barryallen

With the singletons held, I doubt 1♦ would get passed out, but I fully agree with every thing else. When you require so little points wise for slam, showing your strength at a later point may not be fully possible. Opening 2♣ allows any further bids over interference greater clarity, something which could easily be lost with interference? If you are opening 1♦, what chance has p got in even getting near understanding that his holding of 2 small ♦ and the KJ♥ will guarantee slam? If you can go through any auction without serious interference and the knowledge that p will not pass 1♦, you can do anything you wish, but what will happen in actuality and how difficult will it then be?

OK if the auction is: 1c=1d 1h=1s? 1nt=now 4nt.........1nt I assume is 11-13 or 12-14. second choice 3c and then if pard rebids 3nt...now 4nt.... agree with other comments pard might rebid 3d over 3c but I would not shoot him for 3nt. btw you did not state if 1h promised an unbalanced hand so I assumed you are not playing Walsh style. In the first case, surely 1C-1D-1H-1S it is assumed that 1S as natural but forcing for 1 round? if you then follow 1NT by 3C, p can then describe his hand further? If p bids 3nt and 4nt is quantitative, p should easily get the full picture now and select the best contract. A club or diamond slam seem a real possibility, but 6nt may not be so inviting depending upon the H holding. What I have difficulty understanding here is an auction which eliminates some very good minor suit slam possibilities?

Is there not another option here, what about 14-17, with 3433 or 4423 depending upon points and what opening 1NT is employed? I would expect a partial ♣ stop as minimum, more if at the lower points range. Again so much will be linked to the vulnerability and p's holding.

Agree Agree again. As do I Count me in. I always think in this sort of situation that penalties is an inefficient agreement. Basically it means you have two bids to show something decent in clubs - a Penalty Double and 3NT. When the auction has been pre-empted it seems more efficient to given a different meaning to double. Even if it means missing an occasionally juicy penalty. But surely once you interpret the bid as "extra values, no clear direction", 3♣X has to be an option? I agree on what the bid means, but the final contract can be any where between 3♣X and 4♠ depending upon p point holding and his ♣ holding and the vulnerability? The decision has been left to p to decide from his holding and I cannot see any reason for any option to not be on the table?

I would echo that. With the pre-empt the points wastage is minimal in ♥ or working for you with partner. Equally there is a good chance that any small offering that partner has can be used effectively against your RHO. Normally I find my LHO will have bid with ♥QJxxxxxx, with the ♦K for good measure, leaving my partner with ♥Kx.

How exactly are the 3♥ bidders passing 3NT? Just does not fit in with the rest of your analysis describing a very strong hand with something like 4144 or 4054.

:P some of the best results I have seen at the table with weak 2's have occurred with 1st or 2nd seat holding a 6 card suit headed by the J. You only have to look at the statistical success of garbage 5-4 holdings opened with 2 bids to see the benefit. But like yourself, something that does not come naturally to me. On this hand I would open 2♥ every time nv. Out of interest, does anyone still vary the requirements of a weak 2 with the vulnerability?

I suppose it is bad sportsmanship, but does it really matter. You are allowed to conceed so does it exactly matter the manner in which it was done. I can imagine that some schadenfreude amongst the kibitzer's was missed on the Germans being slowly roasted over the spit for the remaining hands. If concessions are part of the make up of the game when the position becomes impossible, why all the protestations. If you don't like it, get the rules changed.

The big question mark to me as soon as I see my hand and hear an opening 1♣ bid is the Q♦. We know we are in slam, but in the back of my mind I would orchestrating things towards this one piece of information, depending upon your system. Partner is going to describe his hand fully in a couple of bids and it looks between ♣, ♦ and NT.

I would first off, not look at this as missing a slam, but what would be the best contract. It's not beyond imagination to see 5♣ going down and 3NT being a top. But to find that out you need to show p your values and distribution and let him make the decision, which may lead you into the slam. Bridge is not a game of perfect and the problem with giving out information is that you have 2 other sets of ears listening. I doubt no one would be surprised to find that 1NT-3NT returns the best results, but such is bridge.

Would you bid a grand slam on an 8 card fit headed by the AKQ? If you answer yes to that you have so many opportunities with 7♦ to make it of a similar risk.

So very true. Competent players turn into blithering idiots when put into the commentary position.

To Leb or not to Leb? You know you have no chance of bumping them into 3♠ so that extra is out. It also looks favourable that you will end up with a positive score either in 2♠ by them or 3♣ by yourself? But I would not take the risk and just pass. To double here just is asking to get kicked around the table by your team mates in the post match.

Why would anyone want to use anything other than Lebensohl or the like? Giving you so many options and definitions that I cannot see the downside? Having a system such as Lebensohl over prepared minor with subsequent WJO, NT opening interference, opponents weak 2 opening, just seems logical to me?

I cannot see this going anywhere without 2♣ being a investigative bid of some form. then you fit in all the subsequent responses around that premise. How and what you fit the 3♠ bid into the system is up to you.

Yes, 1♠ as either natural or FSF is what came out of the Biedermeijer enquete also (there was also a majority for not playing Walsh but the two questions were asked independently). Obviously 1♠ is forcing whether it is natural or not. I think the problem is that if it goes 1♣-1♦ 1♥-1♠ 3♠-4c/d/h 4c/d/h is ambiguous. Is it a hand that wanted to set that suit as trump via fsf, or is it a cue for spades? You must have an exact definition for 3♠, it is not the subsequent 4♣♦♥ that require defining, it is the 3♠ bid. Bidding another undefined after an initial undefined is just asking for trouble from interference?

Yes, the rule is that opener has bid two suits without showing extras, and responder has bid one suit at the one-level. And then there is the exception for 1♣-1♦ 1♥-? where people refuse to play 1♠ as FSF because they are stupid (ok I will be flamed for this). Is there anyone who is going to pass 1♣-1♦ 1♥-1♠, if no then what is the problem? All gets revealed after the subsequent bid and what damage can be done by assuming the 1♠ as natural initially?