nigel_k

I'd like to draw a distinction between opening light and upgrading. If you open an 'ordinary' 10-11 HCP hand you are opening light. I don't do that except with 11 and a decent 5 card major. If playing weak NT, you might include 11 HCP NV at pairs but I've never understood people opening one of a minor with a flat 11. That doesn't seem to me to have much upside. Upgrading is quite different and just reflects the fact that HCP are not always an adequate measure of value. A hand that is as good as an average 12 HCP should be opened. In that case it's not a 'light opening' just because you happen to only have 10 HCP. On the actual hands: Jx J8 AJ9xxx Axx: Bare minimum 1♦ opening. A weak 2♦ would not be wrong on strength but the defensive value of the two aces makes it a one level opening. Axxx x AQxxxx xx: Clearcut 1♦ T98xx QJTx K AKx: Clearcut 1♠ (or a mildly eccentric 1♣ calling it 4423) KJT 9 Txx KQJxxx: A 3♣ preempt, not an opening bid.

4NT is probably best at matchpoints because -590 (or -690) is quite likely and we can't afford that. At IMPs I would pass. It doesn't look like the sort of hand where both sides make game. In many cases the alternative to -590 will be -500. If partner has enough to make five of a minor we should collect 300 or 500. So those will be smallish losses. We'll gain when both contracts fail (obviously) or when we make five of a minor but partner continues to slam. Those gains will be slightly less frequent but bigger overall. Passing bad hands like this also implies that I have some values when I do bid 4NT so it'll be easier for partner to bid slams.

Pass. I'd say they are making or down one. I doubt we can make 4♦ and if they are making we could easily be down two in 4♦. 3♥ could well be normal so it's not a situation where we'll necessarily get few matchpoints if they make undoubled. And getting 100 instead of 50 will not beat those making 110 our way. If they were vul and you needed a top you could double but I think it would still be better to pass. I would not double on the first round but would definitely have done more over 2♦. 3NT could be on opposite KJxxxx and an ace, and hoping to buy it in 2D at pairs against NV opponents is wishful thinking.

3NT. On this auction RHO might lead A♥ if he has it and might lead another suit with neither heart honour. So you have pretty good chances of a heart stopper playing J♥ at trick 1.

[hv=d=w&w=skqjxxhaqxdakjxcx&e=sxxhjtxdxxxxcaktx]266|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠ 1NT 3♦ 4♦ 4♥ 5♣ 6♦[/hv] Assign the blame. If East should bid 3NT over 3♦, should West keep bidding with eg AKQxx, x, AKQx, Qxx and/or his actual hand? I don't know much about Gazzilli or similar conventions so if you use them and they would solve this, please post something about that.

I play it as takeout. You can still get them for penalties and it works better on the other hands. If it's a strong NT and/or opponents are honest there is no need for a forcing pass. But there is a risk of them running tactically to their short suit. Then neither player has a takeout double and you assume partner must be very weak as they are short but didn't double. In general, a value showing double does not make subsequent doubles penalty. If we double a suit for takeout and they bid a different suit, then doubles are penalty.

From East's point of view slam is possible but needs a very suitable hand, e.g. Ax Axxx Kxx AKxx Ax Axxx xxx AKQx Ax xxxx Kxx AKQx As others have noted, it is probably anti-percentage for East to move over 3NT but I'd say it's not absolutely clearcut. West definitely did too much. He has prime cards but usually one of those red kings will not be working. Cue bid then accept East's 5♣ signoff is enough.

Any bid is a slam try in diamonds.

Where I come from, 'treble' means either to multiply by three or a particular kind of bet you can place at the race track. 'Triple' can mean to multiply by three or can be a collection of three similar things. 'Double' is analagous to 'treble', i.e. to multiply by two or a race bet. 'Pair' has the second meaning of 'triple' but not the first. In Bridge, of course, we do use doubleton instead of pair to mean two. This was originally incorrect but has become accepted through regular usage. If you want to replace 'double' with a term that means the same but refers to three things, the correct one is probably treble. If you are looking for the most accurate term to describe a collection of three objects and don't mind whether it is consistent with 'double', I would suggest triple is better.

