fromageGB

Interestingly, these are diametrically opposite. The moral of the story is that if you want to play kickback you had better have firm agreements !

I play a variety of kickback with a couple of partners, and reverses don't come into it. There are a simple couple of meta-rules. 1) If ace asking could be ambiguous, then if there is room, clarify the suit before ace asking. For example, in this case of 1♦ 1♠ 2♥, then - as has already been said - bidding a forcing 3♦ sets the suit, then 4♥ asks for aces. If 3♦ was not forcing, then bidding 4th suit forcing then 4♥ is ace asking in diamonds. Because the room is there to do this, 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 4♥ is unambiguously a natural game sign off. 2) If a bid can be ace asking then it is ace asking. Rule 1 is more important than rule 2. But rule 2 implies that when there is no room for a forcing bid to clarify the situation, it is ace asking. A simple unscientific example could be 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♦ 4♥? where this is ace asking in diamonds. If you wanted to bid 4♥ to play, then hard luck - the meta-agreement says it is ace asking. If I really wanted to play in hearts with this sequence I would have to bid 4♠ over 4♦ - the meta-rule says this is ace asking in hearts - then drop out in 5♥.

Never having played it, I can see the advantages of the conventional 1NT being able to be passed with a 12/13 count (I HATE the description "semi-forcing"), but at the moment this bid for me includes a very weak pre-emptive 3 card raise, and also a 13-15 balanced hand. I suppose if I were to adopt a non-forcing 1NT I could give up the former, but what would I do with the latter hand? I don't seem to have any spare bids other than 3NT !

Interesting, but it is the old idea that extra length and extra strength are equivalent. I don't believe they are, in competition. When 4th seat bids something, opener with some holding in that suit may want to double if you were the short strong hand, but bid on if you were the long weak hand. Passing does not convey that information, and you will not know what to do.

I don't see this as a possible game hand at all. So much ruffing needed that you will never establish clubs and have an entry for them. And a cross-ruff to game does not seem likely opposite a balanced hand. Definitely (more preemptive) 2♠ transfer to clubs and hope we get there.

Not if this is the agreed system, and if your card says "invitational or better" I don't think any director looking at your hand will think your rebid of 4♥ is unjustified.

This is obviously an area where I disagree with most of the contributors. My preferred opening style is 1♥ with a 5 card suit and 12 HCP, or 6 card with 11 (5 card and 11 is ungraded to 12, or downgraded to 10, which opens 2♥). So with a sound opening, I play the strong Bergen raise as 4+ card and 11/12 HCP, and would bit it with the given hand. When partner "signs off" in 3♥ with this hand I have no hesitation in bidding game. It is more like a 12 count and decidedly game material. However, with an 11 with 3 little in spades (after that double) I would pass 3♥. I like to play it this way so that when I do not bid 3♦, but bid 2NT (J2N still on over the double), partner knows I have a solid 13+ HCP, which makes the slam bidding more assured. So for me this is not a misevaluation, but normal.

Let's say RHO started with a 2263 shape. If my maths is up to it, we've had 9 tricks so far. This leaves RHO with 3 diamonds and a heart. Throw him in with a diamond and you do make your contract. Throw him in with a heart and you go off. OK, if he started with only 1 spade then your extra spade winner means he is down to 2 diamonds and a heart. Throw him in with a diamond and you make 10 tricks, with a heart and make 9 tricks. Whatever, it's a bottom if you throw RHO in. I think the only way you can redeem your bidding is to play the same way as those in hearts, then you outscore those not in a making slam. As to that way, surely it is best to play LHO for at least one of the heart honours, and finesse twice. However, play spades first to see if there is a riskless 4th trick there. Then when you take the the second finesse and it loses, you will at least beat those in slam.

RHO will not be too concerned if you endplay him. I think he might reel off a few diamonds. :D I think it is a mistake to bank everything on a 7 card suit. Many people make a WJO on a 6 card suit, and many of their partners lead top of nothing in that suit, not showing length.

I think most people will be in hearts, some in a slam. Playing in hearts I will finesse hearts twice, making 11 or 12 accordingly. At matchpoints I think I have to play the same way, as playing safe will end up with a bad score. At IMPs I cannot compensate for a slam swing with risky overtricks, so I ignore hearts settle for 9 or 10 tricks depending on the spade finesse.

deleted

I have no qualms about downgrading a 4 card support in a 4333 shape to 3 card support. The only time I did not do this in living memory, it was a disaster.

Can we rename that convention? After all, puppet stayman doesn't have a puppet bid, does it?

As Hanoi5 says, but if you agree that it is NOT 3 card support, maybe you need to put more definition into that 1♠ bid. If that was a guaranteed 5 carder you can bid 2♠ of course. I'm happy to play it 4 or 5 when using a support double.

