Venom

Not sure what is best bid. Can certainly understand argument for bashing 3NT. RE: the meaning of 2S or 3D: agree with adam that when two suits are potentially open, bidding one shows stopper in that suit. When only one suit is unaccounted for, the bidding the suit, initially, looks for stopper. The cue bid of 2D and partner's response was quite fortunate in terms of suggesting where opener's high cards (that justified his 1 diamond bid) potentially lay: i.e. in spades. That increases the chance of a spade attack in NT, methinks. This possibility seemingly increases if you play very aggressive 2 club overcalls of 1 diamond openings. Would you make the same 2 club overcall with xx, Kxx, xx, AKT9xx? Be well, be safe DHL aka: Double !

Hmmm. Curious. Writing this at almost 1 am in morning. Hope it's coherent. :) I think that I just read a similar posting / question about reverse structures on Bridgewinners. I liked Henry Bethe's suggested response structure. His suggested structure seems to me to be a combination of Structured Reverses as presented in the Root-Pavlicek book, and also using the fourth suit/ other major as the possibly artificial weakness response (when biddable at the 2-level) instead of using 2NT for this purpose. Using 2NT as a weakness response has the potential of giving opener rebid problems(especially when holding a reverse that includes 3-card support for responder's major, and of potentially wrong-siding a NT contract. Imho, it is a mistake to make responder's major suit rebid as being a game force instead of just showing a 5-card suit, hand strength undefined. For starters, this takes the pressure off of opener when opener has 3-card major suit support. It also gives opener more room to operate when you have responded initially in spades and can now rebid 2H as a possibly weak hand, especially when you do not have a heart stopper. There is little need for responder to rebid 2H to show 4 hearts after having responded 1S to opener's 1C opener (and 2D reverse): I would anticipate that opener would have bid hearts as the reverse suit had he/ she had 4 hearts. There may be times when it might be more beneficial to rebid 4SF at 3-level when holding a 5-card major (usually when no stopper in the 4th suit), but this overall basic structure seems to make sense to me. However, I am always looking for a better mousetrap. So, I look forward to reading others' ideas on the topic. As I said, I just responded because I thought I recognized the post. Be well, be safe DHL: aka: Double !

Just kind of interested in people's opinions about the following: This occurred prior to the start of a 2-session limited stratified pairs game during the Kaplan Regional that was held during the December holiday week in Manhattan/ New York City. (Strats were 0-100, 100-300, 300-750) I was playing with my life partner (aka wife). We were playing (attempting to play might be more accurate) a modified version of Match Point Precision. When our opponents for the first round arrived at the table, we informed them that we were playing Precision. One of the opponents became openly "unhappy", said that she doesn't like playing against Precision, and left the table. Apparently she went to either a T.D. or someone who was selling entries and was given a different entry at a different table as she an her partner never returned to the table. fwiw: there was nothing on our card that was not GCC-legal. In fact, it was rather basic but different from what a less experienced player might have encountered. Here is my question. Should the tournament director or whoever was selling entries have given this nice lady a different entry and table to play at so she didn't have to play against precision players? IMO, this is not such an easy question to answer. There are a number of different issues that might be considered such as 1) the right to decline to play against a pair in an acbl-sanctioned tournament that was playing a method that you were either unfamiliar with or uncomfortable playing against, 2) recognizing that this player had invested time and money in order to play at the tournament (being in Manhattan, it was rather an expensive day after entry fees, parking, and dinner) and not wanting to have her upset and not enjoy the tournament, 3) trying to be flexible in order to meet the needs of the membership and to encourage more people to join and participate. I do not view this lady in any negative light. In fact, I empathize with her. We all were there at some point in time. So, what might You have done if you were the T.D. and had a player who wanted his/ her entry changed because he/ she didn't want to play against a certain system? Note that I did not ask what was the right or correct thing for the T.D. to do because I think it's a function of the criteria that you choose. What would be Your criteria? I don't even know if there are any official acbl guidelines that addresses this or similar situations. Did the estimated skill level of those playing in this event influence your opinions? What if this had been a regular unlimited regional stratified pairs event that someone was entering just to try his or her hand at such an event? As a follow-up to this brief story, this is what happened next. One of my opps came to the table with her own bidding box so that she wouldn't have to touch the bidding box that was already on the table because it was "dirty" from so many others touching it. Of course, that didn't stop her from picking up her cards from the board and holding them, but what the heck? Can't be too careful these days with all the germs going around! Perhaps white gloves will make a comeback! As always, thanks in advance. DHL: aka Double ! I want my old name back!!!!

a preemptive hand should have the preponderance of its strength in the bid suit, and limited outside strength that might be more defensively oriented. It also implies that you would strongly like partner to lead the suit if defending. This hand is the opposite. DHL: :)

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 !

Audrey Grant reported this at one of her lectures during the Summer NABCs in Toronto this past July '11. Not sure that this rates as being clueless. In fact, it's quite the opposite as well as being humorous and something to try sometimes. According to Audrey, Shannon Cappelletti suggested the following answer or response to use after a mistake has been made and partner has started to inquire why you bid or played such-and-such or some other critical comment. The Answer? = "Because I Hate You!". It absolutely breaks the tension. Try it (and then duck to void flying objects). DHL aka Double !

