jvage

I generally play what has become almost standard (at least among experts) in Norway, a 1♥ acceptance shows 3 or minimum with 4. Responder generally keeps the bidding open with a hand that could make game opposite an 18-19NT. Advantages: 1. Simplicity. Some of the suggested alternatives involve a lot of artificial continuations, discovering the degree of fit early often makes the continuations easier. Since you know about the degree of fit you don't need complicated methods to discover if partner got (1)/2/3-card-support. You only need a simple XYZ (or similar)-structure. It is also easier when, like me, you play a similar system with several different partners, ranging from relatively inexperienced to national champions. A practical consequence is also that you can more often bid the final contract directly, revealing less about the hands (like jumping to 3NT/4♥ with 12-14 and 4/5 hearts respectively). 2. Easier constructive sequences. One example is that rebidding an unsupported suit (via XYZ if invitational or stronger) generally shows 6+. Another (surprisingly frequent) is that with a 4-4 fit you can often avoid the 3-level when opener is minimum (11-12 facing around 11). 3. 1NT will be played by the stronger hand with 11-14 and a doubleton facing a weak hand (even more important after 1♣ - ♥). When I saw this list I could not resist turning the arguments around :) 1. Having played this for several years I have never been penalised here. Both opponents have already passed at least once (also the reason why we do not have to jump with 4-card support), reducing the risk for penaltydoubles and other interference. 2. Why would you pull? If it is because you want to play in a known 5-2 fit you can still do. To me the difference seems to be that we know we do not have a 5-3 fit (in your system responder may have to guess between 1NT/2M after the transfer is accepted). 3. So do we. The main difference seems to be that we occasionally play on 4-3 while you play on 5-2. 4. So can we, but with weak hands we would generally end in a 5-3 heart-fit instead of a 4-4 spade-fit, which may play better or worse. 5. Yes, you have an advantage with 18-19. But the cost is lumping much more hands into 1♥, instead of splitting these more common hands into 3 sub-categories (1♥/1♠/1NT). 6. As you say 6C3M fit very well with "my" structure. 18-19 hands must bid one level higher, but are better defined (no 3+ hearts). John

Since some posters seems to like Svens practice maybe I should not comment, but his description is not quite consistent with our Norwegian regulations (as a member of our national laws commision I am partly responsible for these). He is correct that the regulations place the main responsibilty on the stop-bidder. But he failed to mention that the regulation then says (my shortened translation): "Correct tempo is to wait 10 seconds. A significantly shorter or longer pause than 10 seconds may be considered to transmit UI even if the Stop-procedure has not been followed by the stop-bidder." Sven is correct that the TD is very seldom (never?) called because of too fast calls when the Stop-procedure has not been followed, but as a player who knows the laws and regulations better than most I would not have expected him to call immediately, and even recommend this practice. Personally (and most experienced players actually seems to do the same) I try to always take a short break after a stop-bid. I may however admit that this pause will sometimes be closer to 5 than 10 seconds if the stop-card has not been used and I have no problem... John

Here in Norway the method is used by almost everyone and is called "Minor Stayman". The response-structure varies however, both if 2NT or 3♣ shows better diamonds/clubs (I have not seen it used as rangeask) and if a following 3♥/♠ shows slaminvitational with clubs/diamonds respectively (may also have a strong one-suiter) or a singelton with 55 minors. The name is a bit misleading, as the following true story exemplifies. When Geir Helgemo was around 16 (he was already a very good player) he was introduced to this convention, without any explanations. When partner bid 2♠ after his 1NT opening he "naturally" responded in normal Stayman-manner by showing his 4 diamonds with 3♦. At the table this was a success, as I remember the story Geir actually wanted to continue playing "real" minor-Stayman for a while...

When I was playing at the International Festival in Croatia earlier this year I was in this situation. A supposedly good declarer claimed by saying I got one trick. Me and partner looked at eachother, silently agreed (with eachother, not with the concession...), and showed declarer our hands. He could definetely get the rest, and at the moment I believed it was OP's case 2. I then realised that with his mistaken count he could possibly lose a trick (I still had the second-highest trump), if it would be "normal" or not I was not sure. Declarer did not say anything, but since it was a relatively serious tournament I called a TD. It seemed like the TD didn't understand why he was called and believed we had questioned declarers claim for the rest without mentioning the last trump (unlike most of the TD's there he was not very good at English), and ruled that declarer would get the rest (which was an obvious ruling if declarer had claimed all the tricks). We accepted after what seemed like one failing attempt of explaining to the TD why he was called (it was only an overtrick at IMP's)... The position was something like this (maybe this belongs in the ruling forum): Declarer had QT in trumps and believed I had a trump-trick with a now-singelton J behind him (partner did not follow to the last trick, a trump). Declarer had a sidesuit with the equivalent of Ax in hand to Kxx in dummy (which now broke 2-2) and an outside loser in dummy. Would it be "normal" to lose a trick here for a declarer thinking there are 2 trumps out?

