foo

...and how do you like you ♥'s opposite a void? The ♥ suit is not self-sufficient enough for a 3♥ bid when you are this low on HCP. I'd want at least 3 of the top 4 ♥ honors for a 3♥ bid in this situation.

2♥. This hand is a min unless We find a fit.

Lol why is it when people make a bid and don't have what it shows, they just state a random definition for the bid that fits what they actually hold? 2NT here shows diamonds stopped! In a perfect world, I agree that 2N here shows ♦'s stopped. The rest of the description, as you well know, is dead on accurate. (Unless 2♥ was nf. In which case this Opener should =pass=.) I happen to think 2N is less of a misbid than 2♠ here. With Hx in ♠'s, I'd feel the other way around. On a good day pd has at least Qxx in ♦'s. ...and the auction is not necessarily over yet. Any Responder with game interest is going to show me that 6th ♠. *shrug* YMMV.

I almost want to invent this just so I could see what it would look like...

I think I've got as good as possible. Duck T1. Insert ♣T on presumed ♣x return at T2. (If ♣Q return, Q, K, A, establishes ♣T) If LHO wins ♣A, you are OK. If LHO wins ♣Q, they presumably are going to return something in the hopes of getting RHO in to push another ♣ thru. ♠ or ♦ return not a problem, so let's assume ♥. Win high ♥ and take immediate ♠ hook. If hook wins, you likely have your 9th trick. If hook loses, ♠'s are now established. Let's say ♠J wins. Now ♠K, ♦x -> A, ♠A to see if ♠Q drops. 3N made if so. If ♠Q doesn't drop, ♦5 from the board. If RHO plays a ♦ less than the ♦8, we insert the ♦8. Win or lose, if we can insert the ♦8 we are protected against all 41 breaks and 3N should make. If RHO plays a high ♦, forcing us to cover, we play for 32 ♦'s unless our count of the hand implies that going back to the board with the ♥A and putting ♦4 on the felt is better.

How about the Value Bid of 2N? 2N= "I have a semi-balanced minimum with 5 exceptional or 6 ♣'s without 3 card support for ♠'s or 4 card support for ♥'s" Looks like a good description of: ♠ 9x ♥ Kxx ♦ Jx ♣ AKxxxx to me.

"When you don't have a perfect bid for a hand, make the bid that tells the least lie." ♠ QJxxxxx ♥ Qx ♦ 109xx ♣ 1♦-(2♣)-? There is no "right" bid with this hand. There is only the least evil. This auction is most likely about to turn =very= competitive. I'm expecting a 4♣ or 5♣ call next by Advancer no matter what I do. There is a very high chance We have a 2x =9 card= fit in the Pointeds. My ODR =sucks= for defending. If We are going to defeat 5♣, pd has to have the defensive tricks in hand. I can provide no help. 3♠ WJS does not tell pd what is going on, but if that's the best bid I have systemically, that's the one; ...and WJS is better than 4♠ IMHO because I do not have the controls to make 4♠ a "two way shot" in the parlance of Robson & Segal. (although I admit it's close) IMHO 4♠ here with this hand is going to get Whacked 80% of the time when it should be by competent opponents. 3♠ FJS is much closer to being right since it "gets my hand off my chest" in one bid. Also, if playing FJS and I make this bid instead of 4♠, pd knows I do not have the 2 way shot.

I agree with all of this and suggest that auctions like auction 5: 1m-1M;reverse-4M should show a very specific "picture jump" kind of hand.

Using 2suited bids with 64's and well as 55's, 65's, and 66's is standard in many circles. Your pd has a "Moose" AKA "Rock Crusher" I also agree that you should not Advance ♠ 3 ♥ QJT75 ♦ Q7 ♣ JT973 the same way you would a zero count 4333. Expecially having already passed once. So pa-(1♥)-2N!-pa;4♣-pa-?? Now pd should be very excited. In the absence of specialized agreements (like 4m being treated as 1430 in the minor) I like 4♥ here. Advancer should bid 6♣ after 4♥. (Overcaller should have bid 5♣ themselves with a merely game going hand.)

Assuming SA or 2/1 GF, Declarer has either ~12-14 HCP w/o a 4cM or ~15-17 HCP w/o a 4cM. Ask to see their CC before leading if you want to know. They must tell you if you ask. a= The auction cries out for a Major suit lead b= The auction should warn you that They are going to take Their tricks =fast=. This is a bad auction to go passive on. Especially if a 3N response here shows 15-17 HCP. Since I do not have a standard 3 card sequence to lead vs NT here, I do not see a compelling reason not to make the standard lead of "4th down from my longest and strongest" ♠4 from ♠KQ94 it is.

