lexlogan

It has long been my practice (as dummy at notrump) to avoid placing a suit in the trump position that might be mistaken for trumps. That includes my own long suit or suits partner has bid. Often, but not invariably, I select the suit led. It never occurred to me I might be providing a memory aid regarding the opening lead. I have to agree that would be illegal -- and unfair, if the defenders were not aware of the practice. As it would be difficult to police this practice I think the ACBL should adopt a clear policy.

"Het is spelers toegestaan aantekening te houden van het contract, de leider, het resultaat, de score en de uitkomst. Deze aantekeningen mogen niet zichtbaar zijn voor spelers die het spel nog moeten spelen." An automated translation: "It is allowed to keep players tally of the contract, the leader, the result, the score and the outcome. These notes may not be visible to players still have to play the game."

Our local directors have been attending some training by a retired lady that used to direct our ACBL Sectional tournaments. I assume she has a regional or national rating as director. Anyway, she informed them that the practice of placing the suit led against notrump on the right (where trumps would normally go) constitutes an illegal memory aid. I think this is an absurd perversion of a law that is intended to prevent a player from, for example writing down the cards everyone has played. Does anyone agree with her interpretation? Let it be noted that the common practice of keeping the bidding cards on the table during the auction likewise provides an aid to memory; we could force players to pick up their bids after displaying them briefly, simulating spoken bidding. Given that the suits must be placed in some order and the Laws specify what to do when there is a trump suit and are conspicuously silent about notrump contracts, I'm not buying this interpretation. I doubt it was what the lawmakers intended.

I prefer 2♣-2♥/2♠ to be forcing. Forcing bids cover a much wider range of hands. Now and then responder will pass 2♣ when standard bidders would find their major suit fit, but that is more than offset by the excellent results from opening the descriptive and semi-preemptive 2♣.

Another variant is 1S-1NT-2C showing either 6+ spades or strong; 1S-1NT-2S is 5+ spades 4+ clubs, not strong. This makes the sequence 1S-1NT; 2C-2S equivalent to "I would have passed 2S", not promising any spades at all. Any thoughts on this versus normal gazilli or the hearts variant? Note that the same scheme applies with a heart opening: 1H-1NT-2C is either 6+ hearts or strong, and it would seem normal to extend it to 1H-1S-2C as well.

Double promised both minors, or six diamonds but not strong enough to bid 2♦ immediately; note that "2/1" does not really aplly over competition. 5♣ shows clubs. Opener is therefore showing a very strong raise of diamonds, suggesting slam.

Maybe not so silly. What do you assume opener rebid with x AQxx Q10xxx Axx ? There's no good way to get to 2♣, and 1NT rates to be better than either 2♦ or 2♠. I prefer to rebid 1NT with that sort of hand, so I would not rebid 2S with your example.

There does not appear to be any hand type that needs to bid a natural 3♠ here, unlike the sequence 1NT-2♣; 2♥-2♠ where the standard interpretation is a semi-invitational hand with five spades and a five card minor -- about 6-8 hcp opposite 15-17, allowing game interest opposite four card support but not really worth a 2NT rebid. I play "3 other major slam try" over 1NT and "other major slam try" over 2NT, so the "illogical" 3♠ bid shows a heart fit and slam interest. 4♣ or 4♦ would be natural and forcing with slam interest but no fit for hearts; likewise 4NT would be a quantitative slam try without a heart fit. But I would never bid 3♠ at the table without discussion.

If you assume partner tends to open 1NT on 15-17, then when partner rebids 2♦ it is less likely that he has that range. Sure, I never open 1NT with 5-4 where the long suit is a major, but I think it is best not to assume 10 hcp requires a game invitation. I would've taken a preference to 2♥, especially considering the weak diamonds. Then I'd be happy to accept any game invitation. On today's hand partner continues with 2♠, showing a hand too strong for an immediate raise but with only three card support. This suggests some duplication of club values; you could pass or continue with 2NT or 3♦ or 3♠. With 26 hcp reaching game seems normal and 3NT actually looks reasonable, so 1♥-1♠; 2♦-2♥; 2♠-2NT; 3NT should not score badly. A club lead is only somewhat less likely after 1NT-2♣; 2♥-3NT but that is an advantage of opening 1NT.

I'm really on the fence between 1♥ and 1NT on this one. This looks like it will play well in a suit, and odds favor partner having three or more hearts. This qualifies under the "two flaws" theory of avoiding 1NT: five card major AND weak doubleton. However, with exactly 16 hcp we can't rebid accurately if the bidding starts 1H-1NT -- 2NT will often be an overbid, and when it isn't partner's 3NT may well be; but if we rebid 2D we must guess after partner's preference back to 2H. After 1H-1S, we can try 2D and then 2S if partner returns to 2H; the big risk is partner passes with 1-4 or even 1-3 in the red suits. Forced to decide at the table, I'll open 1♥ and rebid 2♦ or make a game try (2♠) should partner raise; if that's a constructive raise (8-10) I'll simply bid game.

When I open 2C, I expect to be in game opposite an Ace, a King, or two Queens. If I need more than that, I assume partner would respond to 1S and then I could force to game. So this is a 1♠ bid for me. Move the Queen to either black suit and I'd open 2♣.

The problem with 2H is there is no defined way to reveal 4-card spade support later, so I voted for 4♦. But on reflection the Q♥ would be a huge card, and diamond values might be useful to dispose of a club, so perhaps 2♥ is better.

Pass.

3♣ for me. I'd like 4♦ to promise four card support. I'll follow with 4♥, suggesting this sort of hand.

