Tramticket

Yes, Asptro and similar defences will allow you to compete. It's more difficult if playing Multi-Landy (say) since 2♠ is usually defined as 5♠/4m - not the other way around. In our small club last night, not a single East/West entered the auction ...

[hv=pc=n&w=sa743ha9da8cqt742&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)p2c(Stayman)p2d(No%204-Card%20Major)ppp]133|200[/hv] Match-point Pairs Opponents play a weak No Trump (12-14) 1) Do you have methods (against a weak NT) to show a 4M5m two-suiter? 2) If not, are you bidding (or doubling?)? 3) If not, what are you leading against 2♦?

Moved

I fail to see a problem here! 1. You are helping a novice improve her bridge by going through her bad scores. Excellent - more of us should help develop new players. 2. She isn't very confident with cue-bids and splinters. 3. This hand is almost a text book hand for learning about splinters. 4. It is easy to see that this is an ideal hand to start discussing the splinter bids: (a) when they apply; (b) when they don't apply; © how do you make a splinter bid; (d) what are the continuations. Good luck :) As an aside, I do not think that splinters and cue-bids are an advanced play - it would be helpful if beginners were taught splinters and cue-bids before being taught Blackwood.

I am yet to be convinced by Non-leaping Michaels. It would certainly prevent North bidding 4D in this auction, which might be a good bid here and would certainly be the right bid if you strengthen the North hand slightly.

I assume that you don't play support redoubles? On that assumption, I think that North might have raised to 2S - but pass also looks fine. North might have protected (particularly if he hasn't shown the 5th heart) but with 4 cards in opp's suit I would expect the defence to have good chanced on a forcing defence (2D only makes because West has a monster).

My contention is west is not doubling to show some random 12-count with 4-4 in the minors - west can pass with this type of hand, rather than wading into a forcing auction. So east should expect west to hold extras, either in terms of strength or (more likely) shape. In this context - I think East's hand looks pretty good - far better than West will expect - and now would be a good time to tell partner the good news.

I would want extras in the sandwich position - so West is not too strong for either action in my view. If he believes he is too strong, then he should make a second bid as TylerE suggests, but he passed suggesting that he knew that he was not strong enough to double then bid. I would pass with a (23)44 14-count. Why come in with a weak NT type at this stage? East also underestimated the values needed to compete in this position.

I don't understand west's double. If west is going to bid here (and since it's a forcing auction there is no rush), 2♣ or 1NT would be the obvious choices. Did west think he was too strong for a 2♣ or 1NT overcall? I would have though he had the right values for either call in the sandwich seat. If I were East, I would expect that the double would promise at least 4-4 in the minors and a strong take-out double. I would jump to 3♦ opposite a strong take-out double.

If you were to play against opponents don't realise that the 2017 Laws state that you "must" guarantee a minimum strength, you would presumably expect disclosure? :) I think that Peter has clarified that this should be on the front of the convention card - under EBU regs.

No problem. You answered the Laws question. :)

Thanks for the reference Peter - that answers my question. Ok, I'm intrigued. How do you create a force? Do you have some artificial method or do you have to jump to the three-level? Or ...?

I doubt that their system is workable! But it is their system! The change of suit would be regarded as natural (I think, since it promises 4+ cards) and forcing for one round.

What game swing??? Your side is not bidding and making game - if partner has (say) 15+ they would have found a bid. The only possible game swing is when you balance and find the opponent's suddenly come to life. I did too - mainly because I can't count. But there is a lot of potential downside here and little chance of a good penalty or game our way. It is likely that partner will have three or four hearts, given that East hasn't raised, so you might hope for a penalty - but partner's hearts are likely to be weak since there was no 3NT bid. The ♥Q is a negative feature since it makes it less likely that partner is lying in wait with honours (e.g. AQTX) over the pre-empt. Partner will have stretched to bid or double with spades.

I seem to hold a minority view and Miamjid was more in tune with Bridgewinners responders at least.

A pair states that they "don't play reverses" - by which they mean that they do bid suits in a reverse order, but this doesn't promise extra values. You encounter this sort of thing from time to time and it is usually a pair that is very weak and inexperienced and do not even realise that this is abnormal, so it is futile to expect any disclosure of their methods. Last night a pair made this statement who were rather more advanced and experienced enough to know that their treatment was unusual. One of the pair asked "should I have alerted?" What is the correct method of disclosure: - Alert the bid? - Show on system card under "Other Aspects of System which opponents should note" (this is a club night and they don't have a system card)

Looking again, I am passing #1 as well - I mis-counted my hand as a 16-count first time!

Over-calling is very different from opening the bidding and your objectives can be different. I'm not saying that I wouldn't over-call on JXXXX - but I would need a good reason to over-call on that suit. I will take an over-call as a good reason to lead a suit. If there were a more attractive lead, I might not lead the suit that partner opened.

1. I assume that North only had a take-out double available? You have to protect with this shape and take it on the chin when North shows up with XXX XXXX XXX XXX. 2. I wouldn't bother at IMPs. I might bid 1NT at MPs - but pretty marginal.

The hand is far from perfect and we would prefer to have our points in our long suits. But KTXXX is not the worst suit you will have opened and the 5431 shape is attractive. You have two tens to bolster your seven-loser 10-count and the suit order makes for a comfortable rebid. If you don't open now you may be faced with a difficult problem later - opening bids don't guarantee suit quality, but over-calls do suggest a good quality suit. I don't play a big club, but I do play Acol which has a long tradition of light openings. I would expect to be in good company opening the South hand. EDIT: I started a poll on Bridgewinners: Bridge Winners Poll

I would expect 95% of the field to open as South, with both majors and an easy rebid. If I failed to open, I would jump to 4 with an expected 10-card fit and a complete maximum.

Yes, like you we play a weak no trump and open pretty aggressively and a passed hand would never have the values to force to game. Even opposite a strong no trump with a minimum 15 HCP (often a minimum 14 in practice) it seems unlikely that you would want to force to game - unless playing unusually sound openings.

For us, Lebensohl is off once you elected to pass as opener. Your choices are 3♦ - competitive, 2NT natural and to play or 3NT. I might bid 3NT vulnerable at IMPs, but I think that 3♦ is fine at match points.

I agree and I am suggesting that less disciplined pre-empts in 3rd seat (also 1st seat) can be very effective. I don't mind preempting with a 12 count in third seat. For me, the seat at the table is the single most important consideration when judging whether to pre-empt - more so than vulnerability, suit quality and definitely more important than point-count.

You can continue to have patience and wait for the ideal hand to pre-empt. I agree that this style of preempting makes things easier for partner. You won't pre-empt very often, but you will be very accurate. Meanwhile, some of us around here find that these bids are very effective at disrupting opponents and we like to pre-empt more often. A primary consideration is seat at the table, rather than arbitrary rules about the strength of the suit. I suggest that in 3rd seat you should pre-empt often and make life difficult for the one person who can have a strong hand. In first seat you are 2 to 1 favourite to be inconveniencing an opponent rather than partner. Only in second seat would I try and be a bit more disciplined. I suggest you loosen up a bit and pre-empt more often (particularly if the vulnerability is in your favour). It is fun as well as winning bridge.