Ant590

Really interesting thread. As someone who would probably describe the 4♣ bid in exactly the same way as the OP, I was amazed at those who thought such an explanation was ambiguous. However I see where they are coming from. My choice of words would be from a system file that defines 4♣ as "transfer me to your major" and 4♦ as "bid your major". So as far as I would be concerned that is our agreement, and the opponents are in a situation where they have as much explicit information about the agreement as we have, although I can be sure implicitly I have a greater understanding. I guess there is a fine line between explanations which some would find patronizing (and no doubt tell me so), and those which are cryptic for those not in the know.

I understand that the head-to-head is the standard way to split ties, but I have always felt that this is actually unfair. If team A beat team B, and they finished on equal VPs, then team B will have won more points against other pairs. It seems that the match has almost counted twice, once to give team A enough VPs to tie, and then again to win the split-tie.

Thanks for the replies. If you cash the spade ace, you get a discouraging signal from partner. I was unsure if this may indicate a heart switch or a club continuation, so I decided to continue spades anyway. If you case the club Ace, you see Q on your left and partner throws the ten for you from T764 and you can't go wrong. The full hand was: [hv=pc=n&s=sk32haq74dqj83cq9&w=sqj975hjt3d5ct764&n=st64hk52dak974cj2&e=sa8h986dt62cak853]399|300[/hv] Ok, so partner (and declarer?) was (were) barking mad, but could/should I have worked out - after the spade ace cash - to continue clubs?

Such a bid falls loosely under the type of bids we might define as a relay. So if the question is for what to put on a convention card, or how to explain to opponents, I would suggest "relay for shortage type" - the fact that the answer has runons to keycards doesn't seem necessary in the explanation. If you were wondering if it has a convention name, I don't know.

You hold (at MPs) [hv=pc=n&e=sj76hj9865d9cjt84&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cpp3dp3nppp]133|200[/hv] You're playing 2/1 with a strong NT opening. Do you agree with the pass over 1♣? What do you lead?

Yesterday I held at MP: [hv=pc=n&e=sa8h986dt62cak853&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1n(12-14)2d(Single%20major)2n(Natural)3c3nppdppp]133|200[/hv] Do you agree with 3♣? Do you agree with double? Partner leads the club six (3rd from length, top of doubleton). [hv=pc=n&n=st64hk52dak974cj2&e=sa8h986dt62cak853]266|200[/hv] ♣6, 2, K, 9 What do you do?

IMPs in a reasonable field. [hv=pc=n&n=sa3ha95dcakj87654&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=ppp]133|200[/hv] What's the opening bid / later plan?

Thanks everyone. From the responses here it does seem like I've had the minority view for a long time, I should probably change, and discuss more with my partners. Just for your interest, here are the two hands which provoked the discussion: Both IMPs Because of my (poor) - all weak hand must act - style, I bid 2♣ intending to redouble later [hv=pc=n&w=skq5h852daq6cak32&e=sj432hq973d92ct76&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1ndp2cp2nppp]266|200[/hv] Here, the rdbl might muddy the water a little? [hv=pc=n&w=sajt92ha85dak9caj&e=s75hq972dq8632c93&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1ndr2dp3nppp]266|200[/hv] Cheers, Ant.

There's no agreed best structure. Your first decision needs to be what completing the 1-level bids mean. I believe the commonly played styles are: (1) All min balanced hands with no fit (2) All min hands (3) Showing a fit (3+), min strength (4) GF relay I personally prefer (1), but the key thing is that once this decision is made, the other bids begin to define themselves accordingly.

Hello all, The following question assumes the opponents are playing a weak NT, but I'm fairly sure the questions are also valid wherever our side play a penalty double of their 1NT. Basically, since the year dot I have played the following style: (1NT) - dbl - (pass) - o Weak hands remove the double. This means pass shows enough points for the balance (like 5+ or so), and penalty passes etc are on if they run. This evening, I learnt that - at least in my part of the world - this is uncommon and considered inferior to the following: o Only weak hands with long (6+) suits remove the double. All balanced hands pass. This style is completely alien to me, but I can see its merits. In the first style, you've just spoiled doubler's party if he has a 21 count and you remove to a 4-card misfitting hand. However, it seems to me the second style means it is more difficult to double them if/when they run. It seems that a minimum double (say 16) is going to double their suit on Hxxx, but how does advancer know when to pull with weak hands and <2 trumps. As you can see, I've gotten myself quite confused in an area of bidding that I thought I knew how experts played - help!

