Impact

Partner has denied a good suit, shown a negative,and denied 2nd rd D control. I have only slight interest under the circumstances so I will give up and signoff. regards

Simple man bidding 5H to encourage GS as I need good D and CK: he will bid 5NT with CK, 6C without it so at least that resolves one problem...and my failure to bid 5D marks the improtance of that card so that with CK & DA he will contemplate grand... regards

Easy 5D as I have extras and partner showed a minor GF. Agree with Ulf that opener is likely to be looking for grand. BTW I hate this natural style of response to 2C GF....but that is a separate issue, and I cannot help but wonder what my 4D over 3C would have shown....I really like the idea of expressing my hand in 2 bids: the natural S bid and then the splinter over 3C so that then I have said my piece (subject to whetehr my S could be substantially weaker). I am troubled that no one else mentioned the possibility of the splinter over 3C... regards

Straightforward as all prime with the exception of HJ and shape limitations/range shown already. Add one Oz to the multilateral international force...4C. regards

If I understand correctly, partner has shown a real minimum with a minor suit A. Given that partner will have revalued HQ, SK, that tends to suggest impure holding - so you should signoff in S here on my understanding of the system in play. regards

I prefer my splinters over a balanced hand to be either : even a minimum with no wastage gives us a play for slam (could be cold) OR "I will take charge" over signoff ....always assuming I have other forcing methods of bidding the hand. On that basis this is NOT the hand for the splinter as it is inbetween (not so much the strength as the controls and good H which make it too strong for the first option and too weak for the second). If there was a mechanism which allowed me to relay out shape (the presence or absence of the 3rd S and /or SQ is likely to be crucial to slam) I would have taken that. I think my controls are just too good so if forced to this auction I would make one more try: 5H by default....as 4S would be kickback and the other cues unhelpful. regards

Winston, THe real issue is what they went in there to achieve - and whether they are willing to walk away leaving:- a) economic mess; :) Iran as the strongman state in the area; c) humanitarian mess with the break-up of the State and d) internecine tribal warfare. I am not expressing a personal view on staying or going but reviewing the historical reasons both for action and inaction previously it is more than slightly obscure to me precisely what they meant to accomplish - and hence whether they feel they should leave. If it really is an exercise in state-building and changing the face of the middle east (while maintaining a counterbalance to Iran) that will take at least another 20 years. If the real object was to destroy the Iraq army and Saddam, they could have left after they captured Saddam. If they still have a "balance of power" mentality, they can't leave yet (Iran is relatively too strong) - but I certainly don't have information for a timetable. If it was about oil, problem remains unsolved. If it was about peaceful democracy - another 25 years will seem short.... If it was about national self-determination: the various tribal/religious/racial groups are no closer (or not much) to an accommodation than after the fall of Baghdad. No answers - just questions because the whole purpose and conduct has never been set out in a logical fashion, so we all have to guess... regards

