jjbrr

But you can claim Tom Brady, so it's a wash.

http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/6048/badum.jpg

1♣ alternatively prec 2♦

2 ounces. My kind of shot.

Fred's post (and Adam's of course) is well said and the very reason I've never spent any time at all discussing good/bad 2NT auctions. I'm fine without it, I think.

This thread is only a couple months old. Sorry if it isn't exactly the information you want.

Why is it that when I google Ann Coulter, "Ann Coulter Playboy" is the second suggestion google gives me :)

Well, 2-way stayman is one of the "standard" things to play over a weak NT. I suppose you could ask the same thing about how most strong NTers play a 5S/4H invite (where stayman followed by 2M is weak) - no good bid since most people play GF (not invitational) Smolen. Many people are playing now that 1NT 2♣ 2♦ -2♥ is weak and ambiguous as to which major is longer. With Opener playing in the major in his longest 3-card M and correcting to 2♠ with 3-3 (so yes, sometimes you play a 4-3 instead of a 5-3. oh well) -2♠ is invitational 5♠ (could have 4♥) So that solves your problem, with the downside being slightly less accuracy with less than invitational hands.

Sets clubs as trumps and starts cuebidding. this... and I would bid this with your hand. Yes 2 ♦ would be forcing too, but are you sure that you and your partner agree that 1♣ 1♥ 2♣ 2♦ 3♥ 4♣ sets clubs and is no cuebid? So I would simple raise too. Codo, a jump to 3♥ in this auction should be a very specific hand type, though I won't offer an opinion of what it should be since I'm not totally sure. I suspect it's a hand that improves a lot with a ♥ fit. However, it isnt bid too often since 2♥ would show 3-card support anyway and conserves space and allows partner to define what sort of hand type they have for the 2♦ bid. In the auction you provided, I would take 4♣ as natural.

Start considering playing 2♦ as forcing, for sure, imo. It makes all these game and slam auctions easier, and it's better when you have both majors or 3 suits or whatever because you gain a tempo in the auction. When partner has 6♣, it's very often right with NF ♥ and ♦ to just pass and allow partner's 6 card suit to be trumps. If you're void, you can try to pull to 2♥. otherwise pass will very often be fine.

I like the auction so far. RHO has solid ♣ I guess? Whatever, we're not good enough to slam force.

I think it is the right time to fudge. AJ9 is sort of like 2 of the top 3, and it's impossible to show 2 shortnesses after a jacoby 2NT, so you might as well show a second suit to 1) guarantee shortness somewhere and 2) imply relative shortness in the 4th suit while 3) describing the main secondary feature of your hand. Obviously you want partner to give aces and ♦ cards their full value, and not worry about kings and queens in the blacks. If partner asks RKC, I will show my void and an even number.

Yeah, RUNT without a very complicated escape structure eventually falls to the double. Even then, you eventually get caught. That's why you can only whip it out once every decade. LOL One weakness in my bridge game is that I'm really not great at creating action to stomp bad players. I'm not too creative or imaginative, and I would be reluctant to adopt methods like RUNT because they seem vulnerable to what should be obvious penalty doubles. I suspect you'll agree that in the real world, what's obvious is not always obvious to the nice LOL on my left, so things like RUNT can really wreak havoc on these people. Anyway, it does sound like a fun convention. Next time you let it out of its cage, keep us posted <_<

Missing major suits fits with unbalanced hands sucks, imo. I played weak NTs with no transfers for a long time, and it's a headache without ways to untangle something so simple. Plus you lose the ability to pass partner's stayman response. This seems bad.

1♥, 4♦

Wait wat? We have 11 ♠ at least and you think 6NT? Am I misreading something? I'd bid 6♣

confirmed dirty

i edited before you pwned me, for the record.

He said takeout with better ♥. Where did you read equal length? 3♥ was my first instinct. Shouldn't encourage partner too much hopefully. Edit: sorry, maybe I'm wrong. I thought better=longer. If not, then 3♠.

i double

I would

lol tilt, who keeps doing that!?

A psych is a deliberate departure from partnership agreement. Since the disclosure rules are oriented around explaining those agreements, if a player psychs, and you ask him what his bid means (online — you can't do that f2f unless behind screens) you should expect the explanation to not match the hand. You may not like that — I expect a lot of players don't — but since psychs are legal, you're stuck with it. Before someone suggests creating a regulation that if an opponent asks, when you have psyched, about your call, you must tell him you've psyched, let my say that IMO such a regulation would be illegal, since it effectively makes psyching pointless, and so would contravene Law 40A3. That said, if you ask someone what a call means, you should be told the partnership agreement. Right. Psyche isn't the right word for this situation. I just think a game where someone can make bids in lots of different situations with no responsibility whatsoever to either have a hand that resembles anything the bid normally shows or to disclose the fact that it's completely random to the opponents is not a game I'm interested in playing. It's like the auction 2H (dbl) 3x where 3x can be any 13 cards. It has no downside if you can claim no agreement and the only responsibility is on the opponents to try to work around it. Hardly seems fair.

♥jdonn

the higher x could be an S. H98x. I don't know; I can't imagine in practice it makes much difference. Probably none at all.