Blofeld

We play 2NT as initially denying 3-card support, with 3♦ promising it. The reason is that as well as having strong versions of both hand types there are the GF versions which come up from time to time. The 3♦ rebid clearly shouldn't be forcing, so the GF hand of this type goes somewhere else. 2NT is forcing, and also lower, so can include the GF version of the relevant hand type. We also put the GF version of the other hand type in there. As it's a lot easier to show support later than backpedal and deny support you'd shown, 2NT denies 3-card support unless it's GF. This does put some strain on slam auctions when the 2NT bidder doesn't have 3-card support, but when they have the 3-card support GF hand they clarify their values nicely.

But 5-5 hands a lot worse than that are making game opposite our hand. Kxxxx AKxxx Kx x QJTxx KQJxx x Ax KQJxx KQJxx xx x Also, some 5-4 hands will be making game, and bidding will let you reach these games where passing would not. Which is why it's relevant that partner would bid 2♥ with many of these.

Not if he knows how to play the game: poll true experts on AQJxx AKxx Kxx x and I would bet that fewer than 20% would bid 3♥... and this is a GREAT 17 count. Ok, so I hold the ♠A: make it KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx.. no expert I know would bid 3♥ on this. Not to say that I know all experts... maybe some players better than me would choose 3♥, but I doubt it. Mike, Surely you dont consider the 2nd hand a true 17 count holding Jx ♣. Change it to KQJxx AKJx Kx xx (same count, different location of hcp) and see how many do. Quit nitpicking. Doesn't seem very fair for you to downgrade for Jx but not upgrade for all the lovely honours in the rest of the hand. I think Mike's hand is easily worth 17 points ... and your example about 18. Even so I'd bid a simple 2♥ on it.

I'd bid something like: 1♠ : 1NT 2♥ : 2♠ 3♣ : 4♣ 4♦ : 4♠ The first four bids seem pretty clear. I'm less sure about the ones after that.

2♠. I pass if you change one of the aces to a Q. I was going to say that I never bid 3♥ with a hand of this shape, but I don't think that's quite true. Still, my default bid with this shape but more strength will be 2NT. Give me: ♠A ♥AKx ♦xxxxx ♣xxxx and I suppose I'll raise hearts.

I liked the new stars and locks a lot, but I'm not so keen on the smilies. I don't really mind their use instead of the heart and club symbols, but that's only because one doesn't meet that much - I did think the old symbols looked quite a lot better. I really don't like their appearing in text, though. I tend to like the simple 'making smilies' with text, but graphical versions seem very intrusive[1]. Perhaps there could at least be an option to turn them off? I know that I can get around it by forming my smilies slightly differently (e.g. :~), :)) ), but I don't really want to see them when other people use them either. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh here. I think I particularly mind because I don't like the style of the smilies ... they're too cartoonish and 'cute'. [1] Well, most graphical versions. The Google Talk ones recognise things as smilies and highlight them, but keep them as text. That seems a much nicer system.

I agree that the ads are rather distracting. In fact so far the thing that I've found most annoying (to the point where I've stopped watching the current VuGraph and exited BBO) is that they make a sound on reloading. I've turned off the sound in BBO, but that makes no difference. Is there a way around this?

5♦ at any scoring and colours.

The two lines that immediately appeal are ruffing two hearts, or taking the double diamond finesse. If we ruff two hearts then we need two entries to dummy - one to ruff the second heart, and one to pull trumps at the end. There's an entry in clubs, but we'd need to use a trump for the second entry, which would mean that we'd only have 3 high trumps to clear the opponents' with. So that needs trumps 3-2 and no club void. The double diamond finesse involves ruffing high, playing a high trump then a low one to the Q, then finessing ♦s. If this loses then we're ok so long as nobody has a club or diamond singletong, and trumps are 4-1 at worst (and at least 1 diamond honour is onside). --- But of course these lines lend themselves readily to combination. Ruff high, play a high trump then a low one to the Q. If trumps are 3-2 then you ruff another heart, and if not you play for the diamonds to come in. My play analysis isn't very good, but that's the best I can come up with.

It feels like it might be nice to have a serious room that was only for partnerships ... then you could play there and concentrate on the bridge rather than getting gifted IMPs every other board because the opponents have no agreements.

If I were looking for a game I'd want to consider asking people on my friends list even if they weren't actively seeking a game at the time, so it would be nice to have this list alongside the seekers.

I don't believe that this is a different situation. The odds of making slam that you must use are not of course the odds that you'd calculate if you could see partner's hand, but the odds you can guess at in this one-handed position and knowing that partner opened 1NT. Estimating these odds well is one of the hardest parts of bridge!

