kfgauss

A fine example of our opening going wrong with partner probably having misjudged a competitive situation (by acting over 3♦ when we probably should've passed it out). In any case, I now close my eyes and bid 3♠. Andy

1. As whereagles said, many hands with 0-1 spades and only 5 (or a poor 6) hearts will bid 2NT (because 3m would be forcing). Also, many hands with 2 spades will have to bid 2NT as well (because 2S is forcing). 2. This is a problem. I would go with 5-5, but clearly you lose something either way. An issue here: what are 3H and 3S by opener at this point? My interpretation is that 3H is NF (any non forcing heart raise bids 2S catchall first because an immediate 3H would be forcing). It appears 3S should also be NF, but if you play it NF, either any GF hand with a decent 6 card spade suit has to jump to 3S immediately (as opposed to having extras as well -- ie 16-18) or you have to give up on 6-2 fits after this auction and just bid 3N. Andy

3rd seat, all white, BAM. You hold: J984 K3 AK10 10864 P 1S* P 1N** 2H P P 2S P P ? *: 1S is 10-15 (they play precision) **: 1N is semi-forcing Your call?

BAM, red vs white. In 4th seat you hold: 2 Q86543 2 QJ532 The bidding goes: 1C* P 1D** ? 1C: precision, 16+ (17+ bal) 1D: negative You play suction. 1NT = two untouching suits (C+H or D+S). If you want to show hearts only, you can do that with double = H or S+C (or 2D, same meaning). What's your call? If you pass over 1C-1D, would you bid if you were in 2nd seat and RHO had opened 1C? (Same bids and meanings, but 1D replaces double.) [Edit: I'll preemptively request that you not tell me about your favorite methods here and instead work within the given constrants. If your call would be qualitatively different playing your methods, feel free to mention that to contrast with your call playing these methods, though.] [Edit: Yes, 2NT is available as C+H or D+S as well.]

From the information you give, it seems clear the score should be adjusted to 4♥+1 for 650 as with the correct explanation, West would not double (but everything else would be the same). I'm hesitant to believe that South bid 3♣ while knowing partner had the majors. This seems rather dangerous and it seems unlikely the opponents will sacrifice in 5♣ over 4♥. (Also, if partner doesn't bid hearts, a 4♥ bid later could be misinterpreted.) Just because a double of 3♦ would give a better score than 3NT is no reason not to adjust to 3NT=. The standard here is that you need to "continue to play bridge" or some such, but inferior actions are certainly allowed. I'd need to see the hand to be confident in my opinion here, but my guess is that it would have been correct to adjust to 3NT=.

Opening 1S is not completely free, as partner may double them or otherwise misjudge a competitive decision based on counting on you for more defense. It has various upsides, too, though, and your ♠AK make up for some of the lack of defense. Opening 2S seems a good alternative (though it's possible this will cause partner to sacrifice when it isn't desired) and has more preemptive effect, though sometimes showing strength (with 1S) is as effective as or more effective than preempting. I'd probably go with 2S most of the time, but would be happy to try out 1S and Pass and don't know what's theoretically best. Andy

I'd appreciate it if I could set up tournaments with only 1 table (current lower limit is 2). I'd like this as a way to play uploaded deals with a foursome. If this would just be an easy thing to allow and wouldn't cause you problems it'd be much appreciated. (Some other method of playing uploaded deals as a foursome other than at a teaching table -- so nobody sees all 4 hands -- would also be great, but the above might be a very simple way to do this.) Thank you, Andy

Where do you find the hand records from the Hollman-Nickell match? Also, what happened on this hand (if Hamman had passed, it would've been a >=6 imp swing to Nickell?)? Thanks, Andy

Actually I think its takeout, at least moderate extras. But as with most other x's you can make some offshape x's if you are strong enough to bid again and can handle the auction. In the auction 1C-P-1S-2H P-P-x I would expect a minimum of about a 9 count here, with takeout shape. Maybe an 8 count will do with a singleton in hearts. I play (and have been told it's standard, but am not certain) that 3C and 3D here are just competitive (3D would be something like 4-6), so double gets overloaded and includes lots of good hands (including forcing club raises, forcing 5S-5D hands, etc etc) and X..3m is forcing. I also double on competitive takeout shapes (ie this is sort of like delayed negative free bids, but I don't play NFB in other settings). I'm not sure which of your descriptions this is the same as (or if it's neither). Andy PS As for support doubles, I use them in all auctions except 1C P 1D 1S (double shows 4 hearts here), but play that they are not mandatory (ie 4333's often don't make them).

