bucky

Other than the irregular 1S bid over 1NT, this is pretty much norm on BBO. Actually I would expect worse. Quite a few times I saw in similar sequences the opener bid 3NT with 13 HCP, not 15.

Another club ruff trying for an overtrick (but risk down 1)? It also depends on your assessment of the field: would everyone reach 4♠?

3♠ sets up the forcing.

Many would open 2♣ with the two examples you gave, but your points are taken. With this hand, I would *think* about pass but probably still grit my teeth and pull out the 2NT card. At least I can stand a likely 3♣ rebid from partner. Reduce this hand to 4351 shape with same honor location (or would you pass or respond 1♦?), I would pass at the table. Yes, you can construct hands which make the pass look silly, but there are far more hands with which 2♥ offers better prospect (especially if I have club shortness).

Over 2NT (which is possibly artificial and denies 5+ spades), 3♣ is painless. But with JTxx Axx xxxx xx, I'd serious think about an anti-system pass of the 2♥ bid (Marshall Miles would agree).

This almost argues for having limited BAM: for players who don't like to play in open BAM because they'd have little chance, here comes the event that they have a better chance to perform well...

That site has a 1-page summary of precision system claimed to be based on Rigal's precision book. It doesn't offer download of the actual book, neither do I think it should unless it gets copyright. But I just want to point out that the statement of "you can download(for free) a copy of Rigal's Precision in the 90s" is inaccurate.

Ask yourself this: if RHO is dealer and opened 2♥, would you overcall? Now does the knowledge that LHO has 16+ change your action?

I think double shows a defensive oriented hand in light of bidding, but not with a trump stack, therefore not "just penalty." Typically you will not double with 5+ clubs. Without discussion, pass isn't forcing. With discussion, pass shouldn't be forcing. If the auction goes: P-P-P-1♣ 1♠-2♠-3♠-? your choice is more limited. With your actual hand the choice is between X, 3NT and 5♣. I'd be worried about X since partner usually has at most 3 hearts (didn't make a neg X), which means opponents have double fit in majors, and my long clubs are warning sign. Probably the MP format will swing me for 3NT call.

Well, what is that you trust? Do you trust the second X being pure penalty, being extra value, or being repeating the message shown by first X? Without knowing which one it is, you cannot possibly make intelligent decision, no matter how much trust you have.

This is not basic standard precision. You need to go over your notes. Just curious, if 1♦ is 0-7 and 1♥ is any 8+, what you think 1♠ or 1NT response to 1♣ should be?

It may not always be easy for beginners to find real experts to help them analyze the hands. But I think BBO forum can be a great resource for this purpose.

Well, that is a 2nd-order problem. :lol: The 1st-order problem is that many just don't know J2NT being forcing raise. But of course the problem doesn't stop there. Playing 2NT as natural (without realizing it is non-SAYC), there is no clue on the strength. Is it game-forcing or invitational? Your guess is as good as (actually probably better than) mine.

There are two parts that are involved in mastering card play. One part is to KNOW the techniques, the other part is to APPLY them. Reading books will help on the first part, which is like a prerequisite. But knowledge is not very useful if you don't put it to work. Closely studying your hands will get the second part progress. If you can avoid making the same mistake twice, you will become top player in no time. One thing I did was to take notes in actual mistakes made by me or by my opponents. I find that reading these notes 20 times is more effective than reading one book 20 times, given the limited time I have.

J2N is a tall order. Instead, try Jxfer after 1NT opening, you'll be surprised how many times it gets passed, or opener bids 2NT with 2-card support.

When partner bids spades, East has a clear reverse, not a minimum. Over partner's 2S rebid showing 5+, East hand is good enough to raise to 4S. Give partner KQxxx and out, game has good prospect.

Not that there is anything wrong with 3NT bid from opener now, but in your example hand, why wouldn't partner bid 3NT instead of 3♥?

I actually thought about this at the table. However, the club fit is too much to hide. We may belong to clubs after all. I think 3♣ is fine. You are making a descriptive bid that shouldn't be taken as showing extra. But partner's failure to bid 3♠ in earlier round is also significant (the way I play, 3♠ instead of 2♠ shows slam oriented hand with good spade support). With your weak spades/clubs and lack of control in general, a 4♠ bid is now called for, or 3NT.

There are standard system notes published on BBO. However, not many follow them (or worse yet, many claims to play them but don't). The bottomline is, with a random partner you shouldn't assume anything. Sorry I wish I could be more helpful.

My 2 cents: it is reasonable to use 4♠ here as showing a minimum hand lacking good controls, which is a fairly accurate description of this hand. A 3♠ bid doesn't deny a minimum hand, but you should have some redeeming feature, perhaps AJ765 / x / KQJ9 / Q76 at least. 4♦ bid ought to emphasize on diamonds as source of tricks (and implies good trump suit).

Why did North double 5♦? Is there anything that hasn't been shown by earlier double?

No more weird than the way N/S cruise to 4♠ afterwards.

I guess we should say that, when partner is known to have length, J often guarantees T. When dummy has XX, J is indeed ambiguous if partner can have either 3 or 4 cards. When dummy is void, and you judge from bidding that declarer cannot have QTxxxx in the suit, then partner won't have KJx only, so partner probably has KJT(xx).

They are using K as "strong lead" (also called "power lead"?), which means that K asks for unblocking. So from AKJTx or KQT9x, lead the K. From KQx or KQTxx, lead the Q. So per their agreement, Q definitely does NOT asking for unblock, and for this hand to ask for unblock would be wrong anyway (since opening leader doesn't have ♦9).

I think this also depends on your general structure after 1m-1M-1NT. For example, what would 3♣ or 3♦ show? If these bids are natural and game forcing, then you don't have to worry about opener's 3♣/3♦ bids preempting responder.