nigel_k

I think it's close but would not downgrade the hand because I like the AKQx. However I find these arguments highly unconvincing. 1. Irrelevant, at least as a reason for being dismissive of the downgraders who didn't use a sim. Also, it's not clear why you think the defenders have a big advantage double dummy on this hand compared to others. They are unlikely to give you a trick on the lead in real life, as they quite often do other times after a 1NT opening. 2. This is an argument for a wider NT range, but has nothing to do with determining the true value of this hand. If playing a 14-17 NT, the hand qualifies obviously. 3. So KQJ tight is a plus because it's concentrated honours and 9xx is a more than negligible improvement over 432? I don't agree. Everything except the AKQx is horrible. 4. There is a massive number of things that have been popular among the best players at some point, but are not any more. The 'emulating the best players' argument would lead to everyone switching to Blue Club. We need to keep thinking for ourselves, even if only a small fraction of what we come up with is actually an improvement.

2♠ certainly looks ugly but will often work. If partner has four spades and you get too high, double is unlikely to fare any better. If partner has only three spades and enough to raise, he very likely was going to bid diamonds over our double - possibly not just 3D either. If partner has less than three spades, at least we have somewhere to go.

I'll bid 4♠ on 1 despite the vulnerability. Maybe too much but I'm worth three and a half at least, and partner won't expect this much shape if I just bid three. On the second one I'll bid 2♥, which I would pretty much always do when holding hearts and too good to sign off. Obviously we care a lot whether partner has three or four card support so may well have a problem on the next round. 2♥ isn't weaker or stronger than 2♦ the way I play, but not 100% sure what is standard here.

I think pass and redouble should both be aiming at playing 2♦XX. Redouble with good diamonds and pass with not so good, but still decent, diamonds. You need to agree what the exact requirements are. For me, Qxx is enough to pass but not Qx unfortunately as it looks like 2♦XX would be good for an overtrick or two with slam in doubt. It is quite common that you can make in these situations. South might happily double with something like xx xx KJTxxx Kxx and find he can only take 4 tricks.

5♦. My normal approach is to apply the rule of 2 and 3, then bid 1 more. I see no reason to depart from that here.

I think you are all missing the point here. Those who are against abortion for religious reasons believe that it is equivalent to killing somebody. Why would you make it legal for someone to kill an innocent child if and only if the killer was raped recently? This is just a total failure to see things from the other side's point of view. The fact that the other side's point of view is utterly inconsistent with fact and logic makes it harder, to be sure. But this view is not new or rare. It is shared by a large percentage of Americans.

Double is too risky for me when I have a normal looking 3♠ call.

It's complicated because there are three possible (not necessarily logical) calls: pass, double and 3♥. Certainly 3♥ is the normal call, while pass is suggested by the UI. If you decide that double is not a LA, then you adjust if the player passes and that works better than 3♥ would have. If you decide that double is a LA, it gets messy. Pass could be adjusted to either 3♥ or double, or 3♥ could be adjusted to double or vice-versa. Double is certainly a poor call but people do choose it sometimes in these situations.

Since I am not a US voter, it's easier to just wait a couple of weeks until after the election when the facts will undoubtedly start coming out.

That's fine once the usage is well established and everybody understands it. But if you are talking with intelligent, capable bridge players who have never heard the term 'semi-forcing' until you use it, and you observe the expression on their face as it moves from bemused to pitying, you will really wish there was some other name for it.

I live in Acol-land where it is less frequent that you will want to pass one of a minor redoubled, so I have no real opinion about that. But I definitely think passing one of a major redoubled should not be to play. They have half the deck or more with five trumps over you. I also disagree that you cannot really want to play in 1NT. Two of a minor could be very poor if partner and RHO are both short in opener's suit, and you have to take an extra trick. With something like QJxx Jxx Jxx xxx and it goes 1S-X-XX, I really want to be able to bid 1NT and play there unless partner has a five card suit. This is not uncommon. Re MBodell's example, the pass of a redouble should be to play when the auction is higher than one of a suit. This is something I would always agree with a new partner.

I come from an Acol background and felt this way for a long time. But I wanted the advantages of GF 2/1 responses so I looked into the 1NT problem in quite a lot of detail, more with a view to minimizing the damage or satisfying myself that it was so bad it wasn't worth playing. I generated about 600 hands with a 1NT response to 1 of a major playing 2/1, and compared the outcome with what would happen playing a standard 1NT response. Surprisngly, the traditional '6-9' 1NT response actually did worse even with no GF responding hands included. This is with a 'semi-forcing' 1NT. I have never tried forcing NT and am not tempted because it just seems that the gains cannot outweigh the losses. Hands where you respond 1NT with a hand in the 5-9 range, and it's the best spot, and opponents let you play there, and you could not have played there if 1NT was semi-forcing, are just not as common as people think. If opener is not 5332 or (precisely) 4522 they will seldom pass 1NT anyway. If they have one of those shapes and anywhere from 11 to a below average 13, they will pass a semi-forcing 1NT. With an above average 14, they will open 1NT. So the loss of ability to play 1NT is restricted to a small percentage of hands. And you get to play 1NT with 11-13 opposite 10-11 where standard players can't. Actually, I'm not even sure semi-forcing NT ends up playing fewer hands in 1NT to be honest. I hate the term 'semi-forcing' though. Apart from being aesthetically bad, it creates the impression that the person using it has no grasp on basic logic, let alone bridge. Maybe the forums can come up with something better.

If West had x Jx Axxx QJ98xx he would certainly have bid 2♣ rather than passing 1♠. So he must have three hearts and forgot to echo. Sometimes partners do forget these things - no need to hang him for it. Oh wait, never mind.

