SoTired

I think ALL matches should be 56 boards. None should be longer. I think 128 board matches are ridiculous. If the Super Bowl can be played in one day, then the bridge world championship can be played in one day also.

Since South never had a chance to pass 1D, the pass of 1DXX shows weakness and no major suit preference. But South had a major preference for hearts, so South should bid 1H. The XX could have been a support dbl or extra strength showing. Opps should tell you when asked. There is a case where passing the XX is for penalties: 1S p p X XX p! 2nd seat's 2nd pass is for penalties. Otherwise dealer could always avoid the penalty dbl by XX.

3H is forcing because 2S created a game-force

I am amazed. If you bid 2N, you know opener will bid 3N. If you had one of the suits stopped like Qx Axx AQxxx Jxx, then 2N would be a reasonable bid. I believe stoppers are for wimps, but here you are missing stoppers in both unbid suits. Opps will find the best suit to lead. And 3C? Why are we bidding a 3-card suit? And we don't even have any strength in it. Just bid 3S. The worst that will happen is we end up in 4S on a 5-2 fit. But we have HH in spades, so that is not too bad.

2C 2D 5N asking partner to bid 1 higher for each A, K, or Q partner holds. 4N/5N/6N are all the same in that regard.

Sorry, can't dbl, because I would have no clue what to do if partner bid spades. 1H seems obvious. 2N is OK, too. 1D has merits if they win the contract. 2D and pass are silly.

If partner has both majors, I want to be in spades, because partner has a doubleton minor. what to bid depends on agreed conventions. Some partnerships that use 2N for a diam transfer, use the sequence 1N-2C-2H-2S to show a 4♠ with 8-9 HCP and 1N-2C-2H-2N to show 8-9 HCP with no 4-card major. If I am playing that convention, then I bid 2S. Otherwise, I bid 2N, which should show 4♠ and 8-9 HCP.

I think first, you should not bid until you understand what their bids mean. This is how some players get an undeserved advantage. It is bad enuf that you have no idea how to defend this oddball convention, it is totally unfair that you aren't told what the bids mean. What suits? What strength? What is 2H? What strength? What other bids could responder bid? What strength would those bids show? Get all the answers you need. Actually, the 2H response helped prevent your side from getting to an unmakeable 6H contract.

Strong disagree. Whenever you play a high signal, you always play the highest card you can afford. First, because it is easier for partner to read. 2nd, because partner can count on you not to have higher touching cards. If you are worried that an 8 might be valuable, then that is not the highest card you can afford. You never signal with a potential trick. An exception to the highest card rule is when you are playing to the first trick and giving count from 4 small cards. In that case you play the 2nd best followed by the 3rd best so that partner can better tell a 4-card suit from a doubleton.

How often have you made a SJS? How many have detailed understanding about the followups? I think few know what any of the bids after the SJS mean. But everyone knows what rebids after a 1D response show and mean. And most know after 4sf how to reply. 1. If I am playing 4SF, then I bid 1D because I want a natural rebid by opener describing his hand type and strength. If opener rebids 1M, then I need 4sf and will try to obtain more strength info from partner. But if I am real lucky and opener rebids 1N, 2C, 3C, 2N, 2D, 3D or 2M, I will know what to do. 2. If I am NOT playing 4SF, then I bid 2D to immediately tell partner we are GF and looking for slam. No accidents, pls. Fred's post describe the Soloway SJS. But if I recall, the Soloway SJS included 3 hand types: 1) Self-sufficent suit, 2) support for partner with good suit of our own, or 3) 19+ HCP, balanced. We have hand-type #3. Most are trying to get more info from opener... But an immediate SJS has the advantage of immediately telling opener about GF and slam potential. So I don't think that either 1D or 2D is "wrong" either way. I only think that one may work better than the other depending on agreements. I disagree that 1C-2D-2M is automatically a fragment bid without discussion. It certainly does not show any extra strength. Although I probably would not bid it on any suit not headed by an ace or king, I would expect it to show a 4-card suit until trumps are set. I would expect partner to raise 2D to 3D with 3-card support instead of bidding a major or rebidding clubs with 5. I would not expect partner to bid 3D with ♦Qx.

The reason I mention this, is that many players will shave a point or 2 off ordinary hands without realizing they are changing their partnership agreements. A pair playing 11-14 HCP 1N, opened 1N in first position against me with something like AJxx Qxx Kx xxxx. No 10's or 9's. I complained to the director that this was an ordinary 10 HCP and either should not be opened 1N or they should change their CC to 10-14. Although I got no relief for the hand, the director warned the opps that either they change their CC or he will punish them next time they open a 10 HCP 1N.

This is a fairly ordinary 7 HCP hand. If you advance 1N over a takeout dbl with this hand, then I would say your 1N range starts at 7 HCP. Do I hear 6?

