Leaderboard

HCP isn't that relevant .. the issue is a little deeper than that. Remember preempting is essentially accelerating the auction, giving less room for accurate hand description. Second seat is important because it presents least opportunity to disrupt the opponents communications and the greatest opportunity to disrupt your own. When you preempt in first seat, you may be trip up your partner, but you are also tripping up TWO opponents. But in second seat, your RHO has already communicated SIGNIFICANT information to his partner by virtue of his pass. Accelerating the auction now often does just as much damage to your partner as it does to the opponents. This is especially important if one of the hands is big enough to put game in the picture opposite a noon-opener .. and at this point it's 50% likely that your partner holds the big hand. You can mitigate this by being disciplined in your second seat preempts (meaning strictly adhering to your partnership standards, whatever they may be). That way at least if your partner has the big hand, he knows what you have and can act accordingly.

Hypothesis #1: On average, the opponents open the bidding approximately 50% of the time. Hypothesis #2: On average, either you or your partner compete via either a take-out bid or an overcall approximately half of the time that the opponents open the bidding. (Math/ Computer expurts, please verify these hypotheses.) If the above hypotheses are true for your partnership as well as for the opponents, then about half of all deals will involve some form of competitive auction with both sides bidding. We spend a lot of time trying to build a better mousetrap, i.e. perfecting our personal "bidding systems" and determining what is theoretically best. This applies to about a quarter of the deals that we play. Well, how about competitive bidding systems. What agreements do you have and how extensive are they? I read the system of overcalls and responses that the acbl recommends teaching to students and found it to be somewhat complete, at least for the first two rounds of bidding. The recommended range for overcalls is about 7 to 17 hcp or 8 to 17/18 Total Points, the lighter hands being based on good suits. The responses to overcalls are as follows: New Suit not forcing: the weaker the hand, the better the suit. Jump-shifts are constructive showing about 11 to 14 Total Points and a good 6-card suit. Cue Bids = either a limit raise or better (fairly standard) or a forcing 1 or 2-suited hand. Simple raises are 6-9 while double raises were not clearly determined. (We play them as falling within the mixed raise range with 4-card trump support.) It was stated that some might choose to play jump cue bids as 4-card limit raises or better. This system has a few flaws in it, particularly in terms of cue bids being either a limit raise+ or a strong, forcing hand. Other hands, including NT ranges, are fairly well defined. The acbl system allows the partnership to get in, share information, and get out quickly. The above is in contrast with playing new suit responses as being forcing (to what? what are the responses?) Excluding the Fouts et al Overcall System with power doubles, etc. I am curious to know what types of overcalls others make and what set of responses and follow-ups to overcalls people play. How prevalent are transfer responses and at what point do they begin? If you play that new suit are forcing, what is the lower limit of your overcalls, and what are overcaller's rebids? This seems to be an under-discussed area of bidding. As always, thank you all in advance for you efforts and input. DHL: aka Double !

I couldn't vote for 'other' on the last poll: I would cue 5♦ over 4♥. I certainly wouldn't cue clubs again.

Depends on your agreements. For most new partnerships this would be penalties (4NT for takeout), so your double seems fine. Some would play double as minors as TWO4BRIDGE suggested. In absence of any agreement, "standard" is penalty doubles at the 3-level and higher (at least in England). ahydra

lets say U are playing 2/1 or sayc [hv=pc=n&s=s75hjt8dakj7ckqt8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d(4+)p1h(4+/%206+hcp)p]133|200[/hv] dano (smispi) : i don't like 1 nt with XX♠ so i would bid 2♥ jec : i would bid 2♥ tez: 1 nt and never 2♣ sansar1905: 1nt

You say you were worried that, having not given a positive response, you had made it harder for partner to know what you had (ie some values). While it's true that 2♦ is not a positive response, most people play that it does not deny values either, it just doesn't have anything better to do. Partner should expect that you may show up with a good hand and be prepared for you to tell him you have one. Fwiw I would basically never bid 2NT 8+ because it just makes it so difficult to find the right strain and to know how many points you have between you (given that it's unlimited) unless you have discussed continuations very thoroughly. Additionally it is also possible that you will wrongside 6NT or 3NT, even if this is rare. It's also not necessarily that important that partner knows what you've got - as long as he tells you what he's got! Once he's opened 2♣ and shown hearts and diamonds you are in a position to guide the auction as you have a better idea of your combined assets than he does. If I were the 2♣ bidder I would let partner tell me what he wanted after I'd shown my suits and would not go beyond game by myself - my hand's not *that* good. Partner knows that diamond honours are huge, as is the spade ace. He is in a far better position than me to judge where we belong.

4d texas

You may be interested in Rubens Transfer Advances.

