david_c

I don't have an informed opinion on global warming. In fact I find it kind of scary that so many people think they do. If you want to know about global warming, you will have to go and read the reasearch, and decide whether you agree with the scientists' methodology and (if so) their conclusions. The information we think we're getting is really the result of a massive screening process: first of all by the individual scientist who wants to illustrate his own theory in the best possible way; then by the wider scientific community which decides which scientists are fashionable; then by the media who pick out whatever they think will appeal to their readers; and now by posters on BBF who pick out the media reports which suit whatever reason they have for posting. I'll bet that the end result of this process bears little relation to the reality.

But does that matter? Surely you can afford to compete at least as far as 2♦, no matter whose hand it is. Isn't it IMPs, by the way?

2♦ seems perfect: - I am confident that we can make 2♦; - I want to tell partner that I have a few values; - I want to tell partner that I have a decent diamond suit. I really don't understand why you would decide to pass with this hand.

That doesn't sound right. I would expect a NT bid to promise a heart stop, but could have nothing in spades (the doubler is presumed to have those covered).

I'm still a bit confused about the "why". Suppose I were to agree to lead top from a doubleton, low from any other holding. What would I be missing out on then? (Edit: Perhaps that comes across as a rather silly question. Of course I can see that a lead style gives you plenty of inferences. But it seems to be fairly rare that this is actually useful, and I worry that I'm helping declarer just as much.)

Rugby makes no sense. I was forced to play it for five years at school but I never had any idea what the rules were. As far as I can make out, the referees you see on television award penalties according to some strictly random process which has nothing to do with what's actually going on.

Moving on from the discussion of "2nd + 4th" (whatever that means) ... any opinions on what's the best lead style when leading a small card against a suit contract? What do you like to play, and why? On what sort of hands do you feel your lead style gives partner useful information?

I like that idea. Opening leads seem a perfect situation for FD-style pop-up explanations.

I think double here is takeout of clubs with length in hearts. This is on general principles: it's the same as an auction like (1♣) : p : (1♥) : p , (2♣) : p : (p) : X. Of course you wouldn't expect to have a hand good enough for this double unless you'd forgotten to bid on the previous round ... which miraculously is the case here, so double seems perfect.

First comment - which MickyB has already heard me ramble on about - is that the lost step (compared to 1♠:2♦ in natural methods) makes it difficult for opener to describe his hand, but it isn't so much of a problem for responder. The corollary is that even though 1♠:2♥ is not a very efficient sequence, you can't really improve it by taking a few hand types out of 2♥ (unless you go all the way and put all hands with diamonds into the 2♣ relay). Indeed you can probably add a few more hands into 2♥. AMBRA adds weak hands with spade support, for example, and Bocchi-Duboin allow invitational hands with long diamonds. This might not be to your taste, but I think the space is there if you want it. For opener's rebid, the natural method (which is basically what AMBRA is doing) would be: 2♠ = catchall 2NT = 6+ spades, better than minimum hand (OK this isn't "natural" but it's what Siege uses at the moment and is probably what you'll be doing over 1♥:2♦.) 3♣ = clubs, good hand 3♦ = diamond support, better than minimum 3♥ = hearts, good hand The big problem you have here is when opener has hearts (the direct consequence of losing the 2♥ step). If opener is minimum with 5-4 shape it's not so bad: these hands work fine in the catchall 2♠ bid. With a maximum 5-4 you're not so well off because a 3♥ bid is very space-consuming. But with a 5-5 shape you have real problems, whether maximum or minimum. The lost step means that you are no longer able to bid hearts twice to show this hand. You could perhaps make use of opener's 3♠ and/or 3NT rebids: 2♠ = catchall 2NT = 6+ spades, better than minimum 3♣ = 4+ clubs, good hand [but probably better to switch this with 3♦] 3♦ = diamond support, better than minimum 3♥ = precisely 5-4 majors, good hand 3♠ = 5-5 majors, better than minimum 3NT = 5-5 majors, minimum That at least solves the problem of how to bid a 5-5, but still leaves you a bit short of space. Probably better to switch things around a bit more, making more use of 2NT. Say for example, 2♠ = catchall 2NT = extras, either single-suited or 4+ hearts 3♣ = diamond support, better than minimum 3♦ = 4+ clubs, good hand 3♥ = 5-5 majors, minimum That looks decent, except that you'd want some artificial continuations after 2NT which adds a lot of complexity. Bocchi-Duboin's approach is also interesting. They do away with the catchall bid, which helps a lot in trying to show shape but presumably makes it harder to show extras (ie. the usual 2/1 problem).

Now that's an interesting comment. I don't see the problem really. In my opinion the 11-13 balanced and 17-19 balanced hand types hardly interact at all - they are easily distinguished in both competitive and non-competitive auctions. So having them both in the same opening bid doesn't worry me. On the other hand, the sort of thing which does overload an opening bid is: (i) Including both weak balanced hands and weak unbalanced hands. (This makes it hard to find your fits, particularly part-score fits when opener doesn't have enough shape and/or strength to make another bid.) (ii) Including both strong balanced and medium/strong unbalanced hands. (This makes opener's subsequent double poorly defined.) Glen's suggestion doesn't solve either of these problems: the 1♦ opening has problem (i) and the 1♣ opening has problem (ii). Whereas a system like Siege has both problems with 1♣ and none with 1♦. Seems to me like a wash.

