Tramticket

I'm over-calling 2♥. if South bids 4♠ (not this hand obviously) and this comes back to me I double. On the actual hands given, I would expect to end up in 4♥, whichever action I take. The play looks awkward on a forcing defence - particularly if played by East.

Psyching will probably not work. It is too late to pretend we have values (we are a passed hand). I have the feeling that passing may work best now. Raising spades advertises our fit (and help opponents to understand their fit(s). If I am going to raise spades, 3♠ or 5♠ may work better than the obvious looking 4♠.

It depends on system of course. I play a weak NT and all of these are easy openers for me. I can't imagine any 13 point hand that I would pass; I would open almost all 12 point hands (the passes are likely to be 4441 shape with potential rebid problems) and I would tend to pass on balanced 11 point hands.

Our 2♣ is 100% forcing to game and double is penalties.

Don't forget that your hand evaluation should not be static, but should be continually updated as you get more information. For example, you may judge a holding of KJXX to be worth 4 points when you first pick the hand up, but when LHO bids the suit it will surely be worth considerably less. If partner bids the suit it may be worth more than 4. I also find it useful to try to keep in mind the defensive strength of a holding as well as the playing strength. For example you pick up a hand containing a singleton king - you initially down-grade this holding. Partner opens the bidding and RHO bids the suit containing your singleton. The auction develops into a competitive auction. I would now judge that the king may well take a trick in defence (when declarer finesses in trumps), but may be worthless if partner becomes declarer (the opponent holding the ace will play it on the first round of the suit and partner will be ruffing the second round in dummy).

4♥ in either case.

Although we are a regular partnership, I have to confess that I don't know the answer to all of these. Double is take-out and definitely shows extra values; 2NT would show the minors based on extra shape (with 5-5 she probably would have bid 2NT last time, so clubs longer than diamonds); 3♦ would be an unlikely bid since it forces us to the four-level - it must also be based on extra shape. I'm not sure what 2♠ would have meant (possibly natural??) Again, this specific sequence and these bids are un-discussed. 2NT would probably be taken as natural, 2♠ would be taken as "forcing".

I would have bid 2♠ if partner would have treated it as natural - but I doubt that. Maybe bidding 2♠ artificial to pass the decision back to partner was a possibility?

Yes I did lead a club. I am not usually a fan of passing take-out doubles out of desperation - but I really could think of nothing better. Partner had a good hand and we collected +300, where others were going off in spade contracts. I'm not sure that I would be brave enough to pass it at red vulnerability - or at IMPs.

[hv=pc=n&n=sq965432hqt8d94cj&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1s2c2hppdp]133|200[/hv] Pairs (EBU Simultaneous Pairs) I chose to pass in second seat rather than bid 3♠ or a multi-2♦. Pre-empting in spades would have resulted in other difficult decisions. What can I possibly do now?

3D is also non-forcing in all standard methods that I am aware of. You can easily miss a 4S contract when partner holds a minimum response and good 5-card spade suit. I would bid 3C unless playing with my regular partner (she would never pass a 2C bid).

There are many methods and some have different advantages. 1EYEDJACK's arguments for not playing Exit Transfers are very compelling - particularly against good opponents. Strangely, against weak opponents (who haven't fully discussed their continuations after a penalty double), there is always a chance that your opponents will rescue you and if you go round the houses in your escape you increase the chances that the opponents will lose patients and rescue you! But you should base your system on the players you aspire to beat - and although I used to play Exit Transfers we moved on from them. When considering different systems, it is worth noting that some systems allow you to play in 1NTX but not in 1NTXX, (because the redouble is used as part of the rescue). Other systems allow you to play in 1NTXX but not 1NTX (because a pass is forcing). - Systems that don't allow you to play in 1NTX have disadvantages at MP Pairs - sometimes it is better to sit still rather than rescue (e.g. on 4333 shapes as discussed by various contributors). There is no advantage in making a redoubled 1NT at pairs - if you make a doubled 1NT you have probably scored better. - Systems that allow you to play in 1NTXX can have some advantages at teams - because now if you make you will score a game bonus. The risks/rewards for doubling a tight contract can shift and the opponents may chicken out rather than risk conceding a game bonus. Of course the risks are increased for your side too and you will find that, in practice, you always rescue from 1NTX. There are of course fewer IMPs specialist who play a weak NT because of the risks!

