Jinksy

Why wouldn't this logic apply playing strong NT? Give the hand above the QH and you seem to have a similar dilemma.

Rebidding 1N on this playing regular Acol is awful. Even having opened it a weak NT, it might be the first 14 count I've seen in living memory that I wouldn't accept a game invite on. If P has 5 spades, one of them will prob be a high honour, which will make your K worth something. I'd rather play in 2S opposite a randomly dealt 5-card S suit than in 3N opposite a randomly dealt 9 or 10 (or 11) count. Rebid 1N and you'll find yourself getting put in three opposite such as these: QJxxx Kx xxx KQx AJxx Kxx xxxx Qx AQJx xxxx Qxx xx Qxxxx Kxxx Qx Kx JTxx Axxx xx AJx They all seem like terrible games. Can you even construct a perfect 9 count P can have where the opps don't bid and game is a solid proposition? It's quite a challenge.

5♠. Assuming 3♦ showed ♠ support, and given that this is Acol so I'd expect 4 cards, I expect to make this. I'm more worried about missing slam: AQxx♠ from P and the likely ♦ stiff is prob just about enough to make it odds-on given the bidding. Like others, I'd have bid something different on the way to this point, though. Too late now.

Over a 2N Jacoby (or rather in our case inv+) raise we play this: 3♣ = min 3♦ = non-min, no shortage (unless stiff honour) 3♥/♠/N = non-min, shortage in ♣s/♦s/other major After 3♣, 3N is natural, otherwise it's frivolous. Also after 3♣, responder has the option to bid 3D as a shortage ask (with equivalent responses). Atm, anything else is a cuebid. We're basically using this system as a default after someone suggested it to me in one partnership and I liked it enough to introduce it to others, but I'm wondering if there's anything of equivalent or lesser complexity that people would recommend over it (none of my partners would agree to anything more complex). Or, if people think it's a decent system, I have a couple of questions for people with more experience of it, in particular of the inv+ version (the only way we could have it as GF+ is if we have 3M as a limit raise, but I think it's marginally better preemptive): After opener's 3♦, would it be better to have responder show shortage analogously to above? (atm we have normal splinters at the 4-level, but otherwise he could be more or less any shape consistent with 4+ card support). It would occasionally cost us the Frivolous 3N, as above, but then, so do the responses above. That said, opener seems to be captaining the auction at that stage, which feels awkward. Once we're GFed, we're often left with 3M as a free bid. I haven't put much thought into what better use we could make of it. Any suggestions? It would need to be relatively intuitive again, or my Ps would never remember it. One option I've thought of is effectively Frivolous, allowing 3N to become natural. Another is allowing P to bid 3N just to deny shortage. Neither of these make much sense if P's just bid 3♥ to show ♣ shortage, though... The last is some kind of keycard ask/tell.

Yeurgh. I hate opening 1N on singletons unless it's specifically systemic, and even more so with 5431s, but if ever I saw a balanced 5431, this is it.

What would 2♦ and 3♦ by S have shown? If he had two ways to show ♦s available (or 3♦ wide ranging), I'll try 2♥ followed by minimum ♠ bid. That gives both P and opps the chance to tell me if I can make 4♠.

5♦. P doesn't have to have any aces for his NV sac, and the opps probably have at least one outside to go bidding a vul game with no other values in any of the suits. I don't suppose P will always know when to raise me, but he'll surely take me Xing then coming in at this level seriously.

BBO tournies are not bound by our earthly rules. Though repeated red psyches within a single session might still be considered bad form.

If I'd agreed u/u with a semi-regular partner, I'd assume something like it would be on here, much as if I'd agreed 'UCBs' I'd assume responder as well as advancer can make them.

Thinking about it, if you play Unusual over Unusual, 3♣ over 2N looks a lot better to me.

I make the a priori odds of that about 1 in 7 on a back of the envelope calc, so it's not much disincentive.

Probably 2-3♥s (given that you didn't superaccept) and probably (♦ - ♥) > 1. Also denies sufficient strength in the black suits for opener to comfortably rebid 1N.

He can't have Qx unless something very funny is going on - he has 6Ss*, 2Hs, and probably 4, maybe 5Cs. The relative likelihood of N having a D void was what finally persuaded me to finesse.

The question is just a question.

I'm not sure I'd open that a weak NT. Give me a T9 in one of the pointies, or even the TC, and I'd almost certainly upgrade. Expecting it for a cue seems far too demanding.

One possible advantage of the current approach (not really intentional, but that I thought after this hand) is that if opener cues below 3N, responder can bid a naturalish 3N to suggest values in his short suits. Game before slam is all very well, but with either black suit unguarded in the balanced hand, I suspect 4H will have higher expectation than 3N even on a 5-2 fit.

Not much. With slam interest we go via a 2♠ range finder followed by Barony stuff at the three level (treating the 5 card suit as 4). With game interest only you'd just xfer and bid 3N.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq7ht9da9742cqj7&n=skhkj832dkqjt6c95&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1n(12-14%2C%20may%20be%20any%204441)p2dp2hp3d(5-5%20GF+%2C%20or%206H%204D%20slammy)p3s(D%20cue%2C%20promising%204-5Ds)p5dppp]266|200[/hv] 3N almost cold, 4H has play but is hard to reach (perhaps not possible after the D cue - still thrashing this part of system out). 5D off three cashers. What went wrong? (ETA) Actually 1N 11-14 in that position.

I don't agree with this. Their method/s(better marketing needed) comprise a two hand evaluation approaches that combine to give a near-perfect description of how many tricks the hands can take, if given full information. Looking at the two: 1) working points are often hard to gauge at the table - but methods like splinters, game tries etc can give you some part of the picture 2) SST is often easy to gauge at the table, and similar methods can clarify it even further 1) is mainly of use in constructive bidding (but can help eg when thinking of marginal decisions when the vul is such that whether you'll make your contract is a more important question than total tricks) 2) is useful in both constructive and competitive auctions Obviously we don't have full information on these issues when bidding, but we don't have zero info either, and each approach's value is proportionate to the info we have about it. I prefer that an approach that, even with full information, can't reliably tell you how many tricks either side (or both sides) will take. Neither subsumes the other, but whichever you prefer, I do think they overlap heavily (as do Lawrence and Virgren - and apparently Larry Cohen, come to that).

Yes, for eg.

What's the advantage of giving opener a penalty X at all in this position? For me, if my X is TO (which it is here), P's almost always would be as well.

This was from the BBF tournament. I don't remember who was who, but it was individual, so nobody knew for sure what anyone meant (though I don't suppose 3C would be non-weak). IIRC E/W were both good players as far as I am/was aware.

Hopefully clarified now in OP.

[hv=pc=n&w=saq82hjt85dkt98c6&e=s6hakq962dj7542cq&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1h3c4c4s5hppp]266|200[/hv] T1: 9♠, A, 4 6 T2: 2♠, 5, A♥, 3 T3: K♥, 3, 5, 4 T4: 2♥, 4♣, T, 7 T5: 6♣, 2, Q, K T6: T♣, 8♦, J, 6♥ T7: J♦, 3, ? Would you have done anything differently so far? Given that I'm asking this, you can probably guess that the Q♦ was offside and stiff. Is there any reason I should have played for N's shortage to be the stiff Q?

[hv=pc=n&w=s7532hdajt95caj82&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hp4h]133|200[/hv] Your call? Do you then plan to pass NF bids throughout? (eta) to clarify the second question, I mean whatever your call here, do you intend to pass any non-forcing bids your partner makes, or might you for eg pull if you land in 4Sx?