Jinksy

I bid 1♥ at the table, then thought I should have XXed (we had 7-card fits in both ♠s and ♦s, and ended up in 2♦X). My worry with XX is the risk of P bidding 2♣. Presumably we'd also want to XX with the S3 in with the ♣s, so he could be forgiven for bidding it with such as 3325, for eg. Perhaps he would even do it with 4315? Could we be 2443 or similar, esp if our ♦ suit is weak?

FWIW, I might have passed if vul. First in NV (esp favourable), it feels like your preempts should be quite wide-ranging, since the multiplier of (damage to your opps auction) is higher and of (damage to your auction) is lower, and opening weak 2s with some defence raises each base value by presumably about the same amount.

I'm no Indian National Master, but I really don't understand opening 1♥ here if you don't play Gazzilli. Sure it's not that NTy (though on a D lead opposite the average of all relevant responding hands, do I really think 4 losers in Hs will be easier to avoid than 5 in NTs? Not sure...), but presumably no-one is really planning to rebid 1N over 1♠. If you don't feel like rebidding this crusty ♥ suit, that leaves you with the 'slight' overbid of 2N. So what about if we change the Q♠ to the J? IMO the hand doesn't become any more NTy, but now the rebid problem is even worse, so surely 1N is just mandatory then? But it feels really skewed to me to say on a weaker hand of similar caliber we show our values initially and here we just wait. On top of the constructive rebid problem, I don't think anyone's discussed the problem of competition, which is IMO the main value of playing a strong NT. If I open 1N on this hand, I've got it off my chest, and can sit back and let P make the decisions. If I open 1♥, what do I do if LHO calls 2♠, passed back? What about 2♦? In the latter case at least I suppose I double, but now I worry P's expecting either more strength or shape - if he bids 3♣, I don't see it ending well, and even 2M might be uncomfortable. Also after 1♥ 3m P 4m, I'm really going to feel the pressure...

I voted for 1♥ in the other thread, and, at least of the table with this one, 2♥. I still can't decide on this one, though. Take away the intermediates, and I definitely think it's too weak to open 1♥ - but then, the 2♥ bid gets less attractive. Even with them, I'm not crazy about it. I'm trying as a heuristic for borderline opening hands* giving P a 4333 13 count with as-prime-as-possible scattered values - ie an easy-to-model sort of hand that GFes virtually 100% of the time over an opening bid but signs off as cheaply as possibly opposite a passed hand. Here if we give him Kxxx Axx Kxx Kxx, this looks like a non-awful but dodgy MP game(***) (remove the T♥ and it looks quite a bit worse). So my instinct is 2♥ at MP. At teams I'd like to have a specific agreement with P about which of opener or responder stretches for thin games** - if the latter, I'd open 2♥ then as well, if the former, 1♥. * I'd be independently interested in comments on whether this seems like a good heuristic ** And I'd be interested if there's a consensus on which strategy is better. I have a feeling the latter has more support, but I'm not sure how I formed that impression, and don't have any strong reason to support it (ETA: *** Wait, this is bollocks. With the ♥T9, I think we're around 50% after allowing for possible ruffs. So, following this heuristic, those cards make this just about a 1-bid.)

I generally look for purer hands vul, though I agree seat is a much bigger factor. That said, first in I think vul matters more than anywhere else, and I'd open 3♣ on the first one, unless we had a specific partnership understanding similar to the one mycroft mentions. The second I'm less sure about, but I'd lean towards passing (it's impure, and we have values in the master suit, shortage in the ... what's the opposite of master suit? Slave suit?), so stand to gain less from a preempt).

Sounds resultsy to me. It's not that bad a 10-count - at least you have a working diamond suit. Plus if your invite is 2♠, you're likely to make things worse for yourself by giving LHO a chance to double.

[hv=pc=n&s=s3hak9873dkt543ca&w=skhqj6d7cqj987632&n=sqjt9652h5daqj2c4&e=sa874ht42d986ckt5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1h3c3sp4dp5dppp]399|300[/hv] MPs, BBO randoms. 5♦+1 got us 17.8%. 4♠+1 would have been worth maybe 60-65%, 6♦ would have been worth 85-90%. So who's to blame, and what are they to blame for not reaching?

Playing 2/1. MP, nil vul, first in: [hv=pc=n&s=sq9hkt9872dq5cat3]133|100[/hv] What's your call?

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt3hajt2da653ck&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1d(Minimum%20length%20undiscussed%2C%202%2F1)dpp]133|200[/hv] MPs, P is good, opps are BBO randoms. What now?