Hasn't East got the Q♥ to cash as well? Aren't we losing two hearts, two spades and the king of clubs on this line?

[hv=pc=n&s=sak82hakq7dckj864&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h]133|200[/hv] Team of 4 match (IMPS to VP) 1♥ = 5-card major What do you bid? And what is your strategy?

I agree with this. In fact I think it would have been better not to bid 4S last time (at match points).

IMPs or pairs?

No, playing 4-card majors, you will still open 1D on hands 2 and 3. Hand 2 is particularly awkward and if playing Acol (4-card majors plus a weak NT) and I would choose to open 1NT. On hand 4, you can open 1H and rebid 2NT. This has the advantage that you communicate to partner both significant features of the hand - balanced 18-19 AND 4-card heart suit. (Although some versions of 4-card majors would still choose to open the minor first if 4-4 in a major and minor).

It's a gamble of course. Opps preempt has made things difficult. But opening weak 2s aren't usually based on solid running suits, so there is a good chance that partner holds a spade honour - which turn your spade holding into a stop. On this occasion the opponent has opened with a particularly strong weak-two (most would open 1S on this hand). Your gamble would fail.

You are South - so presumably it was your jump shift. You are in a game forcing auction and it is surely normal to clarify your hand type and show that your jump was based on club support - bid 3C. What am I missing? Does 3D/4D guarantee club support?

There is another potential problem. Next time the opps pre-empt 2♦, you will hold a chunky 17 count and bid 2♠. It would be a shame if partner passed - making allowances for your super-light overcalls over a pre-empt.

If opponents'are pre-empting, we should aim to bid constructively rather than making a pre-emptive noise. This hand is not a constructive 2♠ bid.

Richard does state that T can be use when (as on this site) cards are given without spacing. My personal preference is to use 10 rather than T.

This style guide is excellent. When I was producing newsletters I found that I had to develop things from scratch - this would have been an excellent starting reference. A few comments: (1) I disagree with Richard over capitalisation of the names of conventions. I think that, even if the name of the convention has not been derived from a proper name (e.g. Blackwood), the bridge usage of the name has now become a proper name. I feel that it is preferable to capitalise all convention names - e.g: - Asptro - Lebensohl - Roman Key-card Blackwood I note that the British magazines seem to adopt this approach. I'm not sure if this is a regional difference. (2) I am interested that Richard uses notrump as a word, without hypenation. I'm not sure that I've encountered this and think that hyphenation is more normal. The current (February 2017) issue of English Bridge manages to use no-trump and no trump on the same page (P. 31): "I found someone who was happy to play a 12-14 no trump" and later "Because the average French player has little or no exposure to the weak no-trump" (3) Richard has identified regional differences in the spelling of bridge terms. There are other regional differences. One issue that Richard doesn't address is my pet irritation is the use of "trump" as both a plural and singular. An american publication is likely to state "Declarer draws trump", even when the defenders clearly have four between them, whereas a British publication will state that "declarer draws trumps". Richard doesn't address this issue directly, but he does use the example "... if declarer just bothered to draw trumps". Maybe Richard is more British than he thinks!

I agree that #5 is very difficult for Acol. I would bid 2NT as a "least of all evils" bid and might even consider passing 2♦ at pairs.

This is a good set of hands Kaitlyn, which has prompted some very good discussion (although possibly not helpful for novices). As others have noted, many of the answers will be system dependent. In the UK very few players play the 4th suit as forcing to game (even players playing strong NT / 5-card majors, are still playing the 4SF as a one-round force). I'm a little unusual in that I prefer to play 4SF as forcing to game. Because this set of hands is focused on invitational strength hands, it is actually a good advert for the one round force method. Many weaker players in the UK have a blind-spot that you won't find in the US. For these players, 2NT shows 11-12 AND a stop and the fourth suit shows 11-12 WITHOUT a stop (or sometimes they will describe it 11-12 and half a stop). They don't understand that 4SF can be used on so many other hands. I think that many players in the UK would handle Kaitlyn's hands pretty well - but fail to use 4SF (or mis-use it) in other situations.