Leaderboard

Hi, What is the best system against 1NT(15-17), when the partnership doesn't use X as penalty?

The continuations after the Meyerson X are: 2♣ = bid your five-card suit (pass if it's clubs) 2♦ = bid your major 2M = "this is my own suit" (usually six cards) Out of question, if you have 2452 and partner shows ♣+♠, how do you know which suit is five? A 4-2 fit is usually pretty disastrous. It's true that in principle partner could double showing a major and a minor and if I have 2452, we could play a 5-2 club fit instead of a 4-4 heart fit (we will not miss a 5-4 heart fit). But this means opponents have missed an 8+ card spade fit, which will be a good result for us if it actually happens. When opponents are passing after the double, we normally end up in the same place as Woolsey (note that 2♣ is not "pass if you have clubs" -- it's "pass if you have FIVE clubs and only four in a major"). However, we gain a few things compared to Woolsey: 1. More frequent doubles means more chances to convert to penalty. 2. Natural 2♦ overcall is pretty disruptive. 3. We know overcaller's single-suited major which can help if responder bids lebensohl or the like.

If 2N was a superaccept, 4N is keycard. Nobody should be bidding a quantitative 4N with at least nine spades. Why futz around?

I agree (mostly) with wuud However, at imps whether one accepts an invitation should be extremely dependent upon vulnerability. The key is imps won if you accept and are correct, assuming they reject at the other table, compared to imps lost if you accept and go down one, with their making a partscore at the other table The rough analysis done by experts assumes (not because it’s true but because it simplifies the analysis without rendering it worthless) that neither game nor partscore are doubled and that the play and defence are much the same at both tables, and that the partscore makes and the game is down one. When non vulnerable, if you bid game and make, you will pick up, say, 6 imps for +420 v 170 and lose 5 imps for -50 v 140. This makes bidding game at imps, nv, pretty much a 50-50 proposition, all the more so when we consider two real life factors ignored in the simple approach. One is that most opps won’t double a partscore for a one trick set, but will happily double a game for a two trick set. So on a fraction of close decision hands, an opponent can figure out that (a) it’s close and (b) things are sitting very badly for you. Then the comparison is -300 v - 50 when even the partscore fails…and there’s no compensating upside. The second reason is that it’s quite common to score an overtrick in a partscore due to the opps, at imps, trying to set the contract, often seeing the risk of an overtrick as worth assuming. So sometimes the comparison is between -50 and +170. Finally, if you think, for example, that your possible 4S contract is simply on a finesse, and thus 50-50, you’re almost certainly wrong! Say you have AKJxxx opposite xx, no spots. If you need 6 tricks from that suit, it’s not ‘on a finesse’. You need a 3-2 or 2-3 break with the queen onside…roughly 34.25%, not 50. Say you have AKJ10x opposite xxx. Now it’s much closer to 50% but there will often be very low frequency, but non-zero, chances of a ruff in a side suit, etc. So a good rule is to accept nv invites only when you think that the odds are at least 50-50. Vulnerable, the same analysis leads to a much different result. I’m not going into the math here, but it is generally accepted that one should bid all vul games with at least a 40% chance of making, and some are a little more aggressive than that. At mps, because the size of gain or loss on a hand is irrelevant to the scoring (if everyone else is +140, your -50 scores the same as -1100, and your +420 the same as +2210), the go-no go is 50%. Since most apparent 50% contracts are actually not that good, due to low frequency occurrences, in a very strong field, avoid 50% games However, defence is the toughest part of the game and, in most mp fields, the opps will be highly variable in their defensive skills, I’d suggest being a little more aggressive…if…big if…whoever is declarer is above average in skill. As for who stretches to invite or to accept, I’m 100% in agreement with wuud. Invite heavy (have full values, don’t stretch) and accept unless you have a good reason to reject. The so-called invite heavy, accept light approach. It’s mathematically demonstrably the best approach for the reasons articulated by wuud. One final note. All of the above ignores ‘how one invites’ It is a reality, especially against good players, that descriptive game invitations can lead to failure when blasting would work. Indeed, some very good pairs either never or rarely make game tries…they just bid game. It’s not unknown to see a partscore fail at a table where an informative try was rejected and game make where it was blasted. So especially at imps when vulnerable a lot of good players don’t use game tries. Say 1S 2S….do you bid a help suit, letting the opps learn of your worries about the suit and borderline values, or do you leap to game? Personally, I blast a lot at imps red, and bid a little more descriptively nv or at mps. I’ve given, as I’m wont to do, a long answer that probably doesn’t really address the question! But I’ve never seen statistics on the topic, every partnership’s approach will be slightly different, and I don’t even have a subjective feeling for how my partnerships fare in terms of frequency

Both responses are alerted by us.

We have done pretty well playing Meyerson: X = one major + one minor (5+/4+ either way) 2♣ = both majors 2♦/2♥/2♠ = natural 2NT = 5-5 or better minors Natural bids are quite useful, both because they don't give opponents a chance to pass and then bid again, and because they clarify overcaller's suit in case responder bids. The double actually gives us quite a few chances to penalize (we try to keep it to about 10+ points so advancer can pass with an opening hand) while giving us a lot of options when opponents continue with a transfer bid (i.e. X=4+ in the suit they bid, 2NT asks for the minor, pass and then takeout double is available, etc).

We superaccept with ALL hands with 4 card support except minimum 4333s. I think expert standard certainly includes superaccepts, but not sure everybody does it as often as we do. Do you mean by "What hand type will respond 3M? " bidding 3M over 1N or over the transfer ? We play 1N-3M as GF suit setting please cue or bid 3N with something really unsuitable.

Pretty please.. it bids it almost once per tournament, with a different unknown meaning every time. This one similar to thepossum's above, but it doesn't show a single thing it hadn't previously other than a spade fit. [hv=handviewer.html?nn=Argine&n=s9632hkq84daqj93&v=e&d=s&a=1C(4+!C; HCP 11-23; natural)P1D(1+!D; HCP 4+; natural or fit in !c - Forcing)P1N(4!C; 2-4!D; 2-4!H; 2-4!S; HCP 15-17; balanced)P2C(1+!D; HCP 7+; relay - Forcing)P2S(4!C; 2-3!D; 2-3!H; 4!S; HCP 15-17; exactly 4!S and denies 4!H - Non forcing)P5S(1+!D; 4-5!S; HCP 7+; fit)]440|250[/hv]

Are you the table host? Table hosts need the extra click as the first one allows them to choose additional options like booting the player. It's a single click for me when not hosting.