lexlogan

I'd say: pass = minimum range (6-7 if using 6-10) dbl = extras, not 2 of top 3 in suit (best defensive hand) 3S = extras + 2 of top 3 3NT = AKQxxx I wouldn't venture past 3NT except perhaps with a 6-5 hand.

What is the advantage of using 2S artificially rather than 2NT? I normally play that showing a 5 cad spade suit is the first priority, and that any bid at the three level is forcing to game. Perhaps you play that if opener bids 2NT rather than 3C, it shows extras and creates a game force. But without extras, I don't see how to sort out Kxx AQxx x AKxxx or Kx AQxx xx AKJxx opposite Axxxx xxx Qxx xx or Axxx xxx Qxxx xx . Anyway, I would agree the immediate jump suggests a stronger suit than the delayed sequence.

I've seen this many times but I am not sure if it's the best way to play. I have two reasons for this: 1)Even if we have hand below invitation we still want to find spades 5-4 so we gain on hands when partner has 4♠ 2)I think we lose very rarely. The sequence: 1♥ - 1♠ - 2m - 2♥ promises only two hearts but is quite wide ranging (6-10hcp basically) so partner will be afraid to pass being too heavy (ie. with 15hcp he will strain to bid if he has nice hand imo and definitely he will be very afraid to pass with 16's). That means we won't miss a game too often especially if our hand is weakish (I guess 9's are the worst in general). We may also find a game other people won't as: 1♥ - 1♠ - 2m - 2♥ - 2♠ locates our 5-3♠ fit which people bidding 1♥ - 2♥ will miss. I haven't made any serious analysis on the matter but my feelings are that maybe this part of standard understanding should be reviewed. It's one thing which always bothered me somehow so I would be happy if you (or anybody else) could comment on this. I'd say you will gain only rarely. With two fits, only occasionally will one play better than the other. There is little reason to assume 5-3 spades will play better than 5-3 hearts. You can still get to 5-4 spades if partner makes a game try in spades over 2H. Your hand lacks the sort of controls in the minors to expect to be able to take advantage of pitches on hearts. The only factor in favor of bidding spades is to protect the ♦K; this isn't enough to justify the overbid of driving the hand to 3H, or the underbid/misbid of 1S-then-2H.

+1

The main reason I haven't attempted this style is I have no clue how to respond to it. Some of my partners often double with what looks like junk to me and I bid aggressively and get a bottom. Care to describe how to advance one of your own doubles, Justin?

The EBU makes a strong recommendation that if there is doubt as to the possibility of MI you should call the TD immediately, so it is reasonable for this player to do so. If I was the TD I would take both players away from the table separately to find out as best I could what their agreement actually is. If I believe declarer had been misinformed I would tell him so. Thanks, David, that seems sensible and I will pass it on to the director at the time. It seems East had already answered South's question by the time the director was called, but he could at least explain proper procedure for the future.

Here, most of the discussion has been whether or not the director should permit South's question. Posting at rec.games.bridge, most of the replies were "send West away from the table", with an "of course" attitude toward the question and trying to get a genuine bridge result.

Any player with experience at an American bridge club would know better than to trust the director will get this sort of thing right. They aren't trained to do so, and few of them understand the logic of the laws well enough. Committees are practically unheard of at the club level. For what it's worth, the actual director told me he probably would not have adjusted the score, reasoning that South was experienced enough to know 3C wasn't Michaels. Of course this is absurd, since the director cannot adjust the score if, in fact, the pair in question had such an agreement but declarer assumed clubs meant clubs. And pairs have all sorts of silly agreements. Disgusting On the flip side, our club has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 10 years; we have three rooms and have several times had 17 tables for a day game; nine used to be a "big game." It's a pleasant place to play if you concentrate on your own cards and don't worry too much about what other people are doing. I used to direct and 90% of players liked my style, but 10% were violently annoyed. Knowledge of the laws is not necessarily the most important skill for a director. Yes, I'd wish everyone understood and practiced full disclosure and active ethics and the directors got all their rulings right, but bridge at the club is still fun.

Any player with experience at an American bridge club would know better than to trust the director will get this sort of thing right. They aren't trained to do so, and few of them understand the logic of the laws well enough. Committees are practically unheard of at the club level. For what it's worth, the actual director told me he probably would not have adjusted the score, reasoning that South was experienced enough to know 3C wasn't Michaels. Of course this is absurd, since the director cannot adjust the score if, in fact, the pair in question had such an agreement but declarer assumed clubs meant clubs. And pairs have all sorts of silly agreements.

Right, I wasn't at the table, I would assume West bid a major.

