jdeegan

:P I have a very playable and highly descriptive 2♣ bid on a hand where the HCP are likely fairly evenly split. It's too soon to go for the jugular. Let the opps keep bidding and perhaps they will fall into our trap.

:P My ♣ suit is too ratty to rebid 3♣, and my hand is too good to rebid 2♣. That leaves 1NT as my first bid.

:P Pretty close decision. At MP 3NT (just barely). At IMP's 3♦ (assuming it is forcing). Club K or Q in place of ♣J improves case for blasting 3NT - more likely to have club stop and more likely to have plenty of HCP to make 3NT on power.

:P 7♦. Wtp?

:P 4♠. Maybe a non-serious 3NT, if we play that, intending not to encourage slam in subsequent bidding. Our side is not overly endowed with high cards - maybe 27-28 HCP total. Odds are my stiff ♥ isn't the magic holding. Diamonds look to be our best strain for slam.

:P 7NT - one of our major suits ought to run.

:P This hand and thread illustrates an excellent point that even very good players sometimes overlook. Finding a winning defense is often far from a sure thing. On this hand the defense has two chances (1) Ace and a spade at trick one (not very damn likely in an honest game). (2) Ace and a spade at trick three. I have been kibitzing top level bridge on BBO lately, and even the best players are not even close to 100% on these kind of plays. I am reminded of what Bob Hamman once wrote across his (then) brand new copy of Larry Cohen's book To Bid or Not to Bid: "BID".

:P True, and you are vul vs non-vul as well. Still, your overcall might be a lead director or based on a longer than normal suit. I have my doubts about 4♥ making, but there is no 'doubt' card in my bidding box.

:P 2♣. I have an almost 80% slam opposite four small hearts and the KQx of either minor (and, of course, many other hands as well). Vul opponents, who have passed so far, are less likely than normal to interfere. I think it would be a good example hand for N/B forums because it illustrates a number of important very basic topics surrounding the strong two bid opener: 1. Playing strength: 8+ tricks in ♥. 2. Defense: 4 quick tricks 3. Slam and game potential: can make slam opposite a hand too weak to respond to 1♥. 4. Opponents' interference: our stiff spade is of some concern as the other three hands have 12 between them. 5. The correct bid of 2♣ is clear cut.

:P W's double is really bad. He has TWO defensive tricks. Your overcall doesn't really promise ANY defensive tricks at all. So, if the double is for penalties, it is from hunger. If the double means something else, then what does it mean? W missed the boat (on this particular hand) when he bid 1♠ rather than raising diamonds. Not that bidding 1♠ was wrong, but his LHO jammed the auction, so his diamond support got buried. Too bad, but on some hands you just have to stay fixed. You can't just arbitrarily say that a double showed secondary diamond support just because it happened to work on this particular hand.

:P Playing IMP pairs versus competent opposition. First hand. The 1NT response was forcing.[hv=pc=n&w=s92hjt754d32cajt2&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp1np2dpp2h]133|200[/hv]

:P I agree with Timo's analysis. The choices are 4♣, 4♦ or 4♠. Pard has no indication of my one loser ♣ suit, and my knowledge of pard's working HCP is + or - at least a king (ie. I don't know nuttin'). For better or worse, I would bid 5♣ as a descriptive bid and let pard decide on our final contract.

:P Yeah. I have the same issue from Norton anti-virus.

:P Imo, E is blameless up through 3♣. W, then, has a choice between double and 3NT. Pass=0. W knows E has six+ ♣, no 4 card ♥ holding, and at least a king extra in HCP. W's double has to be co-operative for penalties (certainly it can't be a one suited take out for ♦). My strong preference is for double because 3NT may not make if the ♣ suit doesn't run, and 3♠ will nearly always go down. Plus, I don't like the idea of opponents who think they can push us around. Finally, as E, I would probably bid 4♣ in the pass out seat on the theory that pard's one level negative double was a dead minimum with 2 or 3 ♠.