AJxx ATxx A AK9x At favourable partner opened 4♥ in second seat. We only had the meta-agreements that 4M is always to play after preempts (maybe suboptimal after 4♥), 4NT is RKCB and 5♣/♦ are cues (first/second). Tor Helness just leaped to 7, but he and Geir H. play more constructive preempts than most. I discussed this with another top player (Hoftaniska), in their national team partnership they had discussed the sequence, "Hoffa" bid 4NT (RKCB), got the expected 1 ace answer and could then ask for shortness with 5NT. He jumped to 7♥ over 6♣ showing 0-1 club. At the table I considered 2 other strategies, both seemingly strange. One was to cuebid 5♣ and if partner denied diamondshortage by replying 5♥ I could jump to seven. Another was to cuebid 5♦ expecting partner to jump to 6♥ with a clubcontrol (shortness), effectively discovering the same as Hoffa, and I could also raise to grand. Having a very good card (we would get 25VP's even with a loss here) I finally just settled for a cowardly 6♥, which was duplicated at the other table. Partner had xx, KQJ9xxx, xxx, x and the grand was laydown. How would you bid, du you have any suggested methods to bid the grand with control?

While the description in your partners profile may not be descriptive (many "BBO-experts" are not real experts), many use 2NT in the passout position as natural (around 19-21). It may not have been a good idea to assume this from a random BBO-partner, but I think this treatment is actually the most common among experts. My guess is that your partners 3♦ was intended as a transfer to hearts and 5♣ was as an attempt to reach your best minor when your 4♦-bid revealed that you probably intended 2NT as "unusual". John

[hv=pc=n&s=skq97hq72dat753cj&w=sj852ht6dkq8c9764&n=sat643hj85dj92ca3&e=shak943d64ckqt852&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1cd1h(*)2s3h3spp4hp5cdppp]399|300[/hv] This appeal, published in the bulletin, would decide the winner of the national swiss pairs championship. Both pairs are strong but not regular partnerships, N/S have both represented their country and got several national titles. N/S did not notice an alert of 1♥, which showed 4+ spades, and never asked about the meaning. E/W claimed there had been an alert by tapping the table (no screens). When the TD is called after play (5♣X=, N/S -750, I am not sure if the TD was first called after Dummy was displayed and later recalled) North says he would not have doubled if correctly informed about the meaning of 1♥. The TD decides to adjust and removes the double (5♣=, N/S -600), which only improves N/S's MP-score from 17 to 30% (as one can imagine, the 59 tables produced a lot of different results on this board). N/S appeals, claiming that the missing alert also influenced the earlier rounds of bidding. As it went E/W were practically pushed into game and N/S also made it clear to East that his partner did not have much wasted in spades. They were not sure how the bidding would have gone, but a likely start was 1NT (or 1♠) from North, 2♥ from East and 3♣ from West. They agreed East would probably make another try with 3♥, but believed it was likely that E/W would then stop in 4♣. E/W agrees the bidding might have startet differently, but believe they would still reach game. I was on the committe, and we decided: It didn't really matter if there actually was an alert, since according to our regulations it is the alerting sides responsibilty that the alert is noticed. Had they noticed an alert both North and South would probably have asked about the meaning in this situation. There are several possible developments, including that North may double 5♣ even with a correct explanation. The ruling, taking into consideration that E/W are the offending side, was a weighed score; 2/3 of 4♣+1 (N/S -150), 1/6 of 5♣= (N/S -600) and 1/6 of 5♣X= (N/S -750). For N/S this resulted in a score slightly above average on the board. Comments?

This was a written appeal, but E/W did not comment on this. My guess would be that West briefly checked, but either failed to register or forgot this point. It is possible they never checked the CC or even that they did not know what "High-Low-doubles" meant and its relevance to the actual situation. Maybe the reason is relevant when the TD/AC consider whether the suggestion in the above regulation should be followed?

