pkl

So you give preference to partner on a bad hand with a singleton in the suit, then commend your partners for not overbidding when there is a misfit? You and your partners are a match made in heaven :) I don't understand. 2H is not encouraging in any way, and a 5-1 fit often rates to be better than a 4-2, not to mention a 3-2. My bid would be 2H as well, and although I probably am as unhappy about the bid as OleBerg, I would be even more unhappy playing in 2D. As Ole said, partner will often pass, but could bid on rescuing us to the good contract of 2S or 2NT. /Peter I don't understand. 2H is not encouraging in any way, and a 5-1 fit often rates to be better than a 4-2, not to mention a 3-2. My bid would be 2H as well, and although I probably am as unhappy about the bid as OleBerg, I would be even more unhappy playing in 2D. As Ole said, partner will often pass, but could bid on rescuing us to the good contract of 2S or 2NT. /Peter

I don't believe that D on the first hand is obvious. Partner has passed and I do not see any reason to enter the bidding at this stage. My opponents might have sufficient strength to bid game, and if they have a fit I do not want to reveal where the points are located. If they do not have a fit, I risk being doubled in a 4-3 heart-fit. Does not look good with the natural trump-lead. On the second hand, my bid is 2♣ - partly because of my not so good support for the red suits, and partly because of the just OK quality of my club suit. On the third hand, double is obvious. /Peter

Hi Roland If you suggest that 4NT is natural, we obviously play different styles after a reverse, but anyway I believe that 3NT should be reserved for the not very slam-oriented positive hand with lots of goodies in the majors - e.g. KQTx KJTx xxx xx. /Peter

An interesting twist would be to define 2NT as artificial showing either the strong heart-hand without support for spades or the traditional 18-19 HCP.

It seems just plain silly to me, that only first-round controls can be cue-bid. I much prefer italian style cue-bids where you can cuebid second round controls as well. In this case, the slam is simple to bid: 1S - 2C, 3S - 4D (cue), 4H .. check aces however you do that. Kind regards Peter

3./5. against suit contracts - often with. 2./4. through declarer has become quite common among top pairs in Denmark as well. 3./5. often gives third hand an advantage when you have an option of finessing against dummy. I am not sure, however, why they prefer 4th highest against no trump. Kind regards Peter

Hi Orla I will respond as Inquiry and heavily recommend Woolsey. Woolsey is quite simple, especially if you play multi: after 2D, you simply use your normal multi system. If you wish to, you can change the meaning of the double against a weak 1nt - playing it as penalty oriented. In 4th position i do recommend its normal definition, however: if not for anything else, my belief that the chance of a juicy penalty (by passing the double) is far larger using the double as "informative" here. DONT is also okay, but its disadvantage is that you do not know which suit is the longest. One recommendation which is neutral to your defense is to have healthy overcalls against weak nt: if not you will to often miss a reasonable game. Enjoy! Peter

The only problem is that the contract is defeated if you do not take the first spade trick: LHO will switch to clubs, dooming the contract. So: against first class defenders, take the first spade and take your diamonds - continuing with the plan of either endplaying LHO or dropping the heart ace. Kind regards Peter

I do not mind opening 1NT on a 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 distribution. On the actual hand where the 4-card suit, i would never do it, though, as there are no problems with the rebid. Changing the majors - making the hand 2-4-5-2 - would still not let me open 1NT. In spite of its 17-point count, the hand is simply to good and i would treat it as an 18-19 count. Kind regards Peter

Hi Eugene I just want to inform you that the Culbertson 4-5NT has had a revival - at least among some of the Danish top pairs. The force of the convention is that it unlike Blackwood with all its derivations is not unilateral but invites both partnerships to cooperate. While perhaps not being used in the original form, the new ace-showing cuebid (Formula Seven Check-back Culbertson) has shown its advantage in systems where the slam-bidding has been based on cue-bidding. And now to my favorite conventions: *) The artificial "informative double". You can not live with out it or all its derived cousins (responsive/negative/strength-showing doubles). *) Lebensohl and all its varieties. *) Defensive conventions - especially the length showing discards. Stayman/Jacoby are important too, of course - but they are less important than any of the above. Kind regards Peter

Leading low from two cards has to do with your defensive carding style. The purpose being to give your partner an easy count. In the old days, leading the highest card from both xx and xxx gave cause to lots of confusion, and determining your partners lenghth was not easy. MUD was one solution, but playing the low card from an even number is simpler and not so easily made obscure by declarer. There are other solutions - such as 3./5. highest where you lead Xx, xxX, xxXx, xxxxX and I like that scheme too. However in the opening lead the technically correct lead from A/K/Q or J doubleton is always the honour-card. Kind regards Peter

Your description of 1D as "maybe short" is certainly inadequate. I would simply describe 1D as "precision" as this is adequate and short and often understood by your opps. If they do not understand you simply must do some more explanation (via the chat). In that case you should say as much as: All 11-15HCP hands which cannot be opened with 1H, 1S or 2C (all five cards, where 2C shows a GOOD 5-card suit). Thus 1D often contains longer clubs. Kind regards Peter