cherdanno

Even if you agree with the concept of 'going with the field', I think that randomly leading unsupported Aces is very bad. So bad that if the field is doing it, you will pick up a lot of matchpoints every time you are on lead with an Ace just by leading something else. Aside from that, there isn't even a good way to go with the field, unless you know which ace the field leads. I would lead a diamond but it seems like I have thought less about this lead than Josh and Justin.

Here is what I think is standard: At a low level, XX is to play. Over a primarily stopper asking bid at the 3-level, pass denies a good stopper, XX shows a non-positional stopper, and NT shows a good stopper. With a half stopper, you can pass and bid NT if partner redoubles. Over cuebids, XX shows first round control and thus no worry about the lead.

I have never heard of a XX showing xx.

Bob Hamman quickly replies to text messages? Can I have his...oh wait, now I know why the ACBL banned cell phones!

What? I cannot find it online, can you show me a reference? I am almost positive it at least used to be the case that it was forcing. If I am wrong, sorry! I also feel like I'm in bizzaro world because I've never heard of anyone playing 2H here as NF. It reminds me of when jdonn and drg told me everyone played new suits as forcing after an overcall, and one told me that was BWS also, but they were wrong! :( [Edit: I guess I can't read today either.] http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...=bwsall.html#VF V.F:

Btw, if you wanted to move over 4♠, you should bid 5♠, asking for good trumps. If partner has good trumps, you at least have a shot at making slam (and it may be good). If his trumps are bad, you want to stay far away from slam in 4S - but at least 5S will get you to stop there.

2♥ should not be passable. Do we need to jump around on a 15 count with non-solid hearts? Still, I bid 3♥. 2♥ is NF in BWS. The obvious benefit is that you can bid 2♦ with hands that are not worth forcing to the 3-level without a fit. (I know I am saying the same as Maggie but I think it's more useful to think about how for 2♦ should be forcing.)

I pass 4♠.

3H.

5♦ = good trumps, but otherwise not very interested in slam. I don't like it for the latter reason, we could easily have slam (and will get there if partner cues 4♥ over 4♦).

As for your first example, it might be better to construct examples that don't have ♥AKQ, as we have them. If you take a 1345 14-count with xxx of hearts, and good controls to make up for that, well, then you are already in slam territory. And no, I would definitely not bid 4♥ with any hand with 4-card support.

Doesn't help when you are trying to bid though! Yes it does. Just mouse over the bid you want to make, and an explanation will pop up.

OR 4) Splinter Do you think a) Justin forgot to list this meaning, or B) was implying that he think it is a bad agreement? Are we only allowed to suggest things that Justin thinks are a good idea? Am I not allowed to ask whether Phil thinks Justin forgot this meaning, or he thinks Justin thinks it's a bad meaning?

I would, however, like to know about restricted choice when playing this slam!

OR 4) Splinter Do you think a) Justin forgot to list this meaning, or b) was implying that he think it is a bad agreement?

I think most people don't fight for the partscore enough at IMPs. So in that sense they change their bidding too much.

Partner does not have 7 hearts. (Mine anyway.)

You will have a lot of information about the heart guess.

I know a lot of players who misunderstand the concept of LA. "You cannot reopen with a double after your partner hesitated" is s.th. I have been told several times by helpful LOLs at bridge clubs.

East's pass of 4♠ is very weird. North has a clear 5♠ bid.

Or hearts splitting and clubs 2-2.

So what was the actual hand, uhm, I mean, did you actually get one? Pictures? :(

I am not sure in this auction, but e.g. in (1D) X (P) it seems to be US standard to play 2♦ as promising a rebid, and in European standard advancer can pass 2M.

Do the commercial GIB versions include the bidding improvements made to the GIBs on BBO? If not, is there a plan that future GIBs may include them?

But if the two bad pairs form a team, you are also dampening their common bad results. I suppose if you are the better team, you should split the good pairs, and if you are the worse team, you should have them play together.