Thanks for the replies. I don't know the details of the N/S system, but I think 2♥ may be up to invitational strength and that 3♥ was not preemptive (shows a hand similar to a 4♥ bid over a normal 9/10+ 2♥). As most posters I was first quite sceptical to E/W's claim that West would bid 2♠ correctly informed, personally I would definitely have passed. I asked some players, the best player (international level) was very clear that pass was best. However, of the players of similar ability to the ones involved, a majority wanted to bid with a correct explanation. As has been mentioned by some posters, a snap-dragon double was generally preferred instead of 2♠. The majority also said they would be more inclined to pass without an alert. The TD, who knows the style of the players involved better than me, decided to adjust. He actually adjusted to 100% of 5♥X -3 (E/W +500) for both sides. Feel free to comment. N/S appealed. Apart from doubting that West would bid after an alert they presented an interesting argument. N/S had a CC available where it was clearly stated on the front that they played High-Low doubles. They sited the Norwegian alerting rules, where it says that players are expected to check the front page of their opponents CC and that TD's should be careful about giving compensation based on missing alerts of bids described on the front of the CC (this applies to team-matches). What do you think of this regulation and how should it affect the ruling (assuming you would otherwise adjust)?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj73hk6432dj532cq&w=s54hat87d64cat754&n=sk96hqj95dakt98cj&e=saqt82hdq7ck98632&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1d1s2hp3hppp]399|300[/hv] This is a case I found interesting from the Norwegian third (of four) division. Players are good, but not top-class. N/S play High-Low doubles, 2♥ was non-forcing. According to Norwegian alert regulations 2♥ was clearly alertable, but North failed to alert. I was not present and I don't know when the opponents were correctly informed and the TD was called (I don't know if East got the option of changing his final pass, but E/W never claimed that he would bid anyway). Play continued, 3♥ went down 1 and the TD was called back. E/W claims that correctly informed West would bid 2♠ after which E/W would reach a making 4♠/5♣ or get at least 500 from 5♥X. How would you rule? There is a follow-up, but these are the facts presented to the TD.

Bob Hamman argued that Smith-Peter is generally more temposensitive than other defensive signals, which are more often clearcut. If I remember correctly he had an example similar to this: A fourth-highest 2 is led against 1NT - 3NT. Dummy got 543 and declarers RHO inserts the Jack, losing to declarers King. When declarer now play a suit, RHO got 4 "options": With Jxx or Jx: A quick negative With Jxxx: A slow negative With QJ: A slow positive With QJx or better: A fast positive

Here (Norway), the most common method among experts is to use the raise of the fourth suit (here 3♦) as the "catch-all", indicating 2-3 small cards in the fourth suit. The advantage is that ALL other responses are "untainted". It makes it harder to find a 4-4 fit in the fourth suit, but this is seldom a problem. It is common to play a jump in the fourth suit (here 1♥-1♠, 2♣-3♦) as 5-5 instead of splinter, solving some of these problems. Returning to the original problem, playing these methods 2♥ shows 6 and partner could bid 3♥ directly with a doubleton(+) and slaminterest (I would then have cued 4♣). His delayed 3♥ is strain-searching with a good 6+ spadesuit. I would just raise to 4♥. Not knowing the complete methods of the original poster the meaning of 3♥ is a bit less clear. It seems partner could not raise directly with only doubleton-support, most likely he is showing some slaminterest now. I think this is close, but would bid only 4♥ (would bid 4♣ if the singleton Q had been in spades).

I didn't reply to the original problem as I knew the hand, as the question was very "leading" I was surprised not more people led the ♣Q. I agree with Justin that this hand is one of the least suited for DD analysis I have seen in a long time. As he says the main gain (declarer ducking the K in dummy) will not show. The play definitely did not go unnoticed. I was in Beijing and still remember overhearing Helness berating his own play on this hand. He simply didn't consider the possibility that partner could have led from the ♣A, which maybe goes to show that this is not something you should try with an average partner. It also demonstrates the downside of simulations, declarer (most often) or partner will often be tricked into a play which is less than Double Dummy. I have later seen the hand reported at least twice in Norway.