1. 4H. May be a problem on the next round but not this one. 2. Pass. Assuming I understand the auction correctly, I have quite a good hand for diamonds given my previous bidding. Not enough to bid 5♦ though, especially at matchpoints.

I don't agree with this. Bidding over preempts is tough and normal principles don't always apply. Here, East has a good hand but is concerned about the strength of the heart suit. When West supports hearts that concern mostly disappears and the hand can now make slam opposite very little. I would double initially though I understand 4♥. The other two decisions are very hard. Probably I would double instead of 5♥ with West but would continue to 6♥ over 5♥ with East.

Opening 4♠ wouldn't be an option for me given some of the hands I preempt with. It's just too good. I would bid 1♠-1NT-3♠ then it's a guess for responder whether to bid the fourth. But I don't know much about 2/1 so if there is any difference in the spade rebids compared to after a limited 1NT response, I'd appreciate if someone can comment on that.

This is pretty close. The best contract is probably 3NT but if you make a slam try with 4D and partner accepts it should have a decent play. Since it's matchpoints you'd need to be confident partner can bid 4NT to play if he refuses your invitation. Even at IMPs 3NT will be a safer game than 5D, but maybe not 4NT. Diamonds will also be more attractive if you have some way of making partner declarer. Unless the field is strong I would just bid 3NT and hope to gain in the play. In a strong matchpoints field or at IMPs you could go either way.

Hard to fault West. I'd prefer 3♦ instead of 3♣ with East. I think this ought to show extra values even if 2♦ is GF. West has an tough decison at that point but he might move towards slam in clubs. It is quite speculative though.

6♥ is to play. There is debate about 5-5 in the blacks, but opening 1♣ with 4-5 in the blacks is entirely mainstream and that's pretty much what you have here. :)

Everybody's partnership agreement includes one level openings on hands with less offense and/or less defence than this one. Pass or a weak two (or three) bid is simply wrong. Without more information those are the only alternatives.

If the 5C bidder responder knows something about the laws, then he was acting illegally and showed poor ethics. Maybe he knows the laws perfectly well but thought his hand was clearly worth another move. There are plenty of hands posted in these forums where the majority prefers some action and one or two think a different action is obvious. People are much too quick to accuse others of behaving unethically.

My first choice is 2NT. Second 3NT, third 3C, fourth 3D. 2S last.

I think you're about half way between a 3S and 4S opening. I'd prefer to err on the side of aggression and bid 4S. Would not consider 1S.

I'd expect it to be keycard for clubs.

To answer some of the questions: We are playing Acol so 1C is always a 4 card suit and I could raise to 2C with four clubs and a bad hand. I would always have a 4 card diamond suit for this, but often only four. I didn't know for absolutely certain that 3S was a splinter but I strongly suspected it and that's what partner actually had. You can assume he has four diamonds as well though I'd be interested to know if Aquahombres examples with three card support are common practice. Sorry I didn't anticipate this information being relevant or I would have given it earlier. Nigel.

Well done Justin et al. I'm also surprised there were only three entries. Does anyone know what happens about the third pair. Do they need one - if so do they just pick a pair from the team that doesn't make it.

[hv=d=&v=n&s=saq9xhqjxxdkjxxcq]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♣-P-1♦-(1♠) 3♠-P-? 3♠ is a splinter. Casual partnership with no other relevant agreements though partner is a good player. What's your plan?

5H. Fairly close to double though. Agree with MikeH about the offensive/defensive ratio - partner will leave the double in too often. Not so pessimistic about double finding a diamond fit - 5D by partner over double is a very real possibility. Also don't agree partner will expect something very different if I double and pull 5C to 5H. He'll just expect a bit more defence.

Isn't this missing the point? The alternatives to Namyats are to open at the one level which also lets opponents in easily or an overweight preeempt that risks missing slam. The fact that 4C is easier to play against than 4H doesn't really show that it's a bad convention. I don't play it just because I am unwilling to give up four of a minor preempts but have toyed with the idea of using a 3NT opening on the Namyats hand type.