RichMor

Art, From the BWS site: << In reopening-position, a one-notrump overcall shows 10-14 (by a passed hand, 10 to a maximum non-opening), a two-notrump overcall 18-19, regardless of the suit opened. >>

A balancing 2NT bid shows this hand type and general strength - 18-19 HCP.

#1) Control bid ? #2) Suggestion to play. #1) Since overcaller has shown a strong hand, advancer may now have interest in a high-level minor suit contract. Maybe 3♠ sends this message. #2) Advancer could also have a moderate hand with Spades, Qxxxxxx perhaps. If overcaller has some Spade support then 4♠ could be better than 5 of a minor.

I picked 'other'. I believe either candidate would be a decent President and either candidate could turn out to be a good President. (Back in 2000 I thought littleGeorge might be an OK President so my predicting skills are questionable.) But the main message I want to send with my vote is: 'bad elephant, bad elephant, go stand in the corner'. The Republican party has become something that I consider a real danger to the 'American way of life'. The GOP no longer represents anything except fear and dislike of all who are not 'real people'. And that's not an accident. The GOP deliberately chose to create an election strategy based on splintering the people and trying to pick up 51% of the pieces. For a while the strategy worked. Obama tries to bring people together and form a coalition. IMO, that's mainly why Obama will win.

Not so bizarre methinks. This is similar to the BWS default treatment after opener's reverse. Responder makes the cheapest rebid in the 4th suit or NT with a hand lacking direction. Any other rebid by responder is natural and forcing. After opener's jump shift rebid, responder can bid 2NT as a punt - not showing or denying anything in Diamonds. That makes responder's 3♦ rebid natural in the sense of showing some Diamond values but not promising real length.

Agree with jdonn. You gotta get in there and try for those vulnerable games.

Mike, I agree that the Republican party could split, explode, implode, etc. If the Democrats win the Presidency and additional congressional seats and additional governorships the Republicans will have even more reasons to fight with each other. Besides 'ditto' I want to add this. The Republicans are the victims of their own deliberate strategy to split the country into imaginary groups and set the groups against each other. Like Dr Frankenstein, the monster eventually turned on its creator. RichM

Back in 1968, Dick Nixon and his buddy Pat Buchanan wanted to win a presidential election. They decided that their best chance was to: 1. get people angry and upset about dirty hippie war protesters, pointy-headed professors and other 'un American' scum 2. imply that the scum supported Hubert Humphrey 3. hope that the people would vote for Dick Nixon because they hated the scum This was the genesis of negative campaigning. Dick & Co did not say a bad word about HHH. Dick & Co said lots of bland positive things about how much they loved America and all good Americans. Spiro ran around saying bad things about the 'media elite' and others who did not love America and Dick Nixon with equal fervor. Fast forward 40 years and what do we see ? About the same thing. Old John talks about his love of country and its good people. Sarah has taken the role of Spiro Agnew. She doesn't tell us who the good people are - if you are one you know it - but she does tell us who the bad people are. Maybe enough voters will get on the 'hate train' and vote for Old John. Hope not.

2NT for me. 3♥ is OK too but it is easier to get to a good major suit game over 2NT than over 3♥.

2008 was the year when rational people stopped trying to plan for the future by examining ancient civilizations. It worked :blink:

That's too good as well. 4♠ looks more like Kxx KQJxx AKJx x. 3♦ can be a little shaded with support. I wouldn't object to a doubleton spade here, by the way. Has anyone pulled up that old thread where 3♠ is allegedly a five bagger? OK your example is fine. I might rebid a wimpy 2♦ with that. But I am still unconvinced that raising to 4♠ with a doubleton honor is the long-run winning action.

Declarer needs to develop extra tricks in Hearts or Clubs. If the K of Hearts is with West then a simple finesse will produce 4 tricks in the suit. That's a 50% chance of success plus some chance of success if the finesse loses and East has both Diamond honors or one Diamond honor and declarer can guess what to do when East returns a Diamond. Playing a Club to the Ace and then a Club toward the dummy will work if West holds Kx, KJ, or KJx or if East holds the singleton King. This line of play will fail if West holds x, xx, or xxx. Again there is the same 'plus' chance of success if declarer is lucky in Diamonds. Math is not my strong suit but I make the Heart chances about the same as the Club chances. So I would play a Club to the Ace just in case East plays the singleton King. If not I will finesse in Hearts.