Well let's see:- A. In the 1980s US provided aid Iraq/Saddam to counter the Iran influence (Iran being seen as inimical to US views and the doctrine of "maintaining the balance of power" holding sway). Some may have wrapped it in ideology but it was neither more nor less cynical than say Britain's changing sides on a regular basis for 250 years to balance the power on the continent of Europe...the expression is Realpolitic - which has nothing to do with morality. B. In 1991 Saddam was not toppled because the prevalent doctrine was that so to do would upset the balance of power in the Middle East by making Iran the dominant power (against the status quo - and not coincidentally against US interests). See concluding comment in A above. C. As at 1991 it was fairly well documented that Saddam held WMDs (chemical weapons). No one has ever refuted or denied their existence at that time. D. It is reasonable commonsense that such chemical weapons do not vanish without some papertrail - after all you don't just bury them in a backyard. Nonetheless despite enormous amounts of money neither papertrail for their disposal nor WMDs have been sighted. E. Per se, disposing of Saddam was doing the world a favour. It is not clear what changed (other than the demise of the Soviet Union as a power in the interim to modify the realpolitic of the balanace of power. Perhaps that was enough as the concept of "regime change" for the area as opposed to mere maintenance of the status quo might have seemed attractive: to change the whole culture and nature of the Middle East. Of course going to that next step and working out a coherent policy was much harder... F. USA won the military war against Saddam - not surprisingly and despite the naysayers, but as a minority I said when they were going in : but then what? G. Iraq as a state was an artificial construct no less than Yugoslavia and composed again of ethnic groups who hated each other with a passion and might have coined the term "vengeance". Further it was not as if the "Iraquis" even had the relatively civilizing influence of being on the edge of Europe. H. Further there was no democratic or assimilated history and tradition: this is not something which is inculcated from the top down. Additionally much of the educated middle class had fled Iraq for political reasons... I. The only 2 modern examples of nations conquered and then rehabilitated, of which I am aware, to the West are Japan and Germany both of which had relatively homogeneous populations and history/tradition as a unified country, but both of which were occupied by foreign troops for decades and were the recipients of enormous economic aid. This was going to be much harder- and obviously so with the recent record of Yugoslavia (a geographic creation ruled by a strong man which fell apart after his death when the leash was loosened - and they didn't even have oil to fight about over territory) available for all to see! J. Forget the ideology - and even the importance of the region (hotspot of tension/oil etc), if the goal was to establish a credible western-oriented state as a counterbalance to Iran (note how I avoid using "democracy" or religious terms), the prospect of such occurring was going to take a minimum of a generation (ie 25+years) for the whole of which the US would have to be present in huge force: greater than that in Germany and Japan combined (occupying) and at great economic cost for the inculcation of a different life and a counterbalance to tribal hatreds....and then only a chance. K. At the time I said that I did not think that the USA had the intestinal fortitude for the longhaul task (regardless of whether the task was worthy of the cost: human and economic). That almost lone voice of prescience is proving prophetic unfortunately. I have difficulty comprehending that my simple analysis was not apparent to the bureaucrats who plan just about everything: Defence/State whatever and that for all the "leaks" on just about every subject under the sun I have yet to see any suggestion that any of those departments or anyone in them put a position paper of this sort together....and that is really scary! You can't unscramble the egg, so aside from taking your bat and ball and going home, perhaps it is time to re-examine the outcome truly sought and consider whether the expenditure (again human as well as economic) should be squandered or whether the next 2 decades of support and cost should be pursued...... Oh yes I realise that electronic groupies don't believe in spelling but the English word is "indigenous" from the Latin indigenus..... regards

1) no but it would show C (see below) 2) Fit 3) 3S Note many years ago Jeff Rubens suggested that a double of a single raise after an overcall should be a substitute cue bid ("the cue-bid double"). Not only do I agree with Rubens but it is an excellent idea - and markedly superior to the "I have values - choose between the other 2 suits" double that so many use. If you only use that - you are way ahead. If you combine that idea (cue-bid double) with using transfer advances, you are in the position that the double would show S, and a 2S bid shows C......which is where I came in. With respect to Ken, this set of agreements is both simpler and (perhaps) superior than that which he proposes. The arguments that I see against the use of fit-jumps or to limit them to a narrower set of hands is always fine if you are dealt the perfect hand for the specified use -but otherwise you place yourself at a disadvantage in a competitive bidding set-up. Whenever you hold shortage in their suit in the modern game you can anticipate additional competition and it is wise to let partner know what is going on (do you really want the auction to go 4H from opener over your 2S and now you have to commit to 5C without having indicated support). THe only argument is that when your suit is headed by only the A you will be quite happy if partner cannot support you, but when you hold the 2 A in the black suits partner will be unwilling to venture to the higher levels almost regardless of his holdings... Compare this with the auction on which Hannie & Arend eschewed a fit-jump with void Txx AJxxx Axxxx after 1H (2S) ? Here, you hold the 4th supporting card and only one suit.....if you play fit-jumps and later support C having bid a non-forcing (or forcing) 2S, overcaller is entitled to make certain assumptions about the quality of your support or alternatively your holding in the unbid suit depending upon agreement. eg to flog a very dead horse, you might have bid round the clock the void Txx AJxxx Axxxx on the ground that a FSJ is misleading as to quality while support was insufficient....but to eschew the fit-jump with this hand allows of no such obvious sensible inference... regards

