mikestar13

There was a time when this was standard as late as 1950's Goren, probably earlier. I rather like this as a meta-rule with one exception: 1NT-(2x)-X is more useful as takeout, because it collects more penalties. Advocated by Edgar Kaplan in the early 60's. I play this with everyone who will agree to it. Now that many players open 1NT on 5 card majors, it works even better than it did then--opener is more likely to have length in suit x than responder (and in the cases where responder has the length he can pass opener's balancing double, thus collecting whenever opener can double).

"You gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em ..." it's time to FOLD! (Bold caps intentional).

My God, a hand where I think Gerber is the right bid if we are playing it!

A fantasy of mine is that ACBL would adopt something like this (though surely more restrictive, given the current GCC)--it is clear and easy to apply! I am curious to note that no dots are awarded for direct seat defensive bids--what was the reasoning behind that? Both ACBL and WBF regulate them. (ACBL regulates the second call of each partnership, except for convention balancing calls: (1x)-P-(P)-?, which is IMHO, going way too far.)

This is a wrong approach, the "underbidder" has it right: invite conservatively, accept aggressively. The gain is similar to game invitational auctions, where you won't play 2NT as often--you won't play 4NT as often. As for 5NT re-invite, please pretend you never heard of this--in a constructive auction you should never, ever play 5NT: 5NT should be a grand slam try or a choice of slams, depending on the exact sequence. I believe it was either Edgar Kaplan or his long time partner Alfred Sheinwold who wrote "down 1 in 2NT is a bridge misdemeanor, down 1 in 4NT is a bridge felony, down 1 in 5NT is a hanging offense ..."

If 3NT is serious, 100% North: if this hand doesn't call for a serious 3NT, no hand does. Indeed, closer to 4NT than 4♦. If the partnership is on a guess whether 3NT or 4♦ is serious, agree on one method or the other, then use a deal generator to create a lot of practice hands....

If I know it's going down, I am cheating--so of course I won't bid it unless I deem the grand a so obvious a bid that it would be cause my to be discovered as a cheat if I didn't bid the grand (unlikely that I'd believe that). If I merely have an intuition that it's going down with no illicit knowledge, the odds to make here are too good to trust my intuition and stay out of the grand (I might well trust my intuition if the grand were borderline). I have answered a question, I have no idea if I have answered OP's question, as I have no idea what that question is.

Kungsgeten, A most interesting method that appears to be quite good, but could you clarify the 3♣ description, I don't quite understand the 4♠ with diamonds bit.

+1 to this one but also believing that England should treat Bridge as a sport for tax purposes as the rest of the EU seems to do: even handed treatment of mind sports and body sports in the tax code is quite reasonable.. But the notion that Bridge is a sport in the same sense as cross country skiing or basketball and therefor needs an extensive list of banned substances like a typical Olympic sport is ridiculous on its face--but this is what the WBF and its anti-doping policy seem to be aiming at, in order to gain admission to an Olympic Games which won't accept mind sports anyway.

Let's face facts -- there is no such thing as a GCC legal transfer opening method at the one level -- it is ACBL's obvious intent not to allow this, in part because of a determination to keep Moscito out of North America, regaring it as the same moral evil as FP systems. (Yes, ACBL does think in those terms--ask hrothgar). ACBL management will never interpret the GCC as allowing transfer openings at the one level, no matter what the letter of the GCC says. This is an (admittedly highly unfortunate, in my view) fact of reality, but will continue to be a fact of reality as long as current management is running the show. Try formulating systems for use in somewhat sane bridge jurisdictions--ACBL GCC is a lost cause, and Mid-Chart is not much better (Super-chart is not too bad, actually, but who gets to play it?)

I'm a late-comer to the Precision/Polish 2♣ requires 6 camp, but I'm convinced that (for once--the contrary is usually the case) the North Americans (who mostly insist on 6♣) have it right and the Europeans (who usually allow 5♣-4M) have it wrong. Getting to a playable partial when no major suit fit is found really sucks when opener will often have only five clubs, passing 2♣ with a stiff (or void!) when too weak to investigate is also not a source of lasting happiness.

I think what the OP is plays is just fine as is. I myself prefer something more complex, but I wonder if I should prefer it. Maybe this method has 85% of the accuracy of a more "perfect" method with 50% of the memory load -- a clear win for simplicity. If you choose to play Jacoby as limit+, you need to play 3♣=minimum means, "I would decline a slam try" rather than "I would pass a limit raise": The set of hands where you bid 3♣ is larger that way--which is a good thing, as this bid is both cheap and unrevealing to the opponents. Auctions like 1♠-2NT-3♣-4♠ and 1♠-2NT-3♣-3♠-4♠ should be common. A lot of hands are slam-negative but well worth getting to game, especially is you don't leak info along the way when game is the limit. In fact, I accept a limit raise on any hand with a stiff that I am not otherwise ashamed of, and I am not interested in slam opposite a minimum slam try on a majority of them--so perfect for the 3♣ rebid. This is also the best interpretation for the 3♣ rebid if you play Jacoby as game forcing.

I agree with the above comments with the exception of #2 at match points--then we need 4NT as a natural sign off even if it means we can't ask for aces. 5m will be a cold bottom if 4NT makes (unless 5m makes 7, but in that case why aren't you bidding at least 6?), so we only want to sign off in 5m if were pretty sure 4NT can't make. 100% agree with #2 at imps.