Neither count has been shown to be an improvement over hcp for notrump bidding, but we can take it that even in a suit contract this isn't outside the specified 20-22 range. No need to upgrade.

I open 1♣ and rebid 3NT over any one-level response (with silent opps.) While it's easy to construct hands where 3NT goes down opposite a valid 1 ♥ response or makes opposite a valid pass, I think it is clear that 3NT is likely to make if partner has a minimum response and likely to fail if partner does not.

What about (1H)-4H ? Shouldn't that be 6-6 shape? Or is it just a huge hand with a heart void? I usually say Michaels applies at the two or four level; (1H)-3H asks for a stopper. If I did not start with a two-suited gadget, I would be tempted to overcall in clubs rather than spades; but the bidding might well be at 4H before I get another bid and 4S doesn't suggest the 6-6 shape.

Following the law of total tricks, I treat 1H-(1S)-2H-(2S)-dbl as just extra values with minimal shape (presumably 5332.) So the basic scheme is to bid 3H with extra shape, double with extra strength, and bid 4H with both extras shape and strength or with twice extra shape. New suits are as much lead directing as anything, such as when you open xx Qxxxxx AKx Kx and want partner to lead a diamond rather than a heart against 3S or 4S. While 3H is not invitational per se, it suggests an extra trump or singleton in their suit or something so at times responder may continue to game.

The Ten is an honor (AKQJ10 are called honors), not a spot card. You generally do not lead an honor unless it is a singleton, doubleton, or top of a sequence. Seeing you led an honor with the next lower card in dummy and the one below that not visible, partner should consider whether the surround play is plausible (i.e., could you have the appropriate length.) I see many players who mistake 987xx for "top of a sequence" (a sequence must begin with an honor) and others who, like your partner, mistake the ten for a "spot" card. At least your partner recognizes that the card you return says something about your attitude toward that suit!

Note: I don't describe 3NT as "choice of games." While it is permissible for opener to pass, most minimum hands should retreat to four of the major. If you really want to use the bid to suggest passing a minimum 5332, you probably want most of your stuff outside of partner's suit, and something in each side suit. Less ideal hands can respond 2C (pretty much regardless of which suit has four-card length.) This seems to limit the frequency of 3NT a great deal. Using it routinely on 4333's makes 1M-2C more descriptive: at least 4 clubs and a doubleton somewhere, or 16+.

I like 3NT to show the "pancake" game raise, any 4333 with 13-15 hcp. (If the four card suit is partner's, it should be poor in controls.) This is an important, useful hand that is not well-described otherwise. Adding game-going hands into the Forcing Notrump structure suffers both with and without competition; it sounds fine until partner or an opponent jumps and you have no way to describe the hand. Making a 2/1 bid and then supporting partner exaggerates the shape. The most common use seems to be 13-15 with 4-4 in the minors and a doubleton in partner's major. I'd rather bid 2C with that hand; we could have slam in either minor, and 3NT leaves partner no wiggle room on unbalanced hands that might or might not belong in 3NT.

South's spades are not so great I'd want to open 2S, and lacking an Ace I don't care much for 1S, so pass looks right. A fit jump saves some bidding room but the splinter should've got North interested; 4H, willing to accept a 4S signoff, is reasonable. The fact we have three diamond losers to cover -- to much to ruff out opposite only four trumps -- in effect leaves North with five losers. Partner is sure to have a key card so I don't see 4NT as the answer. (At our club, far too many players would bid 4NT and stop when South shows only one key card.) Over 4H, South loves his hand but needs a club control, so 5D showing the void looks right, and North bids the slam.

I recall some time ago in these forums someone cited a study that showed it was better to open a 10-point hand with zero spades (a Goren 13 count) in fourth seat than a 10 point 5332 hand with 5 spades (Goren 11 count.) The Goren count was a better guide than the Rule of 15; counting a spade as a point was simply wrong. Unfortunately I can't get BBO's search engine to cooperate to find that discussion but I've completely given up following any rule in fourth seat except: would I open this hand in first seat?

Sheinwold's otherwise excellent "Five Weeks To Winning Bridge" reduces rebids by responder to this absurd formula: if you bid twice, you show 10+ points. That seems to have been a fad among Standard American experts at the time the book was written; earlier and later books by Goren follow the sensible principle that you must assist partner in finding a playable strain. I think Goren's Bridge Complete around 1960 makes the same idiotic declaration as Sheinwold. Anyway, most simple (non-jump) rebids by responder do not require any more than a minimum response. It is clear from your example that clubs will be a better strain than spades. There was an attitude that if you weren't going to bid game, it didn't matter what part-score you played, but that is patent nonsense and the experts soon came to their senses. One problem is that the 10-point fallacy is so widespread that partner may well take you for 10 points, in which case you simply can't win.

I googled "transfer walsh" and got some bare-bones descriptions. Many players at the local club essentially play that 1C-1D denies a four-card major (call it Walsh Extreme) and it would seem sensible to use transfer responses if that's your style. The basic issues seem to be: (1) What does a simple acceptance of the transfer denote? Is it forcing? (2) What do jump acceptances denote? (3) What do 1S, 1NT and club responses show? A very simple scheme would be to play that simple acceptance shows exactly three card support, unlimited strength, and is forcing. Jump acceptances (1C-1D; 2H or 3H or 4H) are the same as standard raises by opener (1C-1H-2H 3H or 4H), promising four cards. Other (non-acceptance) rebids by opener deny three card support. Many variations are possible; simple acceptance might include minimum hands with four-card support, allowing jump acceptances to show extras. For the other responses, I've seen 1S described as 4+ diamonds or 5+ diamonds or as a transfer to 1NT. The best scheme probably needs to consider what hands open 1C.