Tramticket

This. Which black suit to open is a matter for partnership agreement and there are pros and cons either way, but my preference is to open 1S with 5-5 in the blacks.

I knew I'd missed something - west had the ace of spades. Logic was fine, but not my ability to read.

I prefer to play four-card majors, opening a major before a minor and in this system it is normal to bid suits up the line showing diamonds before hearts. But I believe that playing five-card majors it is normal to respond in a major before a minor, so that the major isn't lost when opener rebids 1NT. I don't think that south is worth a 3NT bid - except that you are vulnerable at teams and you really can't afford to miss vulnerable games. There is often more play for game than this!

It looks like we need rather a lot: (1) Spades 4-4. (2) Club ace with west. (3) Heart queen with east. (4) Take the right diamond finesse. East has the ace of spades and we need east to hold the queen of hearts (6 points). West seems to have the queen and jack of spades and we need west to have the ace of clubs (7 points). There seems like nothing much to go on as to who has the queen of diamonds. I can't see any line except taking a finesse in diamonds - probably against west since we also need diamonds to be 3-2 if we are finessing against east. I must have missed something clever here - but can't see what?

For those not familiar with the method used in the UK: http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws-and-ethics/bidding-box-regs It is easy to criticise the EBU, but this is an eara where they have produced a clear and simple regulation that works.

I would double too. But I would not feel happy if partner leapt to 5♣ in response! I play Leaping Michaels over a weak two, but I don't play non-leaping Michaels over a three-level pre-empt. After a two-level pre-empt, I can bid a single-suited minor at the three level or five level, so it is not a great loss for the four levekl to be artificial. Once our opponents have pre-empted to the three level, we sacrificing a useful natural bid if we play non-leaping Michaels.

The key to this is to play a simple system that is common in the area where you live. Both you and your partners need to be playing a system with which you are familiar. If you lived in the US, then it is clearly five-card majors and strong no trump and there would be no point in worrying about the artificial nature of a minor suit opening - that is just standard and everyone is familiar with the methods. If you lived in England, you should be playing Acol at club level, if you want to play with multiple partners. Don't worry too much about missing playing in a 4-4 fit at the one level - it hardly ever happens anyway. Other bad results from the system are likely to be duplicated around the room (so are good results from the system!). I don't have experience of bridge in Ireland - but I thought that Acol was the norm there too? If so, play Acol and please your future partners. You can experiment with other systems when you start playing with a more regular partner.

A bit unlucky. The overcall is marginal - but I would. the double is marginal - but I wouldn't. No reason at all to remove the double.

I'm thinking: win the opening lead and play A♦ and J♦ (over-taking with the queen), knock out the K♦. Plan is to try to make four diamond tricks, two spade tricks, two heart tricks and a club trick.

I bid 2NT. I'm happy to value it down slightly and not going to lose sleep over the fractional stop.

We use the terms balanced and unbalanced to describe a spectrum with 4333 at one extreme (as balanced as you can get) and a thirteen-card suit at the other extreme (as unbalanced as you can get). We usually find it convenient to describe 4443, 4432 and 5332 shapes as "balanced" (although they of course become progressively less balanced). We often described shapes such as 5422, 6322 (and maybe 4441, 7222) as "semi-balanced". Other shapes are usually described as "unbalanced". These distinctions are useful because the more balanced hands often tend to be more suitable for no trump contracts. I use the word "tend" because bridge is a partnership game and hands should be constantly reevaluated in light of the auction so far. Unbalanced hands often tend to be more suitable for playing in suit contracts As a general principle I open all balanced hands (and some semi-balanced hands) with a no trump bid or bid no trumps at the first rebid. I make some exceptions - for example, I will support partner's major rather than bidding no trumps. I will almost always open 1NT with a 5332 hand in our no trump range (12-14) but with a very good suit (three honours in the suit, a bit weaker in third seat) I might choose to open a five-card major. We use a 3♣ response to 1NT as five-card Stayman to help find major suit fits. I think the ideas on showing shape have moved on somewhat since the 1960s. Back then it was common to open a four-card suit and rebid a second four-card suit and never mentioning the balanced shape. It might be worth buying some more up-to-date books!

Pass. At least you can ruff a spade lead .... B-) :P

Because people who bid like this seem incapable (in my experience) of putting their bidding cards back correctly. There is nothing worse than following one of these clowns around the room and having to restore the bidding cards to the correct order at each table.

Its easier to follow if you don't rotate the diagram. Quite a neat double dummy solution (you need to cash two hearts before throwing west (original south) in. I suspect that north (original west) is more likely to return a heart than you think :)

Ok fair enough. I don't mind partners "taking a view" - as long as they know that they are making an anti-system call. I'm not sure I would do it on this deal though.