My second example was not particularly good, but I think it showed what I meant. Agree. Maybe a better second example(raise 3♠ to 4) is: KQx KQJxx AKQx x Same shape and HCP but fewer total controls. RichM

Quote above in response to what's the difference between 1♥ - 1♠ 3♦ - 3♠ 4♣ and 1♥ - 1♠ 3♦ - 3♠ 4♠ OK thanks for the examples jdonn. The first example is clear; lots of controls and the Spade 10. Nearly a 2♣ opening. But the second example ? A raise to 4♠ with Qx support implies that responder's 3♠ rebid shows a 6-card suit or a strong 5-card suit and weak Clubs. I see that this thread continues with some discussion about that question. So if we expect responder's 3♠ to deliver a good suit, then responder has to make a false preference to 3♥ with 5-1-3-4 and no Club values. Seem right ? thanks, RichM

Could someone please explain what they think the diference is between: 1♥ - 1♠ 3♦ - 3♠ 4♣ (cue for Spades) and 1♥ - 1♠ 3♦ - 3♠ 4♠ ? Thanks, RichM

Ken, Continuing to consider continuations: 1) I think you meant 'I either have clubs and diamonds or just diamonds' Right ? 2) Agree that the sequence 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ - 3♥ 3♠ is ambiguous when one is playing a could-be-false reverse. Is opener patterning out with 3-4-5-1 or control bidding for Hearts or cancelling the original message and showing 3-card Spade support and denying Hearts ? But a similar ambiguity exists in the sequence 1♦ - 1♠ 3♣ - 3♦ 3♠ when one is playing could-be-false jump shift. Is opener showing Spade support or control bidding for Diamonds(or Clubs and Diamonds ?) A partnership needs to resolve these questions based on explicit agreement or general principles('if it can be natural then it is natural') or their personal version of bridge logic. I suggest that after 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ - 3♥ opener rebids 3♠ to cancel Hearts and show 3-card Spade support. If opener has Hearts then 3NT = ♠ control surrogate and 4 of a minor is a natural control bid for Hearts. Over to you.

Sorry I don't have any clever insults to add to the discussion. Guess I will just have to talk about bridge. Ken, OK 'majors rule'. But I don't see any evidence that 'a Heart fit is most likely to be the the fit where we can agree trumps............'. The direct evidence from the auction is that responder has some cards in Spades and has more Spades than Hearts. The indirect evidence is that opener does not have a lot of cards in Hearts because of the choice to open 1♦. So if we are going to use the rest of the bids to investigate degree of major suit fit, then we should focus on Spades. I think it is better to lie with 2♥ than to lie with 3♣ becasue the lower bid makes it cheaper for responder to show extra Spade length and easier for opener to show Spade support. As to 'a reverse does not establish a GF' and 'the partnership (must) work out not just strain but also level'; that's true. But the reverse gives the partnership much more room. So I don't see any upside for 3♣ just because it is a GF. Lastly, when we dump or split available bidding space, doesn't it make most sense to assign more hand types to the lower bid (2♥) than to the higher(3♣) ?

Yes this is one of the typical Master Solver's Club 'nightmare hands'. It used to be that the panel roughly split into 2 groups, one would rebid 3♦ and say 'if I get by this round .....' the other would raise a major response with strong 3-card support. Lately a lot of the panelists make up a reverse or an off-shape 2NT rebid. I don't remember seeing a problem where any panelist made a jump shift rebid on a singleton. Maybe a general solution - in the context of 2/1 methods - is to agree that a jump rebid of opener's minor specifically shows or denies(you pick) 3-card support for responder's major.

Fred, This all seems true and sensible. But how about a 'Minimally Qualified Bridge Club'; a place where a player can drop in and find a reasonable game ? There are no relative rankings in the MQBC, being a member just means you have a basic understanding of mainstream bidding methods and simple card play technique. A person can gain 'provisional' membership to the MQBC by taking and passing a series of simple online quizes. Yes people can cheat but so what ? Someone who takes the time and makes the effort to look up quiz answers will probably remember and learn from the experience. So my profile is marked as 'Provisionally Minimally Qualified' (or maybe somethig a little shorter). Now I can enter the MQBC and anyone who plays with me sees that I am a 'provisional'. A 'provisional' member is measured for a few weeks. If a provisional member meets some minimum level of plus play, say average .75 IMPS plus over 100 hands, then the provisional label is removed. No one is removed from the MQBC unless they behave badly. No one is forced to join the MQBC. If a casual player doesn't want to make the effort then they don't need to. Does this make any sense ?

It's hard to top that old favorite; "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog".

This just in My Webpage A column by Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckly.

I voted for 'other'. I think US national politics is just so darn entertaining. In what other country in the world could one see littleGeorge on television ? The man is pure humor.

2♣ A splinter should show fairly even distribution of honors among the side suits. With this hand, Qxx in Clubs is great and Qxx in Spades is not.

Well, the Nigerian princes don't want to return any money. But they will sell us the rights to their business for a few billion dollars.

Frances, I'm having a hard time putting these 2 statements together: 'we could have had an opening bid' and 'This is not a forcing pass auction' If you can pass the reopening double with an opening hand (surely sensible with good Diamonds) and double 2♠ with good Spades, then how can a pass of 3♣ be non-forcing?