LOL @ use of capitalisation and the whole idea in general

If you're in the UK, a good introduction can be found at http://bridge.uwcs.co.uk/?m=w, (the "quick start bridge" at the bottom)

I'm with whereagles and the gnome; and play a P0DI/relay-type auction after Jacoby interference. This is unless you really feel doubling the opps is the way forward (then my gut says a pass/double inversion is sound). If you go the whole hog and play some kind of relay when there is no interference too, it makes the 1-UP, 2-Up, etc easier to remember, and calculate on the spot. E.g. if you played natural shortage responses before, consider "defining" them as Low/Middle/High shortage "steps", then it's easier to think when there is interference.

Wow - it's a good thing there aren't any downvotes. With the exception of a few replies here, the amount of people stating that a particular method is standard or the correct way is frightening. A good rule of thumb with conventions and follow-ups in bridge is unless everyone plays it (e.g. 1NT opening is a limited balanced range), there is probably no standard (e.g. 2♦ openings). Superaccepts: one style loses when responder has a weak hand with both minors, the other loses when responder has a weak single suited hand Rebids: shortage wins when responder has no slam interest and wants to check the right contract beneath 3NT, natural wins when responder is dealt two-suiters and helps differentiate between 5m4M and 6m4M hands, cuebids win when responder has slam interest and wants to check on controls (although note with either of the other two approaches, responder can make a further move). As for which is the biggest loss, this depends on the rest of your 1NT structure, for instance I would argue that if you played direct 3-level bids as splinters, the return for shortage rebids after a minor transfer is lower.

I tend to pass balanced 11/poor12 counts in 3rd because I play in the context of a system that opens all balanced 11 counts in 1st (at these colours anyway). However, the pips are just too sexy to pass here imo.

Thanks for all your thoughts everyone. It confirms that one the actual hand (see below), most sensible lines do not make... I think. Perhaps EW's pre-epmpting style is too crazy to make this a legitimate problem for this forum - if so I apologise! [hv=pc=n&s=saqj76hq82dt5c964&w=skt85hj973dq2ct87&n=s3hakt654dakj87ca&e=s942hd9643ckqj532&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2c5c5s6c7cp7hppp&p=ctca]399|300[/hv]

Right, so lines so far involve playing a heart, and/or a diamond. If you play heart ace: East shows out. If you play diamond ace: Both opponents follow. If you play another diamond towards the KJ: West plays the queen

Yeah, sorry, I rotated to make South declarer. I'll give you some more time then put in some more info.

You end up in a grand slam after the following auction: 2♣ - (5♣) - 5♠ - (6♣) 7♣ - (pass) - 7♥ - all pass [hv=pc=n&s=saqj76hq82dt5c964&n=s3hakt654dakj87ca]133|200[/hv] (1.) Do you agree with NS's actions? (2.) You get a club lead. What's the plan? More to follow...

Thanks to everyone for their replies. With the hand I doubled, and partner put me in 6♠, reasoning that I should be much stronger to double. I appreciate that this is an irrelevant piece of information for the thread, but I like a bit of closure. The general consensus locally was that 4♠ is probably the `correct' but, with a few diehard doublers. Very few passers, I guess around the same margin as the 19% of votes here. Ant.

Lol - dangers of posting without coffee there. I think as south I would make the try with 4♠, which does commit us to the slam as it happens. Hmm.

Perhaps I'm a simple soul, but to me it looks like keycard from North, and bail out in 5♥ when there are two aces missing?

Ah thanks - fixed now

Hey all, Been a while since I last posted so I thought I'd put up a problem that has divided the experts I know. You hold ♠AKJxx ♥x ♦xxxx ♣Qxx IMPs, nil all, LHO deals and bids 4 hearts: (4♥) - pass - (pass) - ?

Hey all, What's "expert standard" for hands like: ♠A75 ♥AQ7 ♦KQT7642 ♣- On an auction such as (1♣) - pass - (pass) - ? Doesn't seem right to double in case partner passes, and I thought it more common to play 2♣ as Michaels still. Jumping to 2/3♦ diamonds seems weaker than this hand the way I would usually play them, and jumping to 4♦ or 5♦ seems to eat up too much space...