Bit of both. There's 4333s and 4333s. If you have KQ9 xxx AQxx xxx and you don't bid five-card Stayman planning to play in 4♠ if a partner shows them, then you probably shouldn't bother playing it. This is milder, but as responder it's the ♠s that worry me. Jxx in a minor can look after itself most of the time, but if P is weak in ♠s and it goes 1N 3N, I expect them to find a ♠ lead. With two suits weak, it's maybe still worth a look. I prefer MickyB/Meckwell's 5-card Stayman variant, which gives less away on the 95% of hands you don't find a worthwhile fit, and playing that I would certainly bid it (2N). Here... meh. But opening 1♥ is awful.

Probably worse than in one where you'll have to look PD in the eye again ;)

If he had a club void, surely he'd have cued 5♣?

If what P wanted was the A♣s, he could have bypassed that suit when cueing, so I doubt he has a source of tricks there. I'm not so convinced he's not afraid of a 2♥ response, though. Would we be expected to bid 3N over 3♦ with AKx xxx Jx Axxxx, for eg? Even if at worst we are on a 2-2 split, perhaps from his perspective it's at best on a 3-3 split or finesse, for eg (say KTx KJ9 AKxxxx x), so punting when he could include you in the decision doesn't seem great. But Fluffy's comments seem pretty sound to me otherwise. I dunno. Doesn't seem at all clear to me. It would help to know more about the negative inferences. What did 4♦ show? Might responder have a five card suit? Could he have shown a 4-card side suit if he had one? Did he tank for ages then make careful eye contact when he bid 5♦?

Yeah, BBO is not the same game as face-to-face bridge. There's no psyche-book for a start, and little hope of a pair getting appropriately penalised for fielding, or even for outright cheating. Personally I'd prefer to play in tournies with psyches allowed, but I don't understand getting angry about it when a) directing on BBO tournaments is generally (and probably unavoidably) far short of club standard anyway, and b) rules about what systems you're allowed change from country to country, and have a far bigger impact on the type of hands. As for protecting beginners, I think it's a pretty reasonable concern. When they're trying to understand what various bids mean, and how to use the information they convey in defence, it's going to be quite distracting for them when bids bear no discernable relation to the hand that made them.

How d'you plan to find 4♥? Double?

If P has solid stops in both the red suits, why couldn't he have bid 3N first time around (or 2N if natural)? The most obvious reason to me (other than not having stops) is that he's too strong. If so, 'minimum' or no I have great support for a slam try, so I'm raising to 4♣. If he then bids 4♠ it must be an offer to play, and I can pass.

It seems like a partnership Q to me. I would double with most Ps, because most of my Ps would assume I have a stop for 1N, and raise straight to three with such as xxx xx AKJTxxx x, or just a smattering of points few of which are in the C suit. If I'm playing with someone who I know will allow for me bidding 1N on hands like this, then I'll bid it.

So what goes wrong if you X with that? If by some chance P passes, you still expect it to defend well. If he bids something other than 2♦, you can do something encouraging next round.

Is there a specific bit of software people use for producing the system note PDFs I often see?

My partnership is basically alone among Fantunes players in this, but we keep 1M opening bids up to strength (ie a K stronger than usual - '14+' implies a distributional hand with decent quality suits), which means we can have sedate and mostly natural 2/1 auctions. The downside is obviously having to open 2M on hands with both majors, but we've recently mitigated this (about 3 days ago) by using our 2N opening to show 5+♠s, 5+(♥s or ♣s) with the playing strength of an opening 2-bid. The (54)M 10-13-point hands are still a weakness in the system, but it's rare for them to cost dearly. Meanwhile, we get to bid a few games that I'd expect the rest of the field to miss when they don't learn about opener's 5th heart (and prevent a few good sacs by the opps).

So wtp? :D

That's an odd meaning of preemptive. Since we open them 1♣ with pseudo-xfer responses, we can usually rightside anyway, and if the opps overcall it might let us penalise when they might well have found the killer lead to 3N anyway (it's a major, if they have room to overcall at at the one level). On the other hand, when P has a distributional hand, 2N certainly pre-empts us.

I'd double. How offensive can it be with three cards in their suit and one in P's and C suit that's not rebiddable? 2♥ to me shows extra dist, and 'values' at least in the sense of being willing to force to the three level (so suit quality is worth much more than HCPs).

It doesn't mean what anyone thinks it does: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290 Personally I think its colloquial use makes far more sense than clinging to a mistranslation for historical reasons. We can invite something to happen, and beg something to happen and these are almost synonymous, distinguished only by the level of urgency. Why then, if 'invites the question' is perfectly acceptable and means 'suggests the question', should 'begs the question' not mean 'strongly suggests the question'?

This is another hand type I like to open 2♥ NV in third. We might be in the wrong denomination, but probably not, and we're not afraid of missing game. The opps have less info whether they defend or bid on. First in NV I would open (even though for us it has to be 1N there), second in I would pass unless NV at MPs (when my P is quite conservative about invites).