I hate standard balancing methods! Over the old Blue-style balancing where double is assumed (until further notice) to be 7/8-11 with classical shape, this is an easy 1NT rebid as he will only move with 17+bal or a hand too good to overcall or the equivalent of 16+classical takeout....(the "gap" of about 12-15 classical takeout is dealt with by chaeper unbid minor)...teh theory of Blue balancing is impeccable with its adjustment for ranges depending on the suit opened but it never found popularity as it lacks simplicity. If forced to languish with standard methods, I shall succumb to 2NT in response to the balancing double but hating the whole affair... regards

Late to this thread, but regardless of range (and I agree with mikeH's comments that this is around a 23 count) 1. once they double 3C it should make the hand easier; 2. Over the double, most would show hte Major if they had it and pass by the big hand denies real D, XX would be good C, 3D shows real D and denies M. 3. Assuming basic agreements as in 2 above, responder could splinter with 4H over opener's 3D bid, and that should provoke slam over any encouraging noise from opener...after all opposite 23, with a decided fit and distribution he is almost there by himself. Some might play 4H as Kickback (in which case 4NT can be a substitute splinter in H). From responder's point of view his greatest concern is 2 losers off the top so Kickback by responder/avoiding 2 C losers is key and it seems to me he should take control. 4. Albeit unpopular currently, the use of control responses to a 2C opening would make it easy for opener if the auction proceeds in similar fashion with responder then raising opener's 3D 3rd bid to either 4D or 4H (splinter in the latter case) regards

Yes 1NT (13-15) 2C (Stayman) 2D 2S ® 2NT (C only) 3C® 3NT (3-3-3-4) 4C ® 4H (4cont) 4S® 4NT (CAKQ) 7C QED but of course the distribution will doom me... regards

Poor suit, Honours in every suit so that if they end in NT you are not unhappy with partner making his natural lead, the upside is (only) just insufficient for me to bid 1S. This hand lacks playing strength, a lead and controls (those short quacks may cause opponents trouble but won't help partner)- and I don't want partner to stretch in NT or similar (note the upside of bidding if that H suit was 5 long as he could still bid 1S). No, I don't consider this worth a double despite holding both Majors. If they bid a Major, it will clarify matters. If they bid NT directly partner's natural lead is fine. If they make an inverted raise, we won't be competing anyway. If they make a weak jump raise I can decide on table feel to back in with a double assuming it is passed round to me....but the odds against our making 3M are quite high so I would want to be playing with Al Roth....who would bid my hand anyway! regards

Don't count 'em - just enjoy 'em. Always nice to be remembered: drink well...bis hundertzwanzig regards

My controls are prime - and unless a 3D bid asked partner to promote shortage there it doesn't seem to help me much - so I think I bid 1H and then 4H on the same basis as Justin (and the possibility that if partner's shortage is S he holds a working control in D and maybe we can engineer something good...). Actually the weak to intermediate hands with 4S & 5H (say 8/9-11/12) can be shown by using a 2D mini-flannery overcall against a natural 1C : you pay your money and take your chances if you will (just take any control and put it in the D suit and it becomes a takeout double for me, and without the specific agreement, I think 1H on a semi-decent carder as that is the only way to find 5-3 H fits realistically - and he can still bid 1S forcing in response to it). regards