You are only required to explain your partnership understandings, not your hand. Although it may not be good bridge, you should never be punished for "bidding what you think you can make." Opening 4H or 4S is the primary culprit in this case. Some people just do not trust their partner or decide that the hand is too powerful for a 1-bid, but not good enuf for a 2C bid (for whatever reason) and decide to open 4. Another auction often abused is 1H - 4H.

What about KQJ x xxxx xxxxx and want to sac against 4H, but don't want to bid 4D and push them into 4H by revealing our fit. May not want to sac if they stop in 3H. Partner had 2 chances to bid and I always try to assume partner is not insane. Lead-directing sac is only logical explanation. It may also help partner determine whether to dbl if they take the push to 5H.

Normally, I return original 4th best unless I have discarded a card in this suit previously. If I definitely do not want partner to return this suit, then I might return a high card to disc partner from leading this suit again. If I have discarded a card in this suit previously which was a count signal, I return either a don't (high)/do (low) return this suit card, or a suit preference signal if my attitude for this suit are already known. If my discard in this suit was a enc/disc signal, then I return present count or suit preference when obvious.

Aren't you teaching that a 3m response to 1N shows a 6-card suit with 2 of top 3 honors and out. It asks opener to bid 3N with the missing honor and pass without. I thought that was what beginners are taught. Therefore, deciding whether to pass 1N or bid 2S, which is a transfer to 3C for minor suit sign-off, is made on a suit without 2 of top 3 honors.

So.... under Fred's principle (pure 4-handed bidding), if the 3N bid is undefined in this situation, then it remains undefined. Opener should pass regardless of major suit holding. Keep the opps guessing and don't give them a chance to make a lead-directing dbl or an anti-lead directing pass. Under my principle, opener should pass with two stoppers and probably one stopper hoping they lead the wrong suit. But with no stoppers, it makes sense to pull. Under Lobowolf's principle, what? When should opener pull?

Of course you need a 6-card minor to consider 3m... Some thots: the longer and weaker the suit and hand, the more likely 3m is better. So Q-7th and out is definitely 3m. KJ-6th with an outside K is probably not. MP vs IMPS is important, too. At MP, if you can take 8 tricks in NT, then you need to take 10 tricks in 3m to beat it. At IMPS, the safer contract is better, so 3m is likely better than 1N. If your suit runs at NT, you will probably take many tricks in either contract, but if your suit does not run in NT, then 7 tricks at NT might be harder to get than 9 tricks in the minor.

if you have a major stopper, you q-bid that stopper and bid 3N... if you have both stoppers you bid 2N and then 3N... so if you have neither major stopper you bid 3N you can't consider the 3N without considering the other possible bids. this seems obvious to me... maybe others will see it differently

I lead a spade because that is what partner asked me to do. Anyway, why can't dummy be 5224 and declarer 3514?

i suspect partner has, at best, no more than a strong NT hand, with no more than 2h. i am worried that 4H would turn into 6HX, with a bad heart break, and i have just turned a part-score push into a phone number loss

I have a half-written article about "general principles" that were developed during the early days of bridge that have been superceded by newer ideas taken from more experience, simulations and the vast online database available for hand analysis. (It took science 1000's of years to get rid of the 4-element theory, but it still seems engrained in our conscience, so asking bridge players in one generation to change is asking alot.) Although the poster is being scolded for the "general principle" that points are more important than shape, I would remind everyone that in other threads, the modern practice of opening 1N on a more wide range of hands is one case where it is true. So experts appear to be sending a mixed message here. I would also mention that the poster is dividing defensive hands by point count into the 3 incredibly broad categories of : 1) less than opener, 2) opener, 3) monster If those are our only 3 categories, it is likely that shape is more important.

if you have a good firewall and you know the source ad site, you can block the entire site that the ads come from. I have done this before, but it does cause some problems with some sites that stop displaying the rest of the page until the ad is successfully displayed.

welll... i have to say,... lthat is one screen-saver i will never buy B)

Stayman with a 4-card major is a "basic" bid. Everyone knows that a 4-4 major fit usually plays better than 3N. The Stayman info giveaway is guesswork. Has anybody done an analysis about how useful that is to the defense? I think that players who deliberately bid wrong to create a swing when they estimate they are having a poor game, deserve what they get. First and foremost, the estimate may be wrong. I think I am a good estimator and usually come within 3 % for a session. But I have also been completely wrong on some sessions. It does not seem wise to make an anti-percentage bid based on it. Secondly, you don't know what the future holds. Maybe the next few rounds, you'll get a bunch of gifts. Then find out that the poor bid from "operating" cost you. Finally, if you want to create a swing, do it in the play, not by anti-percentage bidding. Take a backward finesse; finesse with 9 or play for the drop with 8. These plays are close to 50%, definitely anti-field and likely to produce a swing.