nigel_k

2♦. Partner likely has a strong balanced hand and need not have takeout shape so I agree with Statto that we just keep the bidding low rather than bid a major.

Always 4♦. IMO people worry far too much about missing 3NT on these hands. It's possible that 3NT makes and 5♦ doesn't but there are many ways to gain by providing partner with an accurate description of your strength and through added preemption. Since their most likely contract is four of a major you actually reduce their bidding space by a huge proportion when you make them start at 4♦ instead of 3♦.

I think 1♠ is ok. But if partner responds 1NT you have to pass because he will bid too much if you give him another chance. Pass or maybe even 2♠ could also work.

I agree with 2♣-2♠-3♦. At this point, 4NT is wrong because East has no idea which suit or NT is best so needs to investigate further by bidding 3♠. A possible start would be: 2♣ 2♠ 3♦ 3♠ 3NT 4♣ 4♦ All natural so far. At this point East is fairly sure that the correct denomination is either diamonds or NT and the correct level is either 6 or 7. If you use 5NT as 'pick a slam' East could do that and pass West's 6♦ (intending to convert to 6NT if West did not bid 6♦). Otherwise East could just blast 6NT. On the actual hand it looks like 6NT is better than 6♦ but only if played by East. Depending on your standards for a positive response to 2♣, West may feel confident going past 3NT at their third turn but I wouldn't. Then East could maybe play 6NT. One further point is that I wouldn't bother trying to show a void in response to key card, especially when the void is in partner's suit.

My preference in order: Astro (I don't know the terminology but one where you can usually play the longer major) Landy Multi-Landy Lionel DONT For those, not ranked I don't know what they are or they are too bad to mention. I play against weak NT a lot. Against strong NT, the methods without a penalty double become relatively more attractive but it's still close and I'd prefer to use the same defence against both.

2♠. No need to be greedy as other pairs may not even find spades. If we pass, LHO could easily bid 2♦ then sit for 2♠, whereas he might bid 3♦ over an immediate 2♠.

I agree with 2NT as always spade support. If you double and it comes back to you at 3♣ then you will wish you had bid 2♥ instead, but if they bid only 2♣ (as they usually do when doubled) then 3♥ followed by 4♦ will work.

3♣. I am playing in game but I don't know if I want to insist on hearts. Some of us have partners who might double on KQxxx Kxx xx xxx.

This is not a case where RHO obviously needs a signal. The signal benefits declarer as well as much as the defence. Obviously it would be ideal if partner could rely on the signal but declarer could not. But there is no way to achieve this, unless of course partner was to tell declarer you false card all the time despite knowing it is a situation where you wouldn't false card. Probably they had no agreement about this situation and, like most people, tend to give accurate count when it is likely to benefit partner more than declarer, and play randomly otherwise. But RHO's comment does give us a reason to doubt that since he seems to be suggesting partner's carding could be relied on even in a situation where it is crucial that declarer cannot do so.

I would bid 4♠. LHO very likely will double if I don't. But if LHO is timid I suppose you could pass and hope to buy it.

It's good to be able to include 10 HCP hands in the single raise, because most people like to open light with a five card major and at matchpoints especially they might balance. But 5-10 (or even 5-9) is really too wide so you need to split them and it works better to raise immediately with hands in the upper part of the range. There is a risk of playing 1NT with (4)5-6 opposite 12 and an eight card fit but quite often opponents will bid and non-vulnerable even -2 is probably ok. Also, my understanding of a semi-forcing NT is that opener only passes on hands that would refuse an invite. With 14 and some 13s I would make my normal rebid, in a 3 card suit if necessary.

My advice: Don't assume your partner is an idiot, ever. If you take an action that requires them to act intelligently and they don't, just keep doing it until they get the idea. Presumably when you play with these people it is primarily for the benefit to your own game (compared to not playing at all), not to maximize your score. If that isn't working, it is time to find another partner or read books, watch vugraph etc.

In Acol you only rebid a five card suit if there is no choice. Here partner could either double for takeout or pass. So he ought to have six spades. I think this hand is worth 3♠. I don't know if partner should necessarily bid 3♠ with a seven card suit, it depends on the exact hand. What we do know is that our hand is a lot more suitable for playing in spades than it could be.

I would definitely open 2♣. You could easily make game if partner has xxx xxx xxxx xxx and it doesn't take much more than that for game to be good. But the main problem is that, after opening 1♣, you basically have no sensible rebid on any likely auction, especially if you don't have any artificial method (e.g. gnasher) for hands too strong to rebid 3♣.