Ok, perhaps I shouldn't have included the 1st half of this problem, as it is a bit silly. I was considering bidding 3C over jacoby 2N when I asked and was told it was nat. Would people bid 3C over jacoby 2N? Andy

Josh, did you test using 2H over 1D as natural and 1H as 2-suited? (This is effectively what Jan was talking about over transfer responses to 1C.) Andy

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakjxha108xdjxc1054&e=s109xxxh7xxxxdxcq7]266|200|Scoring: IMP 1D X P 2C P P P[/hv] Partner leads a low club (say the 3) and declarer plays low from dummy. Which trump do you play at trick 1? (If you wish to comment on the bidding, there's another poll open for that.)

Imps, none vul. You hold: 109xxx 7xxxx x Qx. Partner deals: 1D X ? Do you act? I passed, and the bidding continued: 1D X P 2C; P P ? Do you act?

Imps, favorable. You hold: AJxx Jxxx x 98xx. RHO deals: 1S P 2S 3H; 4D ? (RHO's 4D needn't be a slam try and is likely just showing a suit to help with competitive decisions.) What's your bid? What do you do if they compete further in spades?

Playing imps at favorable, you pick up: x xx K1098 A8xxxx. LHO deals and the bidding is 1S P 2N ?, where 2N = 12-15 bal. Do you bid 3C? I passed, and the auction continued: 1S P 2N P; 3H P 3S P; 3N P 4D ? Do you double?

I pass, as 5D is decent and even with the AQA hand, slam isn't so good on the likely spade lead. Andy

The unfortunate point here is that the website that was linked to was a non-offensive non-bridge blog, but it linked to, among many other things, a website apparently considered offensive by BBO/BBF (admittedly, by the same author and at the same domain name). Andy

Some playing around with this yields strange results: P 1C 1D X; 1H = "11- HCP; biddable H; 12- points" P 1C 1D X; 1S = "3+D; 11 HCP; 12 points, 5+ relay points" 1C 1D X 1H = "biddable H" 1C 1D X 1S = "3+D; 16+ points; forcing to 3N" just to check, it does play 1C 1D X as "Negative double -- 4+H; 4+S; 7+ points" So somehow only 1S is a cuebid on this auction, according to it. However, 1C 1D X 2H is "3+D; 1-H; 16+ points; forcing to 3N" whereas 1C 1D X 2S has no definition. Andy

I don't agree: this is conventional. The meaning of "convention" is defined in the Laws and clearly applies to this 2♦ bid because it promises a major. In the GCC they define natural: "An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit and in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit. [snip stuff about NT]" Embarrassingly I don't find where they allow natural bids, but they presumably intended to do so (or I'm just missing it), else the GCC doesn't allow 1S to show 4+ spades and 8+ points (they disallow fewer than 8 pts in a 1-level opening specifically), for example. (I feel like I've come across this issue before and I forget what the conclusion was.) In any case, 2D showing 4+D and 4+M seems to qualify. Unfortunately, unless it's changed to 5+D and 4+M or to promise 10+ pts, then conventional responses are disallowed (it's a weak two-bid with only 4 cards in the suit). Isn't the precise wording that any "catchall" bid is allowed? I suspect that a transfer 1♦ opening would not be considered a catchall. It's not entirely satisfactory that such a poorly-defined term is used as part of the reguations, but I think the interpretation is fairly clear in this case. The precise wording is "1C or 1D may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points." I've been assuming this means any meaning is fine, but perhaps something else was intended (what if my catchall is "hands that don't fit in other opening bids" and that happens to be precisely those with primary hearts?). Andy

