Jinksy

Ok, 3N makes sense, but I still feel like 3♥ is timid. Do you agree you'd bid it on the hand I gave? If so, how is one supposed to know when to bid on if both hands would rebid 3♥ but one has a full trick over the other (before you even look at the Q♣)?

Maybe times have changed, but 3♥ seems like an underbid to me, and 3N an overbid. Playing a standard system I'd rebid 3♥ with xxx AKxxxx AKx x, and now if E bids on, it lands us in a hopeless spot. Should he really be bidding any kind of game with such a quacky hand? At IMPs at least I'd prob choose between 3♦ and 3N, albeit without much conviction for either. Maybe I'd psyche a 2♠ reverse.

Good advert for the value of a stiff Q, though. 3N looks rather worse without it.

My sequence might not be of much use to most partnerships, but it's fun for me: 2N* 3♥** 4♦*** 4♥**** 5♦***** 6♠ * 5+spades, 5+ hearts or clubs, playing strength c10-13HCP in theory, but can be stronger if you've got the distribution to follow it up with an impossible bid. ** Please sign off in 3♠ if you have hearts, else bid 3N *** An impossible bid. Not sure exactly what it means, but 4♥s and 4♣s would be naturalish, so it must be showing extra S length, hearts as our side suit, and probably a diamond control. **** We denied interest in hearts with our 3♥ bid, so this is some kind of cue/last trainish thing. ***** Almost certainly a void, since with stiff A you'd have opened a stronger bid if you also had the major strength to bid like this.

I probably bid this: 4♥ P On a really inspired day I might manage 4♥ 4♠ 5♥ P

It seems like new 3♥ should be a NT probe/cue for clubs to me. If we're min, we pass with D preference and bid 4C with C preference. So 4♦ is the cheapest forcing suit-setting bid, meaning, by our meta-agreements at least, that cues are for the other suit in contention.

Well ok, but you can add some semi-random honour to each to turn it into a 4♥ bid without making it much better for grand/small.

Then it's a natural bid that won't get used very much. Not sure what point you're making - this isn't my system, like I said.

Yes, but they just assert its meaning. That blog actually traces it back and finds no etymological or logical basis for it meaning 'circular logic' other than bad translation. So why 'correct' what is obviously the standard usage?

This hasn't become any correcter since you last said it: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290

Since when does a negative double at the 1 level with primary support for partner's suit show an 8 count? Justin was doubling at the 2-level the other day on a 5-count without a fit for partner.

You can shove in the JS, QD and QD to the same effect - the point is there's plenty of room for P to have poor trumps (or average trumps and other holes outside). This is part of Acol's problem - if you bid 3♥ on this, what do you do on a similar balanced 16 count? Even bidding 2♥ on balanced 15 counts, though probably best, can cost you when you might also raise P's suit on a distributional 11-count, potentially with 3 card support. Natural, I assume.

I find it about equally easy to construct hands where slam is good (eg xx KQTx xx AKQJx) as where we don't have five-level safety (KQx Qxxx KJ AKJx), and can't see any intuitive way to decide which is more likely.

Step 1 is to post something inquisitive about the subject on a bridge forum. Some of the people will post sincere guesses, others will make smart-arse self-referential remarks. Those are the ones you have to watch out for...

1. Good question! This came via email from a friend, so I don't actually know. They're fairly old school, so I would guess 1m, but will get back to you if he replies. Does it affect your decision? I'm in two minds. With 5 clubs we have a better chance of setting one up with a ruff, but P presumably will have taken account of that in his bidding - for eg, xx KQxx xx AKQJx looks almost a 4♥ bid to me, but xx KQJx xxx AKQJ is nowhere near. 2. Probably 20-22. If not, 20-21.

3♠, mainly to express my disdain for Lucas 2s.

Really? Would you pass with x xxxx xxxx Axxx?

[hv=pc=n&e=sa974ha973da76c98&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c(4%2B%20clubs)p1hp4hp]133|200[/hv] Favourable. Interested in the bidding at both MPs and IMPs. Do you try for slam?

I'm content to bid 2♠ on the first one. A slight underbid, but a) it's MPs, and b) my H honours won't provide much value if we're playing the contract. Hand 2 is less comfortable, but I'll opt for 3♥ (which we play as exactly 3 card support). That might not answer your real question, but I don't have an opinion on that without seeing a few sims, or bidding more hands each way than I can be bothered to :P

Stone age methods have ripple effects too, and you can't expect them to be some universal default. Few decent players would expect to find a hand with 3 hearts for an undiscussed 3♥ bid. Most of the time you'll get away with it, but it's a poor use of the space, and will occasionally lead to silly contracts (including when you don't bid it, because of aforementioned ripples). If you're going to bandy around accusations of arrogance, don't jump into a thread announcing that your way is the 'most straightforward' and therefore implicitly the best one. Especially when it isn't either.

The difference between NMF and Checkback seems tiny. I marginally prefer the latter since it gives you more space. You might want to explore 2-way Checkback (which I believe is synonymous with 2-way NMF). In 2WCB, both your 2C and 2D bids are artificial: 2C forces 2D, which responder might be planning to pass (with such as Qxxx xxx KJxxx x. Though this only makes sense if you'd bypass diamonds with weak hands, which you probably should). You can then bid a non-forcing 2M to show an invitational hand with length in that major. Partner typically then places the contract immediately (or might rebid 2S over your 2H to show undisclosed length there), and you respect his call 2D is a GF bid, and forces P to immediately disclose any potentially relevant major holdings. This gives more room to explore the right contract when responder is very strong.

Most stone-age methods work passably (whether or not you happen to have played them) but they are still neither optimal nor standard, and shouldn't be advocated as such in here.

I would probably lead a club on that hand if no double.

Only if you use stone-age bidding methods. For pretty much all strong players 3♥ would show 4-card support, and for many it would be a preemptive raise, denying this many points.

[hv=pc=n&w=skj3hakt43dj532c4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1hp1np3n]133|200[/hv] Teams. X would ask for ♥ lead. Pass or X? How close is it? What's the smallest change you could make that would change your action?