[Swammerdam]

I have questions about specific biddings and my expert partner's comments. (This "expert" really was an expert, or at least bid and played much better than some BBO "experts.")

But first let me summarize my own bidding methods. I was an avid player 55 years ago with "West Coast Standard American" the commonest bidding system. When I started playing again decades later, it was very fortunate that SAYC circa 1990 was almost identical to "West Coast Standard American"circa 1970. (The only real difference was in SF Bay Area we played 3NT and singleton Swiss as strong major-suit raises: Jacoby 2NT was more of a Southern California thing.)

I have noticed that what passes for "SAYC" here is NOT the pure SAYC circa 1990 (is there a webpage with an "updated SAYC"?). For example holding 4-4 in the red suits when partner opens 1♣ we would usually bid 1♦ while most BBO'ers would bid 1♥ or even (relying on Checkback Stayman?) 1NT. I prefer pure SAYC: Keep the bidding low and exchange information. No need to rush and be first to mention NT.

Back in the day, players would avoid opening 1 NT with a 5-card major. I'm happy to open 1NT with a 5-card major, but very unlikely to open 1NT with a 5-4-2-2.

OK. Consider this hand. (I've erased all the names except my own: I assume this is proper etiquette?)

---

I think the bidding is about "perfect." What do experts think? With red suits reversed, this would be the VERY rare hand where I might open 1NT with a 4-5 but with a diamond suit worth mentioning and a 5-card MAJOR, I won't. When partner rebids 2♠ my hand seemed excellent: few wasted values in Hearts where partner is probably short. Was my 3♠ about right? (We actually made an overtrick!)

What annoyed me is that my expert partner scolded me for not opening 1 NT! I'd stay silent if my partner opened 1NT but it seemed impertinent for him to attempt to impose his prejudice on me. We'd never played together before.

He'd also criticized me on the previous hand; and I'd appreciate expert comments about that also.

---

Opening a weak-2 with only a 5-bagger and with 4 cards in the other major are BOTH frowned on by conservative bidders, but I said nothing. He, on the other hand was convinced that my bidding was very wrong: If I want to bid my Clubs I should do so immediately, he said -- even before he saw my hand -- rather than passing and then balancing.

I, otoh, worried that an immediate 3♣ would be ambiguous and might get us too high. When it went Pass-Pass however I chose to "balance." The opponents had limited their strength (but likely had enough to venture up to 3♠ down 1) and, anyway if doubled we might escape to 3♥. (FWIW 3♣ did make.) Comments?

[akwoo]

First of all, almost no one who is any good plays standard american anymore. There is an "updated standard american" - it's called 2/1.

Second, I would say opening 1N with 5422, 5 in a major, and points in range is a minority view, but that minority gets bigger among better players. Switch the red suits and almost anyone who is any good is opening 1N.

Third, I think most experts play some form of McCabe when opponents double their weak 2. Standard McCabe would make 3♣ a lead directing heart raise, and you redouble if you want to get out in your own suit. There are other forms.

I don't like the delayed action - 3♣ is unlikely to be better than 2♥ given that your partner didn't redouble for SOS. I don't think you're strong enough for an immediate 3♣ without the double.

[Cyberyeti]

First hand, what is 1♥-2♠ ?

Opening 1N is a matter of style, I do with 5M332, and if one of your small hearts was a diamond I would, but you don't have rebid issues.

Second hand we I suspect would bid 2♥ ekren so we don't have to open a weak 2 on this, but before I played that, we would open a weak 2, BUT only because we've agreed to do that on 5. If you haven't it's a bad bid.

[mikeh]

Some general comments. My five year old dog plays better than most BBO ‘experts’. So don’t get too impressed with self proclaimed BBO experts.

I read The Bridge World and it certainly appears that many top players distort 1N in ways that would have shocked the stars of yesteryear. I’ve recently seen 1N on 4522 and 5422…the former I can understand but the latter is not something I can see myself doing. It’s by no means universal anyway.

