NickRW

Of course, there is also a completely natural system: Pass = to play XX = to play 2x = to play And opener, after pass or XX, 2m = I took a flier (possibly even psyched) with a long minor and prefer to play here There is a lot to be said for simplicity.

I wouldn't feel too bad. Swap the spades and the diamonds and I might have had a go at 3NT too. Also, I've tried 3NT on hands at least as strong as the one above and gone down. And I've passed hands, that were at least as weak, and seen that the field has played 3NT making. Such is life.

I think the OP is saying the overcall was 3NT, 9 down. Anyway, like you I don't like my options, but err on the side of 3♠

A couple of systems I've played: Pass = to play 2C = Stayman (Typically garbage stayman of course) 2D = Hearts 2H = Spades XX = a minor (Opener calls 2C for pass or correct) You can play 1Nx and it has the added advantage that most calls are the same as if there was no X, i.e. it is easy to remember The other one was: XX = to play 2x = to play Pass = opener to bid 5 card suit if got one, else XX for start of scramble Also simple. And though XX to play can get a few bottoms, it can also get some tops and is especially interesting at imps where 1Nxx making is worth the game bonus. (But it requires nerves of steel and the ability to declare 1N contracts well)

Nice idea, but it gives responder the wrong picture of your hand. It works in a canapé (or possible canapé system like the Blue Club) because responder is expecting the second suit to be at least as long as the first. But if the expectation is the other way round, you can end up playing some 4=2 fits and such like. And canapé systems have their own problems. There is no perfect solution to the problem (otherwise we'd all be playing the same system).

Not really - unless you're playing a canapé system (i.e. a system where you tend to call the shorter of 2 long suits). And that is a rarity these days.

Ah well. They say always read the instructions on the tin!

Why did I not open the last hand 1NT in the first place?

I'm not sure that playing a strong 1♣ is necessarily a cure for hands like this. It all rather depends on exactly what strong club system and the exact nature of the distribution of the two hands of course. However, consider a generic strong club system which, for the hand in question, might start 1♣ (strong) - 1♦ (forced, weak), 1♥ (natural) - 2♦ (natural, not a complete bust) - now what? Guess 3NT maybe - probably work - or it might not!

Good. LTC, particularly modified LTC, is quite a reasonable tool when raising partner's suit. It isn't much use in other situations.

To the opening poster, you might notice there are a lot similar, but nuanced and ultimately different opinions :unsure: For those who like 1H so much, do your partners routinely respond on 5 counts? I quite like 1H too, but the assertion that the chances of you missing game is near zero, is, in my experience, a fairly gross over estimate.

I'm not sure there is a really good answer to the question of what to open hands like this. Other posters have pointed out the options. I've tried them all and they all have their times when they succeed and times when they fail abjectly. The situation is made worse by the fact that hands such as this are relatively uncommon, meaning that, even if you've tried all the options, you probably don't have very much experience with them to really give a definitive answer. The best answer I can give is, if partner strains to give a response on (sub)minimum dreck, then your best bet is to open 1H as you're fairly much assured on not missing game and do start with your best suit. If, however, partner is a typical Acol player and tends to not say anything with a random 5 count, then you're probably better off using the strong option that best fits your system and its rebids - which may well be 2N - especially if you use some sort of 5 card major/puppet stayman in response.

In general I'd agree, though simple counting of declarer's hand gives the right answer in this case, does it not...

I can see quite a few, er, wrong views being taken with this collection even by people who perhaps shouldn't. You're doing great.

At teams, if you contract for 3♠ and make and over trick you score 4*30+50 = 170. If the opponents on the other table play in game (i.e. 4♠) making the same 10 tricks they score 4*30+300 = 420 (more if they are vulnerable). Which makes your team minus 250 overall. I never remember the scoring chart for raw scores to imps, but it is about minus 6 or so If it is imp scored pairs the detail is slightly different (more complicated), but the upshot is the same.

I'm not sure I really agree with Pavlicek's statement in the first place. Playing traditional Acol (strong twos) or some variant thereof where strong twos have an outlet (e.g. Benji or Multi) then one expects a response on a 6 count. As opener you have to ask are there reasonably likely 4 and 5 counts that I expect responder to pass which will nevertheless produce reasonable play for game. If so, then you need to consider one of your strong options. Playing 3 weak twos (or some opening style where your only strong openers are 2C and 2NT), then you tend to expect a response on 5 counts or any ace. Again, are there likely (i.e. not super fit) hands that fall just short of that that will give game reasonable play. If so, you need to bring a strong opening into the picture.

4+ card support, single or void in the suit bid and the values (high cards/shape) to reckon that game at least is a decent bet. Some might be more flowery about their agreements than that, but that is the basics

You're probably right. But it is sad commentary on the state of affairs. The one crumb of comfort that I take out that is that this appears to not just be a British disease. :o

Preemptive is the only thing that makes sense in context.

Not really sure what your complaint is here. You bid 5♥ and can and should have made it by your own admission. Should you have bid 5♥? Ask yourself what your hand is worth offensively (a lot and much more than your opening suggested). Ask yourself what your hand is worth defensively against a diamond contract, especially with a known good heart fit your way (close to nothing and less than your partner might expect from your opening). The answer becomes kind of obvious, doesn't it? P.S. One down (against a making 5 diamond contract the other way) could have been worse!

Just my two cents worth, where I am you see 2NT as: a) "too play runaway" used a lot by beginners and many not so new to the game who ought to know better b) Constructive by those who have their heads screwed on, but who haven't read much about the game or who have partner's who don't read. c) Scrambling by a few.

No, no and no. I thought you pitched it about right for your target audience :rolleyes:

I wish I had AK doubleton on lead more often for it to matter! When you have AK doubleton on lead and p has a quick enough entry that you can get him/her in to lead before trumps are drawn, a lot of the time your side was strong enough that it should have been playing the contract in the first place.

Sorry Kaitlyn. Zel and I have been "muddying the water".

Aye. I was agreeing with you that I'd invite too, if only somewhat reluctantly. That 6 count in example 4 is, well - it has no flaws per se, but the lack of aces and tens and the unappealing 4333 shape makes me feel it is a pretty useless 6. I'm not going to attempt a sim, particularly because of the question marks over exactly what one might reasonably expect over the 1NT re-opener, but I don't see inviting scoring much better than a quiet pass. And if the scoring were MPs, passing would have more to recommend it (I think). On the other hand, give me the 10 of hearts or clubs, I'd be a happier camper with an invite.