Walddk

I agree with almost everything Justin and Mike are saying, but I am not so sure that 5332 is the most likely pattern for the redouble. If it is, 18-19 must be the range since he didn't open 1NT. More often he will have 5422 or 5431 with 16+. Roland

You are surely the luckiest man in the world, Mike, if all you have to sacrifice in life is your favourite meaning of 4♣. ;) Roland

Sometimes that can't be helped. What else but 1NT can I open on xxx AQx KJxx AJx where I may expose Kx spades in dummy, and what else can I rebid but 1NT on xxx AQ KJxxx Kxx after 1♦ - 1♥? Again I may expose the same Kx in dummy. Roland

Indeed, and that's exactly why it's a good idea to let responder decide if playing weak NT. He can see if he has tenaces to protect, and if he has, it's a good idea to let 4♥ and 4♠ be natural. If he has not, he can transfer at the 2-level and raise to game next. The same might apply opposite a strong notrump, so maybe it's worth considering that one lets 4MA be natural and use 4♣/♦ as transfers. As usual, a matter of agreement. Roland

ArcLight has asked me to explain why it's often overrated that the strong hand becomes declarer after a transfer sequence. I can do it no better than Fred, so here is a copy of what he sent me: In my opinion this is a secondary consideration (or even a tertiary consideration playing weak notrumps). The main advantage of Jacoby (versus 2-way Stayman for example) is that this convention allows the responder to control the level of the auction thereby allowing him to describe several hand types while keeping the bidding conveniently low. Obviously it is also the case that there are some deals where the defense is easier if the weak and distributional hand appears as the dummy (instead of the strong and balanced hand). Let me add that re-transfers after opener breaks is of little use now that the strong hand has revealed a lot about his hand. He may just as well table his cards after this. Example: 1N - 2♦ 2♠ - 4♥ Some play that 2♠ on this auction shows a maximum NT with 4-card heart support and a small doubleton in spades. It could very well be a good idea now to let the unknown hand (responder) declare rather than re-transferring with 3♦ first. Roland

I don't disagree. The merit of always letting the strong hand be declarer is overrated. I know that Fred Gitelman said something along those lines some time ago in the Forums (can't find the post where he expressed that view). Roland

The treatment Frances is referring to is probably due to the fact that weak NT (12-14) is very common in the UK. Accordingly, it has a lot of merit if responder can decide who is going to declare. Opposite the weak NT responder is usually at least as strong as opener, and by using 4♥ and 4♠ as natural, responder has the option of protecting the tenaces he may have. If he has none, he can let opener declare by bidding 2♥ followed by 4♠. Finally, as Frances also pointed out, responder can show a slam invitational hand by venturing South African Texas where 1NT - 4♣ and 1NT - 4♦ are strong hands with hearts and spades respectively. The additional advantage is that opener will always bid over 4♣ and 4♦ (can't be natural, sign off), whereas there is a danger that 4♥ could be passed if opener forgets that they play Texas. Roland

Yes, 1NT - 4♥ is called Texas and shows 6+ spades and enough for game. I don't want to add hcp, could be anything. The more spades, the weaker it might be. Some distinguish (slam try or not) between: 1NT - 4♥ 4♠ and 1NT - 2♥ 2♠ - 4♠ You can control the first auction and let it be sign off or very strong (will bid again). In my second example you may play it as a mild slam try with no shortage. It's all a matter of agreement. Roland

Wasn't this said in jest with a ;) at the end? That's how I interpreted it. Roland

That's perhaps the whole issue in a nutshell. Did West have an obvious 2♠ in a situation where he didn't have to bid? My guess is that ♥AQ tempted him (2 tricks now), and that he might have forgotten about the quality of his spade suit. I would probably have bid 2♠ myself, but the more I think about, the more I doubt that it's the right strategy in the long run. Roland

I wish I could when I have a hand like that, but that would be a misdiscription, given that it shows 4-7 hcp and 5-6 hearts or spades. Roland

