CamHenry

In general, Standard American or something similar is most common on BBO. Many European and Asian players also use something similar. You'll therefore see a preponderance of weak 2s. If you're used to Acol, I suggest playing in the Acol Club as much as possible. Sure, you don't get such a variety of opposing systems, but you're more likely to find opponents who will answer questions politely and more likely to find a partner who will play strong 2s with you (if that's your preference).

You don't fancy trying to defend something in ♣, on a forcing defense?

Last night I held a shapely hand as dealer, white vs red: [hv=pc=n&s=st4hkqjt96dct9754&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2hp2n(Feature%20ask)3c]133|200[/hv] First off, is there a problem with opening this hand 2♥? I decided it was either that or 3♥, and didn't fancy the latter. Secondly, what agreements should we have after my RHO comes in over the feature ask? Pass should probably include the weakest hand, e.g. QJTxxx and out, but what else?

The most common defense to weak 1NT (that applies here) is double for penalties. I think most E players will try escaping to ♦; how they do that and what S does will vary. There will be a fair few 2♣ transfer starts; some XX showing a single suiter and being left in by a misunderstanding, and other gratuitous disasters. Overall I think a lot of NS pairs may run into trouble: after the start 1N-X-2♦-? not all will have discussed whether doubles are for takeout here (I think they should be, as then S can show values with no clear direction), and some S hands might bid 2♥ - at which stage N says "I've got almost a minimum double with 3-card support, so I'll pass". You're then booked for a bad score conceding 300 in 3♦X as E/W. Of course, I think S should do something stronger than 2♥ - 3♦ would be my choice over 2♦ - and then you probably find some game or another. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 6♥ have play even on a ♦ lead? (edit: 7♥ makes double-dummy unless my analysis is incorrect, but it needs the ♠ break and the trump guess)

Why do you do any worse running the J than leading up to the Q if there's T9-Kx? If the K is onside, you take the finesse then play another trump, for 0 losers. If the K is offside, you take the finesse, losing, then you lose a diamond and a club ruff (assuming the lead was a singleton). The same happens either way, unless I'm mistaken. Edit: replying to the concern about LHO leading from ♣xxx. If you go up with the Q, you lose to the lead of the 8 from J8xx - but that seems unlikely. What hand could LHO have where leading from 8xx seems best? If he's holding ♠Qxx,♥K♦AQxxxx♣xxx, it might seem viable - but that's a narrow target, I think. Much more concern that LHO has the club singleton and that he's going to find the philosopher's coup in ♦.

I'd go so far as to say that if you're going to treat this as unbalanced, you should open it 1♠ and rebid ♥. Sure, that promises 5=4, but it's the sort of hand where a 4-3 major fit (spades in particular) has a lot of appeal. The other advantage of this approach is that, if partner's minors are both KJxx, the lead will come up to them in NT.

A vague and ill-analysed suspicion that you want to be able to repeat the finesse if RHO has KT5/K95. Entries to dummy are sparse. You're right that this is another position where running the J loses to banging down the A, though :-) Thinking about the available 1-3 splits: running the J wins when the T or 9 is singleton offside, but loses if RHO covers from KT9 (which he should). It loses to leading up to the Q if RHO has K singleton, and ties in all other cases.

A and another gains when trumps are Kx or K offside (4 positions); loses to running the J if there's a small doubleton or T/9 singleton offside (5 positions). If I run the J successfully I make 12 tricks; if I run it and it's wrong I make 10. If I play A and another, I'm making 12 if the K is singleton offside and 11 otherwise (on the cases where it matters). Run the J makes 12 in 5 of these positions, 10 in 4. A and another makes 12 in 1, 11 in 3, 10 in 5. The only other argument is that LHO had enough to overcall but RHO didn't have enough to open; but then LHO could be Qxxx/xx/AQJxxx/x leaving RHO with xxxxx/Kx/Kxx/Jxx, for example. I'm not good enough to evaluate this. I run the J and take my chances.

