OleBerg

Or gay?

Voted ridiculous, thought the opening was 1♦. Over 1♥ it is 100% obvious.

FYP

Nothing.

Sorry, I'm so used to my artificial follow up to 1♠-1NT. My point is; with a distributional hand, partner is allowed to stretch for game.

;)

Agree so far. Easy pass, partner is allowed to stretch for game with 6-5.

[hv=pc=n&e=sqj64hk72d92ckqt6&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=ppp1c1np]133|200[/hv] IMP's, all white. You have no agreements, and no agreements elsewhere, that might clue you in. What do you bid? And what do you think of the possible alternatives, if any? Edit: 1club is 15-17 any bal. or natural.

A partscore-swing is ½ a game-swing. This is my own reasoning, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

Checked 1,2,4,5 and 6. Just to be precise: We have no agreements on the excact sequences, but they are explicitly covered by a general agreement: "When an artificial bid is passed, double is take-out of the suit they have decided to play in." I think we would both guess it to apply to 3) too, but as our 1♣ is 11+Nat or 15-19 any bal., it may not be 100% certain, that the rule applies here. Edit: And our definition of take-out is: Not penalty, but urging partner to bid. How that should be interpretet in some of the sequences, might indeed leave us more guessing than knowing. For instance in 1), I'd say 3-3-5-2 and very good, but that is just a guess, although qualified (in the context of my partnership).

How to bid in the balancing position, after a weak opening one-of-a-suit has been passed out, is one the most unexplored areas in bridge, so it wouldn't be reasonable to declare a specific style "Expert standard". On the hand in question, I find X obvious, followed by the cheapest possible diamond-bid, not obvious, but relatively clear. Of course, if partner shows 5+ in a majorsuit, I'll simply go to game in that, crossing my fingers for it to make.

No. Any balanced 12-14 open 1NT. (Unless it has a 5-card major, which is opened one of the suit.)

Yes, somehow I put ♥ before ♠. Let's say it was because they were thrumphs. :rolleyes:

M2

You don't even get to see any hands. The opponents bid: 1♣ - 1♦ 4♥ 1♣ = Two-way; either 15-19 bal., or natural. (The balanced type cannot contain 5-card major.) 1♦ = Transfer-Walsh, shows 4+ hearts. 4♥ = Four-card support and either a balanced hand or specifically 2-4-2-5. In both cases "18-19". Now, my claim is that the a priori probabilety of the 4♥ bidder holding a balanced hand is 87,5%. The 4♥ bidder can have these shapes: 4-4-3-2 4-4-2-3 4-3-4-2 4-3-2-4 4-3-3-3 4-2-4-3 4-2-3-4 2-4-2-5 So one shape in eight is the non-balanced type. Just to specify how I (a non-mathematician) uses the word a priori here: It means before adjustments for: - There are more "third spaces" in the balanced hand, making it ever so slightly more easier to get a high point count. (Adjusting the number slightly opwards.) - It is more likely that a 2-4-2-5 hand will be considered "18-19". (Adjusting the number slightly downwards.) - Inferences from the bidding, like the fact that responders hearts are as long, or longer, than the spades. (I have no idée if this would adjust up or down.) I know these adjustments would all be very small, they are just mentioned for the sake of completeness.

