mikestar13

Some tweaks that might be useful (nice structure, BTW): 3♣/3♦/3♦/3NT/4M = as above. 3♠ = 5-4-2-2 (3NT asks, then 4m=4 card suit, 4♥ = 4OM). 4m = 5-card suit 4♥ (when spades are trump) = 5-card heart suit.

I don't believe the ACBL has an official definition (the "I know it when I see it" test). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, by the ACBL, does not have status of regulation, but does have a definition: a suit which can be expected to lose no tricks opposite a stiff in partner's hand and might not lose any tricks opposite a void. The Encyclopedia does not define how much better than 50% probability constitutes "expected", but it is surely more than 51% and less than 100%. ACBL is deliciously vague. (Not so delicious when you have to play under their regs.)

Notice that partner has the worst possible heart holding and the slam is reasonable -- a doubleton heart would be much better, while making the ♣Q into the ♥Q makes it laydown (excluding an opening lead or trick 2 ruff--too unlikely to worry about). I would gamble 4NT here. But if I had made a non serious cue, I would have expected partner to show interest, then surely 4NT by me.

Nobody here knows how to bid the Bridge World Death Hand in a reasonably natural 2/1 or SAYC style system? Neither does Bob Hamman or Eric Rodwell, neither did Howard Schenken or Charles Goren back in the days, nor Ely Culbertson before that, nor Milton Work before that. No wonder Harold Vanderbilt himself played a Big Club system. :rolleyes:

My interpretation of RP's data is the advantage/disadvantage is insignificant.

2/1 absolute GF is simple. If there are exception they need to be a) clearly agreed b) relatively few in number, and c) easy to remember. The exceptions, where 4m can be passed in a GF auction might be: 1) 4m can be passed in a failed stopper ask auction. 2) 4m can be passed when it is an escape from 3NTX. IMHO, these two exceptions might be worthwhile, any others are quite likely to be a mistake.

By citing the Peter Principle, I in no way mean to say that it applies to this situation. Free was genuinely puzzled by the reference and I clarified it because I happened to know it off the top of my head. I also believe what Free says above is correct. <rant>There are limits to what is possible for a given player. This proposition is not motivated by any sort of prejudice, but by the facts of reality. I myself might well be world class by now if I had made a decision 30 some odd years ago to practice and play bridge to the exclusion of everything else meaningful in life. No marriage, no children, no career other than bridge pro .... This is a price I was unwilling to pay, indeed never thought of paying. I love this game, but not that much. Nor do the huge majority of players love the game that much. And if Almighty God promised me to that I would be the best bridge player that's ever been or ever will be, the price still would not be worth paying. If anyone else would do so, have at it--then tell me what you regret on your deathbed.</rant>

He's referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle, sometimes expressed as "everyone will be promoted to their level of incompetence".

I nominate West's 1♦ opening as the worst bid. Yes he is 3rd seat, but is red vs white, has a a bad 11, and has a bad diamond suit. The reasoning for light 3rd seat openings is much like the reasoning for overcalls: 1. Could there be a game our way? Not on an answered prayer, especially if the partnership deems East's initial pass borderline. 2. Could we make a partial? A low one if the enemy allows us to. 3. Will I obstruct their auction? I might even help them. 4. Will we find a paying sacrifice? I don't even ask this with indifferent flat hands. 5. Do I want a diamond lead? If I think I do, I've peeked at partner's hand. I don't mean the harshness that the sarcasm implies--it would be intended if the players involved were (self-styled) world class experts. :) Out of curiosity, how bad did 3♠ get hurt and how would they have done in hearts?

They were only describing the ultra strong balanced hand alternative, which would indeed be too strong for 1♣. The unbalanced alternative showed a hand not "stronger" than 1♣ but with a sure game and no interest in partner's shape, but looking for specific honors for slam. A terrible convention because of rarity--the bid itself was a thing of beauty the once a year (i you play every day) that it happened. I have a copy of Better Bidding in 15 Minutes on my bookshelf. The 2♦ opener is not one of Schenken's ideas I've used.

Partner is quite certain to have a club void if he can actually count 13 tricks. Culbertson suggested a forcing pass on a somewhat similar hand (Blue Book, 1930), provided you can trust partner to read it, otherwise double--opponent can't have the right cards to make 13 tricks in spades if partner has the right cards to take 13 tricks in hearts. Odds are fairly good that a stacked deck and/or sobriety impairment are involved in this deal.

IMHO, the given hand is worth an upgrade but just barely. Make the shape 4-3-3-3 and I'd never consider upgrading; make the shape 5-3-3-2 and I'd never consider NOT upgrading.

#2 is the only thing absolutely essential, but I would not play in a game that prohibits takeout doubles--with apologies to the Portland Club, this isn't bridge. A sequence like (1♠)-X has a "natural" meaning of "I have enough high cards and spades to beat one spade, and I can either handle any runout, or think they are stupid enough to play it there when I have six or seven of their trumps". This happens maybe one a year (if you play every day) and maybe not, so the effect of prohibiting the takeout double here is equivalent to prohibiting the double itself--a difference which makes no difference is no difference. I will play kitchen bridge without Stayman or Blackwood, but I've never had to in the real world. Of course, transfers and RKC are out of the question at this level (at least with older players, I wonder if any younger players even play kitchen bridge these days).

Not sure about the E/W stolen bid double in this situation--sounds like a (badly) mistaken explanation, or a (the are no words in the English language to describe it) mistaken idea of a reasonable partnership agreement. In any case, it likely does show some length in the majors, suggesting bad splits. With the South hand, my second bid is 2NT, and we should end up in 3NT.