:P I have had some pards who played your auction as a solid six card minor (or, maybe semi-solid, say missing the Q), four trumps to an honor or two and out - a 'picture' bid. The thing about picture bids is they describe hands that are easy to bid anyway, so you don't want to strain to use them. Define them closely and take your profit whenever they do come up.

:P Opening a Flannery 2♦ with 4-5-0-4 OR 4-5-4-0 is not needed as a fix just because we are using the forcing 1NT response. Over: 1♥-P-1NT-P one can just bid 2 of his/her 4 card minor. THEREFORE, a 2♦ opening should be used as a 'picture' bid - possibly 11 or 12 HCP or alternatively 13 to 14 HCP. Using the lower range kinda makes more sense to me. So, if that is the case, let's aim low with 4♥ and settle for game on this sad little misfit hand.

:P Pretty bad. Just open 1♣ (I want pard to lead ♣ on opening lead) planning to rebid 2♦ to show my overall strength. This can also lay a solid predicate for a minor suit slam auction every so often. In real life this hand will get opened 2NT fairly often - maybe 20 to 40% of the time (esp. if NV, 2NT is down only 50 a trick). I am a MUCH better dummy player than pard, 2NT can be a useful preempt, and even lum-lum pard knows the basic follow up transfer bidding sequences so we can get to our easy major suit or 3NT games.

:P Uhhhh.... the hand is way, way too strong to open with the venerable Flannery 2♦ convention.

:P Pass. I can only count 10 tricks opposite 8 solid clubs and out.

:P Hmmmmm............. 5♦ is a pretty good contract, but it needs no ♦ loser to make. I'd say that on the bidding ♦ 2-2 is less likely than normal. So, I missed yet another game. Maybe they will push us there?

:P As far as I know you are probably right. I haven't played KI very much. Help me out, tell us what do you need to bid 1NT over 1♥, and how do these auctions play out?

:P 1NT forcing or semi-forcing is not a good convention in and of itself. It is a patch needed if you play 2/1 forcing to game. It's worst shortcoming (other than you often can't play 1NT) is when opener is 4-5-2-2 and has to bid 2♣ on a two card suit. The two ways around this are the Kaplan Inversion (KI) which flips the meaning of 1♠ (now shows a forcing NT) and 1NT (now shows ♠), and the Flannery convention (a 2♦ opener shows 4-5-2-2, 4-5-1-3, 4-5-3-1 or 4-5-0-4, 4-5-4-0. Some even play Flannery with 4-6-x-x. The idea is to get as much utility out of the 2♦ opener as possible. Imo, Flannery is actually easier because with KI an auction that starts 1♥-P-1NT requires a lot of discussion, and it seldom comes up.

:P On the outskirts of the small mountain resort town of Ruidoso, New Mexico is a residential street named Willie Horton Drive. On this two block street lived the former campaign manager for George Herbert Walker Bush. So seldom does any political campaign manager come up with an original ploy, that I believe that this monument is appropriate. In this month's US presidential campaign the Republican party sees the way to winning as a replay of 1980. First, their candidate establishes himself as during the first debate as a plausible leader (also worked in 1960). Then he saddles the incumbent with a foreign policy debacle. Boring, but it will probably work.

:P Sounds like we belong in our 9 or ten card ♦ fit. Imho, 4♦ is enough since we only have about half the HCP, and the ♥ king may not be all that great opposite pard's shortness. I am willing to let pard decide what to do if the opps bid 4♠. Five diamonds isn't crazy if the table feels right.

:P Imo, almost any legal system will do at MP's - even 1936 Culbertson or the 10-13 HCP one NT opener. You just have to know it and play it as well as you can. The small advantage of 2/1 comes at IMPs where it sometimes gains you an extra round of bidding for purposes of slam investigation. Girlfriend bridge is a specialized subject all in itself. Being a 2/1 mentor might work out well, at least for a while, if she goes for it. My advice is to stay flexible and go with the flow. P.S. If your objective is to win as many club MP games as possible, my hero, then playing essentially the system everyone else in the club plays is probably the least effective. Even the dullards will know when to balance and when to compete.