I would suggest not having a big document with page numbers. Just create an index of topics, accessed by tabs in a physical folder, or separate documents on disk, so that each topic is ideally no more than a few pages. This means splitting topics, so that if section "D" pertains to opening one of a major, you separate "D1 Open 1M", "D2 Response to 1M", "D3 Continuations after forcing next step" etc. Then when you have a discussion and alter/add an agreement you simply reprint those pages/send that document, without screwing up page numbers or the index.

http://webpages.mcgill.ca/staff/group3/gberns/world/new%20bridge%20site/myweb4/Articles/Partnership%20Stuff/Love%20Thy%20Partner.pdf

I think the reasoning is that with a pick-up partner you don't expect a transfer break on a 4 card suit - after all, you haven't discussed what methods you are playing - therefore Stayman is the way to find out. And without agreement, no way is 4H ace asking, and I wouldn't risk it as a splinter. So therefore it is natural. Therefore 46+xx GF.

Over their 1NT I play a 2♦ as diamonds + a major, together with 2♣ as clubs and a major. However, what it shows depends on what the other bids mean. I use X as a two suited takeout (5/4 or better) which is both majors, or a minor and a 4 card major, so 2♣/♦ shows a minor with a 5 card major. I think it is important to know the major length in 2-suited defences. So for me it could be 4, 5, 6 or 7 of the minor, but always 5 of the major. If you have no other bids for the given 2 suits, then I guess length is somewhat ill-defined, but I think it useful to encourage partner to see if there is a major fit, and a 5 card major fits the bill.

deleted

Unless it is part of the system! Of course this is not SAYC, but worth mentioning is to alter the minor openings so that you open 1♣ on all balanced or semi-balanced hands, and 1♦ only on a 6 card suit, or a hand with a singleton or void outside diamonds. Then the hand is either (a) 6 diamonds, or (b) 10+ cards in minors, or © 3 suited. When partner responds a major, you : (a) rebid diamonds (b) rebid clubs (c1) raise partner if you are not short in that major, or (c2) bid 1NT if 3 suited and singleton/void in that major. This "systemic" rebid of 1NT when short in partner's suit has great advantages. He can bid any different suit to play, and it is good playing in 2♣ making, when others need that for checkback or something. (You use a rebid of the same major as a strength inquiry, as that cannot be a natural bid with possibly a void opposite.)

I have played a multi for years, but have now dropped it in preference for a natural weak 2 in diamonds (together with natural weak 2s in majors) or (depending on partnership) 4+/4+ in both majors and natural weak 2s in the majors. I'd say it is worthwhile, especially if you need 2M bids to plug a gap elsewhere in the system, or need 2♦ to show 3 suited-hands, but I do like the other uses, and natural 2Ms make preemptive support possible, which is a hidden plus point. While incorporating a weak 2 in diamonds into the 2♣ open is very good if you play multi, a problem here is the national authority rates it as "level 4", so a number of local clubs don't allow it. Another problem is that the EBU handcuffs prevent you having a weak only version of the multi. And you can't say the strong option is exactly 30 points in 0067 shape !

Han, I appreciate your constructive comments and analyses, but think we can do without posts like this.

Nothing wrong with "Leaping 4NT" at times. Better than taking things slowly and bidding 3NT! The problem is simply West's failure to realise that there were 33 hcp. Slam seems automatic and there is no reason to stop. If opener had ♥ king then 12 is practically a laydown, and if not it is a 50/50.

If you have discussed how you are going to respond to partner's opening when 2nd seat bids, and have agreements for that, then a simple start is to play the same in advancer's position. Ignore the opening bid, assume partner has opened (OK, knock a couple of points off his minimum strength to open if that has relevance), and then bid as after an overcall (correspondingly knocking off a couple of points off your hand if relevant). Not perfect, but needs no extra memory, and any agreement is better than none.

Yes over both. The consideration is not that you can outgun them in spades, but that by using Bergen 3♣ and 3♦ (but over 1♠ I actually use 3♦ and 3♥) you convey both length (4 cards) and strength (weaker/stronger according to taste) that you just can't do without these bids. It makes it easy for opener to decide what to do. If you have to start with say 2♠ (your point 2) being either 3 or 4 card support, with a wide range of strengths, how is opener going to make more accurate game tries? Without convoluted multiple-bid methods they will be less accurate. And when opponents do bid a lower ranking suit at the 3 or 4 level, how is he or you (not knowing the other's hand) going to judge whether to bid on or double? Bergen does have the disadvantages of losing a minor bid, but it gains in clarification of the major, which is probably more useful.