I know that in some bridge jurisdictions Multi is restricted (my own ACBL is the worst example Multi is disallowed entirely on the GCC). I believe at the lower levels in England it is required to include a reasonably frequent strong option and there may be similar restriction elsewhere. But assuming there is no regulatory requirement, what is the rationale for having strong options? The mini-Multi (always weak) is an equally effective preempt, with no strong hands that suffer from self-preemption. Maybe if the strong hand possibilities plug a major system hole it could be wortwhile, but even then it is quite dangerous to lump several different strong possibilities into the bid. I can imagine a multi where if strong, opener has a balanced 25 or about. I can also imagine a multi where if strong, it is GF with primary diamonds. I find it hard to wrap my mind around how to unwind things if it could be either of those, or 22-ish balanced, or GF with primary clubs, or just short of GF with a primary major.

Definitely a Hamman's Law case. 3NT. I rather like calling the 3NT bid "Hamman's Hammer": alliterative and evokes the image of "Thor's Hammer". Comparing Bob Hamman's stature as a bridge player to Thor's stature as a Norse god (or an Avenger, for us Marvel fans), ai'nt much of an overbid.

I double, of course. But the only time I expect a unanimous poll for are questions like "Does North have 13 cards?" (Even then, my expectations may be frustrated.)

I even open this playing a style where I pass (average or worse) flat 12's-- it's a better hand than a fair number of 13's I've opened. Even an indisputably right action (more certainly right than this hand) will go wrong once in a while, where an obviously wrong action works out. I once bid a game with a 9 card heart fit with 27 HCP in the combined hands--and went down one when opening leader lead his stiff to partner's Ace, leading to a defensive crossruff. I take it no one believes that hand should have stopped in a partial.

All depends on the hearts. If you open 2♣ I expect about 4♦ from East and we won't have room to explore. Don't know how to get there. Were this first seat, I'd try 1♠ and hope to get a 2/1 response, then its fairly doable and it's unlikely to go 1♠-swish. Third seat 1[spades ] is more likely to get passed (though still not likely) and I can't visualize how to get there with any science. Probably I give up and open 4♠, ready to send it back if it fetches a double; but I have a sneaking admiration for opening 6♠: partner won't raise to 7 in case we have a trump loser, we should have at least a play if partner has a heart card and there are one other chance to win--someone may think we are bidding on a sure thing and take the sac (wouldn't mind defending 7♦X on this hand at all) but the slam bid feels anti-percentage.

Cappelletti gets a bad rep on these forums not because 2♦=both majors is unplayable, but because 2♣=both majors (Landy and many later conventions) is much superior: advancer can bid 2♦ with equal length major suit length and play in the longer major, making it safer to intervene on 5-4 shapes, and drawing less of a roadmap when they get to 3NT anyway. Cappelletti would be worth playing IMHO, if natural were the only legal alternative. Competing on major two suiters is important against a strong NT and absolutely essential against a weak NT, though it can work out badly (as can any other method: we're interested in how it does on average). An aside: great news that Multi-Landy is apparently going to be GCC legal, assuming the BOD doesn't reject the recommendation. I would have preferred "any NT defense legal", but this would be the next best thing.

deleted

The 12-14 weak NT is a fairly good place to adopt a "pass or bash" style for NT hands: if we aren't going to look for a suit fit, respond 3NT with a 12 count and pass with 11. This makes it tougher on the enemy (you won't be in 2NT-1, they can't make close doubles of 1NT-2NT-3NT), and opens up conventional uses of 2NT to solve some problem hands. This concept fits equally well for 2-way Stayman or transfer methods. Something for you and partner to think about. Meckwell have used pass or bash opposite 14-16, John Montgomery (author of Revision Club) even advocates it opposite 16-18! (His Precision method opens balanced hands with less than 16 1♦, and his 1♣ promises shape or extra strength.)

Apologies to others if have have fed a troll.

I must disagree with this. To play this is not merely "close too unplayable", it's f***ing insane. The EBU (as an aside, a far more rational bridge organization than ACBL) doesn't advocate this. Even I (an American who has never played Acol, but does know some bridge history) knows enough to know that with four card support and 13 to 15 or so the auction goes 1♥-4♥, expressing the concept "game values in support of hearts but no slam interest". This is the natural meaning of the sequence. It appears in Culbertsons Blue Book from 1930 before Acol was. It appears in the writings of Terrence Reese, who was one of the inventors of Acol. It's what the sequence meant the day Harold Vanderbilt invented modern Contract Bridge, it's what it meant in Plafond. OP needs to forget about conventions and brush up on basic bidding first--no matter what he erroneously believes the EBU says. It is impossible to play well if you make a non-game bid that can be passed (3♥ response to 1♥) when you have game values.

Compare this hand where consensus seem to be accept on a nice 7. Partnership need a style agreement about this type of sequences. If the partnership choice is "aggressive invites, conservative game bids", 3♣ is a reasonable choice, but partner needs about a good 8/ordinary 9 not to pass. My firm style preference is "conservative invites, aggressive game bids": note "game bids", not "acceptances"--one is also aggressive in bidding (or forcing to) game rather than inviting. For example in the sequence 1NT-P or 2NT or 3NT (with all bids natural), responder with a light invite (borderline pass) should pass and with a heavy invite (borderline3NT) should bid 3NT: if he responds 2NT, his invite should be down the middle, but opener should carry on to 3NT unless genuinely minimum. Maybe a catchier name for this style is DIIYCHI (Don't Invite If You Can Help It.) Full disclosure: if the 1NT range is narrow enough, in this sequence I tend to enjoy taking this further and "pass or bash", but my preferred style can be generalized to suit bidding sequences such as the one in this poll, whereas pass or bash cannot.