Tramticket

Yes, the auction 1N-2♦-2♥-3♣-3♦ gets you to the slam. But aren't you likely to bid 3NT after partner bids both of your doubletons and you have decent stops in both of the other two suits? And if you do bid 3♦ there must be a danger of missing 3NT when this is right?

Really? I play a weak NT so not my system. I agree with the upgrade and I would have opened 1♦ and rebid 1NT (15-18 in our system). I can understand opening a strong NT, hiding a weak six-card suit, but do you really hide a six-card suit headed by AJ10? I guess that we are both missing 6♦ - at least at pairs.

Standard English Acol doesn't really apply, since this assumes a weak (12-14) NT structure. But as a diversion, it is interesting that in old-fashioned Acol 2NT would be non-forcing and show 15-16 and a jump to 3NT would be to play showing 17-19. This is very inefficient since in the sequence 1♠, 2♣; 3NT responder might have a three-card spade suit and opener might have a five-card spade suit, but the eight-card spade fit is lost. For this reason most modern Acol players treat a 2NT rebid as 15-19 and forcing - giving the opportunity for responder to search for a spade fit (or a club fit!). 3NT then becomes a redundant bid in Acol. One possible use is that 3NT shows a balanced hand with four-card club support, as well as four spades - suggesting that clubs might be a better contract if responder is weak in the red suits. there are other possibilities, but I have never seen that 3NT shows exactly 19 points.

This is finely balanced and state of the match might affect the decision. There is a big risk of missing a vulnerable game (or a nice penalty) if we pass. On the other hand, there is a risk of conceding 1,100 or more when RHO has a big hand and a misfit with his partner. I would probably double - nervously! At match points, it's an easy double.

Me too. And I go to 5H if they bid 4S.

So partner, might be correcting to the three level? If partner is prepared to play at the three level, why not bid 3C and let partner tell me which major he has. 3C is an overbid with a minimum balanced hand, but at least it gets us to the right strain. This isn't my problem (we play a weak NT and four-card majors) I would have opened 1NT with this hand and with a stronger hand, I would have opened 1H. So I'm interested to hear other answers.

Have you agreed that double in that auction shows at least 4 cards in each major? Or might it be 4-3?

Yes, partner has the ace. Perhaps our agreement should be stated as "at least a three-card suit including at least one of the top three honours".

Interesting. Thanks Nigel.

My bidding in this situation is natural and I don't find the need to introduce artificial bids into this sequence - the problem with an artificial strength-showing bid is that you can't now use it in a natural sense. You will solve one problem, but create another problem - in this case: what do you do when you have a weaker hand and want to bid the suit naturally?

We certainly don't have that agreement. We don't sign-off, unless two key cards are missing. We expect to be able to tell whether partner is showing zero/one key card or three/four key cards (and therefore know whether two key cards are missing). If we don't know then we have no business bidding RKCB - other slam investigation techniques are available, such as cue bids. I suppose it might be possible to construct a freak deal (probably in a competitive auction), where a response would be ambiguous. If that ever happens (it never has), I guess that we will have to sign off and hope that partner figures it out. (She will).

This is often very true. But ... [hv=pc=n&s=sqjt5hkt64d7cjt42&w=sa632h87daqt4ck76&n=sk4haq92d8632caq9&e=s987hj53dkj95c853&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1d(Natural%204%2B)p2d(Natural%205-9)pp]399|300[/hv] Pairs: Is it more risky for South to double or north to bid something? The main risk in South bidding on this junk is that North might take him seriously ...

It's not a term that I tend to use, but my understanding is that pre-protection involves bidding in the direct seat as if you are in the protecting (balancing) seat. This will be based on the fact that (1) opponents have found at least an eight-card fit (making it likely that you also have an eight-card fit) and (2) RHO has limited their hand. If you are sitting in the direct seat and hold shortage in their suit, it will often be right to compete because partner may hold some length in their suit and find it difficult to call in the pass-out seat. A typical auction might be (you are dealer): Pass, (1♦), Pass, (2♦)*, Dbl [*2♦ is a natural, not an inverted raise]. With a singleton diamond and 4-4 in the majors you might double on 8-10 points - depending on vulnerability and form of scoring of course. I'm not sure about some of your examples - on your first hand you ask "why would you not just double?" - I would double.

