benlessard

2D is normal for us, 4S is a slightly lazy bid. I think that 2Nt followed by 4S is saying that you were looking for all around strenght (meaning D arent wasted values) and that 3S followed by 4S would suggest D shortage but that S support might be important. This is of course assuming that 3S is forcing and that ogust followed by a jump isnt a splinter or whatever. I still dont think ill be able to reach 6S.

2C here, I have a hard time seeing partner with short spades on that auction. Since we pass 1S and pull the double to 2C its basically show a minimum balanced hand or a 5C/4S minimum wich is a good description of our hand. The times 1nt is a better partscore than 2C or 2D is so small that its more important to rightside the contract in the likely case partner got a strong hand.

5C may be too expensive, so i just bid 4C.

Yep but im sure that we go wrong less often after a 2C opening (5C+) than std precision after a 1D bid. yep but you do worse when you have 5D/4M or when your are 1435 with no fit in the majors. Yes but you dont raise diamonds, its way better raising diamond that show 5 and sometimes 4 and clubs that show 5 and sometimes 6 than raising only clubs that show 6 and raising D that show 2. This is the only reason that give 1D 2+ some sense, the ability to add an extra Nt range, but i dont think its worth it. I agree thats why the standard responses over 2C sucks. For us we will bid 2H on the hand ==INV with 4H or with 5 bad H and a club tolerance. Its possible that 2M in 4-3, 5-3 is the last +.

In imps you can afford to bid light games, therefore when you are already at the 3 level it take any excuse to bid 4. So most play a style that is "heavy invite light acceptance" . It mean that whenever you make a game try you show real extras and responder can accept with speculative values and not the other way around (making speculative invite accepting with sound values) . With this method you avoid some 3 level contract, either you play 2 or you play 4 but less often 3. At mp heavy invite and light accept still make sense but to a much lower degree. There is somewhat 2 style. 1m------1M 2M where 2M could be heavy and responder is expected to make a GT pretty light. 1m-------1M 3M is heavy and responder will just pass with a subminimum response or a dreaful hand. The 2nd style is 1m------1M 2M tend to show a crappy hand (3 card raise, weak Nt or 11-12 with a stiff) responder here doesnt need to make light GT here. 1m------1M 3M is speculative, show any extras 14 with a stiff any 15+ You will reach 3M-1 more often. What you want to achieve is that 1- you dont miss good game 2- you are not playing bad games 3- you are not playing 3S going down (bias toward 2S instead of 3S). In theory to maximize 1 & 2 You have to allow both players to show equal input into the decision. 1m-----1M 2M-----3M 3 or 4M & 1m-----1M 3M------ pass or 4M should have the same frequency (note here that we are only talking about borderline hands, hands where responder would have forced to game anyway and hands where both had an invite are not pertinents.) In theory to maximize 3, you have to "avoid the 3 level" 1m------1M 2M------3M 4M 1m------1M 3M------4M 1m------1M 2M all pass have to be more frequent than 1m-------1M 3M-------pass & 1m-------1M 2M--------3M pass and the 2 sequence that lead to 3M should have the same frequency. I did make a math model about this and there was 2 major other points. Opener has a 3 branch input below game minimum 2 (ill refuse a invite) good 2 (im not inviting but ill accept an invite) 3 level invite. responder has a 2 branch input If opener did raise he can pass or 4. if opener bid only 2 he can pass or invite. This favor heavy invite by opener light accept by responder. The 2nd points is the frequency of extras, its much more frequent for responder to have extras than for opener. 12 is more frequent then 15 by a greater factor than 8 vs 11 for responder. This is in favor of agressive invite by opener. Another practical factor too is that 1m-----1M 2M (with a 2.5) ---- invite some balancing. while 1m-----1M 3M doesnt. Probably the most important thing is to be consequent with your style, if your frequency of subminimal responses is higher than average, than heavy invite by opener is the way to go, if you bid invite with Axxx x AKQTx xxx than with a 18-19 balanced you cannot afford to bid just 3S.

xxx isnt the Queen so opener will respond no, responder still make a grand slam try despite lacking the queen. xxx is now enough.