I agree with the first two paragraphs and would not adjust for that reason. Pass by North is not suggested by the UI, as far as we know. But I disagree with the last part. The director adjusts by considering possible results on the actual hand, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side. Whether 6♠ is a good contract in the sense that it would make on many other layouts is irrelevant.

Axxxxx is not a suit to bid game by yourself with. I would not even rebid the suit below game unless there was no choice. Here you can double or cue bid and play 3NT unless partner is able to show secondary spade support.

I agree you have to bid 4♦ earlier then let partner decide. As it went, I would double on both auctions but it's just a guess.

Not forcing, but I play fewer forcing passes than most people. RHO is unlimited so it is not an 'obvious sacrifice' situation. Also, partner could have bid 3♥ to unequivocally create a force. I would pass now. If playing with a random expert, I would have no idea but would probably guess that it's forcing.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq5h976d965ckqj&n=s2ht4dak84cat8763&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1n(15-17)p2s(Clubs%20or%20bal%20invit)p2n(Minimum)p3s(Shortage)p3nppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs.

[hv=pc=n&s=sat942haq43dk7c93&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1d1hp2d2n(Minors%20longer%20D)4h5d]133|200|[/hv] IMPs. Expert partner, few agreements.

Hey, I'm not Bush either. I don't really want the prize now that it's tainted by having been given to people like Obama and Arafat, but I could use the money.

Most methods work ok if the opponents remain silent. I would judge the method by how it fares if responder bids two of a major or three of a minor immediately. I like the following: X: Good single suiter or any strong hand 2C: Hearts and another (9+ cards) 2D: Spades and another (9+ cards) 2H/S, 3C/D 6+ card suit, weakish 2NT minors With both majors bid 2♦ with longer hearts, otherwise 2♣ My preference is also to have a six card suit when bidding two of a major, because doing it with 5-4 hands is risky and makes it hard for partner to know whether to compete further. Two ways to show single suiters is also good so partner won't get excited when you have a good suit and not much else, as they sometimes do. You can't usually play two of a minor with a two suiter, but they seldom let you anyway where I play. The other consideration is that the above needs very little adjustment if you want to play penalty doubles, which I definitely prefer against a weak NT and don't want to have to remember two systems.

There are three steps: 1. Establish whether there was unauthorised information available to South, and what the UI was. 2. Decide which of South's possible actions are logical alternatives. 3. Determine which of the logical alternatives, if any, were suggested by the UI. 1. The fact that North asked about the 4♣ bid is unauthorised information to South. East/West are also claiming there was a break in tempo (BIT) by North. Only the director can establish the facts, i.e. whether there actually was a BIT. We can't do that and neither can the appeals committee or anyone else. If the director does not establish as a fact that there was a BIT then there can be no adjustment except possibly based on the mere fact of North asking a question. For the rest of this I'll assume there was a BIT because an adjustment based on the mere asking of a question about an alerted call would be hard to justify. 2. The various logical alternatives are normally determined by the director following polling of a number of players. So you give them the hand and auction without any mention of UI and ask them what they would do. After that, also ask what alternatives they considered and how close they were to choosing something else. Since we have no indication of this being done and the result, I will offer my own opinion: Given South's shape and the vulnerability, it will certainly be right to bid if the the opponents' contract is making. They have bid game freely and partner has not doubled. Partner may produce enough defence to defeat 5♣ but not enough for us to make 5♦, but that is well against the odds. Since we have grossly understated our playing strength by opening 3♦, we cannot expect partner to make the decision for us. Some people will tell you that South's decision to open 3♦ is evidence that he didn't initially consider the hand good enough to bid 5♦ unilaterally over 5♣ by the opponents. So his second bid must have been the result of UI. Those people are wrong. Weak players make odd calls like South's 3♦ opening all the time without considering what situations may arise later in the auction. Others will produce a layout where pass works and therefore conclude that pass is a logical alternative. Those people are also wrong. Bridge is about choosing the action with the best chance of success, so an action may be illogical merely because it is anti-percentage, even though it will work some of the time. I don't think South has any logical alternative to 5♦. 3. If North does break tempo, he may be thinking about either doubling or bidding 5♦. But given the vulnerabilty, North's previous pass, and the fact that E/W bid 5♣ freely (without being pushed) it is quite a lot more likely that North would be thinking about 5♦ rather than double. So any break in tempo would make it more attractive for South 5♦ when compared to an in-tempo pass. Since I don't think there is a logical alternative for South, I would not adjust. But the director should poll people before deciding.

Responder has shown slam interest with spades and diamonds. Opener should go past 3NT with a suitable hand in context so something like KQx Kxx KQxx xxx is not possible and opener could easily have Jxx KJx Kxx KJxx. Better hands for opener might also fail in 5♦ on a bad day. So I would definitely consider pass, but slightly prefer 4♥ to continue describing my shape and hope to make 11 tricks if opener is unsuitable.

When East plays the ♦Q it is very likely from either AQ or QJ. If it is from QJ then declarer has the ♥A and a diamond continuation is clearly fatal. If it is from AQ then North has the heart ace and an immediate heart lead will be necessary. So South should lead a heart after winning the ♦K. If declarer played ♦Q from KJx AQx Qxxx Axx then a heart lets it make, but that is unlikely and maybe partner would have switched to heart, not a diamond.

Maybe a hand that wants to be in 4♠ rather than 3♠ even if partner is minimum, but would prefer to double 4♥ if possible so is leaving opponents room to do that.