This is true - up to a point. But even if you have (say) 8 points and partner has (say) 17 points on the auction 1♥, 1♠; 2♦ you are only going to pass on a complete misfit and chances of making game will not be as high as you imagine. Consider: - with doubleton support for partner's hearts you should probably give preference (or false preference) to hearts. So you are likely to have a singleton or void in partner's first suit. - with four-card diamond support you should raise. So you probably don't have an eight-card diamond fit. - if partner held three good spades he may have chosen to raise spades rather than bidding diamonds. You probably don't have a spade fit. These misfit type hands often don't play well - even in no trumps.

Yes, I agree that this a form of short-hand. I guess that I get frustrated when I get nothing more than the form of short-hand - even when I ask for an explanation. This is just me expressing one of my pet irritations I guess! :)

I have a problem with the use of “semi-forcing NT”. The words “semi-forcing NT” clearly make little or no sense in a grammatical and logical sense. A bid can be forcing (partner is forced to bid) or non-forcing (partner is not forced to bid) but to say that partner is half forced to bid is pretty meaningless. In a way, this is nit-picking, since players who make the bid clearly understand what hands are covered and have a clear partnership agreement. My view is that “Semi-forcing NT” is the name of a convention, not a description of a bid. [This is similar to "Unassuming Cue Bid", which is clearly the name of a convention, not the description of a bid]. It matters because when LHO opens 1♥ and RHO responds 1NT, correctly alerted (in England), I might then ask LHO for an explanation of the bid. I contend that LHO’s explanation that the bid is a “Semi-forcing NT” is an inadequate explanation and the Blue Book discourages the use of convention names (see 3C). I expect my opponent to tell me what hand types are included in the response.

With my favourite partner, I will bid: (1) 2NT (we play that as forcing to game 19-20) or (2) 1♥ (she will never pass a change of suit at the one level. Without these, it gets tricky. But I probably still bid 1♥.

Only if vulnerable at IMPs. If non-vulnerable, I suggest that you want better odds.

I think that the Mr Bridge magazine advocates "Key card Blackwood", but I have never seen it suggested anywhere else and see little merit in it.

3NT might be six or seven off if partner doesn't have the ace of diamonds. Even at 50s this isn't great (although a bit better than an opposing game contract in a major).

I bid 2NT (transfer) and then gambled on 3NT, when partner showed AXX in diamonds. Our opponents remained remarkably silent, showing no interest until it came to RHO in the pass out seat who contemplated for ages, asked lots of questions about our system - and then passed! Our team-mates were more bullish and bid their spade game, followed by a double of the opposing 5♦ "sacrifice". Partner held AXXX, AXXX, AXX, JX (full marks to Cyberyeti for predicting - post #3). 5♦ made for -550 and we drifted one off in 3NT when the opps cashed the first five clubs. :( I think that 5♦ straight off must be right, as several have said. I was going to bid this but changed my mind when I sensed that LHO didn't seem to have much interest in the auction. :(

Yes, agreed you are playing your opps - this was certainly my approach. I nearly bid 5 ♦ as suggested by Rowland, but I wasn't convinced that they would be going to 4M. Partner surprised my by replying 3♦ showing three diamonds including a top honour. What now? I could make a case for 3NT, 5♦ or pass ...

[hv=pc=n&s=s3h3dkqjt9432c642&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(12-14)p]133|200[/hv] Teams of 4 match, all non-vul, spots approximate. Partner deals and opens a weak NT. What is your plan? If you choose to bid 2NT (transfer to diamonds), opponents remain silent and partner bids 3♦, (promising QXX or better in diamonds). What now?

Simple solution: (1) insert the suit symbols as black - I set up [alt]s, [alt]h, [alt]d and [alt]c for this. (2) once you have finished the document, use the replace function to add the colour formating. Select the Replace from the toolbar; type ♥ into both the "Find what" and "Replace with" boxes; click on More>>; then click on Format, Font and select the colour red; click on replace all. Repeat for the diamond suit. [Personally I prefer to leave clubs and spades black!]. No macros needed.

In a completely natural system such as standard Acol, the sequence 1♦-1♠; 2♦-2♥ is non-forcing and you need to jump to 3♥ to create a force. Even I don't like this and most would treat 2♥ as forcing these days. Given that 2♥ is forcing it seems pointless to have 3♥ showing a game force. Better options for 3♥ are: - a splinter in support of diamonds - showing extra shape - e.g. 5-5 in the majors