(I posted this on rec.games.bridge, but a friend suggested I repost here.) Might declarer ask a player who made a bid to confirm whether his partner's explanation was correct? Law 20 F, states, in part, "Except on the instruction of the director [explanations of calls] should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question." What actually happened at the club is unclear, so I'm not going to give a specific hand, but imagine this scenario (South deals, ACBL club game, if that matters): 1NT-(pass)-2C-(3C) pass-(pass)-3NT all pass "What's 3C" "Michaels" The opening lead is made and declarer, after studying dummy, realizes the 3C bidder might, in fact, be long in both majors, so the hand should be played one way; but if he (as seems more likely) has clubs, it should be played another. If declarer assumes the long clubs, he cannot claim damage if the explanation was correct. But if he plays for clubs, he's not convinced he'll get an adequate adjustment, if any, and in any case would rather achieve a result through his own skill and not per the director's judgment. He calls the director and states he would like East to confirm whether Michaels (i.e., length in both majors) is, in fact, the partnership agreement. If I were director, I would be inclined to make sure South understood that the answer would be authorized information for West, and then (per Law 20 F) instruct East to answer "yes" or "no", "Is that your partnership agreement?" Comments?

A priori*, a specific 5422 shape occurs 16 times as often as a specific 6430. Even if we lose half a board every time responder is 0634, we only have to gain 3.1% on all the 2524 shapes to break even. * I know I haven't taken into account the effects of responder's shape, but I don't believe it will make a significant difference. Responder doesn't need to be 0634 for it to be wrong for opener to correct. Hog's assumption was opener would run with 5143 -- so we'll also lose when responder is 1633. And responder's shape does matter -- with 6 in the suit, opener is significantly more likely to have 0 or 1. It seems like sound strategy on a minimum hand to bail it in the first, known playable spot (2♠) rather than chasing the ideal.

Partner's range (and aims in bidding 4♥ ) are even more wide-ranging. Partner knows what I have better than I know what partner has. Perhaps I should have opened 3♥ if I'm not content to pass now? I think the fact we had agreed that certain types of hands (the 6-5 I was expecting) can open 2♥ and bid again allows opener some license in our partnership. I don't think 1♥, 3♥ or 4♥ are good descriptions of opener's hand; as Fluffy says, the suit quality was adequate for 2♥ but not necessarily anything higher. Once I competed to the 4 level partner's hand increased in playing strength, and the opp's bidding and raising spades made it easy to visualize a singleton or void in my hand. I have no idea whether I would've bid again with partner's hand but, in the future, I'm sure I would. We've now agreed to treat a raise to 4 below the opp's major as a cooperative rather than unilateral bid.

Aftermath: I was North. Partner, judging I must have some preparedness for 4S despite my obvious shortage, bid 5C for the lead. The full hand: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sha10xxdaxxxcq10xxx&w=saj10xxxxhqxdxckjx&e=skxxhxdqjxxca9xxx&s=sqxxhkjxxxxdk10xxc]399|300|Scoring: matchpoints[/hv] 2H-(3S)-4H-(4S) 5C*-(Dbl)-P (P) *misexplained by me as a side 5-card suit 5H-(P) -P -(5S) Dbl* (all pass) *asked and explained as penalty Assuming partner had a diamond void, I led the Ace. When dummy hit with 5 clubs, I assumed there weren't 15 in the deck, switched to a high club spot, partner ruffed and returned a heart, second club ruff for +300. A club lead initially beats 5S 3 tricks for +500, while we can make at least +450 in hearts. I'm surprised at the number who would've passed initially or opened something else with partner's hand; lacking Aces I wouldn't consider a 1H opening, the suit quality is adequate fro 2H but inadequate for anything more. Basically, we believe in opening 2 with a fair six-card suit, 8-10 hcp and less than 2.5 quick tricks. We had explicitly discussed opening 6-5 hands that way (a method I've seen advocated by various experts) which is why I assumed that's what partner's 5C bid showed (probably headed by the A or AK since I assumed it was also lead directing.) I might've passed over 4S with partner's hand if I didn't think too deeply or as a matter of discipline, in which case 4S makes unless I divine to lead a club at trick one or two. So it's a double-game swing hand, and 5C is clearly the winning call. As a matter of theory the suggestion that a raise to 4 of a suit below their major is intended as cooperative seems possibly more useful than the blanket assumption "partner knows what he wants to do over 4S." In fact I didn't; I felt like 4H might make and 4S might go down, so passing seemed wrong, but I was not prepared to double 4S or commit our side to 5H. (I've lectured partner repeatedly about not chasing them into a game we don't want to defend against, so he could reasonably assume I had some defense to 4S.) And now for the real story: When partner bid 5C, West, a Gold Life Master who thinks anyone who plays a different system or makes a bid she wouldn't make is being underhanded or unethical, asked about partner's 5C and made few negative comments along with her double. When partner doubled 5S she announced "There's going to be a director call about this. I don't like this. This happens all the time and I don't like this." I suggested as politely as I was able that she call the director immediately. The director listened, looked at partner's hand and made no particular comment. Afterwards, of course, West kept bitching. It took at least two director calls by me ("west is interfering with my enjoyment of the game") before everyone was ordered to cease discussion of the hand. There was no break in tempo beyond the normal pause over West's jump ( a pause I strive for over every jump, whether or not I have anything to consider), and no accusation that partner acted with unauthorized information. The sole basis of West's complaint was that "In Standard American, when you open a weak two you don't bid again." At some point she actually tossed out the word "unethical." Of course partner's bidding might be undisciplined and/or unwise, but not unethical. The director took notes and, in a whisper to me, said she had reported West before for such behavior.

