junyi_zhu

I somehow think that opps quite deserve such an answer. If he wants to know whether 2H is a constructive raise or not, the proper question is "Do you play 2H as constructive?" Now, either yes or no would satisfy him. If he wants to know the HCP range of 2H, for arrows' style, 0-9 is the only answer, not 6-9, because his 2H can be based on distribution. So before some complain about the ethics, I just want to figure out a way to solve this problem and I believe there is a way if you ask for proper questions. Still, if I were arrows, I may behave more friendly and tell them that 2H isn't based on HCP, it can be rather wide in HCP range and it shows some playing strength that is below invitational. I don't think anybody would be unsatisfied with such an answer. Still, I do hope everybody can behave as nicely as possible here and I don't like some of the posters' attitude here.

First x xx AKxx AKQxxx has 4 losers, not five losers. Second, if you don't feel 5C is good enough, you can bid 6C, however, I'd just bid 5C over 4H because I know it's a misfit hand, partner's possible Heart honor are useless if I play 5C. Also, you really need a reasonable club fit from partner to make 6C, otherwise, you still have a club loser. So it's really a matter of hand evaluation I believe and partner would raise your 5C to 6C if he has both HAK and CK. Let me give you Sxx HAKxxxx Dxxx Cxx for a 4H bid, now you see that the first hand, Sx Hxx DAKxx CAKQxxx has a much better play in 5C then SAKQx H- DAx CAQxxxxx. Loser count calculation and hand evaluation is really a dynamic thing, and original loser count may change a lot when you discover more information of partner's hand. Last, I have changed my mind on Sx Hxx DAKxx CAKQxxx, I'd bid 3S to show both minors now. Well, why do we waste so much time on this hand? We don't have to know the exact scientific way to bid this hand to win a world championship.

Yesterday, I asked this hand to my friend, Benedicte Cronier. She told me she would bid 3S which shows both minors and a good hand in her regular partnership. I think this convention is a good one. It's usually very hard to hanle hands like: Sxx HAx DAKJxx CKQJx or Sxxx Hx DAKQxx CAKJx, 3D would be an underbid, double is off shape. And this kind of hands happen way more often than solid minor one suiter + side suit ace. After a careful discussion with my partner, we decided to adopt this method and developed some subsequent structure to share with everybody here. So over 2S, 3S shows both minors, at least 5-4 or 4-5 and more than 16 HCP or very strong diamond one suiter, with 3 losers. partner's can bid 3NT with a spade stopper or choose what he thinks he can make, like 4C or 4D. 4H would be natural, 4S would show slam interest in either minor suit. 4N would be pick a minor, 5C/D: to play. Over 3NT response, cuebidder can pull to 4 m to show 3 loser hands and better minor suits or bid 4H/S to show shortness and 5-5 two suiter, 3 loser hands. 4NT would be invitational, around 23 HCP, invitational, with 5-4 or 4-5 in minors. 5D would show 3 loser hands with long and strong diamonds. So for this hand, we can just bid 3S and pass a possible 3NT bid by partner. Partner can also bid 5m with a good minor suit.

Then it would be very hard for partner to develop over the jump if you play it to show a wide range of hands. I prefer to play 4 m to show about 5 losers hands: x AKxx xx AKxxxx would be a typical hand. Actually 6-4 is better than 5-5 in play strength I feel. For 5-5, I just cuebid 3S directly to show it. that would allow partner to play 3NT.

I think cue then new suit should show exact 3 loser hands. double then jump should show two loer hands. double then new suit shows 4 loser hands. Obviously, few in this board agree with us.

Well, it's probably not right to bid anything above 3NT with the hand you show. Partner can easily hold Sx Hxxx DAx CAKQJxxx, in which case you really have no play in 6C and even 5C can be high. All the typical hands I can think of for 3S cuebid contains about 5 losers and I believe it should be a limited bid. Anyway, some may say I am too "scientific", I agree!