Arend, your agreements are your own but a) one hand proves nothing :) adjectival bridge so that you define the bid to mean basically what you hold is very convenient - but not bridge (I'm not accusing you of doing this but favourite treatments with ridiculously low frequency that distort bidding on many other hands, but are spruiked by their procreators for the one time in a blue moon that they occur...) c ) you end up with an omnibus cue-bid in this auction with neither hand defined. and the same basis of supoort which you decry for the fit-jump... d) I premised my comments with the point about "choice of evils" but I preferred - particularly in a competitive auction - to give as much of an indication of the nature of my hand as I could to help partner should the auction - and stakes - escalate. Of course if you were Al Roth, your impeccable judgement would have allowed you to make the most flexible lowest call or even pass confident that you would be better placed on the next round (insert smiley tongue in cheek here) but the rest of us and our partners tend to need help!! FWIW if you maintain your view and agreement as to requirements for fit-jumps, the "round the clock" bidding ie D tehn C then H over a presumed NT bid is the corollary. I noted that such a system is great if you are confident that the opponents will not raise the ante but your hand strongly suggests the opposite. Interestingly if my D were significantly stronger and longer (eg DAKJ9xx) I would be inclined to bid the D and withhold the Txx support - treating it as delayed support only (a bit like the adjustment you make with 74s with good 7 card suits : you treat it as a single-suiter unless partner introduces your 4carder) - but these later points are matters of judgement. regards

prefer double by some distance both because of the added likelihood of a major suit contract when I hold both 4M (and at the relevant level it is going to be right more often than NT) and because after I double if they pre-empt in C, my partner will only introduce D with at least 5 (otherwise responsive double in my preferred style) - so I am protected to some degree. Also, the lack of a stopper when combined with bottom of range (albeit good intermediates) militates against NT. regards

OK Fluffy if you ever get to Oz we are on the same page! Hannie, it is a matter of partnership agreement but to restrict fit jumps to 4 card support (unless playing 4 card suit openings) severely restricts your options in competitive situations and the frequency will be way down 9when you know youu have at least an 8 card fit isn't it better to indicate to partner before the acution comes back to you at some stratospheric level?). Once you acknowledge that such is the case with your cue raise you might as well run with it in other situations: more bang for your buck and consistency. regards

Josh, Generically I would play:- 5NT= asks for specific K up the line 6C= asks for specific Q up the line!!! 6D= to play on this auction I would play it straight in response: 6S, 6S , P (and pray if you are that way inclined). regards

Hannie, Why must a fit bid show better trumps than a GF raise? Both (4m & 3S ) say we are going to at least game and have a primary fit in H. The difference to me is that the jump is far more descriptive (albeit less than ideal on this hand). As I noted the oldstyle bid around the clock with the responding hand is actually the best picture (it gets both suits in, the implied shortage in S and the bare trumps). If you could guarantee me that I would be permitted to complete my sequence as planned (bid C next and then bid 4H later) at 4H that would be a very good description of the hand. However whenever you hold a void in their suit the expectation is of a potential barrage from opponents so it behooves you to define your hand as well as possible. You would prefer to be 0-4-6-3 (or 9 cards in the 2 suits but this is what you were dealt!) but it is the "least bad" bid IMHO and suggests both the source of tricks and allows a forcing pass to be made by either player to suggest fit and bidding on. When you don't have one very good side suit and you own a void, often you will jump in their suit to indicate the void(splinter) but the trump deficiency AND the fact that such bid (4S) already takes you to the 5-level makes that very unsuitable on this hand. If they had bid 1S you would have ahd the chance to bid 3S - but that is the way it goes...pesky opponents! Because partner holds such strong S oppos are less likely to raise the ante, but my suggested sequence is far more informative in a greater number of cases. You pay your money and take your chances but of course just like in the play of the cards there are occasions on which the lesser line succeeds where the greater probability line fails. Such is the charm of the game. It would be interesting to set this as a MSC problem - and I would love the problem D format so that you get the worst of whatever happens ie if you fit-jump there is no competition, if you bid round the clock they bid 4S (and partner may double before you have had a chance to show support or your 2nd suit: do you sit with the void??) - and for the supreme optimist who bids 4S splinter partner is loaded in S!! As I see it, part of the charm in the game is that many problems have no "right" answer, and you can get lucky or unlucky with a chosen method. However, if you choose the method most likely to give you the best description for strain and level on an expected value basis you are ahead longterm - albeit the individual hand may prove to be a disaster! regards

