dokoko

Maybe I formulated my original question badly. I am interested in other players' ideas on single situations where partner responds at the 4-level to my takeout double. What should my next bid mean? So I would like you to tell me what you think of a sequence like (3♣)dbl-4♥;4♠. Or (2♥)dbl-4♠;5♣. I ask for single situations, not for rules covering all or most of them. So if you have an idea about one of the 126 possible sequences, I would like to read it.

That's the type of auction I was talking of. Opp's opening bid at various levels, we double for takeout and partner bids on the 4-level. We now bid 4NT or a new suit.

How do you play the following sequences: (1x)dbl-4y;4z (1x)dbl-4y;4NT (1x)dbl-4y;5z (nonjump) same after opp‘s opening of 2x/3x/4x where x, y and z are different suits? Double is defined as takeout. My main interest is which of these bids do you think are needed as natural and which can be used as slam tries for the last bid suit. Thanks in advance für your replies.

IMO the sequence 1♦-1♠;1NT is a bit overloaded. You'll have to bid it on x-4-5-x, x-x-5-5 and on balanced hands. The reason why many eliminate the 5-3-3-2 hands from 1♦ is to avoid needing a rebid with balanced hands.

If you use Splinter bids at all, a Splinter in a suit bid by an opponent is the most useful. This is because this suit is more likely to be led and because you and partner are less likely to hold high cards there to control the suit.

After 1♣-1red(dbl) 1M = limited hand with 3-card support (often a weak NT) XX = good hand with 3-card support (intermediate+ unbalanced or strong balanced) 1N = strong bal without 3-card support pass = balanced without 3-card support (suggests weak NT but may have strong NT wanting the doubler to lead) other bids = as without the double (nonfit bids usually deny 3-card support) As paulg suggests you may interchange XX and 1NT in some way. Keep in mind, however, that 1NT should be NF.

It's definitely not 'always' for #6. If the RA forbids a certain bid with less than a defined point count this applies to misbids, too.

I don't think that there is evidence that the 1♣ bid is unlikely to be short. Why can't opener be 4-3 in our suits? And noone bidding spades makes it more likely that opener has four of them. That said I would not play 2♣ as natural here.

Is it established fact that South had UI when he made his 2♥ bid? If yes, there is a legal base for a score correction. If no, South may use his knowledge that his partner has forgotten the convention in the past and make bids to cater for it. As I pointed out in my first post he would be well advised to self-alert his bids and tell opps that he caters for partner having either hearts or clubs - in case North remembers the agreement during the round and tells it to the table.

There is a post by Kit Woolsey on bridgewinners.com discussing some hands from the final (including the last 3).

If 2♣ is the usual 10+ F1 I see no real need to have two NF raises below game. If you have less than a game force just raise to 3♣. Therefore I would play 4♣ as forcing (slammish). That said you should at least have general agreements on minor suit raises. Having a bad agreement usually is better than having none.

IMO it's not that clear that NS did something wrong and what? The following supposes that South couldn't be sure whether North alerted or not. If the non-alert is obvious that's another story (and a serious problem of the site). South's bidding (having in mind partner may have forgotten the system) is reasonable. As long he has no UI we cannot criticize neither the 2♥ nor the 3NT bid. In f2f South might alert 2♣ telling the world that North shows hearts but might have clubs instead. Or he might not thinking the damage is smaller then. He will often have UI as to whether partner had forgotten or not. Online South is in a better position if he realizes it. He should self-alert his 2♥ bid and tell opps that systemically he is accepting a transfer but suspects partner might have forgotten the system. Then opps are not damaged. They will know from North's missing self-alert that the 2♣ bid was meant as natural and they will know South is unsure what to expect. So there is no MI and no UI and nothing to complain about. As it wasn't mentioned, I guess that South didn't self-alert his 2♥ bid. When North spoke up (if he hadn't the MI would probably have remained unnoticed) South missed the chance to clarify ("I was aware that the system might have been forgotten") which would have cancelled any MI. The misdefence resulted from the assumption that South was expecting North to have hearts for sure which he obviously wasn't. I don't think it takes much more time to select "2♣" type "5+♥" and then <Enter> compared to the same procedure without the explanation. But if partner actually is aware of any self-alert made then the procedure is ridiculous.

If you think pass is normal on the North hand, stop playing DONT but use some constructive method. That way you may get to some games (perhaps not this one).

If undiscussed 2NT system is off. There are good reasons for this: - advancer is limited by his second round pass, - advancer might have volunteered a bid with a long major, - advancer might want to play cheaply in a minor. So I think a cuebid in opponent's suit might ask doubler to bid a 4 card major, other bids are natural. Playing some other stuff needs prior agreement with partner IMO.

If undiscussed 2NT system is off. There are good reasons for this: - advancer is limited by his second round pass, - advancer might have volunteered a bid with a long major, - advancer might want to play cheaply in a minor. So I think a cuebid in opponent's suit might ask doubler to bid a 4 card major, other bids are natural. Playing some other stuff needs prior agreement with partner IMO.

Another difference between non-scientists and scientists is that the latter know to distinguish "samples" from "examples". An example is a singular bridge hand which is presented for analysis (it has all the low cards specified and goes with a vulnerability and a form of scoring). A sample represents a set of similar hands and replaces terms like "five spades to the king ...". So using xxx is appropriate in some context but not another.

After 1M(3x) some theorists suggested to exchange the bids 4♣ and 4x (e.g. "ETM Gold Premium" on bridgematters.com by Glen Ashton). So 4♣ shows a good raise (slammish) while the more space consuming cuebid shows a club length. Since many club hands would use a thrump double instead of showing the length this seems helpful. We extended this treatment to our 1♦ opening which shows an unbalanced hand (usually 5+). Using this replacement cuebid, we can find out about a spade control later.

Unless playing against an expert West, I would lead a club up after discovering the trump break. So: Take spade in hand, heart to K, heart to 9, club (inserting the jack if West ducks smoothly). I think the chance to get help in clubs (West rising or breaking tempo) is far bigger than the danger of a spade ruff once I know West has no trumps. Against expert opposition I won't get help in clubs anyway so I need not risk an improbable spade ruff.

Several posters suggested North bidding 3♠ at some point where I think it's unclear at least whether this bid is forcing. With both hands in sight it's easy to suggest bidding sequences without getting dropped in a partscore, but at the table I would not dare to bid 3♠ in any of those situations, and if I did I'd expect to play it there more often than not.

To me this is a balanced hand worth 23 pts. So I would open 2♣ planning to rebid 2NT. With responder's hand I would pass a 2NT opening or rebid showing no more than 22 pts but would bid Stayman over a 2NT opening or rebid showing 22-23 pts (or more). I would try for a suit contract because of entries.

The 4NT bid got what it deserved. Why on earth do you think that with 16 HCP opposite an opening slam only depends on the number of aces held?

Unless you pinpoint the spade weakness, a small slam is a good bet, needing not much more than either a non-spade lead or ♥K onside. But hard to reach (East would need to know about West's clubs). A grand is for cheaters or result merchants.

Interesting idea!

I failed to find it. Could you post the link, please?

The term is "Show-up Squeeze". You can make your contract by either finessing or playing for the drop, but playing it as a squeeze eliminates the guess.