I think that 3S should show 5-5 in hearts and one minor, 4m should show 4 hearts and 6 m, because it's usually very hard to handle these two types of hands. For direct stopper asking 3S, I don't feel much about it because solid one suiter is very rare and even if it comes, we still can often double first to keep the option open. So I think the cuebid after a double asks for stopper, and 3NT by partner over the cuebid to show stopper is of first priority. I know I am probably the minority on this issue. I just feel that direct stopper asking 3S seldoms happens(I've never met this kind of hands in 10 years and it is easily misused. Also, I am not a big fan to bid 3NT with a sure stopper, so stopper asking bids are just of lower priority in my bidding. Another concern is that double usually can get more information than 3S from partner. We can often know the level where we belong to over the double. Over 3S, it's no easy. Partner usually assume I hold 7 solid minor plus a side suit ace for this bid, so 5D or 6D would be impossible. And I have no partnership agreement on how to proceed over 3S, it's totally unknown for me, for example, how do we show extra, if partner holds SAxx HAxx DQJxx Cxxx? 7D has a good play and at least we should bid 6C or 6D, can we find it over 3S? I doubt so. However, we can find it for sure if we double, it would go like: 2S x p 3N p 4C p 4H p 4S p 5D(DQ) p 6C all pass. Do we feel good if partner bid 3S over 2S? I believe we should bid 3NT with the hand above, and 6C shouldn't have a good play facing Sx Hxxx DAx CAKQJxxx, because this hand has 5 losers and Sx Hxx DAKxx CAKQxxx has only 4 losers. Anyway, I can be wrong, 3S is still a practical bid which I don't mind.

Suddenly, I realize that it's possible to bid 3C over 2NT(leb), you can hardly be passed out by partner, and if partner bids 3D or 3H to correct your 3C, you can then bid 3S to ask for stopper, then partner can probably either stop at 4C or 3NT. You may call me day dreaming, but it's a lot of fun, itsn't it? hehe.

one big problem of 3S is that your club suit isn't really solid and the shape is a suit oriented shape. Actually I don't really mind 3S, it's just a little bit overbid and it's often that partner may hold a spade stopper and you still can't make 3NT when 5c or 5D are cold. like: sAQxx Hxx DQJxxx Cxx, over 2S 3S p 3N, it's really not very hard to find a heart lead, if you start from a double, you may get to 5D easily, 2S x p 3D(extra) p 5D. When either 5D or 5C can easily be right, it might not be a great idea to cuebid 3S directly because this hand isn't that NT oriented, also, you can always cuebid 3S later if you double first to be more flexible. So if you double, you may find partner 1 pass with spade stack, you don't feel bad 2 2N: leb, Partner doesn't have a good hand, now it's a judgement call, either 3S to ask for spade stopper or 4C to show your shape would be OK, perhaps 3S is slightly better because you need SQJxx HKxxx xx xxx to make 3NT, 5C is a little bit remote. 3 3C, must be a miracle, and you know what to do now to explore for slam 4 3D, good, you know 5D should have a good play and 6D is rather remote. 5 3H, now you can cuebid 3S and doesn't have to worry about missing the problem in hearts. 6 3S, you can bid 4C to show your hand. 7 3NT, you can bid 4C to show your hand type over 3NT. 8 4C, almost impossible 9 4D, RKC now to see if you have 5 or 6. 10 4H, it's now a judgement call and I tend to bid 5C because 5C can often be better than 4H if your partner has some basic club support and around 11 HCP, also he's not barred from bidding 6C. So you really have little problem if you start from a double, which is more flexible. A double here shouldn't guarantee at least 3 hearts, it guarantees only in the lower range of the double. If partner bids 4H over opp's 3S, you still can correct to 5C, I can't guarantee it's always right, but at least it can often be correct. If partner bids 5H over 4S, you can pass, partner must have a very good 6 suiter to do so, otherwise, she should start from 3NT with 5-4 two suiters or pass with 5-3-3-2 shape. Still, I don't blame those who bid 6C, 6C can often be right as well, because 5h is usually rather serious. So generally speaking, I believe double is more flexible than 3S because you may get your diamond fit sometimes and you may penalize opps. The disadvantage is that you may not be able to stop at 4H with exactly 10 heart tricks and no 5C, which is rather rare. What I am strongly against is 3C, not 3S, and double is really at least a logical alternative, not as those experts claimed, they'd never double, it's just a false claim for this hand. And for those who always bid a chicken 3C(nonforcing) in this situation, I don't think they can win in a long run.

