Tramticket

Yes, I do that.

I will usually open 1NT with a five card major, but if the major is strong (three of the top five honours) I will open the suit. Playing this approach the sequence in the opening post will show a six card suit, or failing that a good quality five card suit that will play well opposite small doubleton. My wide-ranging 1NT rebid is 15-18. I am happy opening 1NT with balanced hands in the the weak NT range.

It is a pretty nice hand, but I'm not sure where we are going. I would have expected partner to bid 3NT with a stop and to support hearts if possible. 5♦ seems to need a lot from partner - who has shown 4-7 points - since we are missing three aces and the king of trumps. Even 4♦ may be too high. At pairs and this vulnerability, we may be wiser defending. I'm tempted by DOUBLE.

I use Lead Captain. It's not free, but it seems to work reasonably well. I'm on computer at work at the moment, so can't run the deal through the program.

I agree with all of this. But Acol in practice has evolved to mean a system based on a weak NT and four-card majors - for UK based players. Even then, some open a major before a minor with 4-4. Some open a minor before a major and some vary this depending on other features of the hand. These choices can lead to very different systems, but all would claim to be playing Acol!

Whilst I used to treat these books as my bible, they now feel hopelessly dated and have not stood up well to the passage of time. We are in urgent need of a good quality Acol text. The best I can do is the English Bridge Union's "Really Easy Modern Acol". But, whilst it is fine for a beginner/intermediate level player. It is too superficial to be useful at a higher level.

Yes, I play king for count / unblock and ace for attitude. My point was meant be a more general one, that your objectives are often different in suit contracts compared with no-trump contracts (for example it would less common to unblock in a suit contract). Your signal will often be different and it is reasonable to structure your signalling system differently.

Yes Even if your signalling systems are the same you will make different choices. Take a trivial example, partner leads an ace at trick 1, you hold a small doubleton and you have agreed to signal attitude: in a trump contract you will often encourage hoping for a ruff; in a no trump contract you will generally discourage. Many will change the signalling system to reflect the different objectives.

I think that you are over-thinking this. why not just play standard attitude discards (high encouraging, low discouraging) - but with the general approach that you will usually discard a low card in a suit that you don't want. You will rarely discard a high card and never a high card that you consider important. Partner will make sensible decisions, knowing which suit you don't want and eliminating other suits based on his hand, dummy's hand and the bidding.

Looking at the positional nature of the guards, I'm starting to prefer 2NT.

It is certainly not too strong for 4♥ - at least in my system (Acol). With a very balanced 18 count and no ruffing potential you might argue that it is too weak (partner might only holding 5-6 points). Since it is vulnerable at teams I bid 4♥.

Yes, I think that it's some sort of stepping stone squeeze. Since declarer has two winner's (7♣ and J♦) he has presumably had to rely on this squeeze because of a lack of entries? (Or he mangled the entries!?)

Given that your opponents are in a forcing auction, it should be rare that you want to step in. Bids will usually be based on shape. If don't want to bid their suits naturally, you can at least get more definition into your two-suited overcall by playing 2X = 5-6 shape and 2y = 6-5 shape.

8S 2nd choice 8D.

As I suggested up-thread, in a weak NT context, the sequence 1NT-3M should be natural and game forcing. It sets the suit at a lower level than Texas transfers and there is no need to worry about "Wrong-siding" when responder holds the stronger hand. Either partner can cue-bid or use Blackwood. And I agree that few in the UK, who play a weak NT, use Texas transfers.

Agreed. But if taught properly and used properly it is one of the most valuable.

Stephen's list is pretty comprehensive, but some of it is system dependent, so for example we don't usually play Texas transfers in Acol. The rule could be modified to: 1NT-Jacoby Transfer-accept-4NT = Quantitative 1NT-3M (Natural slam invite)-Any-4NT = Blackwood Also the default position over here seems to be that a sequence such as 1♠-2♥-3♦-4NT is Blackwood, setting the last suit as trumps. Some would play that it is Blackwood, setting the first suit as trumps. I'm not saying that either of these is optimal (I prefer Stephen's methods), but if you and partner are agreed you will have a playable method.

Both should have done more. As Cyberyeti says, the North hand can't be much better given the bidding to date. Is 3♠ forcing in your methods? The South hand is starting to look pretty big with no wasted values and a likely heart shortage opposite the three small hearts.

Actually no. I also play a weak NT and would pass a weak 1NT opening with this hand at pairs and at teams if non-vulnerable. playing teams, I would invite if vulnerable.

Double for me.

Its a tricky hand. Imagine that you are playing a weak NT. 3NT looks inevitable (1NT, 2C: 2D, 3NT)!

I have sympathy for LHO. Imagine holding two aces against a slam - it would hardly seem credible that partner would also hold an ace! I can understand trying for a diamond ruff - it would seem as good as anything.

We'll take this hand as your acknowledgment that you CANNOT construct a hand where partner might hold a Yarborough. Yes, of course 8-10 points or thereabouts is the expectation. The dismal misfit that you have constructed is surely an argument for passing rather than bidding 1♣. On this hand, the opponents are likely to make eight tricks in their 4-4 spade fit if you open 1♣. I can imagine many hands where the winning action is to pass. I am now persuaded that opening 3♣ will often be the winning choice. It seems to me that opening 1♣ will almost never be right - it is simply an invitation for the opponents to compete in a major.

You're probably right. Although 2♦ is very unlikely to end the auction and the problem with a jump to 3♦ is that it overstates your defensive strength in particular.