4♣. I'd rather bid 5♣ than 3♣.

Seeing the title of this thread I assumed that it was about the effectiveness of a 9-11 point 1NT opener ... :)

No; 2♥ will almost never get us into ♣s when it's right. If I open now it will be some number of clubs. Perhaps 3 or 4, bidding 4NT over LHOs 4♠, perhaps 5 to make them guess as much as possible. The alternative is to pass and hope to come in later. I'll be happy doing this, and it's likely to describe my hand better, and I may avoid getting too high in some misfit hands. Against that it gives the opponents more room to explore. But we are second seat; there's no guarantee this is the opponents' hand. I think I pass. But I'm not sure what's best (just sure that 2♥ isn't!), and if you ask me again in the morning I may say something different. :)

Hi Justin, I think you're right that negative doubles do usually show more than this, but then the shape isn't usually this perfect, nor the location of the values. As always in bridge, it's a balancing act. You mention wanting to be careful opposite a 3rd seat opening; while this is worth bearing in mind in general it looks very likely that you have a fit somewhere here, so parnter's lack of values shouldn't make bidding too dangerous. And as you're a passed hand you're limited above, which in fact means that you can stretch the lower end of the double slightly without damaging partner. If I were an unpassed hand I'd still double if you removed the ♥T or turned the ♥Q into the ♥J, but not both of these things. As a passed hand I'd double even with both of these, but no worse. Owen (whose judgement isn't all that good either)

But the only thing that 5♣ is going to tell you is whether partner has the K of ♥s. This doesn't seem nearly enough information when you might still belong in either major, at anything from about the 3-level (on a bad day) to the 7-level. What are you intending on doing if partner 1) shows or 2) denies the ♥K? Mark me down for 3♠ at this point.

I would play: Double with 4♠ (though perhaps not if I also held 4♥); Bid 2♠ with five; Pass otherwise. As responder if opener passed I would play double as takeout-oriented, but happy for opener to pass with four or a chunky 3. 2♠ would be natural and invitational with, usually with 4♠ and short hearts unwilling to sit for penalties[1]. 2NT would be a GF hand with 4♠ unwilling to double. 3m would be whatever stayman+3m usually means in your no-trump structure. [1] Unless Stayman includes invitational hands with 5+ spades, in which this bid is reserved for that handtype.

Ron: pass would have been a suggestion to play 2♦X, and XX would have been to play in his own suit (I'd bid 2♥ whatever my hand). So 2♥ exludes a certain number of hands without any major suit tolerance. It also more-or-less denies 3 or more ♥s. So 1=2=5=5 or 1=2=4=6 might bid this way, but apart from that he'll have at least two spades, and I think he's odds on to have three (having denied three hearts).

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqt8xxhjt9xdxxxc]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]In first seat you open a weak-only multi 2♦. You may deplore the outside 4-card major, but this is ok by agreement. LHO doubles (on asking, you are told that it is "takeout". "Takeout of what?", you ask. "Diamonds, of course" says the opponent and looks at you as if you are slightly crazy. Partner bids 2♥, pass-or-correct. RHO bids 3♣. At this point you realise that you've miscounted your hand. You actually hold: [hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqt8xxhjt9xdxxxc]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding now doesn't exist systemically, so there's no danger that partner will play you for a strong hand. But is it more dangerous to pass or to bid? Is your answer affected by scoring or vulnerability?

The 3♦ bid is fine. I lead the ♦K. This might blow a trick, but it also might not. Even at matchpoints we'd like to get the opponents down :P

Looks spot on for a 2NT bid to me. What's wrong with this?

Seconded! This would be particularly useful in partnership bidding, where if someone wants to run opposition bidding for a partnership already seated they have to start a new table. Obviously one can work with the current system, so I wouldn't want this to be high priority, but it would be nice at some point.

MickyB and I would start something like Ben: 1♦ : 1♥ 3♦ : 4♣ (3♦ 15-18 with 6♦s and 3♥s ; 4♣ is slam interest with ♥s and nothing about ♣s) 4♦ : 5♣ (4♦ a cue, 5♣ showing a club control, denying a spade control, and showing an odd number of keycards) 5♦ : 5NT (another cue, knowing that we have all the keycards ; denies the Q of trumps) 6♣ : 7♥ (promises the ♥Q and suggests a second or third round club control ; can count 14 top tricks but doesn't know for sure partner's spade control isn't a void)

I wouldn't mention the ♥ suit in the second case, EricK; instead I'd bid 2♦. This is because if we go slamming I don't want partner to devalue heart shortage, and also I want to play in spades rather than hearts (may be tricky if partner raises a 2♥ bid).