Not sure this is really a problem. Opener passes to show the weak balanced hand (as always), and now responder can reopen with a take-out double, or a cue-bid, or 3♣ (forcing I suppose). There seem to be plenty of options. Indeed these options seem rather underused in standard Polish Club. My original post didn't spell this out, but the intended ranges were: 1♣ : 2♣ = 6-10 HCP approximately 1♣ : 1♦ , 1M : 2♣ = forcing to game This is what you get by simply switching the meanings in WJ. You might ask what happens with an invitational hand, but these don't seem to exist. (Well, you can invite if you treat the hand as balanced, or if you have a 6-card suit, but otherwise you have to fudge a little.)

Not sure about diamonds. There are a few reasons why bidding an immediate 2♦ on a moderate hand with diamonds wouldn't work so well as bidding 2♣ with clubs: (i) You're not going to find partner with a big fit. The advantage of 1♣:2♣ on a weak hand is when your LHO overcalls but partner knows it's right to compete in clubs. (ii) Opener might have a minimum hand with a singleton diamond. So you wouldn't be able to bid 2♦ so freely as you can bid 2♣. That reduces the frequency. (iii) You'd have problems when opener has the natural variant - do you want to be in game or not? If not, how do you find the best part-score? And how would you distinguish opener's "medium club" hands from strong hands? These hands aren't a problem after 1♣:2♣ because you have a huge fit to fall back on (indeed, it's very unlikely that opener has a medium club hand if the auction starts 1♣:2♣ uncontested). Having said all that, it would be nice to take as many semi-positive hands out of 1♦ as possible. Maybe you could use 2♦ as a fit-bid, showing 5+ diamonds and at least three clubs. That would solve the problem of finding playable part-scores when opener has the natural variant. Edit: Oh, I forgot (iv) You don't have as much space over 2♦ as you do over 2♣. The sequence 1♣:2♣,2♦ is very helpful for coping with the strong variant of the 1♣ opening.

In WJ we play 1♣ : 2♣ = forcing with clubs 1♣ : 1♦ , 1M : 2♣ = to play opposite a weak balanced opener How about swapping these around? It seems more useful to show your club suit immediately when you have a weakish hand, in case LHO is about to bid a major. Whereas with a stronger hand you are in a better position to cope with interference.

Dunno about the first one, but I would play you for a trap pass, i.e. pure penalties. The second one is clearly natural, a weak NT sort of hand.

:) OK, seriously, even if partner is a real expert he might go wrong: he needs to be sure that you are an expert as well. Otherwise he may play you for being a beginner with a long string of diamonds. You want to be a good partner, not an Unlucky Expert, so bid 4♥ instead. :)

2♥ promises 4 trumps and shortness? Then I look no further. South is surely worth a slam try opposite that. I would also bid 2♥ playing SAYC. For what it's worth, I think the best strategy with the North hand is to pass as dealer.

Yes, but there's a difference between Laws and system regulations. The WBF Laws are used by everyone. But Law 40D says The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. So then the WBF defines some system regulations which get used when the WBF itself is the sponsoring organision. Other sponsoring organisations (such as BBO TDs) can choose to use those if they like, but they usually make up their own instead. Default is for there to be no restrictions - if a TD wants to run a tournament with system regulations then these should be stated in the tournament description.

I expect partner to have a club void, and his most likely spade holding is a small singleton. In which case, partner is hoping for no losers in the red suits, but that doesn't mean his suits have to be solid - his diamond holding might be AKTxxx or AQJTxx for example, and we don't really want to be in grand opposite that. So I'll settle for 6♥. If I'm wrong about partner having a singleton spade (would he bid thirteen red cards this way?) then it's even more clear we don't want to be in grand - partner must be missing a vital red honour.

Me too. That can't be the answer though surely, what are we missing I wonder?

Well, this contract was reached at two different tables. In any case the auction will be uncontested (RHO was dealer and passed). The English pair I was watching bid it 1♥ : 2♣ , 2♦ : 3♦ , 3♠ : 4♣ , 4♦ : 5♣ , 6♦.

[hv=v=n&n=s93ht9dqt96cakq64&s=sa7haq643dakj7c52]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] How will you play 6♦ on the lead of the ♠J?

I don't much like the idea of opening a minor on 5H332 hands. In general I would be very sceptical about changing the definition of your opening bids just in order to make your rebid easier in one particular sequence. The frequency is hardly ever high enough.

Well said Jimmy. Your beliefs may be completely different to mine, but you have my respect for being consistent about them.

Well, if you accept that God does not intervene in the universe, then that pretty much rules out Him having a son.