So if one would sometimes open 1N with 4522 or 5422 I can see that 2542 should be easy, lol. But I think it’s still a minority view even at the top level, and I think it bizarre that any online player, in a pick up partnership, would argue that it was a mistake to bid 1H. Had he just said something like…’personally, I usually open 1N with that hand’ that’d be fine.

On the second hand, imo he revealed something about his true skill level….which is not expert, imo.

Opening a 5 card weak two is fine….on a different sort of hand.

I’d happily open 2H on a suit such as KQJ10x. But AKJxx has too much defensive value for me. Plus I have no problem preempting with a side 4 card major. But only if the major is truly weak…Jxxx is just a tad too strong for me….or of I intend to bid again. Last week I held, in third seat, KQ109 xx QJ109875 void.

I opened 3D, intending to bid spades next time, should they bid hearts.

Finally, I’m probably not the best one to talk about this, but if I were playing with a pickup partner about whom I knew little, I’d try not to give lessons on consecutive hands. Suggestions, ok, but not lessons that contain the assertion that partner was ‘wrong’ as opposed to maybe might try something else.

[Swammerdam]

Thanks for all the comments. I should have stressed that *I was interested in evaluating the bidding as it stood*, not in learning about alternate, better conventions. Bidding judgement and evaluation are more interesting to me than non-SAYC conventions.

On the 1st hand I wanted to learn whether I had about the right hand for my 3♠ call. My partner did mention that he played weak jump shifts (although it wasn't mentioned on his longish Profile), but he considered the hand slightly too good for that. I suppose weak JS's are the rule these days.

On the second hand I wanted to learn whether my passing followed by a balancing 3♣ was reasonable. The immediate bid would be ambiguous, while the delayed "balance" is clearly just a shot.

mikeh, on 2025-September-17, 10:35, said:

Some general comments. My five year old dog plays better than most BBO ‘experts’. So don’t get too impressed with self proclaimed BBO experts.

Watching his play and bidding I realized that he was a better player than 97% of the random people partnering me in the Casual game.
I intend to avoid him however, for the reason you point out below.

Quote

I read The Bridge World and it certainly appears that many top players distort 1N in ways that would have shocked the stars of yesteryear. I’ve recently seen 1N on 4522 and 5422…the former I can understand but the latter is not something I can see myself doing. It’s by no means universal anyway.

I used to read the Bridge World and one comment from the early 1970's stands out in my memory. One of the top Italians -- despite winning so many championships -- said that he'd changed his ideas on bidding. Instead of high-card strength he thought the emphasis should be on distribution. To oversimplify hugely: Find your fit and bid accordingly; Who cares whether you're bidding to make or as a sacrifice!

Quote

So if one would sometimes open 1N with 4522 or 5422 I can see that 2542 should be easy, lol. But I think it’s still a minority view even at the top level, and I think it bizarre that any online player, in a pick up partnership, would argue that it was a mistake to bid 1H. Had he just said something like…’personally, I usually open 1N with that hand’ that’d be fine.
...
Finally, I’m probably not the best one to talk about this, but if I were playing with a pickup partner about whom I knew little, I’d try not to give lessons on consecutive hands. Suggestions, ok, but not lessons that contain the assertion that partner was ‘wrong’ as opposed to maybe might try something else.

Exactly. I won't partner him again because of that impudence.

Quote

On the second hand, imo he revealed something about his true skill level….which is not expert, imo.

Opening a 5 card weak two is fine….on a different sort of hand.

I’d happily open 2H on a suit such as KQJ10x. But AKJxx has too much defensive value for me. Plus I have no problem preempting with a side 4 card major. But only if the major is truly weak…Jxxx is just a tad too strong for me…

Yes. He made a very doubtful bid, but then has the audacity to scold me. Yikes.

[mycroft]

You can choose to play or not play with anyone for whatever reason - and I guarantee that "being told about every mistake (they thought) I made" is high on my list, maybe even #2 after straight insults.

But it's not just impudence or One True Bidding Style or ... that Mike is criticizing the "expert" for. You see, his goal is winning. Whether it's the Canadian (or World!) championships with his regular partners, or the club game he's in, in Tourist Stop NB with the pickup he's been assigned, or anything in between, his goal is to win what's in front of him.

