skjaeran

3♥. Playing more solid weak two bids than most people, this isn't close to me.

Bypassing 1♥ would deny a 4-card suit to most people. You'd have big time trouble convincing your partner that you had a 4-card ♥ suit after that sequence. And bury the suit as a potential trump suit unless partner for some reason decided that a 4-3 fit would be a good idea.

I play double here as 2nd negative. With this hand I'd have a problem. I'd have to decide between pass and 4♣. 4♣ is ok as a descriptive bid, but might preempt partner. I think I'd pass, to let partner make a bid at the 3-level.

Easy 2♠ 4 me.

No preference.

I believe Boris was 89... Else agree :D

Absolutely agree with Josh here. If ever I held a hand suitable for a direct Blackwood, it's this. Btw I play a direct 4NT as old-fashioned 4-ace BW. Strangely, just a few comments on xx of 2♥ showing the ace. I don't think that's very useful. I prefer Manco when opps double our 4th suit bid or the like. For those unfamiliar with Manco: xx shows 2-3 small, NT shows 1.5+ stoppers, pass shows 0.5-1 stopper (partner xx to ask ; then NT=1), suit bid is natural and show a singleton in the suit doubled.

Can't resist another attempt. Your partner makes a bid he clearly expects you to respond to (5 year old says 'forcing is not the issue'). You initiate a debate as to whether it is theoretically forcing. Let's say your partner agrees with your theory that it is NF (say at the 98th percentile of responding hands), but says 'what excuse did you have for passing - were you just proving a point on your 64th percentile hand.' Is eveything in Bridge abstract logic, or is it closer to statistical analysis? Bring on some more 5 year olds (big glass half full). The issue for discussion here was wheter the 2♠ bid should be forcing or not, given the premises that the 2♠-bidder was limited to 16(17) hcp (by the 2♣ rebid) and responder had shown a minimum (5-8 hcp or thereabouts). And that the 2♠ bid was shape showing. Nobody in this thread are using any form of abstract logic or statistical analyses. Simple logic tells you that 2♠ can't be forcing. There's no hand opener can have in this bidding sequence that can make a forcing bid. The 2♠ bid just say that the hand is a maximum wiht 3145 distribution. Responder now is in possesion of information to make an informed decision of the final contract. If he's got a 4522 7 count, obviously he'll pass, since 2♠ rates to be the best spot to play in.

I didn't remember #1 - Alzheimer light, I presume. :)

Opening any 12 point hands and most 11 counts, this is a clear opening to me. Systemically I'd open 1♣, not 1♦. But that's an aside. I'd make a support double. Failing that, I'd rebid 2♥ over north's double.

Even opening light, I can't see myself passing this. 3♠ - automatic.

Over 1♣ I play transfers at 2-level. 2♦/♥ are transfers to ♥/♠, showing either a wjs (3-7) or a sjs (15/16+). 1♣-2♠ shows a unbalanced (semibal) 9-11 raise. Over 1♦ I play wjs. And 1♦-3♣ same as 1♣-2♠ above. I might change this to the transfers used over 1♣, and let 1♦-2♣ be 2-way - GF with ♣ or ♦. Over 1M the jump responses are conventional raises (a combination of minisplinters and Berger) of the major.

I don't like 5♥, as partner might easily raise with ♦AK, and opps don't rate to take the save after this auction. I think there's two reasonable approaches. Either 4♠ followed by 5♥ or just bash 6♥.

South should have bid 3♥ over 3♦. When north then rebids 3♠, it should be quite simple to reach 6♣.

Pass at all forms of scoring. If opps were vul I'd probably double at MP's.

I'd pass. Rates to be the odds on action, but might be close. See Justin's posts.

Two aces, a singleton, the trump Q AND a 3rd trump. I can't understand how I can pass 4♠ with this. Surely I'd have bid 4♥ last train with the north hand if that was a part of our methods, but still can't agree with passing 4♠.

Given the premises in Josh's OP, the 2♠ bid is quite obviously descriptive and NF. How could it in fact be forcing? Should opener have found an extra ace or king somewhere? There's plenty of other natural bids available here to describe the hand with maximum strenght (16-17 hcp). None of them shoud be forcing. Personally I play the 2♣ rebid as forcing in principle, and thus 2♠ would be GF here. But that's an aside.

Playing with someone I know, but still no agreement, this would be an obvious support double to me. The default meaning would depend on where you're playing. Playing with a total stranger - I've frankly no idea.

All English Swiss events - even many locally organised ones - use duplicated boards. Come on guys, join the 21st centruy :lol: All Norwegian Swiss events too. And all other events. Only at club-level you might come across non-duplicated boards. In fact about half of our clubs (I guess) use duplicated boards. And that's not even 21st century Frances, it's late 20th century. :P

David Bird: Off-Road Declarer Play - Unusual Ways to Play a Bridge Hand. Another new book from Masterpoint Press. In 14 chapters, each covering a separate topic, Bird presents double dummy deals to teach the different technics. The hands are composed extremely well. Each chapter is rounded off with a quiz - 2-4 single dummy problems covered in the chapter. The book is in Bird's well-known style. I've read 3/4 of the book this far. I've spotted two minor mis-analyses (side points, the main problem is correctly solved) in the quizzes and only one typo! For such a book that's impressive. I strongly recommend the book for those who need to improve their declarer play on their way to becoming true experts.

I read Roy Hughes new book "The Canadian Bridge Warriors" - a Sami Kehela - Eric Murray biography last week. Just received it from Masterpoint Press. The book is very well written and is entertaining. Lots of good stories and humorous anecdotes. You really gets under the skin of two of the biggest personalities of the bridge world. Well done Roy!

YES!

In the "old" days it showed 4♠5+♦ to play. Playing check-back Stayman, it should/could have the same meaning. These days I play xy-NT, where 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦, either to play or as a start of an inv, and 2♦ is conventional GF.

Agree 100%.