On the vulnerability and trick total, I bid 3♠ with the North hand but don't regard pass as irrational--double is looking at rational in the rear-view mirror. You have a probable nine card fit with a probable three diamond tricks on defense and not the ghost of a reason to believe your side can find a fourth, let alone a fifth trick. South might have pulled the double, but imagine North's hand were ♠Ax♥xxx♦AQJx♣xxxx. if South knows North would have opened that hand, the last argument doesn't hold and pulling is more attractive, but I doubt a player who thinks it wise to whack three diamonds with the actual hand on this auction would open a flat 11.

I don't mind the splinter, provided North is planning to keycard unless South shows total disinterest. (For us, that would be 3NT = much spade waste.)

"Each player gets one chance to X any combination of suits competitively, thereafter subsequent Xes of the same suits are penalty" is a meta rule not to many will play these days (maybe no penalty doubles below 3NT is more in vogue in 2014), but I think it is a reasonable one. You will need an exeception for raised suits such as the (1♥)-P-(2♥)-P-(P)-X example given above. But after say (1♥)-P(1♠)-P-2♥, X is penalty in both direct and balancing seats. Another meta rule that fits in this framework: The double of any natural NT bid is penalty, except for a 1NT opening or a 1NT response. Of course, you may agree to penalty doubles of a 1NT opening as part of your defense structure if you wish--but nobody leaves this defense to a meta rule: they agree on something. even if they play Mosher (all overcalls natural, penalty doubles). Over the normal 1NT response usually showing a weakish hand, bid as if you were bidding over the 1x opening bid (with somewhat sounder values, especially if a hand that could have overcalled the opener at the one level must now go to the two level).

I have never seen or heard of this being played. I assume they would apply only to 1m-1NT-2m/3m sequences, as only after a 1NT response can opener be sure there is no game on power. Inverted rebids in 1m-1M-3m sequences are unplayable. 2m showing extras saves a fair amount of space, but what do you do to handle minimum hands with shapes like 5-4-3-1 with 5m? SAYC or 2/1 players which can usually get away with rebidding 2m on these hands.

Opposite a partner who opens "light" preempts, at these colors and in this position (and probably with short spades), I will play him for ♥[QJTxxxx and out--he may have better hearts, but he may have worse hearts, and he won't have a side card. I have enough defense (including short trumps) that I don't care to extend the preempt, and 4♥ to make is too rich for me.

So these methods are for saner games than ACBL GCC games: Games in almost any other country.WBF games.ACBL Mid-Chart or higher games.GCC+ games in some districts of the ACBL. Usual tournament advertising in Orange County, California for sectionals and regionals is "GCC+any no trump defense "--also common in various other districts.

The best and safest rule there! My preferred meta-agreement: 3NT in competition is to play unless manifestly impossible. In constructive bidding, 3NT is to play if we have no eight-card major suit fit (may be to play in some sequences even then, but these sequences need to be agreed on).

Edgar Kaplan's Liar's Code (from a novice-intermediate level teaching book of his in the 1960's, don't recall the title): 1. Never lie unless necessary. 2. Tell the least lie possible. 3. When in doubt, lie about suit length rather than hand strength. 4. When in doubt, lie about a minor suit rather than a major suit. 5. Tell a small lie now, if not doing so will cause you to tell a big lie later. This seems to me what Ken is aiming at. I agree with the code, though I would soften rule #3 a bit in view of the modern and reasonable "shape first" concept (the words "shape first" had not been uttered when EK wrote). However, rule #2 governs strength as well as shape, and it seems better to me to distort my shape rather than show a ace more than I have. I would gladly show a queen more than I have, though EK did not advocate this (though I bet he practiced it--he was a much better card player than his target audience). I think Ken is on the right track, but his examples don't all pay as much attention to rule#2 as I would.

How do you play 1♠-3♣? If it is a strong jump shift, this is the best way to start. A strong jumps shift shows a good 5 card or longer club suit with significantly more than minimum game forcing values. It may or may not have spade support, if so, you can show it on the next round. If 3♣ has a different agreed meaning (or no agreed meaning) you must choose another bid and 2NT is one reasonable possibility when no available bid is right--it at least shows good spade support and game value or better. It then comes down to realizing that your cards are so extremely much better than they might be that you should risk the five level in spite of partner's 4♠ bid showing a minimum with no shortness. The art of hand evaluation takes some study, and you are asking the right questions. Welcome to the forums!

IMHO, this is backwards: MP vs IMP has already commented been on. 2♥ (or 3♥) is more dangerous vs a big club system because 1♠ is more limited. The biggest upside is finding a making game of your own, this is not affected much by enemy system. But the second biggest upside is causing the opponents to misjudge, missing a good game or bidding a bad game or bidding when they should be doubling--these misjudgements are significantly more likely when 1♠ is 12-21ish as in 2/1, than when it is 11ish-15 as in Precision.

Interesting concept, I rather like it. Do you get a lot of criticism for passing flat 12's? My Real Diamond Precision partnership has moved to requiring 6 for the 2♣ opener, and using a wide range 12-15 1NT which may include 5-4-2-2 shapes, and passing flat 11's. Now 1♦ almost always has 4, it cam only be 3 with 4=1=3=5 or 1=4=3=5. I would be happier with a 13-15 1NT with pass or bash style responses, but this would require passing flat 12's.

♠ 8 was as good a guess as any, and would have been a standout if you knew the trumps were 6-2, provided partner could be counted on not to play the Queen. Buy her a copy of Watson's Play of the Hand... and highlight the material on third hand play; then let her end the partnership if she wishes: you need a partner, not a third opponent, to play this game.