You don't play this as 100% forcing?

[hv=pc=n&w=skjthaqj7dajt76c4&e=sa876ht92d42cq873&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1dp1sp2hp]266|200[/hv] You are a bit thin to reverse, but decide to upgrade based on the good holding in partner's suit. Traditional Methods Say you treat the reverse as a one-round force and play traditional continuations - so you need to bid the 4th suit or jump to create a strong continuation. On the East hand above you presumably bid a non-forcing 2NT now. What do you bid next as west? Do you bid 3♠? And is it non-forcing? Ingberman Let us now suppose that you play 2NT as Ingberman (or Lebernsohl) as described here, presumably you also bid 2NT as East - a relay with a minimum strength hand? West rebids 3♣, as requested and East bids what? 3♦ false preference? 3♥ - a likely 4-3 fit? Whichever East chooses (3♦/3♥) would you now bid 3♠ as West? And is that forcing? Reverse Lebensohl As a final thought, it has been suggested that we could play "Reverse Lebensohl" in this situation - i.e. all strong hand bid 2NT and three level bids are non-forcing. Is this playable? Does anyone have experience of this method? Thanks

If you assume from the bidding that South is likely to hold 10 cards in the majors and North is likely to hold 7 cards, then the important cases are: Taking the finesse succeed over playing for the drop if North holds all four missing diamonds = (6/9)x(5/8)x(4/7)x(3/6) = 11.9% Playing for the drop succeeds over taking the finesse if South hold the Jack = 33.3% It is clearly right to play for the drop. Of course South might be 6-5 (as in this deal) or even 6-6. You can re-perform the maths for these cases, but it will be correct to play for the drop.

The sub-title seems to suggest that a double would be penalties. Not for me and not for most I think. It is more likely that the sub-title was questioning whether I would pass, planning to also pass a re-opening double for penalties. I might consider this at pairs, but I need more to pass this sort of part-score double at IMPs. I would bid 2NT (accepting Nige1's comment that I am a little bit light for the call) - second choice would be a take-out double.

Yes, I also agree with 3C from East - missed that. :)

In the Acol world, it isn't forcing. But the question is of academic interest only, since I would bid on anyway with the West hand. 3♦ looks fine with the East hand, opposite a partner who has shown a minimum strength opening.

Some pairs break the transfer whenever they hold four-card support. Under these circumstances, completing the transfer shows three-card or fewer support. I believe that in this case you should alert the transfer completion (a potentially unexpected meaning).

It seems to me (and I have no experience of directing), that the ruling depends on OO's judgment as to whether the hesitation was intentional. If, at one extreme, OO believes that RR was intentionally attempting to mislead SB through the hesitation then 73.D.2 and 73.E.2 apply as well as 74.C.7. The score is adjusted and a procedural penalty will likely be appropriate. I suspect, based on the facts presented, that OO would reach the conclusion that there was no intention to deceive. If, at the other extreme, OO believes that the hesitation was unintentional and there was no reason for RR to believe that the hesitation might work to his advantage, then 73.D.1 applies. No infraction has been committed and the inference drawn by SB is at his own risk. However 73.D.1 also states that "players should be particularly careful when variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side". I suspect that OO would reach the conclusion that RR has not been particularly careful (or at all careful) and that RR should have known (even if he probably didn't know) that the variation in tempo might benefit his side. On this basis I would expect OO not to adjust the score but to give a reprimand or more likely (since I suspect he might be a repeat offender) a procedural penalty against RR.

Lots of interest and fun here. And of course there are no right answers - just answers that are right for your partnership. For what it's worth, here are my views (perspective weak NT four-card majors): - 1 & 2 fit easily within my no trump range and are automatic openers. - At one of my clubs, it is becoming normal for a 1NT opening to be described as 11-14. I am increasingly including 11-counts in my 1NT - particularly at pairs. Hands 3, 4, and 6 are hands where I would probably open 1NT (never hand 5). - I don't understand comments about "playing tricks". Playing tricks are a pretty poor valuation method for No Trump contracts. The examples are all balanced and no trumps is a likely contract. - Some have commented that they are more likely to open these hands in third seat. I understand the sentiment, but have a different perspective based on playing a weak no trump. Third seat is the most dangerous place to open a weak NT, because your LHO is marked with some strength. I certainly won't open 1NT any weaker in third seat and might if anything tend towards caution (downgrading poor 15 counts etc.). I am very comfortable opening a weak NT in second seat - its a very descriptive bid. I will preempt aggressively in third seat, and open unbalanced hands aggressively (particularly if I want the hand led or i own the spade suit), but balanced hands tend to have plenty of defensive strength and relatively little playing strength and there is no reason to be over aggressive with balanced hands in third seat.

Fair enough :P