jallerton

There are advantages and disadvantages of opening this hand type 1NT, but one of the advantages is that your potential source of tricks is concealed from the defence. You'll lose that particular advantage if you give away this information gratuitously. Remember that partner is usually interested in finding a fit in a major suit when he uses Stayman. If you are concerned about missing thin slams, it's better to employ some other sequence from Responder to show a mild balanced slam try (preferably below 3NT), inviting Opener to bid on only with a long suit providing a potential source of tricks.

Partner should have (at least) a double spade stop here when there was plenty of room to express doubt. Unlike the previous posters, I think it is quite possible for partner to hold 3 hearts. However, even if he does hold 3 hearts, it's far from clear that we want to make that suit as trumps. As long as the club suit runs, the best use for those hearts will be as losers to discard on pointed suits.

I think that Nigel makes a good point. Some players may interpret receiving a PP as an implication that they have been breaking the law deliberately. Many TDs would prefer to avoid the hassle associated with making such an implication. Or maybe the TDs consider that a higher degree of certainty (e.g. beyond reasonable doubt) is required before issuing a PP, compared with that needed for a rectification adjustment (when balance of probabilities may be sufficient).

This is a problem playing Basic Acol (no inverted minor suit raises). If you have a game forcing minor suit raise, what do you do? 3m is a limit raise so NF. 4m takes you past 3NT. 3NT is natural but may be the wrong contract, and partner won't know when to pull. 3M is natural and pre-emptive. The solution recommended in the Basis Acol books I read is to invent a new suit. The books explain that it's normally safer to 'invent' the other minor suit, as partner will not usually raise too high. If I were playing in a Simple Systems event, I would probably follow the suggested approach.

This set me wondering what percentage of hands a player would normally act on. Clearly, this will depend to some extent on opening bid and overcalling style (including partner's style: the more (non pre-emptive) actions partner takes, the more likely we will get into the auction on weaker hands). Even if I only act on only 50% of hands, passing throughout for the whole stanza was a 1 in 4,096 shot. It suspect that I would act on more than 50% of hands though: our side declares approx. 50% of hands; it feels like there are probably more times that I act during the auction but end up defending than there are hands where partner declares the hand through solo bidding/hands which are passed out.

Yes, on three deals he opened, vulnerable, on balanced hands with respective K&Rs of 10.05, 9.95 and 10.25. On the 4th deal his partner made a 4-card overcall which hit him with 5-card support, albeit in a weak hand. His 5th action was an unwise protection when his opponents had stopped in a part score, and he even got to declare. Given that he went for -1100, I'm happy with my decision to pass on that deal too.

I played in a 24 board match last night, split into two stanzas. In the second stanza, my partner had a series of poor hands and mine were even worse: so much so that I passed throughout on all twelve deals! Can anyone recall matching or bettering this 'feat'?

Nigel: after the 1♦ response you didn't mention an alternative to rebidding 2♣. May I suggest "(Some partners prefer me to raise with 4-card support)"?

True, Robin is an expert in mathematics, but Robin's studies may not have extended to anything called "math".

According to your bidding diagram, West didn't bid 3NT, he passed throughout.

If by that you mean that South would not have been capable of drawing any inference from North's question/short pause, then I don't see which Law has been broken. Table result stands.

In standard methods, unless specifically agreed otherwise, raising a natural 3NT to 4NT is natural and invitational. Is it? What example hands for Responder did you have in mind?

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhaj962dak83cak2&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1hp1sp3dp3sp3np5sp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints, playing standard methods. 1. What do you consider to be a typical hand for partner's actions on this auction? 2. What call do you make now?

Because the opening poster tells us that:

I prefer Nigel's reasoning: think of some very poor hands opposite that give play for game (or slam) and deduce that your hand is worth a game force. Nor do I. The order of the suits is such that we will often be able to show our suits economically. 2♣-2♦-2♠-2NT-3♣ gets the hand across well and still leaves room for partner to introduce a red suit at the 3-level. However, swap the pointed suits around to make the hand QJx A AKxxx AKQx and now the hand is much more awkward to bid after a 2♣ opener. I've seen Eric Kokish advocate opening 1♦ on hands like this.