I need to use <sarcasm> tags? Peter Oh, the sarcasm was quite evident; thank you very much.

One of the things reading this thread brings to my mind is that "light" and "sound" are being used very freely here without much of a definition. How good a hand is can only be very roughly approximated with HCP. Therefore, defining an opening as "light" or "sound" solely or even mainly on the basis of HCP is flawed logic. Axx.Axx.xxx.Axxx 9 loser 12 count. Worst shape in Bridge. ...and just about everyone except maybe Al Roth would open it. Why? Because it has 6/7 of the controls need to make 3N or 4M. QJT.QJT.QJT.QJTx 8 loser 12 count. Same shape. ...and just about everyone, including Marty Bergen, would not open it. The utter lack of controls taints the hand. The "average" hand is balanced or semi-balanced with ~10 scattered HCP. An Opening bid says you have significantly more assets than that "average" hand. "Pointy's" is not the primary evaluator of this. Power tricks, losers, controls, ODR, etc are. Bridge is about taking =tricks=, not HCP. There are 9 counts I consider perfectly reasonable openings even within the context of a "middle of the road" or sound opening style. ...and there are 12 and 13 counts that I consider poor openings even playing a light opening style. "The Limit Bid is the most important call in Bridge" said our ancestors. People sometimes forget that "pass" is a limiting call just as many bids are if used properly.

Aelred, you had BETTER not play money bridge against competent opponents. The Anonymous Bridge God has spoken! Peter LOL. Ok, I deserved that. The advice was perhaps not worded as diplomatically as it could have been. However, the attitude shown in that post pretending to be a monk is a seriously dangerous one if you ever play for money. My advice, poorly worded as it was, is sound and in the spirit of being helpful. ...and =please= do not put words in my mouth Peter. I have never claimed to be even a demigod...

4N, "Pick a 5m pd."

??? 7 of the posts in this thread so far have voted against 4♠. Some have even voted against bidding.

2nd seat Red @ IMPs is just about the most cautious place to preempt in. My pds are going to expect a better hand (7 losers, not 8) and a better suit: xx.AT9xxx.QJxx.x or something similar for a minimum 2♥ bid in this situation. Not the OP hand. Pass.

Just as in the Milne books, making a habit of doing this with soft 5 counts is going to end up with you having jam all over your paws and face, greedy Pooh. ...not to mention the times that "the bees" work out to sting you. You are Red. You have =0= controls. pd only promises 2-4 of them with a typical 1bid. pd could even have :P =♣= values! Bidding 4♠ on this hand is simply not partnership Bridge.

None of these reasons seem to have to do with 2/1 being GF though. Actually, they do. Since a 2/1 is GF, Responder can't make one unless they are willing for Us to be in game. At this point, most experts playing 2/1 GF even play the auction 1D-2C as GF. The weaker your minimum 1bids, the stronger Responder's minimum GF 2/1's have to be. Too much variation in what a 1bid shows, and Responder's task becomes more and more guesswork until it's hopeless. This problem is actually worse for 2/1 GF than it is for SA since SA is better equiped to have delicate auctions involving Invitational hands. 2/1 GF sacrifices that delicacy in order to improve your game and slam bidding when 2 opening bids face each other.

Well, that would be a great loss if you played in the novice game here at Saint Titus. However, I've heard Bro Lucius talking to Fra Paulo yesterday, and he was saying that doubling the opponents is pretty useless at higher levels of the game. Bro Cameron says this is partner's criminal sin (after all, he knows what you play, so he should know better). However, you should see Bro Cameron when HE gets over excited :P But he usually makes - probably by divine intervention ... The abbot told us last week: "Novice brothers, you know, when we open the bidding, we must not necessarily stop at game level or more." This was a complete revelation to me. Now I've seen the light! Yes, I've seen Fra Paulo declaring ... On the other hand, whenever those pesky opponents open, I seem to have so much trouble buying the contract in the right strain and level - if at all. But what do I know? I'm just a poor simple-minded novice after all. I strongly suggest you not ever play money bridge against competent opponents. 1= "Hey there Little Red Riding Hood, you sure are looking good." I get rich against opponents who think that X and XX don't exist. Your ficticious monks aside, go check records of =real world= international competitition. Even at the highest levels, X and XX are used and are useful. 2 & 3= Sorry, if your bids are too wide ranging, pd can't field them accurately enough and you =will= be either too low or too high on plenty of boards. 3= "You can't fight tanks with pillows.", Edgar Kaplan. _Why You Lose at Bridge_ by AJ Simon. A whole host of =real= world experts, including David Bird (The Abbot in real life), in various teaching texts. When you bid, play and defend as well as any of them do, you will have more justification for arguing with them. About the minors vs the Majors or anything else in Bridge. An opening 1bid is the start of a conversation whose goal is to hopefully find game or slam. That means you should take into account what games or slams are more likely when deciding whether or not to Open. This is even more of an issue for 5cM systems where the 1m opening has already been made more wide ranging due to the allowed variance in suit length. 4= Sometimes Our best chance for a good score is to *gasp!* Defend! What a shock! If We are disciplined, We give Them as little information as possible and occasionally We even get to *shock!* =X= Them.

