Douglas43

After a top heart lead, seeing that dummy it's quite tempting to switch to a club from south, hoping partner had the King. I probably would. That would be right if declarer had Qxx in clubs or Qx in clubs and a singleton diamond, and would do no harm if the 10 was with North. But here it blows a trick. Well done for avoiding it.

Agree with all the comments about this is 1NT. The situation described by Mycroft is not actually such a big problem playing weak NT. In a sequence like 1C - 1H- (2D) X, the double typically shows a strong NT. It does mean though that you can't play support doubles, so you may need to raise hearts with three card support. There is always a trade-off in any method. I think the biggest downside of weak NT at pairs is the hands where you miss a 4-4 spade fit and make 90 as opposed to 110. But at pairs it gains enough on other hands to be worthwhile. I play it at teams too, but with less conviction.

It doesn't say anything about beer does it? I often like a pint before the last round of a Swiss...

Oh well, if it wasn't for the stuff that goes wrong, we wouldn't enjoy the successes half as much...

OK pilowsky, you've got me. How did you go down on numbers 1 and 2? You got 3-3 breaks in both and a winning finesse in 2. Did you try for a non-existent squeeze?

Hi Seaspell, welcome aboard. I only joined this year and there are quite a few interesting hands and topics on the forum. Also people are (almost always) polite Using Stayman as an escape mechanism like that is certainly a good idea when you play a weak NT. The particular gadget that Vampyr was describing though is a further development of Stayman that used to be popular back in the day before transfer responses became the norm. 1NT - 2C ("any 4 card majors?") - 2D ("no") - 3D ("I'm 5-5 what about 3 card majors?") I have one partner who likes it, but it's rare and easy to forget, so I'd prefer to bid 1NT - 2H (spades) - 2S (accept transfer) - 3H (I've got both majors) - and if I heard 3NT ("sorry, not got 3 spades or 4 hearts") - could bid 4H ("I'm 5-5 or better")

Yes, extended and SID were taught before transfers came along. All about Acol by Cohen and Barrow (1969) explains extended in some detail, and 2C followed by 3C as a weak run-out with 6 or more clubs. I normally use stayman followed by 3C or 3D as natural and forcing with no major suit fit having been found, but do have one partner who plays extended stayman (he likes to know that a transfer to spades followed by 3H shows precisely four hearts.)

As the old saying goes "it takes two to tangle"... If it helps foster a constructive discussion, I would suggest that you both accept that you bid the hand sub-optimally and focus on tactics when vulnerable at teams. I like IMPs but mostly play pairs, and my regular partner much prefers pairs. We play in the EBU lockdown league (only a division 5 team, we are decent players but no stars) and have both learned from tactical errors in the process.

Pretty much agree with cyberyeti and nige1. My preference would be to pass initially as West, and as East A 3D game try is plenty (I'd add a loser to the initial 7 because the hand is aceless, xxx in hearts is not a good holding, and with only a 4-4 fit it's optimistic to treat a singleton as only I loser). Also, the opponents have only bid 3C, at least so far. If they only have the promised nine clubs between them, instead of the actual ten, it's quite likely that partner has a 4=5=1=3 shape and my diamond values are wasted. I couldn't quite bring myself to pass 3C, but I'm beginning to think that at IMPS I should have considered it more carefully. The weak NT third in hand vulnerable at teams hasn't got much upside to it. I tend to pass flat 11/12 counts, and with 14 pretend to have 15. What did west actually do?

Hmm, I must remember only to use Lightener doubles when partner is on lead. Wondered why they weren't working... [smiles]

To add to Cyberyeti's post, I think many Brits play 4SF at the two level might be only an 11/12 count and responder can pass a minimum rebid, but if responder bids again, that shows a stronger hand and creates a game force. Practice does vary though, some play it as GF throughout. The extract from mikeh's post below would match my understanding in the UK and the 3H bid would be strong and forcing with clear slam interest: 1H. 1S<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">2C. 2D<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">2H. 3H<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">With a weaker hand, but still strong enough to force to game in hearts, responder could simply bid 4H over 2C ((really a minimum) or bid 2D then jump to 4H (very little more than a game force)

I agree with TylerE and mikeh. Playing Acol (i.e partner does not have a weak NT hand and guarantees 4+ Diamonds) I might stretch to 2D, mainly to help partner count the suit in defence. It's worth agreeing a minimum for a negative double with your partner and sticking to it.

Ah, found out who Hull was (from Wikipedia), sorry to readers who are way ahead of me: The Hull note, officially the Outline of Proposed Basis for Agreement Between the United States and Japan, was the final proposal delivered to the Empire of Japan by the United States of America before the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Japanese declaration of war. The note was delivered on November 26, 1941, and is named for Secretary of State Cordell Hull. It was the culmination of a series of events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was considered by the Japanese as an ultimatum for Japan to withdraw from China and other occupied territories, and was perceived by the Japanese Government at the time and many historians around the world as a casus belli. Curiously Eden's predecessor was Halifax. Which means that as the world headed into war the UK and US foreign ministers were Hull and Halifax. I never knew that. There is a saying going back to the 17th century "From Hell, Hull and Halifax, good Lord deliver us".