Completing the transfer does show a minimum hand in the context provided by the opening post:

I don't blame you for finding this confusing. This is a regulation used in certain WBF tournaments rather than a Law. The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 include the following within the 'definitions' section. It is hard to see how someone with a 4=4=4=1 shape would want to express willingness to play in clubs, so it the Law implies that a 1♣ opening on such a hand by agreement is artificial. Does the WBF regulation over-ride the Law? Not in my opinion. Law 80B2 says: So this "avoidance creation of doubt" regulation is ultra vires.

You can play 2♦ as showing a good 2♠ bid here (so could be selected if you happened to hold a 4306 and the opponents happened to have forgotten to overcall in diamonds). 2♦ is not needed in a natural sense. Even if it's your style to open 1♣ on a 5♦332 shape, why would you want to escape from 1NT when partner has shown 4-4 in the majors? When I first played transfers over 1♣, I played this way to be analogous with standard methods. However, I've now changed to putting these hands in the 1M completion (as the auction is so low, we have plenty of room to distinguish the hand types on the next round). Knowing that Opener has 4-card support makes it easier for Responder to judge whether to proceed and, perhaps more importantly, will lead to less information leakage when Responder just wants to play in 4M opposite 4-card support.

I play 2NT as a 2-suiter. If the opponents have raised hearts, 2NT=both minors. If the opponents have raised spades, I have three different agreements with different partners: A. 2NT=hearts and a minor B. 2NT = any 2 suits C. 2NT =any 2 suits, but if hearts is one of the suits, limited in playing strength by the failure to bid 4m Leaping Michaels.

The 2NT bid would be rather more effective if RHO's 2♠ bid had been preceded by an insufficient bid.

I play these jumps as .........natural. 2♠-4♥ = selecting the final contract (game bids are to play) 2♠-4m = natural with spade support (i.e. a fit jump). (doesn't make sense to bid the suit at this level without support)

The West hand is an awkward one to show in most systems (just agreeing to play a 2/1 as game forcing doesn't solve the problem unless you have some pretty sophisticated agreements thereafter.) A non-forcing 3♦ is more than "a bit wimpish" and partner will never expect this shape for 2NT, not to mention the wrong-siding issue. Note that if Opener's rounded suits are the other way round, or if the minors are swapped such that the initial response is 2♣, Opener has an easy 3-level splinter available, allowing Responder to select 3NT in a hand with values stuffed in the splinter suit. So the dilemma you face is only an issue when the response is 2♦, Opener has 4-card support and shortage in clubs. On the actual West hand, whilst 3NT could be the last making contract, the slam potential is too great to ignore. Picture the pointed suits aces opposite. Playing traditional methods, I would bid 4♣, prepared to apologise if 3NT is the last making spot. Playing a 2/1 as forcing to 2NT creates all sorts of other problems; I don't recommend it, (especially) if playing weak NT. It's better to stick with 2/1 as forcing to 2M (so FG opposite 15+ balanced) or if you are going to force your 15-16 balanced hands to keep the bidding open after a 1NT responses, then you might as well play the 2-over-1M as forcing to game and get some benefit back there.

You might think that, but there are plenty of non-big-club pairs who have won world championships without playing this "essential" convention. Also, I don't know why you make the assumption that Gazilli is the only alternative to playing all of Opener's rebids as natural.

Thanks for the replies. Trumps were 2-2. My partner eliminated the spades and then played a ♦ to the 10 on the first round. It occurred to me afterwards that having stripped the hand it might be better to play ♦K and then low to the 10 (as suggested by Rainer). But I also wondered whether it is correct to eliminate the spades at all. If you want to play a low ♦ to the 10 on the first round, it might be better to leave the spade entry in dummy. Then if RHO inserts a quack, return to dummy and then lead up to the 10. If diamonds don't play for 3 tricks then fall back on the heart finesse. Maybe RHO can deceive us by play high from Q9x or J9x, but I suspect that it would not have been found at the table.

It depends what you mean by 'work'. There may be the odd sequence where you can't show the exact hand pattern below an acceptable level, but often the exact hand pattern will be irrelevant. As I'm sure you know, there are pros and cons on relay systems. When Opener is balanced, it is less useful for Responder to know the exact shape.