WesleyC

I'd start with 2S 3C then 3D and after: 3H 5C - If partner is shapely 5c must have play. 3S 4C - Expecting partner to pass with 2 losing diamonds but to usually bid game with a stiff diamond. 3NT P 4C P

I wouldn't consider anything other than 1S. I like my partners to open aggressively in 3rd Seat, especially at Favourable, so I don't punish them by redoubling on soft hands like this one.

Gnasher: I agree with your example, playing transfers does gives you more chance to catch the opponents for penalties (when they pre-balance in your unlimited auction) but natural 2M bids are a little safer for your side, and hinder the opponents constructive bidding silghtly more. TMorris: I don't think the fact that 90% of club players use transfers isn't really an argument for (or against) them. Transfers are simple, popular and constructive auctions starting with a transfer are well understood. At club level lots of pairs don't even use double of [Weak NT - Transfer] to show values in which case transfers probably ARE better than natural bids. The serious pairs I've talked to that use 2M-Weak have relatively complex relay continuations after 1NT - 2C/2D to handle their constructive hands. For most people the extra memory work isn't justified.

I've recently started using a great Firefox plug-in called 'Autopager' which automatically loads the next page of a series of linked pages as you scroll down the first page. It basically turns a multipage forum discussion into one continuous stream. Lots of sites are already (automatically) supported, however BBO forums are not and I'm too stupid to work out how to add them. B) If anyone else uses Autopager with BBO, I'd be very grateful if I could grab a copy of their ruleset! Many thanks in advance!

If West has the hand you suggest then North holds: Kx xx Qxxxx AQxx which I think is an easy double, especially when the opponents are favourable. I'd feel somewhat justified on this layout because we can make 5D if partner chooses to bid or get 300/500 out of 4Sx if he passes. I can easily change the setup though, if you give me some different assumptions about what hands north holds to pass.

My first impression was to switch to a club at Trick 3, but I thought it was pretty much a guess. I've been messing around with Deal 3.17 lately and decided to use it and sim the situation. Considering only cases where the choice of return will influence whether the contract goes down: A Heart return is required if: North has ♠Qx or ♠Q and declarer must lose exactly 1 trick in clubs/diamonds OR North has ♠AJ and declarer has no losers in clubs/diamonds. And a Club return is required if: Declarer has ♣KQ, ♣KQJ or ♣KQJx and no loser in diamonds. ----- In the simulation I made the following assumptions: 1. West has 7+ spades. 2. North has 10 HCP or less. - based on the fact that he didn't make a negative double. - note this means West has at least 12 HCP 3. The more balanced West is, the more HCP he needs for his 4S bid. - 7222, 16+ HCP - 7321, 14+ HCP - 7420, 12+ HCP - Any 8 or 9c suit, 12+ HCP ----- I analysed the results over 100,000 deals. Most of the time the contract was either doomed or making independent of South's decision at trick 3. Of the times where South's decision mattered: Playing for the trump promotion set the contract 5782 times. Playing for a club ruff set the contract 4422 times. At least in terms of setting the contract, it seems South made the right play.

1. When the opponents make a t/o double they are suggesting shortness in openers suit which makes it more likely responder will have a fit. Hence I think it makes sense to use more bids which show a fit in this situation.

Phil: Isn't lead stopping a little dangerous at the 2 level, particularly in diamonds where you'll often only have a 4c suit? I play canape 4c majors and use a combination of 2 agreements - when opener doubles a cuebid of their suit at the 2 level it shows extra length and interest in competition. However, if the cuebid is at the 3 level or higher, double suggests a different lead.

Gnasher: I think its widely agreed that you would rather be able to bid 2M=to play over a weak NT if you could, than get there via a transfer. The main sequence that matters is: 1NT (P) 2D=transfer (X)=penalty Where 4th seat is able to double and show values, allowing his partner to later double 2H with lesser values (either for T/O or Pen depending on your agreements). In this sequence the defenders can catch the opening side in 2Hx when either partner holds a trump stack Compare that to: 1NT (P) 2H(Natural) (X) The takeout double it is a lot more ambiguous about strength. Holding a strong hand with a heart stack, 4th seat can't pass in fear that partner will not re-open. Also 2nd seat, holding a weak hand with a trump stack (perhaps xxxx KJTx xxx xx) will often pull the t/o double, afraid that partner could have a 12-13 count with short hearts. Whether this adequately compensates for the loss on transfers in a contructive auction isn't clear. Probably depends on how good your alternative agreements are.

Here are a few recent hands - IMP scoring. 1. UNFAV (P) P (1NT*) 3D (P) ??? *12-14, your system over NT is x=Pen, All the 2 bids show majors to some extent so 3D is P's cheapest natural diamond bid 532 A986 6 A9875 2. BOTH P (P) 1C (x) 3C (4H) 5C (5H) ??? J6 --- JT9542 KT983 3. NIL (1H) 1S (2D*) ??? * Natural, Non-forcing J3 KJ6 JT KQT984 4. BOTH P (3D) ??? AT987532 AT5 --- J9 5. BOTH (3S) P (P) ??? T2 QT AKT9 AKJ53 6. NIL (P) 1D (1H) P (2H) P (P) x (P) ??? K542 T AQT974 Q7

I would rather have raised (transferred to?) spades the first time. I've got no strong preference now. Maybe 6S? :/

I'm bidding 4S and then selling out. My partner will might only have 6 spades at these colours.

