peachy

I tend to agree. What do you bid as opener, with the following, in the given auction (no tens or nines): xxxx Ax QJx AQxx

There is history now:) If I were a TD, and poor explanation by this pair or player happens again, I would penalize them even if there were no damage and no reason for score adjustment.

As far as I am concerned, it was NOT YOU folks are talking about. Your comments are moderate, non-argumentative, non-abrasive, TO THE POINT bridgewise, knowledgeable [and when you don't know you solicit help from those who do], and never just thoughtlessly opening your [eh..keep typing on keyboard] as if to hog the screen...

Why me? You tell!

I am pretty sure I know who the "pompous misanalyst" is that folks here were talking about. Maybe someone could cue Roland in on that person's identity.

I would not open. With my luck, I would open the wrong suit anyway, and if it were diamonds on high level, pd would never imagine I have KQ10xx hearts on the side. Pass first, I might come in with 3S later to show this hand.

It is just shorthand for "no forcing NT, no splinter, no inverted minor, no WJS, no 2/1 gf, no lebensohl, no this and no that".

Because many advanced players would make a negative double with the South hand. In which case North would expect South to be less likely to hold hearts, as he/she didn't double, thus making the 2♦ call more attractive. Not hard to imagine North arguing for his 2<D> bid: "I could see from the auction, that you had some values, and as you didn't double, you couldn't hold four hearts." Thats why you're Experts, while North is only Advanced. Trying to justify the 2D bid would be evidence that North still needs to learn some basics. Trying to justify it after reading what several world class or true expert players [don't include me] have said about it, would be rather dumb IMO. My guess is that North didn't have the option of consulting these experts before he made his bid. But maybe North at some point could have the option to consult a textbook regarding "Reopening". He made a mistake, so what, it happened. Trying to argue that it was not a mistake, is the dumb part.

Because many advanced players would make a negative double with the South hand. In which case North would expect South to be less likely to hold hearts, as he/she didn't double, thus making the 2♦ call more attractive. Not hard to imagine North arguing for his 2<D> bid: "I could see from the auction, that you had some values, and as you didn't double, you couldn't hold four hearts." Thats why you're Experts, while North is only Advanced. Trying to justify the 2D bid would be evidence that North still needs to learn some basics. Trying to justify it after reading what several world class or true expert players [don't include me] have said about it, would be rather dumb IMO.

You asked what the major issue is. You probably have already figured out from the responses what it is = North's bidding 2D.

Exactly what jdonn said.

Glossary also found here http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...y&f=glossp.html

I don't know what standard is, but I THOUGHT standard in 2/1 was that 2NT is EITHER minimum OR 18+ (in which case opener bids again over raise to 3NT) and 3NT is 15-17 with a hand unsuited for 1NT opening.

I don't think my partnerships have discussed what 2NT followed by 3NT would mean (which just shows that I apparently do not have serious partnerships...). To me it seems like that sequence doesn't exist. But I would resist agreeing to use it the way Frances describes, giving opponents free information that "I am doubtful whether 3NT is right because I have only a single spade stopper".

Major suit lead is out, they have them stopped on right and maybe on left as well and my partner has very little help except maybe diamond length. If diamonds are stopped, they are stopped on left. I am leading a diamond and was leading a low diamond at first but some other posters are suggesting the Q. I like that but would not have thought of it at the table.

If your methods encompass the notion that a pass in the pass-out seat is forcing, they should probably be revised. If on the other hand you are asking whether opener's pass to 4♠ is forcing, the answer is no. Would pass at IMPs - why should we make game, or lose points on the board if 4♠ goes down? Doubling or bidding could easily result in a three-digit score starting with 5, 6 or 8 being entered in the minus column. Might double at matchpoints just in case we get 300, but probably would not. 5♦ might work, but is ridiculous. Of course, I would not have doubled 1♠. Instead I would have bid 2♠ to show a sound diamond raise. That might have left partner better placed over 4♠ to his right, but so strong is the tendency to show four hearts in this kind of auction that I do not expect to convince others of the soundness of this approach. But it is pretty stupid, when the opponents have started bidding spades, to conceal excellent support for partner's diamonds just in case we can fight spades with the hearts that we may or may not have. Supporting diamonds does not deny holding four hearts, nor preclude reaching a heart game if that is where we belong. You are right, I meant the opener's Pass. :mellow: And Yes, I thought it cannot be a FP. But I liked the neg Dbl, I see no reason to hide hearts just because I have good diamond support. One cannot foresee that they were going to bid 4S over the Dbl and they might have bid 4S over a hypothetical 2S (diamond raise) as well, in which case the potential heart fit gets buried. I am still not sure what I would do, but probably bid 5D.

Question for those who do not play - or do not WANT to play - the Dbl as penalty or suggesting penalty: Would Pass be forcing? Opener surely does not know whose hand it is, and our side was not in gameforcing auction nor bid game constructively. Responder could have had his 8 high with hearts and only two or three diamonds. In other words, I don't think Pass would be forcing. But maybe someone could elaborate more, for Yes or No on the FP issue which does affect the choice of bid of course.

Except it will be T4 after T1 was spade ducked and T2 you take SK.

1) 1NT. Downgrading with so many aces and kings does not look right. Besides, I cannot possibly consider this hand suit oriented (requiring a 1m opening) - 4333 with a bad 4-card suit. 2) 2S. Somehow I think this will be close to unanimous. He asks "do you have a 4-card major" - I have one - the answer is Yes. The flat shape will not surprise partner, he heard me open 1NT.

I don't think it was a stupid question at all! There will be a major overhaul of system whether it is 2/1 or natural-ish SAYC when 2C becomes the precision 2C, but of course it can all be done. What bid would one you use as the forcing, strong opener when 2C is used for the Precision 2C-style hands?

I don't think it was a stupid question at all! There will be a major overhaul of system whether it is 2/1 or natural-ish SAYC when 2C becomes the precision 2C, but of course it can all be done. What bid would one you use as the forcing, strong opener when 2C is used for the Precision 2C-style hands?

The reason why we prefer that the K ask for unblock/count instead of the ace its because its hard to lead an ace when you have KQT9x. I like your attempt at humor even if it was not successful :blink: From a suit headed by KQ109(x) the Q is led, in my methods.

I play against NT that A asks for highest honor/unblock; if no honor, show count. And K asks for attitude. Ace will be often led from suit headed by AKJ. King will be led most likely from suit headed by KQ, so partner will encourage if he holds the J. I find this easier to handle than having A ask for attitude and K for count/unblock.

But this agreement is not 4-suit transfers. It seems totally different to me. (Ken confused matters by calling 2S a 'transfer to clubs' when it wasn't) By the way, I've never really seen the point, when playing 4-suit transfers, of playing that transfer-then-bid-a-major shows shortness. I've always played it as natural FG being the obvious way to show a minor-major two suiter and thought that was completely normal, until I came across BBO forums who think it is shortness. I am one of those who thinks 1NT-2S*-3C[forced]-3M should be shortness even without agreements specifically saying so. The trump suit may be clubs or diamonds and responder will get that straightened out later which it is. For now, it is shortness and opener is expected to cue, or bid 3NT with wastage in the short suit. If the responder wanted to show interest in a major suit, he would have used Stayman.

To me, it would mean "better than minimum, 3 spades, setting trumps, singleton heart"