you are not talking about bridge. In front of bridge logic, any amount of master points are nothing. I dont think its a question of logic, its a question of credibility. We are being asked what the best call is - a subjective evaluation. Who better to answer than former national and world champs? I have clearly presented my logic thinking of this hand, none of you guys including those champions have ever given any bridge logic why you don't double. They just claim they don't. And I know why they don't, because they think this hand is too distributional, which is an illusion, because take out doubles can be based on some rather distributional hands, as long as you have no difficulties in later auctions, and this is really such a hand because your club suit is strong enough to correct any amount of hearts bids to clubs and you have enough defensive tricks if partner wants to pass. Bridge is a game full of illusions, and only those who can get rid of the nonsense can improve I believe.

you are not talking about bridge. In front of bridge logic, any amount of master points are nothing.

I think to play means natural and passable. Like 1H 4S, you can say 4S is to play, but partner can bid on with a great hand. Or 1H 2S(wjs) is also to play and partner can bid on if he has a good support. Actually, to play is somewhat like the earlier days bridge, at that time, forcing bids haven't been invented and most bids are natural and usualy passable. Yes, I believe to play is not a good term to explain one bid. If possible, one should usually provide the most accurate explanation of his bids, like HCP range in normal situations, suit length or losers to give opponents' a better overview. To play isn't that accurate because it may cover a large variety of hands. Still, for BBO, what I usually do is to give a short explanation in the bidding box and talk to opps privately about the detailed information.

I don't think here is an "expert" panel though. It's at most an advanced panel. C or D lead can be slightly better to some, but it doesn't mean it has to be expert's choice.

3S, which is the only bid I believe, any bids above 3S are overbids. Double shouldn't work here because you may easily miss 5-3 sp fit. Some may pass with this hand, which I rate as conservative and if I pass, i'd never "balance" to 4S.