I use all 3 level jumps as one-suited slam tries. Such hands are generally awkward to bid if you start with a transfer, nor is there any compelling reason to make opener declarer when responder has similar strength. Consider a hand such as: xx Axx AQxxx KQx . A simple jump to 3D clues partner in that you're thinking slam, not just game; the bidding might proceed 1NT-3D-3S-3NT, after which opener might pass with a non-slammish hand, or continue with a cue-bid or general 4NT invitation.

Club matchpoint game, neither vulnerable. You deal (as South) and open 2H with this collection: Qxx KJxxxx K10xx (void) The auction proceeds: 2H (3S) 4H (4S) .Thoughts?

Whether you play Kokish or not, it seems normal just to bid more notrumps the stronger your hand is. Assuming 2C, 2D waiting, 2H Kokish, 2S relay, if 2NT is 24 or 25 then 3NT would be 26-27 or so and 2C-2D-4NT or 2C-2D-2H-2S-4NT would both be stronger. (I'm assuming 2C-2D-3NT would show 9 tricks rather than a strong balanced hand.) Without discussion I'd try Koksih followed by 4NT on the given hand.

A really simple defense I like versus strong notrump is to double with any two or three suited hand and natural, one-suited overcalls. Requires far less discussion than anything else. What I normally play is a Lionel double along with Modified Cap.

I play Reverse Fit Drury, so 3-card and 4-card limit raises normally go through Drury. I tell my partners that pass-1S-3S is approximately the same as 1S-4S by an unpassed hand: 5 trumps, a singelton, maybe two cover cards. Pass-1S-2NT is a ear opening bid with 5 spades or 4 very good spades.

6♣ . If I'm doubled and down 4, they likely had slam. I risk pushing them into a making slam, but I think odds are they don't (and I won't be down 4.)

I have a rule that if the Michaels bidder voluntarily bids or raises one of his suits, he implies extra shape but not a strong hand; other bids suggest "strong Michaels". So I voted "other", but a strong 5530 would make sense.

In the auction 1M-2NT-3D-4S, the 4S bidder has wasted values in diamonds. So it could be a picture bid in the sense that it says "I have good diamonds but they are worthless to you" . I don't really understand what you mean by using the term *picture bid* - what "pictures" is responder showing or denying by 4M in your suggested modified Jacoby? A "picture bid" describes all the slam-worthy features of a hand at once. I gave some examples: AKQ of trumps with no outside controls; four key cards or three plus the Queen, no additional values; zero or one key cards. Using 4S to show "wasted values" describes only one element of the hand, namely, that it no longer has 12 working high card points. It does not promise or deny side Aces or Kings, or the quality of the trump support. Suppose opener has AJxxx xx x AKQJx. He's too strong for an immediate jump to 4C, so he replies to Jacoby with 3D. Does responder have KQxx Axx Kxx xxx ? Then 6S is virtually a lay-down. Or does responder have Qxxx QJx AQJx xx ? Now the 5 level is unsafe. "Fast Arrival" opposite an unlimited partner is fundamentally unsound.

I found an article by Jim Jacoby (on the ACBL website) which defines the jump to 4 of the major as the "wasted values" bid. I don't know where I picked up using 3NT for that purpose, but I certainly prefer that -- opener is unlimited in strength, why prevent him from initiating a cue-bid sequence? We've all seen hands where the right 9 hcp makes slam. So, I'm still interested in thoughts about 4M as a picture bid.

I used to avoid 1NT with a five card major at matchpoints, on the theory that we likely have a major suit fit and that fit is likely to produce an extra trick. However, when partner raises with 6-7 points, we're apt to make a game try with our 15-17. So when we have a fit, we'll play at least 3, and when we don't, we can't play 1NT. Playing constructive raises doesn't seem to help much; after 1S-1NT-2C-2S, for example, responder can still have 9 or 10 points (with a doubleton) and so opener is again apt to make a game try, thereby landing in 2NT or higher on a lot of hands that would've played 1NT if he'd opened that instead. At IMPs the arguments seem heavily in favor of opening 1NT; +90 instead of +110 loses 1 IMP while -50 against +90 loses 4 IMPs. I would still open 1S rather than 1NT with AJxxx xx AKx Axx (to give an extreme example).

1♦-1♠ (with 5-5, bid higher ranking first) 2♦-3♥ 4♠-pass Opener's hand is fine for a 3-card raise, but with 6 diamonds I'd rather rebid those first. Responder's jump rebid is game-forcing and shows 5+ spades, 4+ hearts. Since it is normal to bid hearts first with 4-4, responding spades-then-hearts always promises 5+ spades. Opener could bid 3♠ on round 3, thinking this saves bidding room; but sometimes he has to bid that with only a doubleton, such as Ax xxx AKJ10xx xx . Jumping to 4♠ makes it clear he has real spade support. Responder should consider trying for slam over 4♠, however, that heart suit may be hard to establish with only 3 trumps opposite and the singleton in partner's long suit is not encouraging.