mikestar

I think 6 HCP is just a bit light for 2♦--the purpose of this response is to show at least mild slam interest while denying the ability to show a suit. The typical 4-6 count should show lack of slam interest by making the negative 2♥ response then driving to game. I agree that if 2♥ is meant as an immediate double negative (usually 0-3 HCP) non forcing that either 2♦ isn't being responded often enough or 2♣ is being opened too often.

I'm with Kaplan. If losing a match enhances your chance of winning the event, do it. How is this fundamentally different than losing a trick to guarantee the contract. If this type of behavior is not wanted, devise different conditions of contest. I recall an incident from ice hockey in the early 70's. In those days the first place team in each conference would play against the third place team in the first round of the playoffs while the second place team would play the fourth place team. The St. Louis Blues were the class of the Western Conference and were certain to beat whoever else in the West they played they were first by a mile. The LA Kings needed a win or a tie in their final game against the worst team in the league to finish third so they could be slaughtered by the Blues in the playoffs. Unaccountably, they lost and finished fourth, then went on to beat Oakland in the first round of the playoffs, the first time they won a playoff series. Then they were slaughtered by St. Louis in the conference finals. It was widely believed that the Kings dumped their final regular season game--but it was clearly in their best interest to lose that game. For the following year, the NHL changed the playoff system that had been in use for half a century so that henceforth the first place team would meet the fourth place team and the second place team would meet the third place team. This eliminated any incentive to dump and it has never been alleged since. So for bridge organizations--find incentives to dump and remove them from the conditions of contest.

Obvious double, will raise 3♥ to four and will bid 3♥ over anything else. If partner has a heart fit, there will be a play opposite a fair number of yarbs. A no brainer IMHO.

Here 3♦ should look more like ♠xx ♥xx ♦xxxxxx ♣xx. The signoff in this sequence should send the message "my hand is totally worthless for NT, but I have some tricks if diamonds are trumps."

I agree that if your sole goal is to maximize the occurrence of 1NT-3NT auctions, then a wider range opening is to be preferred to a three point range. But the wider range also increases the chance of 1NT-2NT-P as well. If you aren't going to game it's much better to play in 1NT than 2NT--2NT never gains and loses big if seven tricks are the limit. I rather like 12-14 with invitations only on a good 11 or really bad 12. I have played 12-14 with no power invites at all--it's playable. The occasional missed 14-11 game is bad but the total absence of 2NT-1 results compensates for most of these.

With my usual opening standards, this hand is worth 2♣ forcing to game and wouldn't be a huge overbid with lighter standards. The three card raise works well on this construction, as does 2♣ invitational+ or XYZ. 2NT can't be right here--to likely to miss a 5-3 heart fit, but also may get us to NT with ♣ inadequately stopped. Imagine the club ace opposite a stiff ...

3♠ bidders are misapplying the Law -- the hand requires huge negative adjustments. And are you sure 2♠ promises 5? I think it should, but how will you do in 3♠ on a 4-4 fit?

Pass. I wouldn't criticize double with the actual cards and I would definitely double if ♦J were the ♥J.

I think fast arrival is one of the most abused bridge ideas ever. The jump to game should not mean "I have a minimum", it should mean "game is the limit, there is no slam"--clearly the latter meaning is impossible opposite an unlimited hand, so fast arrival doesn't (shouldn't) apply in this case.

Assuming we are playing penalty doubles, #1 is clear cut--if we don't double on this hand, when will we? They are clearly escaping from 1NTX, so I would pass 2♦, forcing.

For me, close between pass and 3NT. Definitely 3NT if we need a swing.

I virtually always open 1NT with 15-16 and a five card major. I upgrade most 17's and open the major and also upgrade most 14's and open 1NT. I only deviate with a strong 5 card major (strong enough to pretend it is a 6 carder) and a hand that gains little or no advantage from declaring NT.

Let's take the hands in order. #1 is a clear cut double, but the hand I like least for it--the 4333 shape and wasted ♣Q are horrible. But I do support all unbid suits and have a hand even Al Roth would open. #2 is much better. An opening hand, good support for both majors, the ♣Kx is a flaw. However, how often will partner bid 2♣ with only four of them? #3 is fine. Though a sub minimum opening, the shape is dead perfect. If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose to pass one of these, it would be #1.

4♦ even playing Leb. Totally clear cut jump without it.

I've always been surprised that Asptro hasn't caught on here in North America. It is an excellent method to get to the right major when 5-4 and handles major minor hands reasonably well. True you can't get out in 2♣ or in 2♦ when you show spades, but I think DONT advocates overestimate your chances of buying the contract in 2m-and how much 2m disturbs their 1NT.

I'd risk one more try. True, if partner had ♠K ♥Q and ♣Q he would have likely gone past game, but he doesn't need a this perfecto for slam to have a good play.

It depends on your opening standards. In most of my partnerships I hold fairly closely to Rule of 20 (some adjustments for suit quality and defensive strength). If this is the case for your partnership, you are worth 3♠. If your partnership opens lighter than this, I agree with pass.

I rather like passing this shape. 4-4-4-1 has the best defense of all unbalanced patterns. Its no problem to handle when partner opens, and is either a perfect takeout double or a defensive surprise when the opponents open. As an aside, I find it quite amusing that EHAA is discussed under Non-Natural System Discussion. It is undoubtedly the most natural system ever played seriously--indeed, dispense with Stayman over the mini NT and Blackwood and you can play it at the Portland Club.

Agree 100%.

I understand that you do not wish people posting on your thread who aren't answering your question. I would call to your attention that I really dislike screaming (ALL CAPS IN RED) even when it isn't directed at me: it interferes with my enjoyment of the forums. I do not know but strongly suspect that I am not alone in this opinion.

One of the very best short treatments of the subject I've read. I would add that you should tend to avoid leading from four trumps as well as from a stiff.

There are several good authors. Not all agree with you, some do. [snip] If you can find a reference by a good bridge author who does not share the view I explained, share please. Mike Lawrence, in his workbook on the 2 over 1 system recommends to rebid the sixcard ♠ and not the fourcard ♥. He makes an exception when the heart suit has more HCP than the spade suit. But Mike Lawrence is not a "good bridge author"; he is excellent. :) As against this Marty Bergen teaches 6-4-6 as the order to bid these suits regardless of hand strength and whether the 4 carder is major or minor. Suit quality can still be taken into account: I doubt Marty would bid 2♥ with ♠AKQxxx ♥xxxx any more than Mike would bid 2♠ with ♠xxxxxx ♥AKQx. I could argue the case either way and the partnership being in agreement is probably more important than which method is chosen.

My preferred solution is to widen the 1NT rebid a bit to say 15 HCP, and reduce the reverse requirement to 16 HCP. The we can always open these hand 1♣.

1NT of course. This hand is a walking advertisement for playing the weak NT.

Agree completely. I pass, but have more sympathy for double than 5♦.