Douglas43

21.1.2 Underarm bowling shall not be permitted except by special agreement before the match.

Vienna Club which was developed in the 1930s used 1NT like a conventional strong 2♣, big hand any shape

It's top third in EBU, so I guess no single standard?

I believe that Tartan twos are as described above by AL78 (based on an old book by Ron Klinger)

It shows a 4=4=4=1 hand that is worth a direct raise to 4♥, but on which partner does not want to splinter because they are of the school that does not splinter with a bare Ace. I think this is a completely logical explanation which is consistent with the bidding and marred only by the presence of the Ace of Clubs in your own hand. A trivial defect, best overlooked...

There are varying views on how to bid 6-4 hands. My plan would be 2♥ with a view to bidding 3♠ if partner gives preference to Spades. But I play Acol, where false preference with 2=3 in the majors is normal.

If you are not playing support doubles, I would stretch to 3♣. Partner could have shown a decent hand by doubling 1♠ for takeout / to show extra values, so 2♥ should have some serious intent behind it. Vulnerability is not specified, but if we are nv playing in clubs could be cheap, and if we are vul, partner has a seriously good hand to bid 2♥. Less confident if you are playing support doubles.

The LTC is easier than counting points for length or shortage. I learned it as a beginner and have played for 40 years to evaluate trump fit hands without counting points for length or shortage. Points were designed mainly for no-trump bidding.

I agree. 1NT is risky yes, but would get plenty of votes with AQx in spades instead of AJ10, and AJ10 is just as good as AQx in this context. Just need to be ready to apologise on the days it gets murdered.

Good point Glithin, thanks. I forgot to mention the Hearts / Spades aspect.

With my regular partner 2NT is always a raise over all 4 suits. Jacoby by an un-passed hand against silent opponents, Truscott (or whoever) by a passed hand or after competition. But we do play 4cM and 4cm.

I would expect to raise a 1NT response to 2NT with a 17 -18 count and bid 3NT with 19. Yes, an agreement on escaping when doubled is useful. Most Acol players use some form of wriggle. (Personally I like escape transfers but they are not theoretically very good). It's also useful to play takeout doubles over opposing overcalls. As to 5-3-3-2 with the 5 card suit in a major, practice amongst Acol players splits three ways. Some always open 1NT, some only when the suit is poor, soem always open the suit. I'm in the middle group

You on BBOF I hope!

mikeh's comment is as usual spot-on, but as mikeh implies there is a difference between "playable" and "worth playing". To take an example, Smolen is popular in North America as a way to right-side game contracts opposite a 15-17 1NT. It is playable opposite a weak NT, but if responder is going to game, their hand is as good as opener's, so it's not worth playing. This article by Marc Smith from the Bridgbum website sets out pros and cons. Smolen Bridge Convention - Bidding and Responses (bridgebum.com)

(I normally play Acol, weak NT) I would suggest that in pairs, weak NT is better. It gains on frequency, successful doubles are rare. If you mostly play teams, strong NT is better because it needs a lot of small gains to make up for the rare -800. Even in the UK, the top team-of 4 players use strong NT. As others have said, KS and Flint-Pender used strong NT and 5cM with forcing no-trump response. Personally I'm not a huge fan because I don't like prepared minors, but chacun a son gout and all that. One other advantage of weak NT - you can forget Smolen!

IMO one sign of an experienced dummy is you make declarer tell you what card he wants before you play it.

I use a tatty old laptop with Firefox for BBO and it's OK. Hope Pilowsky's fix works for you.

You always have style pilowsky.

I voted double but having seen South's bidding style, that must be forcing to slam.

This was a teams game so the hand was only played twice. 4S was left undoubled, which was a good decision by our team-mates, as an escape to 4NT is available (4NT might go down on a Diamond lead but I made 10 tricks comfortably on a club lead).

I play the weak NT at teams but I hardly ever use it when third in hand vulnerable. With a 12 count you can pass without fear of missing a game, and with a decent 14 you can pretend to have 15.

Thanks Mycroft, good point about matchpoint pairs or IMPs teams. This was a teams match in a league against similar strength opponents and the case for bidding 3NT is strongest at teams, for the reason you have set out.. My partner made the 3NT bid.

Stayman is probably the most-used convention in bridge. And that's not surprising. It is helpful and easy to use. But just occasionally a hand comes along where you could use Stayman, but shouldn't. This was one such hand: [hv=pc=n&s=s8743hak7da94caj4&n=sakt6hqjt5dj53cq8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1np3nppp]266|200|1NT is 12-14[/hv] Note South's decision to bid 3NT direct. North had an easy ride; there were eight tricks on top and a club lead guaranteed a ninth (despite the finesse against the King failing). Why did South bid as he did? There are three reasons that point to this bid: 16 high card points (giving N-S a total of 28-30, which is well above the minimum for a typical 3NT contract); andPoor quality Spades; andA flat hand At the other table, South used Stayman. The eventual 4♠ contract ran into a bad trump break and went down.

Not convinced by the original takeout double; I'd bid 3NT over 2S.

This route allows the FSF bidder to get information about partner's range (after 1♥ - 1♠ -2♣ - 2♦* opener with a minimum and a diamond stop bids 2NT, with a better hand and a stop bids 3NT). So yes there is less economy in space, but responder might not have a useful bid over 2NT. It also allows for FSF bidder to confirm a GF hand when they have one. But as you say there is no one "right" answer.