I hope you're right - but the wording I quoted, at least, is poor.

I agree - I have a bit of difficulty switching between levels of competition because when I play in low-level events (bunny night at the club) I can overcall 1NT on a 12-count, find a 6-count opposite, and swindle 8 tricks for a top. I then get into the habit of such atrocious bids and ship IMPs/MPs as appropriate as soon as I encounter sane oppo.

This line concerns me: [unsportsmanlike psychs include...] psychs against pairs or teams in contention. What if I hold xx/xxxx/xxx/xxxx in third seat, favourable; it's the final of a knockout and we're in the last set trailing 30 IMPs? I want a swing, the other team are in contention, I psych 1♠. This is unsportsmanlike?! Isn't it unsportsmanlike of LHO to hold most of the deck when we know oppo have good slam judgment in 25HCP facing 10HCP situations? Argh!

All of these promise at least 4 cards in the bid suit (♣) and are therefore legal, subject to full disclosure, in the EBU. My reading of the Blue Book is that they are not permitted in beginners' event, but that seems reasonable.

I recommend looking at http://www.bridgehands.com/S/Suit_Combination_5.htm (and the similar pages). These show the best way to play different combinations for different numbers of tricks; obviously you can't take it to the table with you but you can study it offline. You have J987 facing A654. A lot depends on how many tricks you need. If you need 4, it'll take a fairly classic defensive error (e.g. LHO leading highest from Hxxx, dropping his partner's singleton honour). Alternatively, if they're trumps, you can try scoring them on ruffs. If you need three tricks, my instinct says to play low towards the J at trick 1. This works if LHO inserts an honour (which most defenders will from Kx, Qx, Qxx, HTx, etc.). You then have to decide whether to drop a now-singleton high honour or a now-singleton T; obviously you win if either oppo plays the T. If LHO plays small, I'd insert the 9 as this gains over the J whenever LHO holds the T. If you need two tricks, I think playing small towards the J987 is also correct, for much the same reasons.

It seems like your options are X, 2♦, 2♠, Pass, or some random psych. There's no point in psyching here, as it won't do much to the opponents' auction and partner may well raise you. Double promises a six-card suit, as does 2♠. Do you play X or 2♠ as stronger? I think X is rather pointless here as it takes up no room, reduces your chance of defending 1NT which may well fail, and misleads partner. Similarly, 2♠ may well get raised on xx/Axxxx/xx/xxxx, and when they force you in clubs and you lose trump control it won't be pretty. That leaves 2♦ or pass. 2♦ has the chance of finding a minor-suit fit (wahey) and the chance of directing the wrong lead; there's also a slim chance you'll have a constructive auction to a making 2♠ partscore. That all seems like a pretty narrow target. Passing seems cautious, perhaps, on a working 12-count, but I have a sensible top spade lead and diamond switch against 1NT, a diamond lead against 3NT, and can always bid 2♠ after a transfer to ♥ (or Stayman bid). Playing these methods, I pass. If I can show spades and a minor, or spades and another, or a non-touching two-suiter, I do so. PS: Why are you playing DONT? I see little merit in the convention. It's nearly as bad as Cappelletti.

6♠ wtp? I'm assuming 4NT is two suits, not necessarily minors; whichever 2 it is I have half a defensive trick if that. Partner could double with 2 tricks to tell me not to bid on; he knows I've got a big spade fit for him but he doesn't know it's this good instead of JTxxxx.

We tend to play Suction against Suction: so after 1N-(2D), for example: X = values, penalty interest (including something in diamonds) P with a weak hand 2♥ = ♠ or minors 2♠ = ♣ or reds 2NT = non-touching two-suiter 3♣ = ♦ or majors

Makes my -1600 on a similar auction (same contract) look "not actually too bad". Partner will be delighted...

In response to the OP: I think 2♠ is the best call here. You're minimum for it, but it's a good bid.

4N specific aces is, as I understand it, part of Acol and has been "forever". On the other hand, I only know about 3 anecdotes of it ever turning up.