Hannie, FWIW I think that the 3S bid made it harder rather than easier to evaluate your hand. It is not ideal by any means, but I would prefer a fit-jump 4D with Arend's hand as any secondary D honours are working (not to mention the possibility of a double fit). The problem with 3S is that it should be (much) more balanced to allow opener to evaluate wastage/degree of fit. This responding hand with 2 x5 card suits, bare 3 card support but 3 first round controls is always going to be hard to describe - but electing to simply show a generic game-going raise seems to me the least good mechanism. Sometimes with picture -bids you have to make the least bad bid rather than make or wait for the perfect hand. It is far from the worst slam to reach (and obviously the presence of the HJ and/or 4th H in dummy would have made it much better) as you noted, and I would not be upset to have reached it. I have a more than sneaking suspicion that I would end up there too- particularly after a FSJ! Of such matters are stories made. As a matter of style if one hand can try to define/clarify itself, it aids bidding, and my argument against most of modern "standard" bidding is that each expert wants to make the most flexible/cheapest call so that his partner will describe HIS hand and the decisions will be made by the first player. Of course this tends to be both (non-clients') view and then each complains about the other's bidding! In the bad old days, responder might have bid D then C and then over NT gone back to H (if given the room by opponents) to describe the nature of his hand. In the modern game with the real risk of further pre-emption from responder's point of view, a bid which describes at least 8 cards in his hand as well as his strength (and intimating unbalanced) is rather better than a bid which only describes 3 of his cards (and is likely to be relatively balanced!). regards,

Wayne, It came up smelling of roses but quite frankly it was no thing of beauty. Local golfers have an expression: BABBU (bloody awful but bloody useful). Points of interest: A) for North when you hold a balanced hand it is really good to bid it as a balanced hand ; :) for South, I do not know your responding style to 2C opening, but whatever it is, undignified jumps to the 6-level which are not classical "pictures" opposite a huge and unlimited hand, do not a partnership make! C) If North pictured no shortage and at least 5H to K and 4D to K it is not such a stretch to bid 7D - but you would want to know your customer! maybe xx KJTxx KTxx xx (or even black Qs as well) D) Grands on a hook are life- threatening but presumably (tongue in cheek) you were playing much stronger opposition..... regards

I was reminded of this 2 weeks ago when I saw my then "pick-up partner" for about the first time in 20 years. At the Sydney University Bridge Club in my/our first month at university: yes we had a top - not merely a shared top- on EVERY board in (I was informed) a 24 board game to record 100%!! My partner was Barbara Gill (now Travis) and a very frequent Australian Women's representative. Apparently (according to Barbara who supplied the information) it has been recorded/commemorated as some kind of record and features in a book of Zia's!! Not really so much credit is applicable because although there were some very good players who were members of the club-but they were not playing that day. I know I will never have another set close to that score!! Should have given up bridge there and then, thereby saving everyone concerned considerable anguish... Closest I have come to playing standard in three decades..... regards

Adam - read more carefully please! On the auction YOU described: 1S (X) 2S ? where advancer does NOT have to bid (ie pass denying values as opposed to penalty applies): I clarify I repeat double denies 4H - so it shows 4minor, 2NT shows 5+C, 3C= 5+D, 3D/H show different length and strength in H: 3H competitive and 3D invitational....while still leaving room for higher bids. Length tends to be crucial for further competition since they have the boss suit....even ignoring LOTT By contrast the auctions 1S (P) 2S (X) P ? the opponents have shown substantial values even in these times so SCRAMBLE is appropriate because your game likelihood is substantially less (and the doubler's minimum quite low with a singleton S) - your expectation is competition for a partscore (or minimisation of loss by finding best fit!). The parameters are quite different from 2S (X) as here your expectations are higher for game your way and doubler's minimum is probably also higher... regards

Adam, While you might note that I agree with your premises, you have misread the 3rd auction 1S (X) 2S ? is very different from the auction posed: 1S (P) 2S (X) P ? BTW as an aside, on your auction: 1S (X) 2S ? I prefer to use X as a more traditional responsive double : 1 or both 4m with values to 3-level, so now I can use all bids as transfers!! regards