OleBerg

A redouble would describe my hand perfectly, but troubles might arise. :) What did my 1♦ show? If it can be a balanced hand with xxx in diamonds, I choose 3♦. I want to leave partner room for doubling a lot with only 4♥. If I have already shown (4)5+ diamonds, I bid 3♥. At imps I would be much more inclined to bid 3♥, regardless of what my opening showed.

We are deep into partnership agreement territory, as both forcing and non-forcing makes a lot of sense. Personally I play it as non-forcing. (I also believe that among experts, opinions would be divided.) This depends on what 4♠ show. I must admit that this is a sequence where I have absolutely no idée what "expert standard" is. Is 4♠ weaker or stronger than 3♠? Does it show a more one-sided hand? I play it as weaker, a hand that wants to take a chance on a single-suited hand with a lot of playing strenght, but without a lot of HCP. With a better hand I would bid a forcing 3♠. I do have a feeling though, that this is not standard. To the point; with my own agreement, I double, showing that I believe 4♠ was making. If I had a hand that would pass, a double from my partner would have had the same meaning.

I start with 1♥, it is ever, ever, never passed out. If I had started with a double, 5♥ is obvious.

Prefer 2), but I make sure to always have an agreement.

MFA agrees with me.

I generally agree. Very well formulated post. The reason I still believe in the double (in these circumstances) is, that I dont think it it as likely to backfire, as many other people do. A double on this hand, and hands like it, has gotten a worse reputation than it deserves, mainly because it looks so rediculous on the seldom occasion when they backfire. And even if it works, the better team may still redicule your winning action, calling it silly.

I'd double. It may make you look silly if it backfires, but as you are a (heavy) favourite to loose anyway, I'd go for it. Even if the double only breaks even, your opponents will be a little less sure of whats going on, next time you take an action. You didn't pay the entry-fee to admire your opponents flawless bid and play. Rock the boat. (And be sure to have an understanding partner.) I suspect those advocating a no, is not accustomed to being outgunned.

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.

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.

A plan with a lot of appeal, maybe even better. Hard, for me at least, to say whats best.

After having drawn thrumps, I run the ♣10 at trick four. Seems obvious to me. No return can hurt me, and I get a lot of ekstra chances. Had the hand occured on the net, this plan would be slightly less attractive, as it is harder to read your opponents squirming, when you run the diamonds.

There are two basic philosofies for what it means, when partner takes out a high-level double: 1) I believe I'm bidding a winning contract. 2) I belive either ours or their contract is a winner. What philosofi you adopt also depends on / have an impact on, what your doubles looks like. Using philosofy 2, pass is obvious. Using 1, 6♣ could be a winner, but I'd still pass. As I play the second philosofy, partner can have a Yearl, and I dont raise.

I'd probably open this 2♥. (In fourth.) I'm going nowhere but hearts.

I kinda of lean toward the opposite. Some problems hand are if you play a very basic responses over the FSF. 1D-----1H 2C-----2S 3H-----??? 1H-----1S 2D-----3C 3S-----??? here you had a big H fit. But know you are a bit screwed. etc... Here youll have a hard time setting trumps. Is 4m a cue or setting trumps. These problems are mostly because these auction are undisscussed. Hi Ben, I wrote "Exactly invitational". Thus, 1♦-1♥ 2♣-2♠ 3♥ No problem, I pass, as partner didn't accept my invitation. 1♥-1♠ 2♦ I simply bid 3♥ (Forcing) with a big heart fit. Better than going via 1♥-1♠ 2♦-3♣ which contains a lot of risk for not showing my hand with a forcing bid.

Play openers second bid as transfer, starting with 1nt. (Thus 1♦-1♥, 1♠ still natural). Downside: 1♦-1M 1NT very often wrongsides nt-contracts. Upsides: Most everything else. (You'll be surprised.)

