effervesce

Fantoni-Nunes? Their system is clearly EHAA-style... They made adjustements of course to make it more playable (f.i. for the intermediate hands with both majors, you mentioned) Steven Sure, but Fantoni-Nunes 2s are more constructive. The very random nature of the 2x preempts of EHAA is what makes it unusable for competitive play.

Ouch. Looks like any bid from you here will likely end up in a minus. Passing for a +ve score should be good. Even at IMPs I might still pass.

If they're real 5+/5+ two suiters, then looking for 4-4 fits is not that useful, simply because the chances of the suit splitting 4-1 or 5-0 are very high.

Even the precision boys would find this tough because there is bound to be interference.One example : 1♣-1♠=♠ and ♣. Can N bid 1NT?or would he double? and if he doubles and advancer bids 3♣ then how would N/S procede? Okay, I'll bite. A possible auction 1♣ - (1♠)* - X** - (3♣) p# - (p) - X## (p) 3♦ - (p) - 3♥ - p 3♠ - (p) - 4♦ - p 4NT - (p) - 5♥ - p 5NT - (p) 6♦ - all p * spades and clubs ** GF balanced # forcing ## takeout Just an example, not sure how likely we'd have done this at the table. The forcing pass then bid showed extras.

I would guess most learners are taught that 1Maj 4Maj is game values with support. I have certainly seen it in many complete beginner texts. Yes, ... I have done it myself, and would do so again. And I believe, that it is a whole lot better, than the alternative ... throwing another convention at them before they even have a firm grip on Stayman / Transfer. Forcing raises are only important for slam bidding. ... and this can wait, but I remember darkly, that there was some controversy regarding this view. With kind regards Marlowe I've never liked being patronized when being taught. I don't know about others, but I'd prefer to be taught properly from the start then be taught wrongly. I guess it depends on the person. For people who play just for fun, sure. But I've always preferred the intellectual challenge as being a major part. Then again, I am a person who finds it easy to learn stuff just by reading. I learnt to play bridge just by reading and then playing online >_>

Looks like partner has a normal 6+ diamond overcall type hand. Give me the K of diamonds instead of the J and I might try 3NT.

I'll dial back a little and bid 2NT. Doubling is way too scary here and will frequently endplay partner into passing. That won't be good for us very often since partner would have already hit 2S with a stack. Huh? If partner passes the X with Hxx or something like that in spades and doesn't bid a 4(5) card minor or 2NT I'd start finding a new partner. Partner is very unlikely to have 4 diamonds. Partner already bid clubs once. Partner cannot bid 2NT with Sxxx (maybe he could with Jxx but from our side facing Jxx we have two stoppers frequently). If partner does have a very shapely hand nothing compels him to pass 2NT. What should partner do with Jxx, Qxx, Kxx, AKxx (we will probably take 5-6 tricks against spades with this partner hand) or Kxx, Qxx, Kxx, ATxx (we might take anywhere from 4 to 6 tricks against spades with this partner hand) Unless LHO is a known maniac, he isn't bidding 2S on random garbage since the inventive to preempt drops as we get bids in to describe our hands. Here he's bidding 2S into a situation where most pairs are playing penalty doubles and he's offering the opponents a free shot to put the NT in either hand. He's probably doing it because he wants to catch a raise and find a good save or two-way make in 4S over the expected 4H contract. Finally, if we were playing weak NT and it went 1NT-P-?, would you Texas to 4H or do something else like show hearts and offer choice of games? Both of those look like routine 3♥ responses to the X. So... lets say partner has xxx of spades, <4 diamonds - lets say 3 diamonds. That's 6 cards in spades and diamonds, and therefore 7 cards in clubs and hearts. 5 card clubs = 3♣, 4 clubs 3 hearts = 3♥. Only with 4-2-3-4 shape is there a problem if partner does not have a spade stopper.

I'll dial back a little and bid 2NT. Doubling is way too scary here and will frequently endplay partner into passing. That won't be good for us very often since partner would have already hit 2S with a stack. Huh? If partner passes the X with Hxx or something like that in spades and doesn't bid a 4(5) card minor, 3♥ on 3 card heart support or 2NT with a spade stop I'd start finding a new partner.

Well, awm plays 1♦ as 0+, as do I, and thus for us 1♦ then 2♣ doesnt deny 3 spades (3145/3154 possible). Still, compared to standard, such a sequence is much more likely to have 6 cards, as others have posted.

Partner is extremely likely to have a 12-14 balanced hand. X then 3♥ is great if such a sequence is forcing (or X and bid 4♥), while 3♠ then passing p's 3NT or converting 4m to 4♥ is workable. Bashing 4♥ seems a very practical bid though.