When you say "The double of 4D is save suggesting" is it take-out of hearts or suggesting a large number of diamonds?

Is anyone else as worried as me that partner might only have 4 diamonds? :D At the table I'd start slow with 1H.

My check-back method of choice is: 2C=Puppet to 2D then -Pass weak with diamonds -Other bids INV 2D/2H/2S/2NT= Transfers, either WEAK or GF (and not 5/5) 3C/3D/3H/3S= Natural GF, 5/5 shape The big advantages to this method are: 1. Using the puppet, responder can invite with a 5c Major and still play in 2M (in the 5-3 or 5-2 fit). 2. Playing transfers rather than sign off bids at the 2 level gives you more flexibility to explore with your strong hands (and makes the big balanced hand declarer).

Echognome started this thread with a discussion of Game Theory ideas and then an explanation of a "Matching Pennies" game which bares no resemblance to bridge at all. Consider this game instead: Addition/Subtraction is a non-simultaneous game played between two sides, A and B. First, Player A chooses a positive number, X, less than 100. Then Player B chooses a number Y. The value "X-Y" is then calculated and B must pay A that much. However, if X-Y is negative, B must pay 100 to A. Clearly A has no advantage in this game. B waits to see X and then chooses the same number himself. Now consider the game if B is forced to play using Echognome's "defense strategy set" idea. Rather than being able to choose a number AFTER Player A, Player B is allowed to choose a (finite) strategy set (based on the value of X) but must reveal it BEFORE A chooses their number. Suppose B goes with something like: If 0<=X<10 then Y=0 If 10<=X<20 then Y=10 ..... If 90<=X<100 then Y=90 Playing against this strategy, A has a positive expectancy. In this case 9.999 units. No matter how large you make B's strategy set, as long as the strategy set remains finite, A will have an advantage in the game.

Bluejak: I think you've missed Cherdanno's point. The suggestion is that the defending side fully explains its defensive methods, they just wait until AFTER you have opened 1NT to do so. There's no chaos, the side that opened 1NT knows exactly how to respond (in your case whether or not aardvark applies) and are at no disadvantage. They just can't use the knowledge of the opponents NT defense to change their opening 1NT range. You are correct though - this method is certainly illegal.

Given that Wayne teaches in the 'Acol Player's Club' I'm pretty sure partner has a 12-14 NT. At MPs, Pass. 1NTx might make, otherwise I might get to balanced with a t/o double over 2C which could be penalty passed or get us to a higher scoring part score. At IMPs, i'll go safe with 2D. <edit: didn't see that the setting was MPs>

'Range' was a poor choice of word. Due to the increased frequency of psyches the 'set' of all hands on which you open 1NT is changed by knowing your opponents defensive agreements. Logically, being able to make that change must be advantageous to you.

I'll pass plenty of hands with less defense than this!

At MPs I'd pass planning to back in with 2NT if 2S comes back to me. At IMPs still pass, but probably not back in.

I agree with Fluffy - the opponents are pretty likely to be cold for 4S. They are unfavourable though and might not be able to enter the auction if you open at a high level. There isn't really a right answer to a tactical problem like this - i'd base my decision on the opponents' tendencies. Versus opponents who tend to bid a lot, I'll pass. If my opponents are more timid I'll open some number of hearts between 2 and 4.

Very interesting thread. This 'solution' doesn't fix the loop at all. It simply gives the advantage to the opening side, who can tweak their openings to match the defensive agreements. As Fred admitted earlier, the range of hands he opens 1NT changes based on knowledge of Z. The solution which solves the loop in favour of the defending side is : "What is your defense to 1NT?" "We play nothing that requires prior discussion" After 1NT is opened, the defenders will ask about its style and then explain to the the opening side their defensive agreements. Although this explanation solves the loop it fails miserably in terms of full disclosure and is no doubt illegal. The opponents in Fred's OP were trying to protect themselves against this 'opening advantage', but in doing so offered partial (and misinforming) information. Clearly they are in the wrong. However as I've been in their position myself (against players less ethical than Fred) they do have my sympathy.

Looks like LHO has something like 2731 or 3721. The best I've come up with is win the Ac, AKs and a diamond to the T.

"Standard" 2/1 uses either 1M-3m INV (Hardy style) or 1M - 2m - 2M - 3m INV (Lawrence style). It sounds like your team-mates just haven't fully discussed their agreements. Its not really possible to play Bergen raises AND strictly forcing 2/1s (without some clever work around) or else you've got no way to bid hands like this one.