Back to the now 4-decade old Forcing Club system problem of how to avoid wrong-siding a notrump contract after a 1 club opening, especially when responder has a balanced 8 to 10. Two of the top ranked partnerships in the US seemed to have resolved this in different ways. Grecham play a 1H response to 1C as showing any 8 to 11 hcp hand, and then have an elaborate set of rebids and relays to specify various hand shapes and distribution. However, they do not appear to use that many (if any) asking bids. R-M (aka Meckwell) use (as of 2006) a 2D response to show the balanced 8-10 hcp hand. Other positive responses are transfers that seem to be tied into letting them continue to use support, trump, and control asking bids (albeit modified) as well as to keep the bidding at approximately the same level as if playing standard precision responses to 1C. (This clicked in once I realized the patterns of sequences i was seeing in a FD system printout. which means that I am probably wrong.) Less important, I suspect, is the idea of using transfers to allows the 1 club opener to be declarer more often, although this might be the case. The reason for changing the responses to 1C in 3rd-4th hand is not yet clear to me. I suspect that modifying the responses will just screw up the reason for having the original set of responses (i.e.: to address the problem of the balanced 8-10 hcp hand.) You can more easily afford to have the hand "wrong-sided" when responder has a balanced 11-13, opened in some partnerships. Maybe I am just overly attracted to asking bids. DHL: aka. Double !

Here is a web address where you download and actually print out a number of precision system books including Goren, CC Wei- original book, Wei-Radin, Power Precision, Super Precision, etc. You can also access notes on more systems than you'll ever need to know. http:// bridgefiles.net/VAR2/Systems/SYS2-Precision.htm In my opinion, the original system book by CC Wei (Cinderella team + system) is a must read if for no other reason than an historical perspective to show how much the system has and hasn't changed over the years, and what some of the long-time inherent problems have been. The original system was presented in 37 pages and, as one will discover, was very vague about certain areas. Some concepts are now outmoded by today's standards. Yet the system still works fine in it's original version. There is no standard Precision system at this point. In fact, there now seems to be more adaptations and variants that a number of people are cautious about playing precision with a new partner due to concerns about misunderstandings. But, in my experience on BBO, most people seem to prefer either Wei or Goren's version, without the asking bids (their loss: I love them). DHL: aka Double !

KJ: I've played various conventions over opp's 1NT including many years of transfer over-calls. The two constants that I have found to be very important is to have bids to identify your major immediately with a 1-suited hand, and to have a bid to show a major 2-suiter asap (the latter not being quite as important as the first). The reason for the first is that you can get out-competed and not have sufficient time to show your major if you use a bid like Capp 2C or DONT X to show unspecified 1-suited hand. The idea of using transfers to put the 1NT opener on lead is not something to be minimized. It is likely worth a trick. So don't feel that you have to give them up. However, as with any convention, you give up something to get something. So pick something you like and work on it. In particular, work on advancer's responses, over-caller's rebids, and what you are going to play in balancing seat (often over-looked). Whatever you select, play it well. Sometimes it's what agreements you have and what you do next that is equally as important as what convention you choose to use. DHL: aka Double !

In the process of reviewing system notes of three of the top pairs in the USA (R-M, G-H, G-M) I noticed that each play a similar set of responses by opener after the bidding has gone 1M - 2m - ?: I particularly noticed that they played a rebid of 2M as showing more types of hands than simply showing a re-biddable/ 6-card major. In 2 of the cases, there was reference to 2M as showing some sort of "balanced" hand although some 54 & 5431 & (maybe)5440 hands seemed to be included in the 2M rebid. This is all well and good but it started me to wonder whether I am falling behind the times (Again) bidding-wise, and that this might be a good topic to survey. It was interesting to me to note that the structures were similar seeing how two of the systems are Precision-based and one is 2/1-based. So, I am wondering what rebid structures you all play after 1 - 2m - ? with particular attention to the 2M rebid. As always, thank you in advance. Best wishes: DHL aka Double !

One evening, back in 1969 when I first started playing duplicate bridge, I asked one of my opps (reputed to be an excellent player) for advice on how to bid some hand. His arrogant response still rings in my ears like a poison (and I don't mean fish). He told me, and I quote, that he "charges a fee for his opinions or advice". I was only 19 at the time, didn't have a clue bridge-wise, and felt like "what a mean snob that guy is". And this occurred before the advent of professional bridge players during the 70s. I swore to myself that I would never treat another person like this guy had treated me. Not that I have the credentials imo that would justify charging another person for lessons. I currently have one student on BBO who is not being charged a penny. It's sort of an experiment for me to see if I can actually teach and to see how a student might respond to my methods. The feedback so far has been good. However, even if this experiment is a success, I see no reason to charge people for teaching them how to reason and think. Most of the material is available in written form anyway: what is different might be how I've assimilated and present it. I am quite willing to share what I know and/ or think without strings attached. And, many of you who know me know that some of my ideas are not "traditional" although I teach more basic issues. I guess this all places me in the category of one who is just trying to give a little something back. I only wish that I had the money that some of these people who hire these professional have. DHL/ DON aka Double !

What is the point of this post/ survey. Which of the above-mentioned pairs are you going to say "no, thank you" to if asked to be part of their team? Seems to me that there are a few women who might be added to the list. DHL/ DON aka Double !

you are now a minority of two 2! This is a 7-loser hand with 4 trumps, and a stiff club. Conservatively, this is worth at least a mixed raise: in terms of playing/ support strength it feels like a G.I. raise to me. Please don't be a "point-counter" and tell me that you only have X number of points: less relevent as the hand becomes more distributional. The hand might very well cross-ruff itself to 10 tricks before the opps can inhale. DHL/ DON aka Double !

Years and years ago we used to refer to your situation/ experience as "sitting in the toilet seat" for obvious reasons. Did you really HAVE to get out of bed that morning? DHL/ DON aka Double !

Partner took the captaincy of the hand and asked you a specific question. Answer it and don't read more into the situation than necessary. Of course, you could look for subtle messages between the lines, drive yourself nuts, and be in the market for a different partner. It's not clear to me that some response other than supporting partner's hearts would necessarily show the ace of that suit. fwiw: imo the standard set of responses to 2♣ openers could benefit from considerable improvement. DHL/ DON aka Double !