Playing it as excactly invitational has some merit. Not nescesarily so hot when you bid it, but all the times you bid your forcing hand naturally, you are ahead. For instance: 1♦-1♠ 2♣-3♦ = Forcing has a lot of merit. With an invitational hand, you start with 2♥. Also, if you play 3♥ in this sequence as forcing with Clubs, you can distinguish betweem a good and bad invitationel hand. (On 2♣ the bad invite bids 3♣, while the good bids 2♥.) It may be importent to distinguish betweem 8-9(10) point hands, that simply cannot bear to pass, and (10)11-12 hands, that are highly invitational.

It is difficult to read this as anything other than an accusation of cheating, modified by your later post as an accusation of unconscious cheating, which is much the same thing addressed to a international player... I think most would expect that anyone who had represented their country should know about unconscious information passing. FWIW, the practice I described was developed in the context of a partnership formed explicitly to attempt to represent our country.. so we were always focussed on and gained considerable experience with screens. I'd estimate that we played about half our bridge, over the 5 years of the partnership, behind screens. And our failings on the world stage were not, as far as I recall, because our methods were impaired by the presence of screens :P It is well known, that the phrase "It is well known", is often followed by a lie. Nonetheless I'll try it. It is well known, that a large portion of the impressions a person recieves, does not enter the consious mind, but goes directly into the subconsiousness, where it is processed without our knowledge. (From memory: It is about 80%.) A simple example of this is, what happens when our instincts tells us something. That doesn't change because you become an international player. As I noted in my previous post, only some people fell through, when screens were introduced where I play, while others didn't. I am convinced that those who fell through, where those with the philosofy "Let's play something simple, and use our judgement". Judgement here akin to table-presence. Those that didn't fell through, were those who played some conventions and made an amount of agreements. They (you) use the word judgement to describe their abilety to evaluate a hand. The first group would need to rely on their instincts, with a high risk of involuntarily using something they subconsiously picked up from partner. I would never consider that cheating. The second group, being prepared and having developed sound methods, would not need to rely on these instincts. Thus, as you haven't fallen through, you obviously belong to the second group, and can be happy that you are not only an excellent player, but have also chosen an approach to bridge, that makes you a very ethical player.

When I read this question, my immediate reaction is that you are accusing mikeh (and possibly me) of cheating i.e. of using UI to help with slam bidding. If you meant it that way, I doubt we'll bother responding. If you didn't mean it that way, can you explain what you actually meant? Well, I understand that you, and others, will find the post quite harsh. I actually meant it as a question, quite literally. In Denmark, it is so fortunate for me, that screens have been introduced all the way down to my level. I have seen quite a few players with the philosofy: "We don't need all those agreement, we'll just use our judgement", fall through after screens were introduced. Yet again, I have seen other players with the same philosofy not falling through. I do not believe that those who fell through were cheating. I believe they were unaware, that they picked up to many clues from partner. And that isn't cheating. The unspoken language, (Mimics etc.) is something most people are not aware of, and something other people has made millions making them aware of (IRL). So not being aware of it, is definately not cheating. To test your methods using screens however, is a good indicator of whether your methods are sound.

I sort of suspected that, but I think you can do a slight degree of combining if 4♥ is RKCB and 4NT is a cue for the RKCB suit (hearts). Whereas you gain an ability to have a sort of 2-way LTTC approach (e.g., 4NT as LTTC without a club control but 5♣ LTTC with a club control) when 4NT is a general LTTC bid, you lose RKCB. If 4NT is a cue of the RKCB suit, then you gain RKCB for some auctions but end up with, for example, 5♣ as LTTC without a club control but no LTTC with a club control (in the one sequence -- sometimes 5♣ would show a club control, presumably). I am with Frances, in that I don't find the relative lack of an ace asking convention, in minor suit auctions, to be a problem at all. I know that I keep saying this, and am thus becoming (or already am) boring on the topic, but I think far too many players have been conditioned into thinking that they need to ask for aces in order to bid slams. It is nonsense. I also think part of the problem is that many of the players who post here are overly dependent on one partner or the other being in charge of an auction. There are times for captaincy (I like relays, for instance, and you don't get more captain-like than that) but there are many, many hands on which bidding truly is a dialogue... I'll put my minor slam bidding up against (almost) every poster here, and not take a back seat just because I rarely have keycard... and I suspect Frances could do the same. So I find the idea that I could do a bit of 'combining' of my methods decidely unattractive... I like my methods, they work better than keycard, when used by two good players who understand that judgement and cooperation allow for far more nuanced auctions than 'how many keycards do you hold... I will place the contract once you tell me'. And if two not-so-good players work at such a method, lo and behold, they will become better players, because they will have learned to think and to bid cooperatively. Everybody likes their own methods best, and I am no exception. However if I had to choose betweem your methods and ace-asking, I might very well pick your methods. Now, as I am a little paranoid: Do your methods work as nicely, when playing with screens?

