mikestar13

Amen. This hand has a good suit, and that's about it. If I said I would bid 3♠ in the assumed 2/1ish context on this crap, I was high at time. For me, on the low end for 3♠ in Precision.

This is borderline acceptance at match points if partner's jumps to 3♠ tend to be sound (NOT a random 15 with six moth eaten spades). Vulnerable at imps, it isn't even a question. Change ♣K to ♣Q I may gamble 4♠ anyway vulnerable at imps, but I'd be ashamed of it, I'd pass that hand in any other circumstances. A queen in an unbid suit tends to be worth substantially more than 1 point less than the king of the same suit would be. All this is predicated on conservative invites, aggressive game bids. Were I dragooned into playing the opposite philosophy, I always pass the original hand (and complain about being 3♠-1 in a constructive auction too often).

This article gives some details of Kit Woolsey's favorite method: http://bridgewinners...nder-your-nose/. Basically, opener's 1 major rebid only promises 4 and is forcing for one round. Responder with 0-4 raises to 2 of the major, bids 1♠ over 1♥ with four spades, or bids 1NT. With 5-7, responder artificially shows degree of support for the major, see the above for details. Hand down the best method I've tried.

Really not if for a partnership it shows 9-14, I assumed from the poll that this hand is in range or only slightly out of it for the methods being used, and surely some people must play Polish/Raptor with a stronger range than the 9-14 that you cite as best/most common range, I defer to your expertise about the best range for it--I don't actually play the convention. But if Raptor is possible as a reasonable choice over 1♦, it must be a reasonable choice over a 1♥ opening, where the shape is right. My main point is, that even if a partnership deems Raptor right on values over 1♦, it is wrong on shape. I could have presented this better.

These days, it seems that the norm (for 2/1) is to open "rule of 20" or even "rule of 19" and respond 2/1 any any 13 and on particularly good 12's. This style is playable but will get you too high when both hands are minimum and the fit isn't good. If this were not an acceptable cost of doing business, the partnership would choose a different style, beefing up the openers or the 2/1's or both (this last would be a quite conservative style by modern standards). So this hand is only a very slight stretch for 1♥ on a rule of 20 standard on no stretch at all on a 19 standard. Clearly too good to pass, and I remember opening 2♥ or a preempt with two aces with no fondness. Passing just won't help--they bid spades even either I sell out or bid hearts later and give them fielder's choice. Playing a conservative opening style at the one level, then 2♥ is the best of a bad lot.

Thanks. I would trust anyone good to recognize the redouble, it's the I only promise two suits aspect I suggest as one of the many possible meta-agreements that are worthwhile, Phil's might be another. It is worth taking 20 seconds somewhere along the line to nail this down when you at the stage of agreeing on low-frequency sequences. I really should have specified long-time partnership, like the gentleman I played Precision with in the 80's for about six years.

Obvious Raptor over 1♥--inappropriate over 1♦, with me Raptor implies lack of support for the fourth suit.

I assumed a partner who is better than BBO average, but not a regular partner with whom I've discussed a lot of sequences. 1♥ feels safer than XX, if partner is good, it's not so much that he might take it as business (not logically possible on this auction, assuming opponent are merely poor to average, not insane), but that he might infer that I am willing to hear him bid clubs, where odds are he is long but not long enough to play opposite a stiff. In a regular partnership I would hope we had an agreement on sos redoubles: a good one is that it promises two places to play--partner chooses between the two cheapest (the majors, in this case), and redoubler corrects if needed. With that agreement I know he won't bid 2♣ without six decent ones, which will make clubs playable.

The kind of hand where I would pass 1♣ and act later (over 1NT, for me) has short diamonds. With this turkey, I'm a total reptile.

Heart Ace, but with no real conviction at imps. (Better at matchpoints--could be worth something to stop the overtrick if slam can't be beaten). Wouldn't be surprised if a club turns out right. A diamond would surprise me--it would be a better lead if partner had the quick entry. No reason I can see for a trump. A low heart against a slam with these cards--if I have a substantial bet on opponents winning this tournament. P.S. A real advertizement for uninformative auctions: slam makes whenever it should, and a fair amount of the time it shouldn't if you can't find the right lead.

Playing with a partner whose skill level is low enough to not recognize 4NT as ace-asking, this hand is plenty good to bid it yourself. The purpose of asking for aces on this hand to to make sure partner has 2 of them so you can try for 7--there is no way you are stopping short of 6, your reasoning that he must have an ace to have an opening bid is entirely correct. Of course if partner can't recognize 4NT as ace asking, maybe he will also open a ace light . . . .

Some bridge history: the "every 10+ point hand must redouble" idiocy fell out of favor in Britain before it did in America. Compare what Reese wrote in novice books vs. what Goren wrote at the same time. Of course expert consensus develops earlier that it filters down to teaching texts, but at approximately the same speed in both countries--so for a period of time, 1 of a suit response after a takeout double was forcing in an average club game or low level tournament while it was still non-forcing in American games of the same level. This probably explains the different time scales being argued about above. I do not have nor will I express any opinion about any non-bridge-related facet of the argument.

I wouldn't pass this hand playing Fantunes (I'd move a club in among my spades and open 2♠ if necessary)--I sure as hell won't pass this in 2/1. Now if I were to pass this playing Precision, I'd expect my partner to shoot me (or commit me to a mental institution if feeling merciful).

Yeah, they might make, but if you never chalk up -790, you are not swinging the axe nearly often enough. It is also possible to be +1100 (against maniacs who refuse to be shut out, I've picked up +1400 on hands like this) At matchpoints, anything more than your iffy game is a pretty sure top (and if you don't have game +200 is probably enough--and don't you love those big numbers at imps? So they make one time in ten: you get rich the other nine times.

