Trinidad

This is a simplification again (which isn't necessarily bad, since it is a complicated subject). Give yourself: ♠ Kxx ♥ KJxx ♦ x ♣ Jxxxx Is there anybody who wouldn't bid 2♣ in response to a 15-17 1NT? But what if partner rebids 2♦? Then there is nothing left to do but to make an aggressive invite with 2NT. Fortunately, partner knows that you can have this stretch hand and will accept the invitation only with a real maximum. Now assume that you play the quite popular treatment that 2NT is a transfer to diamonds and that a natural invitation to 3NT goes through Stayman (not promising a four card major). Again, partner will only accept with a real maximum which means that you will have to invite aggressively. So, also after a 1NT opening, lots of players play aggressive invites and conservative acceptances. Not because that is the optimal strategy, but simply because it is necessary to fit the rest of the system. Rik

My standard agreement for splinters, other than responder's first bid, is that a jump is a splinter when the non jump bid is natural and forcing. It may not be perfect in every situation, but with this agreement it is impossible to have a misunderstanding about whether a bid is a splinter or not. Rik

I would probably apologize to my "expert" opponent and add a note to his profile that he doesn't understand elementary bidding. Rik

Well lets say, you play italian stlye cue-bidding and the last train. The auction, goes: 1S-2H-2S-3S-4C-4D-? Now 4H is an expression of extra values. The heart control is not known. I think that using serious/non serious 3NT in combination with a last train cuebid is overdoing things a little bit. In the old days, we would cuebid and cue past 4M if we had extra values. Then we invented last train. We could show more interest without passing 4M. But we couldn't promise a control anymore. Then we came up with serious/non serious 3NT and we could show interest AND show our control in the last suit below 4M again. But if we combine serious/non serious 3NT with last train, we throw that advantage away while getting only something marginal back ("Given that I did not have extra values (non serious), I have extra values (last train)" or something like that). I would play 1 of 2: I) serious/non serious 3NT and natural cuebids. II) 3NT as inconvenient cuebid and last train In that case 3NT is a cuebid in the last train suit (and 4♣ denies a control in that suit). This treatment has all the drawbacks that you described for serious 3NT. But it has the advantage that you only need to decide whether you have extra values after you heard partner's cuebids instead of before. As an example, your hand gets a lot better when your partner can't cue the suit where you have a singleton or void. I would choose I or II, but not both. Rik

Let me first say that I basically agree with you. Your experience at that club was the example of how bridge should not be played. But then I disagree with you on the following: Of course, I understand what you mean. If you usually don't ask, a sudden question gives UI to partner that you were thinking of bidding. In that case, asking and passing is clear UI. But: If you don't ask a question and then pass, it will give your partner UI that you were not interested in a bid. This UI is just as useful as the ask and pass UI. The solution to this problem is simple. Make sure that you know what their bidding means regardless of your hand. That way your questions will not carry UI. After all, you would ask with 0 points or 28 and with 8 cards in the suit bid or with a void. Obviously you shouldn't carry this too far. The above rule goes for bidding situations where you could reasonably be interested in getting into the auction. (There is no sense in asking what every bid in a 10 round relay sequence means.) In case you were wondering whether not asking can give UI think about the following example. Your left hand opponent deals, puts down the STOP card and opens 2♦ which is promptly alerted. Your partner waits for 10 seconds and passes. Do you seriously think that he was contemplating a bid? He could just as well have saved 10 seconds by passing immediately. On the other hand, imagine that your left hand opponent deals, puts down the STOP card and opens 2♦ which is promptly alerted. Your partner asks what it means (as usual) and hears that it was Multi. Now he thinks 10 seconds and passes. If you are in the habit of asking routinely, you will not have any UI. He can have a borderline pass or a hand that was not interested at all. Exactly what the STOP card procedure was meant for. Rik

Much less than most think: Almost never. However, there are some situations where it is mandatory to underlead your ace. Assume the opponents bid like this: 1♠-3♠; 4♣-4♥; 4♠. Both declarer and dummy have denied a diamond control. You are going to lead diamonds asap. But with ♦ATx you will lead the x. Partner is marked with the king. If you lead the ace, you will develop declarer's queen. If you lead the x, you can take 3 tricks as soon as partner has the ♦KJx, whether the ♦Q is in dummy or with declarer. So, leading the ace can blow a trick, underleading cannot cost. Rik

How about: Low card: Play as you like, I'm sleeping. High card: Lead this suit! (They say this method of signaling has been around since the days of whist.) If you want to make it slightly more complicated: Low card: Play as you like, I'm sleeping. High card: Lead the next higher suit (with clubs higher than spades)! Rik

LHO = Left hand opponent RHO = Right hand opponent CHO = Center hand opponent, the other guy that always makes life hard for you :D Rik

Not really necessary. I happily bid a bad raise with and without spades through the same sequence: 1♥-1NT; 2x-2♥ Obviously, you will have to alert that 1NT doesn't deny spades. (I play 1♠ and 1NT inverted, so I would bid 1♠, but that's not relevant for the discussion.) Responder now has shown 1) A healthy preference for hearts 2) A bad three card raise, with any other distribution. Rik

1) I play 1♣-1♥; 1♠ as forcing unless responder doesn't have his first bid. Playing opener's rebid as forcing solves problems with three suited hands or balanced hands. You can play a jump shift to 2♠ as showing 5-4 and a jump shift to 2NT as denying interest in a spade contract. 2) 1♥-1♠; 1NT-2♥ just shows a preference for hearts. When playing a five card major system with strong NT I would bid 2♥ with something like: [hv=s=saxxxhkxdxxcxxxxx]133|100|[/hv] This hand probably plays better in hearts than in NT. Rik

1. Did you get unauthorized information? If the North player doesn't ask often, there is UI. 2. If yes, did you take advantage of the UI? That depends on what UI was transmitted. And that, in turn, depends on the NS agreements. As an example, many play an aggressive style DONT vs strong NT and a constructive style Cappelletti vs weak NT. The UI would be that North has a distributional hand without the values (read HCPs) to enter the bidding or that North has a minor suit that he doesn't want to bid at the three level. If NS have these (or similar) agreements, I would conclude that South did the ethical thing: Both pass and double are Logical Alternatives. But the UI ("North doesn't have the points for an overcall vs a weak NT") would suggest that pass works better. Thus, South has to choose Dbl. Of course, NS may have different agreements. Then different UI was transmitted and a different conclusion might be reached. 3. Is it a clear double without the UI? No. Both Pass and Dbl are LA's 4. Is pass a logical alternative at this form of scoring? Yes. Rik Roland