I agree with Mike and Justin. The double of 1NT should not create a force. This is just based on frequency. Usually partner's double will be based on a hand where there is no game when we have a minimum opening bid. If he has the less common hand type where he expects game to make opposite this hand but doesn't have a penalty double, he needs to cue bid or just blast game. But I agree this is not very nice on the occasions when those hands do come up. At IMPs I would just pass because I expect both sides making their part score is less likely than both sides not making.

It is true that if I was comparing two hands that were basically identical except that one was 4333 and the other was 5332, then I wouldn't bother with a simulation to see if there was a difference. And if a simulation showed no difference I would assume the results were wrong even if I couldn't immediately figure out why. But neither of the hands I suggested comparing in a simulation was 5332 so that weakens your criticism quite a lot. If simulations show that 4333 and 4432 are nearly the same when playing in NT I have no problem with that. Also, there are plenty of ways a 4333 18 can be better. It could have a ten, or even a nine, or a three card sequence such as KQJx or AKJx. Most 4333 18s have one of those.

1♠ for me. This is going to play badly in 1NT. They usually have clubs anyway.

4333 and 5332 are not the same. Saying they are is not just counter intuitive, it is totally at odds with having played bridge for any length of time and observed how cards take tricks. My point about the two tens is that the rest of the hand matters. Sometimes the honour structure apart from any tens will be such that one ten will put the hand into a higher category. Sometimes it will be such that you need two tens or three tens for that. By disregarding the rest of the hand you have forced yourself into the conclusion that a hand with one ace and two tens is no better than another hand with the same HCP but no aces and no tens. On the third point, I agree that you are still opening hands that you view as worth 15-17 HCP. But there will be upgraded 14s in there but no downgraded 18s, and good 17s will be taken out but bad 15s remain in. This means that when you open 1NT the frequency of hands at the low end is increased and the frequency of hands at the high end is decreased. So the expected strength is weaker than a vanilla 15-17 1NT opening would be.

I will try to replicate your simulation results and I may well be wrong about that specific pair of hands. But the rest of your post seems clearly wrong. You are basically saying: a) 4333 and 5332 should be treated as if they are the same b) There is no difference between having one zero aces and zero tens and having one aces and two tens, regardless of the rest of the hand. c) Far more hands will qualify for an upgrade than a downgrade. This means you are not playing a 15-17 NT any more. The strength range is lower because you are putting in 14 HCP hands and taking out 17 HCP hands, but hardly ever putting in 18 HCP hands or taking out 15 HCP hands. The whole point about upgrading and downgrading is that partner can make the right decision when they assume your hand is in the nominated range. And partner is also allowed to be aggressive.

I am not religious at all, but it seems to me that if you live in a country where very first passage in the Bill of Rights protects the free exercise of religion, then that ought to mean something. There is a big difference between a witness in court who wishes to cover their head for religious reasons and someone who just prefers to wear a hat. Actually I think it's reasonable for the government to prohibit the second, but not the first, even without any constitutional protection for freedom of religion.

Definitely disagree. Every 4333 18 count will have either similar or better honour combinations or more aces. The HCP have to be somewhere. Putting this another way, which hand is better: Qxx KQx AJx AQxx QJx Kx AJ9x AQ10x If people think the first hand is better, then I disagree and we can test that with a simulation. If people would not open 1NT with the second hand then I would suggest they are not really playing a 15-17 NT.

On the first one, my test is to ask whether the hand is closer to an average 17 than an average 18. If people on this thread really think it is closer to an average 18 then I am a little surprised by that. There are worse hands, but 4333 with no intermediates and below average honour combinations is still very poor. I get the impression that a lot of people's 1NT opening is half a point lighter than 15-17, so any above average 14 would qualify and any above average 17 is out. If that's your style then obviously it is not a 1NT opener. On the second one you need an agreement. My preference is that all of these kind of doubles are for takeout, and in this kind of auction that means partner should bid when he has average (or slightly above average) defence compared to what can be expected from the auction to date. With that understanding I am comfortable doubling on this hand.

If you mix socialism with religious freedom, you cannot avoid the government having to draw arbitrary lines and decide how genuine and important various religious beliefs are. And they do that based on their ideology and how many votes they stand to gain or lose. There is just no point in complaining about the logical inconsistency of it all.

Pass would be ok at matchpoints but at IMPs I just don't have enough confidence that we can beat it. I would bid 4♣ because 3NT needs a lot and we can easily gain from a small plus at both tables, or a small minus in 4♣ compared with bigger minuses elsewhere.

100% South. North's double is questionable but that didn't cause the problem. South has to recognise that his cards are working extremely well. Though it is a minimum 2♣ response, it is still 1-2 tricks better than something like Axx xx Jxx KQxxx.