No-one seems to have mentioned this, but my reason for a strong preference towards 3/5 (low from xxx) versus MUD (which is also popular in some parts of Norway) is not that 3/5 makes the defence easier. Having played MUD on some occasions I didn't feel there was that much of a difference. But as declarer my experience is that the MUD-style is much easier to play against, mostly because it spared me many early guesses regarding honour-location. John

While I agree with the rest (I wouldn't mind a 2♦ opening either), this last statement is an "overbid". There are few things certain in life or bridge (can anyone construct a hand for partner where opponents have 7+ spades where partner is "certain" of even 1 down?), instead I would say "expect", bordering to "hope for". In a recent Bridge World Kit Woolsey (I think) argued against experts fear of doubling possibly making partscores. If the opponents are vulnerable and you expect the same contract to be played undoubled in the other room a double got a positive IMP-expectation even if you think there is a 25% chance of the partscore making, 50% for 1 down and 25% for 2 down (his example was 3♠X, but it seems the same is true for 2♠X). There may be other reasons for not doubling, such as making declarers play easier. PS: I also don't see why the opening is made to "protect" partner, you bid your hand and let partner worry about his. John

I was under the impression that it was relatively common among both beginners and "old-timers" to play after a 1minor opening 2m as 6-9 and 3m as invitational (9-11). Those who do play like this in Norway will often not have any agreements about (or even have considered) what to do with say 2362 and 16HCP in response to partners 1♦ opening (it is a "system-hole"). While some may bid 3/4NT, 4/5♦ or even 2♣ I would expect some to "invent" a 1♥ response as the least bad bid. Their partner would not consider this possibility (if they had no prior experience) and would not alert it. It seems from several of the responders (including Sven, who is Norwegian) that 1♥ in this case should be alerted and that you would have adjusted if the opponents may have been damaged from a lack of alert? John

I agree this is a point to consider. Another is that this problem will typically happen at the 2 latest tables to start the round. Playing one board against the "wrong" opponents and then moving 2 pairs to their correct table will take additional time (the latest of the 2 tables may delay the other), even more if for example one pair argues that it does not want to play additional boards against the pair in question. While the 2 initially late pairs are partly to blame for the delay a procedure that may significantly increase a small initial delay does not seem optimal. Both are arguments for cancelling the board started with wrong opponents if law 15 cannot be applied (normally awarding 40/60). John

We actually just got a reply from Ton Koojiman (who is a member of the WBF Laws Committee): "I read about this situation on blml where Sven described what had happened. It is not covered by the laws, so the best way to deal with it is by describing a procedure in your supplemental conditions, I think. There are two reasonable approaches imo. Follow L15 in case they are still in the auction or let the other pair play this board against the pair that is still waiting for opponents." John

Playing Puppet Stayman and showing the South hand as a 22-24NT: P - 2♣ 2♦ - 2NT 3♣ - 3♦ (one or both majors) 3♠ (4 hearts, not 4 spades) - ? If South bids a lazy 4♥ North should probably pass, but even with a minimum point-count the South hand seems very good for hearts. I would bid 4♣ (cue with extra). Then: 4♦ - 4♥ (this time fortunately it doesn't matter if 4♦ is cue, Last Train or a retransfer :blink: ) All ways should lead to slam. I think I prefer 5♥, but would expect 4NT from most non-experts. Depending on your agreed meaning for 4♦ 5♦ may also be an option. I have actually been in worse grand slams than this, it only seems to require decent splits in both hearts and diamonds. John

The Belgian colour-codes seems sensible. In Norway the codes were copied from WBF (before I became a member of the Laws Committee), making a system with 1♣-opening possibly with 4432 "Red" and no mention of follow-ups for strong 1♣/♦-systems ("Blue"). There are also no restrictions for the "catch-all"-bid in a strong 1♣/♦-system. We recently had a discussion about a system with a strong 1♦ opening where 1♣ is opened with long clubs OR long diamonds (no natural 2♣/♦) or balanced. As the regulations are written this would still be "Blue", the funny(?) consequence is that a system in which 1♣ can be opened with 4432 is (arguably) considered more artificial than a system where 1♣ can be opened "naturally" with 3370 :blink: PS: We are discussing a revision of the Norwegian colour-codes. Currently a classification as "green", "blue" or "red" does not matter much in practice, since only HUM systems are restricted (only allowed for the top teams events where one must send system-notes to the opponents and seating restrictions may apply). John

I agree with tgoodwinsr that "strong hand vs weak hand" isn't the whole story. The OP asks wether it is generally better to hide the strong or the shapely hand. I agree with the majority that the likelyhood of tenaces etc. generally make it better to let the strong hand declare, with some exceptions (keeping the strongest opponent on lead, the "weak" hand may have more tenaces or unexpected distribution etc.). What I find a bit surprising is that Multi followed by a strong inquiery is used as an example where it may be preferable to let the weak hand declare. While there certainly are exceptions I think this is one of the positions where it will be most preferable to hide the strong hand (more than after say a 1NT opening). The Multi-openers most likely distributions are 6322 or 6331, while responder can have all kinds of distributions, not only balanced hands in the 15-17 range that it seems most posters discuss. Responder can have good or bad fit, a good sidesuit or ruffing values. If he does not have shape the likelyhood of tenaces will rise. If you think concealing shape is important I would think that would make you want to make responder declarer... Edit: Especially playing MP it could also be a point that responders hand will reveal if this is a hand where overtricks is the main point or if the contract is "touch and go". John