This isnt a tough hand. You show H, you keycard, you ask for the Q of H and you make a move toward 7. Bridge is simple B)

Im never going to bid 3S with that.

With J987 hes always making 2 trumps

at least -2 at imps, -1 at MP

Perfect hand for 1S IMO.

Bidding 4H may easily miss a slam but it may bury their fit. Bidding 3H may miss a game but its very unlikely (almost impossible IMO) it goes 3H all pass. Making a 4D splinter is ok if you play very light splinters but i hate the 3S splinter since its allow a double more often than 4D. (i dont play super light splinter or FJSF, FJSF is often going to help the opps as much as my partner) Bidding 2C might work since you are probably going to bid over 4S anyway. But i dont like 2C since its allow opps to compete too easily. I think i like 4H followed by 5C, it give me the best chance to buy the contract at the cost of missing some slams. 3H is a close 2nd.

P here.

If the bidding goes 1D-------1S 2H-------3H 3S-------??? opener hand is 3451 3361 3271 Looks like you are very well placed here.

Sorry but double is gross 2 aces + stiff clubs and the K of H (and the K of clubs) partner didnt preempt 3S or 4S so what hand do you think hes got ? Sometimes you are not preempting because you have 3H and so-so spades but here its not possible since he bid 4S and not 4H. Bidding 4S is normal and passing the double too. The blame is 100% on the doubler here, not close at all.

What if forgotten in the FP discussion is the maths behind FP. double swing game = 14/15 imps small penalty instead of bidding game=7 to 11 down cheap over a game= 7 to 11 going down instead of getting a small plus= 4 to 6 forcing passes = priceless. If we compared this to the disadvantage of FP. Doubling and make vs undoubled contract = 4 to 6 a forced sacrifice (cannot stand the double since you are sure they make it) that is too expensive = 3 to 5. Even when the strenght are evenly divided is seems better to play FP (maybe not 4 over 4) , so when you have an strenght edge its just a great tool that has more advantage than inconvienents.

Playing skills have an influence on your bidding skill while the opposite isnt so true. (it just take a minimum of bidding skill to undertand the opponents bidding so that you can read thiers cards) If often see medium strenght players that have a strong "partnership" view of bridge, 90% of their effort are discussion for bidding, defense signals. They build their system in consultation and have few bidding misunderstand, but sometimes their value bidding is somewhat off track because their card sense isnt sharp. They often stick to their own methods that are sometimes a bit obsolete or inneficient. They are slow to change since they have to adjust their "partnership" not just themselves. There are more prone to find the solutions within the partnership rather to ask for outside advice. They also have frequent ego/ argumentation clash after bidding misunderstanding. If they break up its a major drawback since they need to rebuild a partnership. On the other side i see the "solo" players that read plenty of declarer/defence books. They often play with differents partners and have major bidding misunderstanding. But they have a good feel for the "values" of the hands. They are pretty quick to notice who are the strongers players and are not afraid to ask questions. Sooner or later theyll pick up a mentor, for them its the best way to learn and its fun for the mentor because they pick up a partner with a good card sense that defend well and that has no bidding "conditionning" The mentor/ student relation is clearly established and the mentor can dictate methods, play his system 100% without concession and the bidding misunderstands dont generate in an argument, they become lessons. The solo players can change partner/mentor and their skill will not be affected as much as the "partnerships players". What i see is that young players often focussed too much on bidding while their cards sense is seriously lacking, they know a jacoby 2NT responses structure but they never ducked a trump in their life. There are getting quicker results than the solo players because they are working as a pair. But the fact that they are doing all 3 thing (def/dummy/bidding) at the same times slow their developpement. Also the energy they spend on bidding isnt totally efficient because the card sense is not there. While the solo are only developping their card sense and all the spent energy on card playing will eventually be useful for bidding when the solo pick up a mentor or a good partner. I know there is some of bridge mumbo jumbo in what ive wrote but i truly think that card sense should be learned first (without caring for bidding) After getting a good card sense you should learn bidding with much strongers players than yourselves.

