kgr

Thanks for the answers so far. Length in suit of opps is always a negative indication for me to raise partner (because opps maybe have already issues in their contract)? This is probably right, but maybe I'm giving it too much weight? Would you also bid 3D: - at IMP's - and with KQxxx xx QTxx Jx

That are our agreements and how the bidding went. It would have been better if I kept the original bidding to avoid confusion. We have the agreement that controls starts from 3♠, but can 3♦ in the bidding below show anything else the a control (A, K or Q in partners suit) or should it also show some ♦ length? 1♦-1♥ 1♠-2♣ 2♦-2♠ 3♣-3♦

3♠ (with my regular partner I play that 2♦ is forcing and 3♦ is a splinter with 12-14 or 18-19...3♦ with that agreement)

I bid 3NT...must be very wrong as I seem to be the only one. (partner would probably have DBL'ed with 4c ♥ so the probability of a ♥ fit looks low to me. Therfor I prefer not to give too much info)

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=skqxxhxxdqtxxcjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] (1♥)-p-(1♠)-2♦ (2♠)-?? opps play 4c Major and Strong NT. 1♥=4+ It is MP's! You have a 9-card fit for your partner, but also have ♠ opposition. Opps are not very strong. 3♦ or pass (....or something else)? Would other vulnerability change your choice?

Thanks all for the answers. The auction did go: 1♦-1♥! 1♠!-2♣! 2♦-2♥ 2NT-4NT 5♥-6♥ 1♥=4+card ♠ (can be 4-4 M) 1♠=4+card ♥ 2♣=4th suit GF During the auction I wasn't sure if 2♥ always showed 4 card ♥. (After the auction we agreed that it should. We feel more comfortable with that). I took 4NT as RKC for ♥ (this was MP's and we missed a good 6NT). ....Suppose that 2♥ shows a 4-4 ♥ fit: Do 2♠ till 3♦ show side suits/extra length or should they be controls bids? ..And 3♥?

1D-1H 1S-2C! 2D-2S ... 2C=4th suit GF Is 2S always a 4-card here?

2C: I play this as clubs and spades. Mostly 4 card Spade and better clubs then spades. If I don't play the above then I would always bid 2C.

We superaccept with a 3c♥. This has the disadvantage that you can't stop under game (or only wit a mis-fit) after a transfer. But it has the adavntage that any bid now , except 4NT, shows a ♣-fit.

Pass (With my regular partner I play that 1NT here shows H and D and I would bid that...This method is giving a solution for all hands that are difficult to bid otherwise....but it probably gives issues for all hands that are easy otherwise :) )

I play 2♣ is kind of crowhurst, 2♦, 2♥ transfer ♥,♠ 2♠, 2NT transfer ♣, ♦

Thanks again for your answers. We actually have: 1NT-2H 2S-4H available to show 6c♠, slem interest and ♥ shortness. But I misbid with: KQJT72 v K95 A765 and did bid: 1NT-2H 2S-3S showing slem interst with no shortness and partner did now bid 4S showing a bad hand. I was now stuck with the above hand (and gambled 6♠) and that made me wonder if it was good to ever bid 4♠. Partners hand was: A83 AQJ6 Q862 Q2 Is this a 3NT or a 4S bid?

Thanks for the answers! ...suppose that the bidding reached 3♠ showing a ♠ fit and slem interest, but responder can still have a not shown shortness (singleton or void). Do you think that 4♠ should still be a possible bid?

with ELC: DBL without ELC: 2♦ (I have to confess that I don't consider this dangerous and would not think about bidding 1♠ instead). with the methods I play: 2♦ showing 4card ♠ and better ♦'s then ♠'s.

I agree that rating systems could have negative factors. But for me the main advantage of on-line bridge is that I can play it whenever I want and that I can start play immediatly. This is how I prefer to play on-line bridge. As a result I almost never play with someone I know and the rating is therfor very important for me to have an idea of players. Now this is really useless. I try to be very polite, but also without a rating system this is sometimes very difficult if an expert does one stupid thing after the other. My opinion: => If you play mostly with pick-up partners then the advantages of a rating system would be more important then the disavantages. => If you don't play with pick-up partners then a rating system is unimportant for you and you shouln't care for a rating system. To be honest: If I can get something for free then I don't like to pay for it. That is the main reason I play on BBO. If I would play on another site (not that I plan to!!) then the lack of a rating system on BBO would be the reason.

Suppose you play: 1NT-2H 2S-3S as 6+-card S and slem interest. You also play not-serious 3NT. Q: do you bid 4S with a very bad hand or do you always bid 3NT to preserve space?

I tried this in Jack. Heart lead and you return ♠8 in trick 2 and East plays small (♠2). Then ctrl-A for analysis: Jack prefers now small ♠ over A or K. But if you do analysis from the start then Jack seems to prefer to cash ♦K and ♣A before playing the ♠8 and taking it with the ♠A when East follows low. ...I wonder how this can be explained.

- Playing AK is better when one opp has QJ doubleton and you have a looser in a side suit. (when one of the opps has a 5 card ♣). Maybe that is enough reason for Jack to play high?

in my opnion normal . I don't think W can DBL without 4card ♦.

I play that REDBL shows 1st control, pass denies 2nd control. I pass, but will have a difficult decision when partner bids 5♠

See http://freebridge.blogspot.com/2006/11/heeman-after-1nt.html :)

Thanks all for the answers. I finessed ♠ and was -1 because QJx was offside, and the diamonds were 3-0 onside.

I would think that QJx also matters because you should not finesse then. I can tell you that opps I play against don't always play perfect or even good.

Probably restricted choice, but it can be from QJxx, QJx, QJ or J. I would think that QJx is more then twice as likely then J. Below the holdings were it matters imho how you play. West can have: ♠QJx ♦void => We have to play from the top. Otherwise West returns a ♠ and we can not go back to dummy after testing ♦. ♠J ♦void => It should always make ♠J ♦Qxx => We have to finesse. ? Maybe it is better to play from top?

You mean like this? Right click on the link in the Movie column, and choose 'Copy Link Location' (Firefox) or 'Copy Shortcut' (IE) Thank you! The hand