Thanks to those who have replied so far :) I agree with those who thinks some artificial methods (like bart or Gazzilli) would make this problem easier. On the other hand, the methods (or lack of methods) are used by several recent World Champions, and should not be unplayable (I have played with Gazzilli in this position in other partnerships). I was a bit surprised that only one poster mentioned the form of scoring, for me this is the deciding factor. I would invite at IMP's (with 2NT) and settle for a partscore and hopefully a plus at Matchpoints (as mentioned in the OP this was what we played). This could also be a factor when deciding on partscore (spades or NT), it seems those posters who have written about possible denominations discusses mostly which game is most likely, not the chances of the same number of tricks in a NT or a spade partscore. This may also be an argument for settling for a partscore, since even if game is making some may go down in the wrong game, still giving us some MP's for staying low. Partners actual hand is not so important, but in practice he held: xx Kxxx A8xxx xx Not the worst hand he could have, but he would still probably pass 2NT/3sp or a 1NT opening. In practice there were only 7 tricks in NT and 8 or 9 (most defenders failed and gave declarer 9). 1NT= was worth exactly average. If I remember correctly dealers RHO had AT8x, QJT8, Kxx, Tx and LHO had 9x, 9xx, QJTx, A98x (playing in spades 9 trick comes in if declarer can ruff a club overruffed with an original trumptrick without letting RHO score a second clubruff/overruff). John

I found this hand interesting, even more so after observing that 4 good players handled it in 4 different ways. Playing Matchpoints with noone vulnerable your hand as dealer is: KQJ42 A5 97 KQJ4 You play a 15-17NT and 2/1. If it matters, in the Norwegian 2/1 style 1♠ - 1NT is nonforcing (all 3+raises are shown with other bids) and 1♠-1NT, 2♣ (which is natural, no Gazilli or similar) can be bid with a quite strong hand (3♣ would be 55 and GF). You can expect partner to bid sensibly (he happens to be a U28 World Champion :) ). What is your bidding plan? I hope it does not influence your earlier decisions if I tell you that there will be no opposing bidding and that if you open 1♠ (I saw one 1NT-opener) partner responds 1NT (up to 12 bad HP, denying 3+ spades). If you then rebid 2♣ partner will respond 2♠. John

Being away I saw this thread late. Sven has quoted our regulation, but here are my opinions on the questions asked, which seems to have been only partly answered: 1. Yes, in theory. This is however a position where many players would ignore the regulations in practice, since the next player will almost never have a problem (even more so than after 1NT - (p) - 3NT which has been discussed regarding traditional stop-regulations). One should however try to be consistent. The main advantage of having a pause here would be that the next two players (who will more often have a problem) can prepare and reduce possible UI later. 2. Yes, but see above. 3. 10 seconds. Yes. As after traditional "jump-stops" 10 seconds feels like a long time and in practice the pause will often be somewhat shorter, like 6-8 seconds. 4. Only the RHO (same as traditional jump-stops). 5. At higher levels it is observed by most, at lower levels by very few. I noticed that you and Frances are coming to the Norwegian Festival (hope to meet you there :) ). I am afraid that many of your opponents will not follow this regulation correctly :) No-one would expect a pair of foreign players to get it correctly, my guess is that some of your opponents will be very impressed :) 6. I would expect the example-auction to take a relatively long time even without the Norwegian stop-regulations B) Without the regulation under discussion one could easily imagine that some of the bids are very fast and some very slow, with loads of UI generated as a result. One may say that the object of the regulation is to even out these pauses, the total time needed may not be much longer. John

I felt the recent and true story above fitted this thread well. However, in response to the original question I have vague memories of one time having played strong pass and openings in the shortest suit (with relays, possibly based on the Polish "Regress") in the students club. This was based on reading a pamplet provided by partner before the game. While it may not fit the strict definition of "Bridge" in a social game we once played that you could only bid suits by showing the equivalent card (♣A=1♣ etc) from your hand. A typical sequence would be 2 spades raised to 5 spades, indicating that opener had some values and some spades (including the 2 but without the four!) and his partner had some support with the 5 of spades also without the 4 :) John