I hope you are not worried about the missed game. It's a 23 HCP, 6 control, 13 loser game. The only part of the above sentence that suggests you should be in game is the loser count. Both the HCP and the controls are a bit light. On this board, game makes because of favorable placement of the cards (swap the ♦ holdings and let ♥'s break 42 and see how much you like being in game); including that you have nice ♦ intermediates. Red @ IMPs such games are logical. White at IMPs, they tend to be losing bridge. As for the bidding, I have no problems with the opening if you and your pd are on the same wavelength. You have 7- losers, 2 defensive tricks, and an easy rebid plan. N made an interesting choice when they decided to show 54 in the Red's rather than rebidding 3♥ to show 6+H. Perhaps they knew how light you sometimes open? Regardless, S should definitely decline to take another bid opposite any non-forcing rebid by Responder. If a game is going to be bid on this board, the auction has to be driven by N.

OK, one last salvo then :D p212 Roudinesco, combination 26b. The proper play is exactly as I have stated and for exactly the reasons I have stated. Restricted Choice doesn't enter into it. I should probably write up a post on Restricted Choice just clean up cobwebs some might have on that topic...

Either 3♠ Weak or 3♠ Fit Showing Jump are fine with me.

bottom p382 "a mistake to avoid" to top p383 Ex 4 and 5 (ex 4 is KJ9+xxx; ex 5 is AQTxxx+xxx) I am !not! wasting my time copying it verbatum for you. I simply will not be goaded into such stupidity. The rest of the write-up is equally instructive. The bottom line here is that you do not receive enough information from the play on T1 for it to influence the odds enough, and hence your play enough, on T2. "The difference that makes no difference =is= no difference." The odds do not change enough based on the play of T1 for it to affect your plans. Therefore this is !not! a Restricted Choice situation. Had the cards been 54+KJT, or x+KJTx would RHO =ever= win T1 with anything but the T? No. He has no reason to randomize his choice or to falsecard. If Restricted Choice held, you would be able to pick which card to play on T2 based on the play of T1 to maximize your chances. You can not. Therefore it is not an issue. Once you can handle it, I strongly suggest you (re)read _Master Play_ by Terence Reese on this topic. ..and using impossiblities as "props" for your arguments is such a logical fallacy as to make logical discussion of any topic that you bring them to impossible. I haven't dodged even a little bit. The students who actually want to learn have all the logic and references they need on this topic. Yourself included if you so desire. I'm done here. Go argue with someone else.

Lot's of reasons: 1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them. 2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot. 3= 5m needs more tricks. Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N. 4= When We don't play the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD.

The most important principle here is that =you and pd be on the same wavelength=. Obviously, there are limits beyond which it becomes difficult to play good bridge within the context of SA. However, within those limits by far the most important thing is that pd be able to set a reasoably sized lower and upper limit on your bids. SA 2♣ Openings promise at least 1/2 the 6 of the 12 controls in the deck. That puts you within 1 control of 3N or 4M. SA 2♣ openings also promise either a very big NT hand or a hand that is within 1 - 1 1/2 tricks of game (8 1/2 - 9 tricks in a Major oriented hand, 9 1/2 - 10 tricks in a minor oriented hand.) That usually translates into no more than a 4 1/2 loser hand. *Notable Exception: Don't open 2suiters 2♣ if you can avoid it.* That's your ceiling; your upper limit on a 1bid. If you open 1bids with 7- loser hands containing at least 2 defensive tricks, your hands easily fit into minimum: 7 losers, Medium: 6 losers, MAX: 5 losers Nowadays waiting for a 7- loser hand with 2 defensive tricks is considered "old and stodgy" by some. Such pairs advocate opening 8- loser hands. Some don't even believe in waiting for 2 defensive tricks. Such pairs inevitably have System problems on some boards playing SA that more sound SA bidders do not. Why? Because they've created problems for themselves with their wide ranging 1bids. (There are other problems as well, but let's stick to that one for now.) With your OP example: ♠ Kxxx ♥ Kx ♦ ATxx ♣ Jxx, Even though you have your 2 defensive tricks (Kx + Kx + A= .5 +.5 +1= 2) I'd suggest not opening unless pd expects an 8- loser hand as your minimum 1opening.