Usual highjacking: A modified version of culbertsons ace-checking-mechanism solves this. Here 4NT is like a cuebid, except that it shows 3 aces and says nothing about controls. Partner will now know that an ace, but only one, is required for cuebidding. A direct cuebid would show excactly two aces, thus partner would require two aces to make a cuebid. My own official add-on is, that 5♠ would show 4 aces, but still only invite partner to bid slam. In other sequences 5♠ has another meaning; like 1♠-4♣, 4♥ - 5♠. Here it shows only one ace (two is required for a 5-level cue), but otherwise an absolute maximum. Thus opener would not always be forced to pass 4♠ on a dubious hand with 3 aces. Pro's: So you can both check aces and controls. And in sequences where all controls are shown below 5 of the agreed suit, a chance to reinvite is given; 1♠ - 4♥, 5♣ - 5♦, 5♠ = I'd rather bid slam than not, but you can have a say too. (Yes, I know 5♥ could have that meaning too, but in non-splinter-sequences that is not an option.) Con's: You need a lot more agreements, and accidents are bound to happen in the implementation-period. General: This method shines the most in competitive sequences, and in systems where you volontarily use up a lot of space on not-so-well-defined bids. Some say that playing this in the "denial-cuebid" way is even better. So after 1♠-4♥; 4NT: Denies three aces. 5♣: Shows three aces and denies club-control. 5♦: Shows three aces and club control, denies diamond-control. 5♥: Shows three aces and club and diamond control, but denies heart control. The same principles apply for the next bid; not going back to thrumphs shows control in the suits partner has denied control in, but denies it in the suit bid. I have never experimented with this, but at a glance it seems like you are insured to always be able to check controls surely, but you lose the occasional re-invite option. Also, it seems like you'd need even more agreements.

Duck the first trick quite clearly. No shift has that much haste on this hand, unless declarer has 6 diamonds (Which is not that far-fetched, and will make my entire defence look silly. But ***** happens, and I wont cater to it). I want signals from partner and/or other information, so I encourage in spades at trick one, and if I am forced to make a discard, it will be another spade. If clubs are essential, partner should be able to figure out, that a clubswitch is "safe" from his hand. (Giving declarer an essential guess is an illusion; if he has ♣KJ, he is bound to get it right almost all the time.) If I am somehow forced to take the first spade, my continuation will be a crude ♣A, to get a signal from partner. If he encourages I continue, if not, it is a heart. (The arguments are the same as above.)

Slightly highjacking: If you play multi, consider this treatment: 2♦ - 4♣ 4♣ = Please transfer to your suit. This may be just to play, or to go towards slam, but it sends the important signal: "We are going to play in your suit." Rightsides contract, makes slamexploration easier and prevents mishaps if next hand compete. Remember to agree if (when) it sets up a force. It also frees 4♥ and 4♠ to show a good hand that doesn't care for openers suit.

1♦ -1 ♥ (Natural) 2♣ - 2 ♥ (Rebid in diamonds, unlimited - 9-11, 6 hearts) 2♠ - 3 ♦ (Values in spades, forcing 1 round - Natural) 4♣ - 4♦ (Slammy with diamonds - Better than 5♦, not 3 aces) 4♠ - 5♦ (Excatcly 2 aces, cuebid in spades - At most one ace.)

Agree. And since South bid a non-forcing 2♠ at his first turn, instead of 2♥, he doesn't have a good enough suit to insist on, but AJx should be excellent support. Even if North can have 4♥, I would still say that catering to a 5-3 fit should be much more importent. Edit: So I disagree that North isn't consulted. With a singleton, he should have moved to 3♠

2NT. The real problem is whether to show 5♠ when partner checks for it, but I guess I will.

In that case I'd be more obliged to treat it as T/O. I have to guard against swings against me, not to pick up more imps when the opponents have already messed up. If 2♠ is wrong, it is wrong enough in itself. LHO has taken a unilateral guess, and all I care for, is not giving large swings away, like being robbed out of a game. If I collect only 100 where 200 were available, or only 200 where 500 where available, it doesn't matter, the board is already fine.

Slightly highjacking: A partner and I played, that vs a specific pair: (1m) - Pass - (1M) - X was takeout of the last suit only.

Cant find the post-numbers, but here is a link to one of the posts: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/28370-see-no-evil-hear-no-evil/page__p__320965__fromsearch__1#entry320965

Being a little full of myself, I went through some of my old posts. I discovered, that everytime I had included more than one diagram in a post, all diagrams are now the alike? Can the original diagrams be salvaged?