Douglas43

I agree with Cyberyeti. In the UK where weak NT is very popular, almost everyone plays Stayman and transfers. Advocates of playing other methods over weak NT mainly seem to come from countries where the strong NT is prevalent and I wonder if perhaps they are over-reacting to the 3-point change in point range. I'd keep the exactly same constructive methods you use now over 15-17 (including Smolen if you like, it's pointless but harmless), and agree how to handle a penalty double. Simplest is system off. I like 4 suit transfers (XX is clubs) but more people play a form of "wriggle".

As I recall back in the 1970s the EBU used to limit the range of a 1NT opener to three points, but they stopped (possibly because nobody wanted to do it except in Blue Club, which might have had a get-out). I tried the Crowhurst 1NT rebid for a while (12-16) and it drove me up the wall. I'd raise and partner had a 12 count; 2NT -1. Next time I'd pass, and partner had 16; 1NT+2. Now I play 12-14, 15-17 rebid, 18-19 jump rebid.

Given the choice of a slight overbid that gets the shape across (4♣) or another bid that reflects the strength but not the shape, I'd risk 4♣ and hold my breath. Anything might go wrong: (3♣) -4♣ (5♣) -6♥ minus 1 (3♣) -X -(5♣) - 6♦ minus some I'd just hope partner has two small Clubs and doesn't get excited (or too many for responder to raise Clubs).

If North had doubled, NS might end up in 4♠ which is likely to make 11. So I'd probably risk the finesse

Sorry to see this after the full hand, but 2♦ is the bid most likely to shut partner up. And sometimes it's even right! Give me 10xxxx in spades and I'll bid 1NT

The strange thing is, I've played hundreds of boards on BBO with my regular partner who is the same standard as me, plays the same system (natch) and lives two miles down the road. And he gets zero stars. Is BBO trying to tell us something?

This may sound a bit off the wall, but the opponents probably have a 9 card club fit. It won't be easy for us to make a lot of tricks in hearts, and I don't want them running to clubs, so I'm passing.

Not sure where you are? EBED which is an an educational charity spun off from EBU has good material online. It might help to know who has played other games in the whist family before you start? If you have played partners whist then the mechanics of card play in bridge are similar (in some ways easier because you have more information). In the time allowed you want to keep bidding as simple as possible. EBED refers to a 30 week programme.

This may come across as a bit Walter the Walrus, but when I have a 20 count with AKxx in trumps and the opponents are at the 5 level, I tend to double. Mind you maybe Victor Mollo could have constructed a hand where HH makes eleven tricks...

It certainly is possible to do that. How you do it depends (I think) on how much expertise you have in your club and whether you want to collect payment via BBO. I'd suggest contacting the EBU for advice, assuming that your club is affiliated.

I agree with David. Good summary. I like to pre-empt so would bid 2♠ and apologise if I'm wrong

Good summary by David. Despite the gappy spades, I'd bid 2♠ and apologise if we miss 4♥

Thanks mikeh. Where I live weak NT is still much more popular than strong, but if more people take up 15-17 I'll probably make that switch. I play that defence with one partner, using double for penalties over weak NT (so we do miss the 4M/5m hands). I should also add in response to the thread above that Cyberyeti's recommendation makes sense particularly at IMPs, but (apart from Lockdown League) I just play pairs and am very focused on scrapping for part-score, even if it means missing the odd grand slam

Nope. I'd laugh, say it's only one board and move on.

Which I would choose between Astro and double depends on both sides' vulnerability and my suit quality for the opening lead (KQxx, Axxx, KQJxx void is a more attractive double). If I chose Astro I'd prefer 2♣ because the denial (next suit up denying more than two cards in the anchor major) is my 5 card suit, not a 4 card suit. This might be down to playing more pairs than IMPs, but I tend to settle for a part-score at Astro unless my partner shows good support for my anchor major, or advances with 2NT (12+ hcp and enquiring into second suit). This is purely personal opinion, I don't hold out as a great authority on Astro, I just like playing it.

Your Astro bids sound a bit more, er, robust than mine tend to be...

Thanks Cyberyeti, fair point and a matter of style and agreement. Personally I'd pass over 2♦ with anything except a 5-6 red two-suiter, where I might bid 3♦. In the absence of major suit agreement, I tend to stop. But sorry to sound dogmatic.

Astro isn't as fashionable as it used to be, but I like it because it allows for hands with 4 in a major and 5 in a minor. I have discussed this sequence with my partner, and our agreement is that it shows at least three spades and a willingness to play there as advancer is quite likely to have 4 or 5 Spades. Over 2♣ which shows 9+ cards in Hearts and a minor, 2♦ denies more than two Hearts. Overcaller has not more than 4 Hearts (else you bid 2♥ over 2♦), and overcaller's minor suit is not Diamonds (with 4 Hearts and 5 Diamonds you would pass 2♦) So, overcaller has 4 Hearts and 5+ Clubs, but is prepared to play in 2♠ rather than simply bidding 3♣ Hence either 3=4=1=5, or as Cyberyeti says 4=4=0=5. Or maybe 3=4=0=6, but I'd bid 3♣ with that

Ah, you may be in the wrong part of the forums site. This is the section for non-BBO topics. I think you might want to try https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/forum/12-find-a-partnerteacher/

I agree with Cyberyeti and think the EBU disclosure requirement is fair, and reasonable. However, Pilowsky's profile says he is in Australia and for all I know ABF is different. Irrespective of that, not keen on 2♣ as a bid without an explicit agreement to include this type of hand. How is partner with a AKQxx, x, KQJx, xxx going to know that their hand is basically waste paper?

Hi meaculpa. It's not easy answering this in the abstract, which might explain the low response rate. Could you please give some idea of your location and how much / where you have played?

Apollo, good plan, I have a partnership agreement to that effect

Oh gosh, the rule on insufficient bids (law 27) is pretty complicated. Happily the EBU publishes some great free online resources on its website. One of them is a flow chart of common problems at the table. I can't recommend these strongly enough, such an improvement on trying to interpret the rule from scratch: https://www.ebu.co.u...flow-charts.pdf If it's a club night or a competition, I'd call the Tournament Director straight away to help clear it up. Don't try to fix it on your own. Anyone can do it during the auction The two simplest and most common outcomes, are for West to accept the bid and 1♥ stands, or for West to not accept it and South to make it good by bidding 2♥. If you are just playing a social game at the kitchen table, you might stick to those?

Predictions are difficult, particularly about the future. When I started out the fashion of the day was Precision Club, but strong club never really swept the board as many expected. Anyway, the game would be much less interesting if everyone played the same methods.

Lots of good advice from Mycroft and AL78. I play Acol and think its a good pairs system because it's good for part-scores and fine for games. But it's less effective at slam level. A club night might feature 12 part-scores, 10 games and 2 slams, and at pairs each board is worth the same. But at teams, the slams are worth much, much, more than the part-scores. Hence Acol is less effective in team of 4. Most England teams of 4 sides seem to play a strong NT / 5 card major system. I'm an experienced player with a respectable NGS rating and the limitations on my game seldom come from the bidding system.