Well, your last two post have taken a markedly different turn from the first post. You are now not upset (or not talking about) the consequences of your failure to explain your bid (I want to play 2NT is not your agreement, so it is the wrong answer... your "agreement" is no agreement")., but rather that someone would ask a question in the first place. You have added an implication that mearly by asking the question, your opponent was cheating somehow... Let's start with the issue of timing. It is only approriate to ask about the meaning of bids when it is your turn to bid. So your RHO could not ask about the bid before it was his turn. But in online bridge this is a little fuzzy as who is asking is not clear, you simply get a box asking you to explain. Given that this was matchpoiints, and the second board, and the fact that your partner opened, we can assume you were WEST and north south were vulnerable. South could have a lot of hands where he has a legitamate problem. He could be well stacked in clubs and thinking about risking a lead directing double. He could have a long suit he considered preempting on, but given teh vul decided not too... now if he has a club void, he might be reconsidering. Or he may just want to know what your agreement is so he can count your hand (do you for instance, deny a four card major, or is 2NT neutral on the question if you have a major or not). Given I suspect that they vul, it is probably pretty clear south is going to pass unless he was thinking to wack 2NT for a club lead (After all, he could have all the missing points and a club stack so he was unable to double). And I wonder about your characterization that south had no cards. I think he is either strong with clubs, or has a fair six or seven card suit and club shortness. IF he lacks either one of those, he still could be trying to see what your agreement is so he can count out your hand during play... this was MATCHPOINTS after all, and one over trick (or one extra undertrick) can mean a full board swing. So to handle your new arguement, he asked at exactly the appropriate and legally prescribed time. If his partner leads a club, and if he has a huge club stack, there might be a case for calling the director to see if the enquiry might have suggested such a lead... likewise, if his partner leads a small doubleton or singelton and hits his partner suit, their might be reason to call the director and see if this lead was suggested by the action of asking what the bid means (assuming his partner can figure out a question was asked). But, it is entirely inappropriate to suggest anything nefarious by a person exercising their rights to ask a question about the auction when it is there turn to bid. In response to junyi_zhu's question, Are you guys serious about this issue? I think the ruling is ridiculous, his explanation is really accepetable: "FOR JESUS SAKE, I WANNA PLAY 2NT" Yes, we are very serious. To begin with "I WANNA PLAY 2NT" turns out not to be their specific agreement...as arrows admits they had no agreement. The fact that east took the bid as non-forcing (he passed) and in fact, clearly interpreted the bid as "I wanna play 2NT" non-withstanding. It was obviouls to south how east took the bid. What is not obvious is if they had that agreement or not. Maybe South would be willing to risk a balancing bid if he knew that 2NT was limited to 10 to 11 hcp and balance, but not want to risk it if there was no agreement because West might have more than that. Befoire South gets to bid, he has the right, and arrows has the responsiblity to fully, and clearly explain his partnership agreement. If I was asked and I bid that as non-forcing balance, I would expalin, as non-forcing, invite, no four card major, no five card fit, no side suit singleton or void if I felt chatty.. .otherwise I would explain as, "NF, no 4M, natural" The real problem here, however, was not arrows lack of proper response (no agreement), but rather his attitude ("there's nothing to explain"), his tone (caps, using for jesus sake), his lecture "bridge is a game about tricks, has nothing to do with HCP, for that matter". All of this over something as simple as the main tentant of bridge... partnerships can have no secret agreements, and your opponents are entitled to a full and complete explaination of your agreements which you explalin when asked. Arrrows had the ultimate, easy, answer that is given 1000 times a day on BBO... "we have no agreement". Instead, he became argumentative, smug and irritated. No doubt becasue, as his last two post now suggest, he probalby thought the mear fact that a question was asked was somehow cheating. He can always ask a director to protect him if this is the case, but he still has to answer fully and completelely. We are not talking about the same thing. There are different opinions. Some said "arrows never gives an explanation", that's a false claim because arrows gave the clear explanation, 2NT means he wants to play 2NT. Then You said arrows gives the wrong explanantion. That means you think it is an explanation, but it's wrong. Even if we have no agreement on one issue, can't I say I take it as natural or I take it as to play? "I want to play 2NT" is really an explanation, no matter whether it is a true claim or a false claim, which you guys just refuse to admit. I don't want to continue on this topic anymore, it's not bridge.

Are you guys serious about this issue? I think the ruling is ridiculous, his explanation is really accepetable: "FOR JESUS SAKE, I WANNA PLAY 2NT", that means he explained this 2NT as "to play", isn't "to play" enough? To some, natural is an explanation, "to play" isn't. That's nothing about English language to me, that's just ridiculous. Still, I don't like the manner though, without "for Jesus sake" would be better. Well, I really hope everybody can read the post carefully before responding, but seems nobody has done so so far.

it's an easy double because you can convert 4H to 5C.

It's not an easy sequence for standard method because it's hard to force to game over 1H 1S 2H. One solution is to treat 2S over 2H as artificial gameforcing and specify your hand type later. So you can't sign off in 2S over 2H rebid, it's not a big loss though. There are some relay structure over this 2S convention, but my suggestion is to play 2NT as a featureless waiting bid. 3C/D are natural. 3H is also natural and shows 7 or more hearts. 3S /4C/D is splinter and set up H as trumps. 3NT shows solid hearts. so now the bidding would go like: 1H 1S 2H 2S 2N(waiting) 3H(slam interest) 4C(nonserious cuebid in C) 4D(last train) 4H(sign off)

I'd double if I play equal level conversion. Otherwise, I'd bid 2D, when white. Also, when white, 1NT might also be a choice if I play white 1NT overcall as 14-17 and don't play equal level conversion. When red, I'd still double if I play equal level conversion. However, I'd pass if I don't. I don't balance much and I don't expect partner to balance much. So I have to take earlier actions. Actually 2D overcall is way more safer than 1S p 2S p p 3D. This hand is marginal because I miss DT and CJ8 isn't good. If you give me DT, I'd overcall 2D with greater confidence; if you give me SJ, I'd overcall 1NT without a second thought.