I hear this a lot but definitely think it is not true. For starters having 1 less trump makes controlling the hand very tough, especially if its a 5-1 instead of a 5-2. This also applies though if partner has 6 medium trumps. Secondly if you are thinking of it like your stiff K=xx then that means you only have a 13 count, so your overall hand is much less useful than a 16 count with xx of hearts. I meant it in context of support if partner transfers to hearts. You certainly don't mind a 6-1 trump fit in 4♥ with your K♥, though playing in 3♥ on a 5-1 fit would be difficult. Yes, perhaps i should have said 'almost as good'. I certainly didn't mean the hand was basically the same as a 13 count.

2NT. The stiff K♥ is just as good as xx.

Pass. I don't see why passing here is too bad-surely if partner has 5 spades and decent values he'd bid them in passout seat. Sure, it's more difficult to compete for a partscore but if you X, most of the time surely partner will be bidding spades. In any case, I prefer slightly extra strength for a direct X than a 4th seat X. If partner can't bid 2♠, 2NT or 3m we won't miss game anyway most of the time. Yes, I'll agree we may be robbed by passing given the singleton heart, but I'm happy to live with that for more accurate game bidding. At MPs I'd X.

1♥. Two card disparity between hearts and spades. If it was 4531 it'd be a more interesting question...

4♥. I don't think any bidding system plays 1♥ - 4♥ as showing much strength other than a large heart fit.

Natural, bid 5♣.

Overbid? Opposite most 8 counts you want to be in 4. For example, JTxx xx Kxx Axxx Kxxx xxx KQx xxx The Kaplan and Rubens evaluator evaluates this hand as 16.2. On the ZAR front, it starts off as 30 ZAR, but if partner responds a major this goes up to 32 ZAR. By both bean-counting fronts it is worth an invitation. Put succinctly: If partner responds in a major, your hand is upgraded. If partner responds in a minor, your hand isn't quite as good. That's why I prefer to open 1♦ on this one.

1♦ for me too. The hand doesn't seem no-trumpy. Will raise a 1M response to 3. Will pass a 1NT response, and bid 2♥ over 2♣ or 2♦ (inverted minors).

The hand also has 26 ZAR, and is thus an opening bid by that standard.

No, the situations are exactly the same. It's a 2/1 overcall in which you have a singleton in an unbid major. The scoring is different- one is MPs NV, the other is IMPs Vul. If the decision on both is based on venue, say so. Me, I don't buy it. On the one hand, Match Points gives you a little more leeway when NV. On the other hand, -150 is probably a loss of 1 or 2 IMPs, but darn close to a 0 in MPs. I would not feel more comfortable if partner raised me to 3♣ on this one if we were NV in MPs than if we were Vul in IMPs. Partner knows the scoring too. No, they're distinctly different, in that the 2♣ call here _removes bidding space_ and is thus slightly preemptive on the opponents. This is important. For example, you might stretch to bid 1♠ over 1m with AQ98 x Kxx Qxxxx as the bid might shut out the hearts, but you would be much less willing to bid 1♥ over 1♦ with x AQ98 Kxx Qxxxx as in this second case, a bid of 1♥ has zero preemptive effect. Partner should also take this into account when responding to your overcall. If the overcall removed no space, then you have a hand that definitely has not stretched. But in a (1♥) - 2♣ case, partner should take into account the fact that you may have stretched to shut out the spades, for example a hand like x Kxx Kxxx QJ98x is possible, but he would (rightly) not expect Kxx x Kxxx QJ98x.

No, the situations are exactly the same. It's a 2/1 overcall in which you have a singleton in an unbid major. The scoring is different- one is MPs NV, the other is IMPs Vul. If the decision on both is based on venue, say so. Me, I don't buy it. On the one hand, Match Points gives you a little more leeway when NV. On the other hand, -150 is probably a loss of 1 or 2 IMPs, but darn close to a 0 in MPs. I would not feel more comfortable if partner raised me to 3♣ on this one if we were NV in MPs than if we were Vul in IMPs. Partner knows the scoring too. No, they're distinctly different, in that the 2♣ call here _removes bidding space_ and is thus slightly preemptive on the opponents. This is important. For example, you might stretch to bid 1♠ over 1m with AQ98 x Kxxx Qxxx but you would be much less willing to bid 1♠ over 1♥ with this _exact same_ hand - as bidding 1♠ over 1♥ removes no space. In the first case, partner should expect you might have stretched to shut out the hearts.

Pass, saying 'I have nothing to say'.

5♣ if the X is t/o. They have alot of diamonds between the two of them. Partner probably has a 2-4-3-4 or so with about 10 points. Hopefully none of them are diamond honors. 4♠ and 4♥ may be better, but I'm not passing. Would pard bid 4♥ with five, as a correctable bid? Pard did not preempt 2♥ and thus such a bid should show 5.

4♥, avoiding the last guess.

Implementing either of those might be quite difficult. Strength-showing hesitations would be easiest; set a base time of, say, 5 seconds, and add 0.01 seconds for each HCP before you place your bid on the table would perhaps be a relatively effective method to use.