You can always use your judgement, but I would say "almost compulsory", because the inferences your partner can make when you don't make a support double are really, really useful. Sure, you found that hand that went -200, that will happen .. but even on this hand how good of a board were you getting defending 2D?

to the OP, i'm afraid the standard of play ust be extremely low at your club if getting to 6H with 7NT cold is an outright top.

From the post "Another trap pass problem" I feel probably we just don't reopen with double enough and let opp's light overcall escape too often. Maybe we can reopen with double a little bit more in order not to upset partner when he/she makes a trap pass, even if our shape is not perfect. To clarify my point, I made up two hands(with random hand generator under some restriction), [hv=pc=n&s=sj8542hakdaj93c97&w=skqhjt3d52ckq6542&n=st7hq6542dq8caj83&e=sa963h987dkt764ct&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s2c]399|300[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=sakt954hq6dkt9ct5&w=s862hk2da8cakj843&n=shat85dq532cq9762&e=sqj73hj9743dj764c&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1s2c]399|300[/hv] On both hands South opens 1♠ and West overcalls 2♣, some of you may not agree the overcall on first hand(I think that is acceptable) but few of you have not seen people overcall with something worse than that. As you can see the best result for NS on both hand is to defend 2CX, but if such a hand occurs in any event, very few pair are going to achieve this result. On the first hand a lot of North may not trap but compete with negative double and end up in playing some partial. On the second hand even North makes a trap pass most South reopen with 2♠. That is, by playing negative double, we do give up some chance punishing opponent. How about trap pass/reopen with double more frequently? Let's restrict the discussion to the following sequence. 1 level open-(simple overcall)-pass-(pass)-? Partner either has a weak hand or a trap hand. Therefore I double whenever (a)I have doubleton or less in opp's suit (b)Want to defense when partner is trapping ©Can accept the potential damage if I reopen with non-standard takeout shape, either I can escape later or it won't be that bad if partner bid my short suit. For example, if the bidding goes 1♠-(2♣)-P-(P)-?, with South's hand in first example, I double and if partner bid 2♥ I accept it. With South's hand in second example, I double in case partner is trapping and bid 2♠ over partner's 2♦/2♥, not announcing I have extra, but saying I only offer two choice, playing 2♠(if you're not setting trap), or defensing 2♣X(if you're setting trap). With this agreement we can reopen with X more often without risk. As responder, we feel more comfortable to trap with 4 mediocre trumps in opp's suit) without risking too much even though 2NT/3NT or negative double(when most strength is in opp's suit!) is an alternative, because partner almost always reopen with X. This approach may have further advantage, that is, your partner is easier to judge when you reopen with something else. Back to "another trap pass problem", if partner would have reopend with X on "defensive 5521 hand"(For example ♠AJxxx ♥KQxxx ♦Qx ♣x, intend to bid 2♥ over 2♦ response), then 2♥ reopen must be highly offensive, with ♠K8 ♥J6 ♦A873 ♣K9863 this hand could be closed to 4♠! Thanks if you're willing to read such a long post, and feel free to comment or to share opinion.

It's no big deal if pard passes out both those hands. Opps are going down vs nothing. You can't have it all.

Duhhh. Corrected my post # 19 .

Holding the ♠A himself, I doubt that South's all that worried about whether North has it or not. ;)

The poll suggests otherwise

Edit: Duh... South North seems to be putting a lot of faith in partner holding the ♠ Ace to be bidding the grand with no actual ♠ Ctrl-cue by North South . But I see the asterisk now ( 4♠* ) was kickback RKC for Hts .

I dunno what 2Nt is here, so I'm not bidding it. If its t/o to a minor then it seems reasonable, but risky. If its a good ♥ raise then I don't have it. If its natural then I don't have that either. I'll try 3♥, but not real happy about it.

I have no problem raising with 3 card support. But, I usually have 3 "good" trumps and a roughing value and if it's close a weakish 3rd suit. This hand only meets 1 of my criteria for a 3 card raise, so its a pretty clear 1NT rebid 1NT = 10 2♥ = 6 2♣ = 2

Yes. For the reasons given, and also to avoid this rebid question :) Art - what sort of 14 count would you upgrade to 1NT? Any? 5 card suit mandatory? Just curious ...

No, you don't have to point that out. However, if you say "I would issue a PP", I will assume that you mean "I would issue a PP, which might take the form of a warning or might be a stronger penalty." If you mean to say "I would give East a warning", a good way to say it is "I would give East a warning". I have to say, though, that even issuing a warning seems excessive. What future occurrence are you trying to prevent by doing so?

How much do the odds change with 11 point hands and any hand with a 6 card suit (the sort of thing that might have attracted a weak 2 opening) in the 1st seat change the possibilities for north?