A number of these hands can be covered by inviting with a quantitative 4nt, by either player, instead of inviting slam with four of a minor. But of course it is not free, to give up the use of 4nt as natural.

Use them all for showing decent 4-card fits. Not that I like them that much. Actually the best thing about them is the other raises I can make, denying a decent hand. Edit: Or showing only three-card support. As it often is, the most importent thing here is to have the same agreement as your partner.

Not saying that your way isn't the best, but the double with a good heart-suit is more vulnerable to a 3♠ or 4♠ call from opener.

Kick-back-culbertson and Formula Seven. A very efficient, but also very error-prone method. When a minor suit is agreed, 4 immidiately above the suit, shows three out of five aces. A cuebid above four of the suit shows 2 aces. When partner has shown three aces, a cuebid shows at least one ace. 4nt takes the place of the cuebid in the suit that showed three aces. 5 of the suit above is used to check for the last ace, and the step immidiately above checks the trumph queen. The last two steps are used two show different degrees of interest in Grand-slam. This allows you to both check aces and controls. But let me repeat: Very error-prone and takes a lot of preperation. And if it wasn't complicated enough already, whenever you you need the step above for a natural bid, it's the step above that, that shows three aces. A few quick examples: 1♥ - 2♣ 4♣ - ? 4♦ = Three aces. 4♥/4♠ = Cuebid, promises two aces. 4nt = Diamond-cue, two aces. 1♥ - 2♦ 4♦ - ? 4♥ = Natural (The way I play it. Be sure to have an agreement with your partner. 4♠ = Three aces. 4nt = Cuebid in spades, two aces. Hold on, we're not done. Hands with three aces should not bid four of the agreed minor, but find a way to to bid the step above. Often this can be done directly.

Yes, they are allowed in Denmark, at least in theory. I write this because no-one plays them, but is has been dicussed at length (it can be quite cumbersome to explain people, why there IS full disclosure, when you play encrypted signals). It will be interesting, for me at least, to see what happens, if they get some following. I have tinkered a little with encrypted signals, but not being able to remember everything, I'll rather put my efforts elsewhere. But for players aspiring to the absolute top-level, there is an untread avenue here.

Hi Glen, I have just glanced at your system. Obviously, when constructing the system, you have tried to gain some advantages. Some by the 1♣ opening, some by describing the spade suit a lot. You have to weigh this against the disadvantages. I see three obvious disadvantages: 1) The 1♣ opening is vulnrable to interference. Many players have lived with this before, and if your opponents do not organize their defence properly, it will be no big deal. 2) You will have a lot of trouble bidding constructively with hearts, especially after the 2♥ opening bid. I guess slam bidding will not be a big problem, but on partscore and game hands, I foresee some trouble. 3) You cannot use 2♦ and 2♥ for preemptive bidding. One thing I would definately do, would be to remove the ambiguety from the 1♦ opening, thus letting it always promise 4♠s. This will be very usefull for your partner, whenever the auction becomes competitive. (And be sure to have many different ways to support this opening.) You might even consider exchanging the meaning of 1♦ and 1♠. This has some advantages as well as disadvatages too. So, if you can overcome the legal problems, my advice would be: Try it out, see what happens, make improvements. (Manegement Gurus will probably have a name for this.) Edit: If you try it out, I would love hear of your experience.