Im not part of the light reverse school, but this hand is strong enough to bid 2H. I like the J of diamond and the 2-1 in black. The risk and cost of missing a game by bidding 2D is higher than the cost of going down in 3D. I dont think however that 2D is a serious mistake and i wouldnt lose sleep if partner bid 2D. Also with 1-2 in the black i would just bid 2D. Of course any bid over 3D is GF. Over 3S i think 4C is the correct bid. Partner will know that since we dont have 3S we are 2461/ because with a 2452 and something in clubs ill bid 2Nt.

I agree my hand is pretty good, so lets say xx Kxxxx x Jxxxx or a bidding sequence like 1C-----X------1H-------1S (P)----2D Im far from convinced that 2D should be forcing let alone GF here.

This hand is too strong for 1Nt forcing and a preference to 2S. This hand isnt strong enough for 1Nt follwed by 2NT to show 10-11 balanced. So playing forcing 1NT you should bid 2S. Not playing 1NT forcing but in Imps you should of course bid 2S since the +10 is pointless. Not playing 1Nt forcing but in MP you still have the same problem, if partner pass 1Nt then 1Nt vs 2S is a fair gamble but if partner bid 2m you are a bit stuck, a 2S preference will be an underbid and 2Nt/3S will be a gross overbid. All in all 2S is clearly better. This hand as the NT feel but the strength will be too tough to show if you bid 1Nt.

This is one of the worse X ive ever saw, especially if 1Nt to show both minor but weakish is available.

Pass if of course forcing. Double is a terrible bid. A of S, stiff clubs and A of diamond is enough to make a FP, so here the K of H is a bonus and if partner bid make any foward move we will bid slam. 1S----(3♣)-----3♥------(4D) 4♠----(5♣)-----Pass-----(P) 5D----(P)-------5NT P-A-S ??? Here I think ill bid 6S since its safer to avoid a ruff at trick 1. Also the type of namyats / 4S preempt style you are using is a bit important here to know how strong 4S is.

Text book hand to bid 3C. 1- you expect to go plus more often than not. 2- You dont want to allow the opps to bid, neither to show the lead nor for competing. 3- You dont expect to buy the hand in 2C. 4- almost impossible that 5C is a better game than 3Nt. 5- Highly unlikely that 4M or 3M is a better contract then 3C/3NT What more do you want ?

In imps i agree, but in MP Kxxxx and a stiff in the opponent suit is often enough to make a free bid. 1D-----(X)------2D-------???? My experience told me that passing and hoping for a reopening X with xxx Kxxxx x xxxx is bad, of course bidding 2H will often lead to an unmakable 3H but in MP its just too good to get in with distribution. Probably a reasonable way to play is that 2 level bids arent forcing and 3 level are forcing. Partner X/3S show doubt in the strain, but this come in 2 type of hands S+H or S+Nt. It doesnt not promise any number of hearts. Responder cannot bid 4D or 4H without a S fit or good hearts and he should rebid 3Nt even without a stopper im pretty sure this is the best treatment. The only problem hand remaining is the power hand without H tolerance and no diamond stopper and S not good enough for a 3S bid this is a highly unlikely hand hand wich you are stuck bidding 2S or making a leaping michaels.

At mp I think the 3H can be lighter than it would have been in imps. But still we have enough to go past the 4 level. Im not 100% sure that 3S would be forcing however. AJxxx xx AK AKxx or similar hands are hand that i would X 2D. Hands that are too strong for a 2 level overcall but with a suit not good enough to make a jump overcall. My condition for those are both majors or majors + stoppers so that if partner doesnt have a fit he can bid 3Nt even without a stopper. 2D----X-----P-------3C P-----3H here 3H tend to show 5H + 4S or 5H+ D stoppers. 2D----X-------p-------2S p------3H Here 3H show 5H+ stoppers in D and isnt forcing. Partner made a free bid, so its surely sensinble to treat it as showing values and therefore if doubler bid again its forcing but im not sure since in MP its normal to compete with minimal values.