BillPatch

2. An in tempo pass. Nothing else fits the bill. 3. Before I sit down at the table at a tournament I usually know what system we are playing. More clues, please. My guess is acol.

1. Double. If partner passes I am reasonably happy with the plus score. If he takes out into spades I am very happy to play 4, will accept the slam try if he bids 5. If partner has the distribution to take out into clubs, I am content to let him play. Only if partner has a matching 6 card diamond suit and takes out into diamonds am I unhappy. Luckily, that is an extremely rare possibility.

A right-sided 6NT is about 76% looking only at the two hands, so if it is reached reasonably the choice of the NT slam is probably wise. 6♣ is also about 76%(minus the possibility of a club ruff)so it might be preferable at IMPS. Then again the underlead of the spade K is normal against the suit contract when that card is offsides, so my bet is 6 clubs is best in the long run at IMPs. As is common OP failed to mention whether the game was matchpoints, IMPS, or other. and it is material to the analysis.

I still see 9+, and I do see the vulnerability. In Lawrence's and Bergen's systems this is a fit auction, so the normal stringent requirements to make a two level vulnerable overcall should be relaxed. Lawrence, in his first Overcalls] book, noted that this was a fit auction, so a direct overcall required approximately the values of a minimum 5 card major opening bid to overcall here. By 1984 the traditional support negative 1NT response was rare enough that Lawrence did not consider it for this auction. He did mention that four card major systems were more difficult to overcall against because some fit auctions did not always deliver the "Legal" 8 card fits. Maybe this is just another incidence of that. Lawrence did recommend tightening up requirements against those players who showed extra HCPs with their 1NT response on this auction. I am pretty sure that my suggestion to dramatically tighten up overcall requirements against the traditional one NT response was theoretically justified. But, since most traditionalists require the extra values for this 1NT response, it probably is best to follow Lawrence's suggestion about when to tighten up requirements.

Qutie an improvement over the original auction. East has extra points, reasonable intermediates, and a reasonable suit, so he should easily accept the 4NT slam invitation.

The Granovetters play Lionel and swear by it. See their books. By the way the ACBL Bulletin review article in 2010 recommends getting into the auction over 1NT when you do not have a balanced hand. If you must overcall on 4432 hands, use DONT, Meckwell, or the method described in that article by Grue.

A natural 4 NT bid rather than the 3 NT in the should show this hand and allow the NT slam to be found. This is the Bridge World Standard treatment. If partner is a 4 NT is always BW or RKC, nothing will work this side of the pond..

In yet other systems the offensive responder denies as many as 4 clubs. All the authorities presenting in Standard American with four card majors recommend the 2 club raise here with a minimum hand with 4 clubs. With 5 card major systems, many authorities prefer to use inverted minor raises. in which a weak hand with club support requires 5 to make a raise(to 3) more balanced raises used the 1NT response. If their methods deny the 4 card raise, they frequently will not have an eight card fit, so this is not a pre-balancing situation, so the two spade overcall should show substantial extra values, probably one LTC better than the pre-balancing hand. Since hands with 4 diamonds may bid one diamond rather than 1 NT, if they play inverted minors, 4 card support is implied by the NT bid, so against the normal ACBL player, who uses this common convention--pre-balance. If their convention card fails to specify--ask!

I see it. If trumps split 3-2 then we should be able to (not necessarily in this order).draw trump duck a diamond ruff a club in dummy and get back to hand by ruffing a heart to cash remaining winners in clubs unless clubs split 5-0 or0-5. Very roughly will make 68% (3-2 spades) * 90%(3-2 or 4-1 clubs) or approximately 61.2%. Additional chance, if trumps split 4-1, we can duck a round of trump, recapture lead, finesse one round of diamonds, drop queen in two more rounds, an run clubs if they split 3-2. Just a guess, an additional 4% for a total of 65% that 6 ♠ makes. Any better lines?

Since in acol or the German standard system opener can almost never or never have the option to raise here with three ♠ preferring to rebid 1NT regardless of stoppers, I lead J♥ from the long suit, despite the tenace. Playing against the standard US systems particularly against N American players, I would prefer a low ♠.

I think that question is: Predict the results of a simulation using a DD analysis of many potential EW hands.

7 ♠ was difficult to analyze. I commend Nige1 for providing a good solution for the terrible contract. In answer to rmnka447 hypothetical question, there are theoretically no proper bidding answers that reach such a horrid final contract. 6♠ is an order of magnitude more difficult, since now we must consider the timing of potential throw-in plays. I doubt 6 is a good contract. Anyone care to sim potential EW hands DD.