You can bid 3S to show value in spades and ask partner to place the contract. If she can't bid 3NT, you'd bid 4H next round. Another option is to bid 2NT over 1H to show your balanced shape. You should upgrade it to 18 or even 19 because of excellent suit and controls. The only problem is that it can be wrong sided. However, it's never a big issue comparing with showing your overall strength and shape. An earlier distortion of 1S isn't very attractive here because you really don't want to hear 4s from partner, and you don't want to hear partner uses forth suit forcing and then sets up spades as trumps. Also, you can't show your strength and shape by 1S. The basic goal of bidding is to define your hand, not to find the "beautiful" bid available, yes, 1S may allow your partner to declare NT, but it just distorts your spade length and the range of 1S is very wide. Comparing with 1S, 3D is even much better.

any leads can be right in this hand. For example, spade lead can be right when partner holds SAK or SAQ and dummy holds K or SA or K and HA, declarer holds three spades. in this case, you can get 2 spades, one ruff and one possible minor suit king. D can be right when partner holds DA or DQ and some sort not stopper in spades or Ax doubleton to get a ruff. C can be right when partner holds honors. trump can be right when partner holds good spade stopper and dummy holds shortness in D or C. When you hold about 5-9 HCP, it's very hard to find the best lead and that's the range that you most often find a bad lead. If you really ask me for some opinion, I might lead a club because club is likely to be the source of defensive tricks. You usually can't get rich even if partner holds a diamond honor. but if he has club honors, you may cash two or even 3 tricks immediately. Also, trump lead is probably too passive for this hand, against game contract, one should usually find aggressive leads unless he has a very good reason. Spade lead probably asks too much from partner, but when it's right, it can be very right.

3C is the worst among these options in my opinion. Do you hope your partner would bid 3NT with SQxxx HAxx Dxxx Cxxx here? Actually you really don't mind 4H over the double because you can pull to 5C safely. This is actually not a difficult problem to me at all because double really can't do you any harm. 3S is an overbid because even if partner holds a stopper, you may not be able to cash your clubs or you opps may cash 5 or 6 hearts. So a take-out double is really the best bid for this hand.

Something like acol strong two might be the best solution, although I am sure few would really try this idea.

2D, very straightforward. Some may bid 4H, which I think is an underbid for this hand. over a possible 4S, you don't mind pulling to 5H, so you can probably start from 2D.

Sigh, why are you guys are stubborn like this? I am not saying 4S is always a poor bid or good bid. All I want to point out is that your claim is no true if there is no overcall. a slam can be easily bid without much complicate stuff. That's why I called it's a false claim. You can do whatever you like in bidding, but I don't really like claims like even without overcalls, there is no way to find a slam and responder should always jump to 4S the next round. It just doesn't make sense to me. At the risk of appearing even more stubborn... I was no longer talking about whether slam would be found on this hand with no interference, so introducing the sequence you did is neither here nor there. It doesn't even falsify a claim I made : In the sequence you have proposed, South has not told North about the 2 extra trumps he has, and I don't think he can; and South has not discovered from North that he has cover for all the ♣ losers and I don't think that is going to be easy (unless playing sophisticated methods). Eric "3) Even if the opponents don't intervene you will never be able to describe this hand to partner except by blasting to 4♠ at some point. " This is your claim, and if you bid 4S over a 2NT rebid, you are just a loser, period. I wouldn't discuss with you about it any more, it's just a waste of time.