Of course I want to be in a 3NT that has roughly 53% chance of making. My point is that I would never open 3♦. Call it lack of imagination if you like. Because if I do with that hand, what am I going to bid on xxx xx KQ10xxx xx 4♦? 3NT broken minor? Pass? 3♦?. If the latter, how is partner supposed to judge? Roland

Of course I don't want to rebid 2NT. I want to describe my hand, not misdescribe it. Like it or not, you have a big advantage on hands like these if you play 2/1. Now you have an easy 3♦ without risking a pass. PS: Acol does not really shine was well said. Roland

Why don't you play with Luis? :rolleyes: Roland

It's a clear 1♠ opening to me, and if you think you are too weak for that, at least don't open a weak 2 with two aces and a void. Roland

Maybe I can pursuade David Bird to let The Abbot and Brother Lucius switch to 5-card majors, but I doubt it. If the inhabitants of Great Britain and Northern Ireland really prefer to keep living in sin, I am not going to stop them :rolleyes: One step at a time, so perhaps start with 4½-card majors? Roland

RKCB for spades. If I have hearts I bid them, if I have clubs I bid them, and if I have both I double. All situations covered, so 4NT must be SchwarzWald (German for Blackwood). Roland

Yikes! And what do you do with the more common hand type that wants to support ♦ and doesn't want partner to pass? Don't say I have to bid 4♦, hard to get to 3NT after 4♦... Hi, first of all show me the hand, you are talking about, and I will tell you what to bid, ;) Even in traditional Acol 2H is forcing, this is a fairly unknown aspect of the system, nevertheless its true, ... :) The reason: 2H could be fairly wide ranging, because a bid on the 3 level, would still show 19+HCP. With kind regards Marlowe OK then. What is your rebid in Acol with AKJxx xx AKxx xx 1♠ - 2♦ ?? Must you jump to 4♦ and give up on 3NT? Or do you prefer to underbid with 3♦ and risk a pass when game is cold? Roland

Glad you didn't treat as a solid suit. Partner must know your style. 3NT was enough for him, holding Axx Axx AKx Axxx It had no play on a spade lead when diamonds broke 3-1 (no queen singleton). Was he disappointed to go down? I'll ask him one of these days. Roland

And I was arguing with this, as the 2/1 GF also lets you splinter at a cheaper level, so you don't lose the advantage if you choose to splinter rather than bid 3♦. I agree Blofeld, but I have 3♦ available when I play 2/1; I don't if I play Acol. And I think 3♦ is a better bid than 3♥ with the actual hand. Roland

I didn't invent Acol, Gerben, and this is one of the reasons why I don't play that system any more. Let me stick my neck out: The Brits have some great players, but they have underachieved for years. A contributing factor is surely that they are sticking to methods that are too old for comfort. Roland

I think you need to read my post again. 1♠ - 2♦ 3♦ = NF in Acol

An additional point is that if you don't bid 3♦, you have lost the advantage of playing 2/1 GF where 2♦ was forcing to game. Playing Acol for instance, 3♦ is passable. This hand is too good for a non-forcing 3♦. Roland

Again, it depends on where in the world you are. Players in France and Poland would never rebid 2♠, since that would promise 4-card support. I think 2♠ is clearcut today, but I admit that I rebid 2♣ years ago until someone convinced me that 2♠ is better, because you are not good enough to bid 2♠ over partner's preference to 2♦. If you support with only 3 frequently, I suggest that you add a relay, e.g. 2♠ over a heart raise, 2NT over a spade raise. On this auction, responder has guaranteed 5+ spades, since he didn't ask if I had 3 or 4-card support. I have nothing to be ashamed of and will co-operate with 4♥. Roland

Our vugraph broadcast on the weekend from the São Paulo Cup Final in Brazil has been cancelled. One of the players has been taken ill. The event has been postponed until the end of November. We will correct that on our vugraph schedule page as soon as possible. The broadcasts from Belgium, England and Russia will go ahead as planned. We may also add the team trials from Paris, France. Keep an eye on the VG page for possible updates. Roland