I'll take your word for it that South was the smartest, but I'm not sure that 5H is such a great bid, partly for the reason set out in your post, the risk that North with a good t/o double might be tempted to bid one more. He shouldn't but... Keep posting pilowsky! p.s. I think Anthony Eden was British foreign minister in 1941? p.p.s No need to be Australian or Jewish or both to find the British annoying... [smiles]

I voted other on the finesse, because it partly depends who East- West are. If they are a weak pair, West might double on the strength of Kx. In a stronger pair I think the double ought to be lightener for a diamond ruff? It is unusual to bid "weak over weak" vulnerable, but here West has overcalled with good spades and virtually nothing else, and East has sacrificed at the 6 level. In all, I am a marginal finesser, but I am guessing.

So far the hand only seems interesting in that South hasn't collected the routine +800 by whacking 5C. I usually enjoy your hands pilowsky, but you haven't exactly got me on the edge of my seat with this one...

I agree with mycroft and pescetom's comment about the problem with the explain box. It should have an [X] in top rh corner like any other pop-up. When new to BBO I played an entire hand only able to see half of dummy because I kept hitting [explain] to try to clear it. Worryingly, I played it better than usual..!. Not so keen on pescetom's last suggestion "disable chat to opponents and table during the auction, eliminating ambiguity and the possibility to transmit UI". In the EBU league games we get some good-mannered "wpo" "thanks for the match" type stuff as well as further enquires.

Looking on the bright side, most of us would open 2NT

A bit like the strange behaviour of the dog in the night time, I am puzzled by some of the previous silences here: West passed originally yet bid 3H over 3D. Suppose West might be 4-6 in the majors and have a disciplined approach to weak twos in second seat (it is IMPS) Partner made a [take-out] double of 3D yet did not double 3H (assuming that his double would be penalties, because our side has already made a penalty pass) Maybe partner has something like 4-3-1-5 with poor hearts. It might all go pear-shaped, but I agree with nige1's first choice. 3S is a value bid on the hand. You have shown values by making a penalty pass, but don't have extras to force to game. I would trust partner to double 3H if there was a big penalty on the cards.

By way of background, in S J Simon's day, the 2C enquiry was still in its infancy. Wikipedia cites a Bridge World article by Sam Stayman in 1945. Simon was criticising the idea, then current, that it should only be used on invitational values or stronger . What is currently being called "garbage stayman" is actually just a fairly recent name for an idea that has been around practically since the convention was invented. There are other examples, e.g. a recommendation on page 135 of Jeremy Flint's Tiger Bridge published in 1970 to use Stayman with 10xxx, xxxx, Jxx, xx (again as part of Flint-Pender which had a weak NT). Certainly when I learned to play in the 1970's using Stayman as an escape mechanism was considered routine. Good point from Vampyr about the difference between Stayman and Crowhurst/checkback which follows 1 suit - 1 suit - 1NT; hence there is no need for an escape mechanism and Crowhurst/checkback is always constructive. Should have added thanks to original poster for opening the thread, you obviously did quite a bit of work on the modelling. For what it's worth, I often open 1NT with 5 hearts but very seldom with 5 spades. I'd be interested in any model that looked at the difference between the two.

Further to bluenikki's post, thought you might like an angle on "garbage Stayman" (sorry bluenikki) from weak NT-land: "Supposing partner bids 1 No Trump and I hold: Q10xx Jxxx Jxxx x I want to bid 2 Clubs on it, and I don't want partner to bid 2 No Trumps to show his silly maximum." S J Simon, Design for Bidding. Published 1949 (quote from page 258)

Sorry, I stand corrected

Further to paulg's post, This happens at matchpoints too. If you compare with a friend in an instant tournament you might find that their +420 scores slightly differently to yours because you are comparing against 14 different tables. You might try playing the weekly free instant tournament then watching Pete Hollands' video. Sometimes Pete will play a board for +420 = 55% and you will find that you made the same score but got 57% (or whatever). Paulg's post explains why

No need to be rude to Pilowsky just because something off-centre worked. If you are really looking for a swing that's one way to do it. And I suppose with a robot is on lead against 1NT holding A108xxx it's quite likely to pick another suit...

It's not always right to lead partner's suit but it usually is (see this discussion about bots in a BBO forum https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/79895-leading-partners-bid-suit/) There is much to be said for leading on the same basis as you would in an unbid suit. It saves (both of you) trying to remember two different styles and takes away worries about whether partner has also remembered. One aspect to consider is holdings that you would not usually lead from, like Axx or AQx. With these I would listen to the auction and consider factors such was is partner's bid an opening bid which might be a weak suit or an overcall which should have some lead directional intent. Then, unless the auction gave a strong reason to expect a void somewhere, I'd probably lead the Ace anyway and hope for the best...