And taking a weaker player (or a stronger one, for that matter!) and distracting them by pointing out everything they did wrong on the previous hands - makes them a weaker player yet on the next ones. Which makes them more likely to make mistakes, and likely to make bigger mistakes, than is their natural talent.

Which means the chance of Mike winning this event - wherever it was at the start - even lower. Plus it engenders an annoyed partner. And an annoyed Mike having to deal with it. And probably annoyed opponents (those that aren't "lying back grinning and accepting their windfall". Possibly even those; I don't *enjoy* playing against these pairs, but I won't give back the good boards!)

Simon has an entire chapter in his seminal book on "how to play with Mrs. Guggenheim", and it is *very clear* that most so-called "experts" either haven't read it, have totally forgotten it, or see fit to disagree with The Master. I've yet to see him debunked, note.

Now, the argument *I* make is that "winning" may not be the goal of all, maybe even most, bridge players - and winning may not be the goal even for them, *today*. I have one in my very recent past, in fact, which I don't plan on publicizing - exactly because of this reason. Not that being criticized all night is going to forward very many of those goals, either...

But I also say that there are many bridge events (and bridge players) where the games being played are definitely being played to win - it's just that those games aren't "the cards on the table". If you've hit one of those players, best to congratulate them on their victory and never play with them again.

[DavidKok]

Swammerdam, on 2025-September-17, 12:04, said:

On the 1st hand I wanted to learn whether I had about the right hand for my 3♠ call. My partner did mention that he played weak jump shifts (although it wasn't mentioned on his longish Profile), but he considered the hand slightly too good for that. I suppose weak JS's are the rule these days.

There are different ways to play weak jump shifts (surprise). Playing it as 'approximately 0-5, too weak for a regular response' always seemed so silly to me. I think this style is popular in North America, and I've previously struggled to get a word in when people debate the merits of that range without considering other weak ranges.
All that to say, I think weak jump shifts are gaining in popularity, but not the ones your partner was thinking of. I think responding 2♠ to 1♦ to show the weak hand and the long suit is a good idea.

[mycroft]

The question I have leaned to, re: WJS, especially ones to the 3 level, is "do you expect me to make 3NT with 18 balanced?" The answer can be "yes", it can be "no", I don't care - but now I know what partner has (and more importantly, they don't automatically bid 3♣ with 6 clubs and < 6 HCP, they look at their suit and decide based on the answer to the question. I hope.).

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2025-September-18, 09:53, said:

The question I have leaned to, re: WJS, especially ones to the 3 level, is "do you expect me to make 3NT with 18 balanced?" The answer can be "yes", it can be "no", I don't care - but now I know what partner has (and more importantly, they don't automatically bid 3♣ with 6 clubs and < 6 HCP, they look at their suit and decide based on the answer to the question. I hope.).

Unfortunately the majority of players will answer that by "we'll only have 23 hcp; why would we ever expect to make 3NT?"

[mycroft]

True. But assuming those players can play the cards as well as they can analyze the auction, what's the chance they can make 3♣? Tell 'em you don't know how to play Weak Jump Shifts, and ask to play them strong (Soloway or not, don't care). It won't come up, and you'll be ahead.

[Swammerdam]

mycroft, on 2025-September-18, 09:53, said:

The question I have leaned to, re: WJS, especially ones to the 3 level, is "do you expect me to make 3NT with 18 balanced?" The answer can be "yes", it can be "no", I don't care - but now I know what partner has (and more importantly, they don't automatically bid 3♣ with 6 clubs and < 6 HCP, they look at their suit and decide based on the answer to the question. I hope.).

This sounds like a very intelligent and useful criterion. I wonder if other bidding issues could be adjudicated similarly.

The Weak JS was rather rare back in the Age of Dinosaurs when I was an avid player. I actually like the advice from a very old ACOL textbook: The strong JS tells partner you have the values for the FIVE-level. When you then "sign off" in four, partner knows you still have the equivalent of an extra trick (or one fewer loser).