I think we do quite well on this hand. We have the advantage of playing a nebulous 1♣ opening, limited to 15HCP, with split-range transfer responses. Our auction goes: 1♣-2♥ 10-15, no 5cM, not 4-4 majors; if balanced it's 11-13 / ♠, either a pure weak takeout (e.g. KJxxxx and out) or preparing a slam try 2♠-3♥ To play opposite the weak hand / natural, second suit 3♠-5♣ Suit preference; mild slam interest (as it's a control-rich hand) / Exclusion 5♠-6♣ 2 keycards / king ask 6♠-pass no outside kings

Sometimes that just means that the TD doesn't know what's going on. Suppose you held xx/AKQxx/Kxxx/xx and opened 1♥, and you alerted 1♥ as "Could be just 4 cards". Would the same TD blacklist you for false alerts? If so, he's asking that you tell your opponents exactly what you hold. I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. I wouldn't have chosen 1♥ on the hand myself, but I understand why you did.

At IMPs: A lot depends on how aggressively you double in direct seat. With a lot of my partners, something like x/Kxx/QJxxx/KQxx will not act over 3♠, and I find it difficult to construct a layout where you can't make 3NT opposite. Sure, this is a perfect maximum, but it makes game 100%. At MPs: how many defensive tricks do we have? There's one spade (maybe two), one heart, one club; if partner's broke then oppo have likely missed game; if he's got pocket change we're beating their partscore, and if he's got enough for 3NT we can probably hold them to 7 tricks or fewer. I would probably bid 3NT at the table, but then I play in a weak field where oppo will set up suits for me.

Here's an auction that with one fewer pass might look like a sensible way to reach 6♣: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1cp1hp2hpp3cp3sd4cp4dd4np5hd6cdppp]133|100[/hv] I'm not quite sure how a 3♣ balance from a passed hand ended up going for 800 in exactly this fashion...

I think W should make a preemptive raise to 3♦ at his first turn. Similarly, N probably has enough to bid 4♠ straight off - he's pretty certain partner's short in ♦ and can ruff them early. After E doubles 2♠ for takeout, W can afford to bid 4♣ over the 3♠ from S. E probably then realises there's a lack of minor-suit cards in NS, and can assess the fact that his ♦AK don't look so much like 2 tricks any more. He might well find the profitable 5m sacrifice as well. Some might argue that W should pull the double of 4♠, but that seems like resulting. My suggested auction: [hv=d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1d1s3d3sd4s5cp5dppdppp]133|100[/hv]

Yes, but you can take your ♣ ruffs with the ♥T and ♥A, playing the ♥5 under an honour. Your ♥ tricks are 7 (trick 1), KQJ (later), and AT (to ruff ♣). All you need is for W to follow to the ♣AKQ. If W has Kxxx of spades, this also works. Win the lead with the 7 ♣ to A ♠ finesse ♣ ruff low (requires W to have two ♣) run the ♠Q At this stage you know whether spades were 4-1 or not: if they were, take the ♠A, cash a high ♣ throwing a ♦. If this holds, you have: [hv=pc=n&s=st7hatdk6c&n=shkqjdtcq9]133|200[/hv] You can score 5 more tricks on a high cross-ruff (and just lose a ♦ at the end). If spades were 3-2, you need W to have 3 (otherwise he ruffs and plays a ♦). Here, you clear ♠, breathe a sigh of relief if you're not down, play ♣K ditching a ♦. You've got the same position as above, and once again you can cross-ruff high. Both of these lines come to 7 trumps, 3 spades, two ♣. They rely on the ♠K onside (to 3 or 4 cards) and W having at least 3 clubs. If W has the singleton ♠K, you know about it early (good news) and can probably play him for ♣ length, so you cash ♣ winners then drop the ♦K on the established ♣. This makes when W is 1=5=3=4, with the ♠K, as you can strip him of black cards then cross-ruff high.