I seem to have miscounted the HCP before posting. It is my style to promote most 5 HCP with a 4+ major to a response. Then since I "knew" I had a response, I thought I had 6 HCP. The initial pass was not an atrocious error, though I still don't like it. If your bidding philosophy prefers the pass, with a maximum pass and 2 card support I think a raise of 2♥ to 3 on the next round is preferable to that pass. Game was still possible in normal bidding if opener had extra values and a non-semi-solid six or seven card suit improved by the prospect of the semi-fit. So, Opener's free rebid of 2♥ with his Acol 2 bid was clearly the worst error. I therefore reassign the blame 40% N, 60% S.

In some systems the offensive bidders have guaranteed a club fit; in many others it's implied. Thus, despite the unfavorable vulnerability, this is a prebalancing situation, so the two spade overcall does not show a huge hand. Responder is limited and opener has not promised extra values, so overcaller should have at least constructive values. Thus I expect about an opening hand with a five card suit and 7LTC as a minimum, and also many hands with 6 LTC. Vulnerable at IMPs I want to be in game opposite the 6 LTC hands. While I have only two proven cover cards, an extra trick may be developed by ruffing a second loser in clubs, or dropping a trump queen, or some combination using the JTxx plus value in diamonds. I will make a weak game try by advancing 3♠. While making the game try will increase the possibility of going down in a part score. 3♠ preempts 3♣ by the opps, either as a contract or encouragement for 4♣. 3♠ is relatively safe since we have a 9+ ♠ fit.

Where do you wish to play? Some tournaments in BBO? Ireland? Great Britain? Elsewhere in Europe? ACBL adopted a new reg this summer so "Anything Goes," in terms of conventions over a natural no trump opening, so your convention is legal in the major North American countries and Bermuda. If you specify another location, it is likely that someone else can come back with the answer within 24 hours.

While I would doubt that Bridge Buff will fit your bill, I doubt that Windows 8 or 10 compatibility would be the reason. (Actually I have no direct experience with Windows 10. I am not upgrading now because the VITA/TaxAide volunteers who prepare tax returns will not use the new system on the job for security reasons.) Windows 8 and 10 were designed to be backwards compatible with most previous Windows programming. I think the problem is probably cosmetic. Bridge Buff is not testing their product for the newer Windows, since their production run is over and at present their main purpose is to unload remaining inventory. I am neither a computer geek nor an authority on Windows.

Oh, I forgot to assess relative blame. 50-50. Both errors were equally atrocious. But if I had to make the decision which error was worse failure to respond to the opening bid with 6 HCP seems to be more a beginner error.

If we have no good agreement that either 4♠ or 4NT is ask asking, are we really sure that 4♣ is not Gerber?

I highly agree with a and b--two partners were asleep on this hand. I like the good/bad 2N, but would prefer to make many more simpler conventional agreements earlier if I had my choice in developing a serious partnership. It is not for the casual partnership IMHO.

When you press GIB before the opening lead the thirteen red and green symbols refer to the double dummy results possible for leading each card. A red 2 signifies down 2; a red 1, down 1, and an green = that the contract could be made on that lead with no overtricks. A green number would signify that number of overtricks were possible.

Sorry, I was out of line here. I apologize to Lycier and the board. On the Wombat matter, I never suggested that Wombats play so. Wombatica was the screen name of the original poster, who had indicated that he was a beginner asking a question about whether a bid was simple Blackwood. I repeatably asked that responders on that post try to reply to the original poster. I did this out of respect for wombatica, a fellow forum poster. Perhaps I came across as a Buffoon through my humor, but I meant well.

So a "Bushism" has made its way to our humble forum. I recognize "precedent", Bush's old job. And I will not challenge "cromulent" which is unfamiliar.

While I suggested that the forcing natural 2NT might be used on this auction, neither I nor Kokes would recommend it for this particular hand. A 2NT forcing rebid was being considered to try to solve this problem, and I just wanted to say that that Kokes Koached teams had a 2NT forcing rebid available, and the method is published.

I found the Klinger methods for 5 card Stayman to be quite playable, although your mileage may vary. A late bridge partner fed me this method in selected clippings from a popular bridge calendar. I dutifully studied the material, thinking that was his request. After agreeing to play it, I found that he had not learned it! Another source for this is Kilinger. Five Card Major Stayman.

2♠. Because I personally am willing to balance lightly I am loathe to punish partner by promoting the hand to the cue bid. Because I think there is a probable game I see no advantage in bidding less. But I only use robots as a tool to advance my normal bridge, and have limited direct knowledge of the GIB bots.