Obvious pass. If partner accepts we are in a game force, so he can bid 4♦ with slam interest. 5♦ is a sign off opposite an invitation, as 3NT would have been. 3NT should be OK if partner bids it, he won't do so without good heart cards, as the lead is marked on this bidding. Partner can accept by bidding 3♥ if he needs heart help, which you will deny by bidding 4♦/5♦. Note that 4♦ by you (a limited hand) in this sequence can be passed.

On the knife edge, but no upgrade--switch the ♦T and the ♠7 or 8 and I would.

Good idea, but partner must bid on the assumption that it shows majors (you will correct if he bids the wrong one): any minimum double with good enough clubs to insist on them should have overcalled clubs instead. (3♦-X-(P)-4♦-(P)-5♣ should imply good clubs with substantial extra value--too good to overcall. Partner will boost this to six almost any time clubs is one of his two suits--though he might pass if he is very ashamed of his 4♦ bid.

Note quite good enough for 2♣, and too suit oriented for 2NT for my taste (others will disagree). After 1♥-2♦ the best call is 3♦, establishing a potential trump suit and allowing partner to show a heart fit cheaply. I'm eventually bidding 6♦ unless: 1) we have a better fit in hearts or 2) partner has the magic ♥Q ♦A and a black King for an easy grand. This hand shows off 2/1 vs SAYC--in the latter system, we bid 4♦ and pray partner takes it as forcing (he should: never play 4m in a constructive auction).

This is nothing new -- Cohen himself in his books says that LOTT tends to break down for extreme numbers of trumps. "If there were 26 total trumps, do you think that both sides could make a grand slam?" -- LC, IIRC. Your parabola look like it says LOTT is very accurate up to 19 total trumps and not bad with 20, the drop off gets noticeable around 21. By the way, I have read both Cohen and Lawrence and think they both have portions of the truth. Trumps are not "everything", but neither are they "irrelevant".

Wouldn't think of it. Support doubles can get to a 4-3 fit at the two level--which can be OK in a major; they can also get you to a 5-3 fit if partner has extra length--obviously this is quite good in a major. The minors are a different matter--4-3 fits a the two level are a disaster waiting to happen: opponent's won't let you play there unless it is wrong for you to play there. And it isn't as big of an advantage to find a 5-3 minor suit fit if present: so many of these hands will do better in 1NT if either you or partner can stop their suit. For the sequence 1♣-(P)-1♦-(1♠)-X, double might better used as general competitive values with no clear direction: opener may have but doesn't promise 3 diamonds, maybe a notrumpy hand without a spade stopper. Other support doubles for a minor are not useful: 1♦-(P)-2♣-(2H)-X for example, makes no sense as support--opener can raise freely on 3 clubs, responder is virtually certain to have five of them and at least game invitational values. When I learned them, support doubles didn't apply even to major suits if the intervention was higher than 2 of partner's suit--but I understand that some players these days treat 1♦-(P)-1♥-(2♠)-X as a support double for hearts: I prefer penalties.

Legend has it that Edgar Kaplan would assassinate a partner who wouldn't open hand 2 with a weak NT. Hand #1 is more debatable, but I'd given it a try with 1♦ in ACOL, and even more so in 2 over 1/SAYC where I and to raise a red suit response might rebid 1NT after a 1♠ response. In the 2 over 1 case, I'll usually open 1♣, intending to rebid 1NT over 1♠ and raise a red suit response. In ACOL, the opening needs to be 1♦, since 1♣-1♠-1NT would show 15-17. 1♥ is also possible, depending on partner's attitude towards 3-card raises of 1M.

Is 1♠-(X)-2♣ forcing in whatever in considered standard in Spain? If so, but OP's partnership plays it non forcing, the description of the call as a negative free bid is correct. "Free bid" is a bid in a position where partner is guaranteed another chance to call even if the bidder were to pass rather than bidding--that is, when bidders RHO did not pass. Now in North American standard bidding (whatever the bleep that is), a free bid in a new suit when the intervention is a suit overcall is forcing, so if playing this non forcing by partnership agreement, this call is a "negative free bid". OTOH, in North America, a free bid in a new suit at the two level when the intervention is double is non-forcing in standard, no no special designation is needed. in fact, some partnerships who do play it forcing say they are playing "positive free bids" after a double. But are the standards the same in Spain as in North America? There are countries where it is standard that new suits at the two level after a double are forcing, in which countries partnerships who play it non-forcing quite reasonably say they are playing "negative free bids" after a double. I have no idea what the standard is in Spain, but I do know the terminology--IIRC, I was already playing duplicate when the term "negative free bid" was invented (the term, not the concept, which is likely quite a bit older).

That was Edgar Kaplan's belief and he had forgotten more about bridge than I will ever know about the game by the time he died. My experience tends to confirm, you mileage may vary, but I am quite sure is doesn't lose badly on collecting penalties--and as you point out, it makes competitive bidding much easier. This is a case where you need to play opener's reopening double is virtually mandatory on a doubleton. (Might pass it out with poor defense and dead minimum/subminimum values.)

2♥ response to 1♠ will get you there and is appropriate for the reasons Cyberyeti cited. Doesn't matter if you play 4 card majors or not, opener seldom has only 4 when he opens 1♠ and you aren't going to play spades anyway. This is actually a hard one to bid in 2/1 GF or even those big club methods that use 2/1 GF over limit bids, the style just doesn't work well on weak two suiters with playing strength when neither suit is opener's, but you might get to 2♥ making 4 instead of going down in spades: 1♠-1NT-2♦-2♥-P This hand is a loser for Fantunes, but there will be a lot of wins when (with a different responding hand) they have a heart game they can't find. If your partnership can get even a small minus EV on the Fantunes two bids, the one bids make the system a winner.