IMHO (as a decidely non expert player), it eats up to much space, you want to be able to explore whether a hearts, spades or no trumps contract is best, and as long as 2D is forcing to game you can do that safely. Starting with 2C - 2NT - 4H just ate all the room I might be able to use for cue bidding after 2C - 2D - 3H, or 2C - 2D - 2H - 2S - 3S. And joy of joys, partner might go 2C - 2D - 2S(!) in which case I start cue bidding immediately assuming that that will be read as a cue.

agree with u:)

With the good honor quality, working tens, and lack of major suits, I open 1NT. On the auction given, I rebid 2♣ IMPs, 1NT MPs.

I can count 33 points, but there is no hurry to get my hand in the picture. I'll just bid 2D and drive to slam no matter what partner does. Edit: doesn't it make more sense to play transfers over a 2C opening to rightside the final contract? Until I started playing a multi 2C and/or Myxo, we had a 2NT as spades and 2S as hearts, and 2H as a super negative. The only time I wouldn't consider 2D as a response is if 2D isn't GFing.

I see zero sense in playing 1N here as an offer to play 1N. Had we wanted to make that offer, the time for it was a round earlier.....I see little merit in an agreement that 1N on the first round denies 3 spades and now promises 3♠ and, absent that sgreement, I can't think of a hand that would prefer double then a natural 1N to an immediate 1N. Otoh, I can see a theoretical but, in practice, flawed reason to play this sequence as specifically 3=1=5=4 or 3=1=4=5, with 1N now being for the minors, but allowing partner to prefer back to spades with the appropriate hand. Flawed for two reasons: one is frequency and the other is practicality...the two are linked. Think about the auction....and, in particular, the fact that the opps presumably have about half the deck, given that partner bid a mere 1♠. If we have a stiff heart, where are the other 12 cards in the suit? Opener has 5 or 6...with 7 he'd surely bid over the double. Responder almost surely lacks as many as 3 since he sold out to 1♠. Thus partner probably has 8 or 9 major suit cards. Most of the time, when we hold this shape, the auction won't happen. When it does, partner will usually not fit either minor, and if he does have a fit, it will usually be in our 4 card suit, not our 5 card suit....why are we trying to get out a spade fit, with our ruffing values, into a lower-scoring minor partscore at a higher level? Are we really trying to prepare for LHO's balancing into 2♥ after his partner passed twice? So while I think the sequence should show 3154/3145, I also think we shouldn't make the call very often, if ever.

The largest outcome of the preemptive bid comes from hands where: a. opponents will fail to reach game/slam that they would reached without the preempt b. opponents will overbid to game/slam which cannot be made c. we will find good sacrifice against their game/slam So the largest outcome comes from game or slam hands - not the partscores (shock! :rolleyes: ) When one of the opponents passed, the chances that they can make a game (not to talk about slam) are definitely smaller, and therefore the preempt is less effective. It's not only the question of partner's HCP - though it's also one of the factors we should consider. I think that the other factors are: 1. LHO knows that his partner is limited in strength. After his partner's pass, he will know (sometimes) that they cannot make a game, so he will overbid less frequently. 2. If there are two strong hands on this board, they will be partner's and LHO's. So finesses they need for their game or slam will lose more often. Moreover, LHO knows this after your preemptive bid - so he will proceed with more caution and will make the right decision more frequently. 3. If they play penalty doubles after preempts (though it's not too common nowadays I admit), it will be easier for LHO to double you knowing that they probably can't make a game. Though I don't know how to include these factors in your model, I think they affect the outcome of preemptive bid and therefore your model is not complete.

There are definitely reasons to play this way; for example here 3♠ shows a six card suit and asks cuebids (five-card spades bids NMF) whereas if "everything is forcing and natural" you have to bid 3♠ on some five-card suits. Similarly 3♥ by responder can show 5/5 (5/4 would bid NMF) which can help there too. Not obvious it's "better" than methods which allow you to sign off over 2NT of course (but this will depend a lot on what sorts of hands you pass the opening with, and what sorts of hands you bid 2NT with). Anyway, for the given sequences: (1) 6+♠, asks for a cuebid. In principle 3NT by opener shows a really lousy hand (in context) for spade slam and would be NF. (2) 5+♠, too strong for 3NT (which shows five spades, but is very NF). If 6♠, only interested in slam opposite 3+ support (i.e. a lousy spade suit). (3) To play; don't really understand the NMF bid here but jumps to game in a forcing auction opposite a limited hand are to play. (4) 4♠ and 5+♣, slam interest. Presumably something in the 10-11 point range with shape (if stronger, 1♦-2♣ would be the start). Note 5♠/5♣ can rebid 3♠ here. (5) 4♠ and 5+♣, slam interest. Four of a red suit would be a very clear cuebid but it's not clear how to bid this type of pattern if 4♣ is a cue here.