A point that I wasn't so familiar with came up recently. My partnerships have agreed that without competition, our preemptive raise to 3m is mixed when vul and weak when non-vul (mixed = 18-19 bal bids 3N, weak = 18-19 bal passes usually). We probably have the same agreement implicitly in competition, however there's the extra bid of 2C. My impression is that 2C is less shapely than 3C, and 6-10 or so (which I guess we'll call "mixed" in this discussion). However, one can bid 2C, and then further compete to 3C. My partner suggested that this shows mixed values and enough shape to get to 3C, so when non-vul, one jumps with a weak 3C bid and bids 2C..3C with a mixed 3C bid. For example, he took this action on 95 53 9764 AQJ43 over 1C 1S (none vul, mps). Is this interpretation standard (or, more relevantly, do people like this treatment)? I would've simply bid 3C on this hand, and think that in competition, preemption is more important in this situation than making sure you get to 3N opposite an 18-19 bal partner (at least with the given hand... change it to 95 Q3 9764 AQJ43 and I admit 3C is undesirable for various reasons, though I'm still not sure whether I like 2C..3C or 3C more). Then there's the further point of what to do when vul in competition. Should one play 3C weak and 2C..3C mixed (even though not in comp we play 3C as mixed)? If not, what should 2C..3C mean, if anything? Any thoughts people have on this topic would be appreciated. Andy

- Would one then be required to give all the raptor follow-ups? I'd imagine things could get fairly complicated in competitive auctions in which there's ambiguity about the minor (in addition to just wanting to know what's pass/correct, what's "tell me your minor", what's invitiational, etc. in regular auctions). Raptor isn't hard to play, but I'm not sure one should be foisting it on people who have no experience with it. It seems to me that good, simple, not necessarily optimal defenses that employ fairly familiar methods are what one should shoot for, and that they shouldn't be too hard to find. As for defenses to one-level transfer openings, it seems that double = "overcall" of the doubled suit, cuebid = "takeout double", higher = as before (but 2 of the transfer suit is a "weak jump overcall") is a good defense that makes use of the available space (who hasn't wanted a 1H overcall of 1S?). The only issue now is that you can't pass the "takeout double", but that doesn't seem like a big deal. In any case, this defense seems good and simple (of course, it's possible I'm overlooking something). (Yes, one also needs to know what to do over responses, but 1: that seems like a separate issue [ie dependent on whether any of them are midchart responses] and 2: basically only the response that "completes the transfer" can be strange, so there isn't much work to do). I seem to recall this defense having been proposed and rejected. Does anyone know the reasoning given? I'm not sure who should come up with the defenses, this seems a difficult issue. I do agree though that either the midchart should be changed or a defense to moscito should be approved in a timely manner (and if the defense given isn't adequate at first, criticism should be given). I sympathise with the players who spend valuable time on these committees and hope what seems necessary in this area can be done without too much burden on them. Andy

I must agree with David that the 3H and 3NT calls were both deserving of 100% of the blame. 3H should be at least a good 6 card suit, and 3NT with a misfit and no values is horrible. (If they must add up to 100%, let's go 51% S, 49% N because South's call came first.) The "system" has nothing to do with it, however: nobody's forcing you to introduce your crappy 5 card heart suit at the 3-level just because you've only shown 4 so far. Andy

Playing in an A/X (matchpoint) pairs game in a sectional, you hold: 82 A107642 A53 94 in 2nd seat, vul vs not. 1C 1H X 1N; 2D ? What's your call? [Edit: These opponents play 2D as not necessarily showing extras.]

I agree as far as board 8 goes, but it seems we are playing board 7 and declarer has just informed us that she didn't look at her hand during the auction. It's fine that she didn't use her hand, and it's also fine that this information has been communicated, as she's declarer. I could see there being a law making this sort of situation an exception (ie specifically for bidding with a hand from a different board), but unless there is one, I see nothing wrong with keeping the score on board 7. Andy

Really? It makes sense that the second board is unplayable, but why the first? Andy