mich-b

I think it is slightly better that 4♦ shows any 2 places to play, not necessarily both majors. For example 4♦ is fine with 4225 , planning to bid 4♠ over 4♥ from partner , offering a choice between spades and clubs.

5♠ I have a feeling this is actually a ruling quesion ....

We do superaccept , but we do that only with 4 card support and maximum (or near maximum). We would not consider this soft 4333 hand as good enough for a superaccept.

Roughly 9-12.

Rebidding 2NT does not necessarily mean the final contract will be 2NT. It may just be the best description of the hand. It may be the way to reach 3NT , or 3m (if pd chooses to correct to 3m (NF), knowing I have a balanced hand). It's true that usually we are not happy about playing 2NT , but that does not imply that all natural 2NT bids are useless.

I heard many times that if a direct 2♠ response would have been "weak" (say 4-7) , bidding 1♠ and rebidding 2♠ has to be invitational (or at least constructive). I wasn't convinced by this argument - I think there are hands where you would like to leave room to explore alternative strains , before comitting to 2♠, like: ♠xxxxxx ♥- ♦KQxxx ♣Jx Responding 2♠ directly risks missing a good diamond contract, but still after opener rebid's 2♥ I like my chances in 2♠ better than pd's chances in 2♥ and therefore would like to rebid 2♠ without this showing a constructive/invitational values. When the bidding started 1♦ -1♠ - 2♣/♦ it seems to me there is even more reasons to consider 2♠ non-constructive. Responder might be 6-4 in the majors, in a weak hand , and with that he would not have responded a direct weak 2♠.

We play that it shows exactly 2. I don't know if that is "standard" or not.

We have the agreement , that after a control cuebid has been made (4♦ in this case) , all "in doubt" bids (suits other than the agreed trumps , even if bid by either partner before) are cuebids. It would be different if opener rebid 4♠ after 4♣. Since no control cuebids have been made yet , we would play 4♠ here as natural and suggestion to play. Pairs can have other agreements of course , but I feel it is important to have a general agreement , and not judge each case (of this type) by its own merits , which too often leads to misunderstandings.

Since West in fact passed 5♠ (why did he?) , passing the same contract after partner doubles it, has to be considered a LA (and South's Rdbl doesnt change that). But when ruling on this , it has to be remembered that if West passed 5♠XX , East can still bid (and he doesn't have any UI), so this should somehow be considered.

(I know this is not going to happen but) I feel that the game would be slightly better if one could not get a game bonus , by being doubled in a partscore. If making 2♦X is worth 180 , then making 3♦X can be worth 220. If one declares 3♦X and makes it , +220 is quite a good score anyway , and he can always redouble if he wants to. I don't see why logically declarer should be credited with game if he didn't bid it. I think this scoring change would make a penalty double (of partscores) a more useful weapon. Currently this weapon is underused , because the scoring makes it bad odds - you lose too much if they happen to make.

1♠. For 4♠ I would like to have better offense to defense ratio , better shape , better suit quality (or length).

Would you really be surprised to hear that , for example , in a final match of the trials between two 4 handed teams a top level pair played less than their top level game, when they knew in advance (because they agreed with the other team , or just assumed that would happen) they would be in the national team in any case? (either by winning , or by losing and being selected as 3rd pair by their opps). Don't you think a pair might play less than their best (even if not deliberately) when they know they will be selected whatever the outcome of the match? How do you think their teammates might feel , when they hear 2 hours after they lost the final , that their teammates have actually joined the winners, and that was discussed or assumed in advance?

deleted (duplicate post).

If North would double 4♦ , showing a strong balanced hand , and suggesting defending, 5 down would be likely (lead a trump of course).

I am interested in simple and effective defense against moscito (1♣ = 15+ , 1♦ = 4+♥ 10-14 , denies 4♠ 1♥ = 4+♠ 10-14 , denies 4♥ 1♠ = both majors 10-14) We can play our usual defense against the strong 1♣ so I am really looking for suggestions how to deal with the 1♦/1♥ openings , and in particular , how to use Double and 1♥/1♠. Since I need this for one 16 board match , I really need something simple , but any advice is welcome. Additionally , I am also interested in suggestions for a (simple!) defense to a system where generally : 1♣ = ♥ 1♦ = ♠ 1♥ = ♣ or balanced 1♠ = ♦

Natural - hoping to play there.

Something like you describe is sometimes done in Israel, when deals are prepared for practice matches of national teams - most often juniors. When selecting the more "interesting" deals , usually the organizer does not get into deep analysis , and just looks for hands where there is some distribution. So what often happens is that someone has a 4♠ opening , Passed out , and the hand turns out "boring" after all , when some 1NTs do require delicate play. Having said that , this method of selecting hands is ok if practice time is limited , as long as everybody understand thats only a practice match. I would suggest not using the results of this directly for selection. Though it's ok if the NPC just looks of how everybody plays, which mistakes have been made, and uses his observations in selection process. With this setting in mind , I would suggest to the players to forget the hand selection method , and play their best normal bridge to leave a good impression on the selector. When this method is used around here - that works well , everybody plays normally and seriously , though results are not really recorded anywhere. One last point : I would suggest not to do this too often , because players' "feel" for distributions may get skewed - they get used to wild distributions and expect them all the time...

b) Doubt about strain, i.e. singleton heart and a dubious spade stopper , or no ♠ stopper.

[hv=pc=n&n=sk4hj742dakj86caj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2spp]133|200[/hv] 2♠ = ♠ + minor Teams. Playing 2/1 with 15-17 NT , and no special agreements about upgrading : 1. Would you open 1NT or 1♦ planning to rebid 2NT or 1♦ planning to reverse with 2♥? 2. Having opened 1NT , would you balance now (with a Double or anything else)?

3♥ , natural, weakish.

Would open 4♥. For us this is a "prototype" 4♥ opening.

I would expect the doubler to hold a trap pass of ♠s , in a goodish hand , including "something" in ♥ ("something" means approximately Hxx or better).

I am sure this has been discussed in the past , but anyway : How often do you Stayman with a "game values" 4333 (with a major) opposite a 15-17 1NT opening playing IMPs ? never/rarely/sometimes/usually/always? Does it depend on your strength (9? 14?) , on your controls? And similarly how about using puppet stayman with a 33(34) (4 card minor) opposite a 2NT opening?

I think this hand is too strong for a "non-forcing" constructive 2♥, so would have to start with 2♠ planning 3♥ over pd's expected 3♣. After they bid 4♠ : I agree with Justin and would double , since I dont have special shape , have only a 5 card ♥ suit , and I am short in pd's suit.

♠9