 points, other bids showed real suits or a stopper for NT. That system is still used by many as a default (if you haven't otherwise discussed). Presently, the trend seems to be to X with a trump trick and 4-8 points, otherwise bid a positive NT with 9-11, bid a suit with a good, positive hand, cue bid with strength and pass with most hands that you would have bid 2 clubs-2 diamonds. (This is the system in the ABCL teaching manual the last time I looked). There are other treatments, particularly for high level overcalls.

Pass. Since the 4♠ bid is purely pre-emptive, you have nothing more to say. Partner knows that he cannot count on any ♠ tricks, so he must have 3+ defensive tricks outside. The usual reason to consider pulling a penalty double is when you have taken an ambiguous call, and your hand is purely offensive in nature. Then, partner might double expecting defensive values that you don't have. Say that you are 6-6 and have identified a double fit; your bids in a competitive auction promise offensive tricks, but it is not clearcut that you mean shape, not HCP. Then you consider pulling the double because you expect the opponents to run the other two suits and/or cross ruff your suits.

The problem with opening this hand 2♣ is that there are too many spades and too many points for the opponents to stay silent. You will not have an uninterrupted auction. The discussion between the 2♣ and 1♥ bidders illustrate the problem in separating a strong offensive hand from a strong hand, particularly when trying to make high level decisions in a contested auction. If you deal, and the auction goes: 2♣ 3♠ P P 4♥ P 6♥ 6♠ do you Pass and sweat out partner's decision? Or bid 7, expecting to go minus? While you're waiting for partner to bid, wouldn't you rather have A1098 AKQxxx AK A and double 6♠ rather than hold the subject hand where you have no clear idea whether to pull partner's double? For the record I'd open the subject hand 1♥ unless I was playing precision, but I hate the idea of giving up on (most of) the strong pre-emptive nature of the ♥ suit.

Too many quick tricks for NAMYATS? Try playing the hand opposite xxxxx x xx xxxxx and show us how you make more than 9 tricks in ♥. I'm giving responder too few HCP? Give responder AKQJ10 x xx KQJ109 and the result is the same. When Sam Stayman first proposed the convention (before later writers altered it to the NAMYATS format), he gave this hand as an example, saying that you should use the convention if the 4 card suit is a minor, but not a major. I agree that this convention is not a cure all, mostly because it gives up the 4 level for minor suit pre-empts (which is why one writer proposed a system starting with 3 NT). I was simply pointing out that a major bridge theorist (who doesn't play Stayman after a 1 NT opener?) had long ago proposed a fix. The fact that few players use the convention now implies that it probably wasn't a great fix.

there is a convention called NAMYATS (stayman backward) which describes this hand perfectly. There are several variations. Basically, open at the 4 level as a transfer into the suit you want (4♣ for ♥) to show a hand too good for a pre-empt and too weak for a strong 2.

duplicate

I bid 3 NT, but double is a close second. You have to take some risk to avoid missing a game when you are vulnerable at IMPs, and need to tell your partner that the hand belongs to your side. Partner still has a bid and can correct with something appropriate, like Jxxxxx(x) x xxx(x) xx (6142 or 7132). Partner wouldn't open that mess, but 4♠ is cold.

I like South's pass because I expect slightly more value for a 2 level negative double. I would then respond 3♠, showing 8-9 HCP and implying some ♦ value. If we play a 4-3 fit, then I expect partner to be short in ♣, so at least I'm not getting tapped in the wrong hand. This also assumes that partner won't reopen on absolute garbage. I am partly swayed by the need to reach the vulnerable game at IMPs.

From careful discards W can show 2-4-2-5 distribution. E knows W must have the ♣A, or S has 11 tricks already. If E keeps J9 A2 nil nil then E knows he can get to W's ♥Q or J (since E knows S has only one ♥).

No, E must pitch the AK♥, keeping the 2. Then no end play

what if W keeps nil Q98 nil A opposite J9 2 nil Q? won't W take 4 tricks on a club or heart lead, and 3 tricks on a spade Q lead?

The point is that there is no consensus on whether 3♦ is invitational, forcing to 3♥ or forcing to game, so don't bid 3♦ unless you know your partner's preference.