mikestar13

Real Diamond Precision: 1♣(1)-1♦(2) 1♥(3)-2♥(4) 3♣(5)-3♥(6) 4♣(7)-5♣(8) 6♥(9) (1) Artificial 16+ (2) 0-7 (3) hearts, may be only 4 with a longer minor, NOT balanced. Forcing one round. (4) 0-4, four hearts or three hearts and a stiff. (5) club suit, game forcing (2NT is artificial invite here) (6) confirms 4 hearts, not worthless (would bid 4♥) (7) ♣KQxxx or better ( 2 of top 3 honors) slam interest (8) The missing ♣ honor. (9) Take a shot that partner has some useful heart and or club intermediates. With something like ♠xxx ♥6432 ♦xxx♣K65, partner may well not show ♣K.

1) 1♦ 2) yes

Try this one: Kit Woolsey's Grunt Defense

In my favorite flavor of Precision: 1♥-2NT 10-15, 5+♥; GF Raise 3♦-3♥ Any void; asks 3NT-4♠ ♦void; Kickback 4NT-5♣ one key; queen ask 6♥-P got it but nothing else. Clubs are never shown, but East knows that West is likely to have them given his heart suit and diamond void, and if West has clubs, East's ♣Kx couldn't be better. A reasonable small slam, but a grand really needs ♠K in addition.

Invitational, this fits the current consensus. Other possibilities may be more efficient for regular partnerships who put in work on these sequences. Personally, my preference is forcing, in a context where 1♣-2♠=weakish, 6 cards, up to a seven count. Then 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♠=6 spades, constructive to invitational (8-11).

I really like the way you think on this issue :rolleyes:!

deleted accidental double post

In the modern game, you really can't swing the axe below game. The best you can do is make a takeout or card showing double and hope partner can leave it in. I don't totally love this style (I played rubber bridge for cash in the 70's, penalty doubles made me a lot of money) but it's the way it is.

Agree totally with Larry Cohen that the "rule of thinking" will get it right more often than the "rule of 7" (or for that matter, the "law of total tricks", or the methods in Lawrence's I Fought the Law.). Rules are useful to let you play at the game when you can't yet think, normal for beginners (and for some folks with 2000 master points). Face it, the "rule of 7" works more often than "grab the ace at the first trick" or "always hold up as long as possible" work, though any of these might be correct on a particular hand. Similarly, the "rule of 20" gets it right more often than "an opening bid requires 12 high-card points".

Interesting. For a really un-bridge-like bridge variant, how about everyone has one call then the auction is over; this is the way the bidding is handled is some forms of partnership Pinochle , for example. (Perhaps a second call would be allowed to double an opponent's bid or redouble an opponent's double would be allowed, but not bids.) Slightly more involved than bridge in the days before Auction Bridge, where dealer names trumps (or no trump) or passes that option to partner, who must choose, then the doubling starts (without limit, as long as the last double was made by an opponent, as in Backgammon).

Actually in a weak NT framework South African Texas is not bad: 4♣/4♦=I want you to play 4♥/4♠. 4♥/4♠= I want to play 4♥/4♠. This prevents the use of Gerber, a good thing with weak players.

Personally, I don't care for P forces XX methods: sometimes 1NTx is our best/least bad contract, why make it impossible to get there? My preference: 2 suit=escaping, 5+ cards in suit. P=I don't have a 5 card suit, run or pass according to judgement. XX (by UPH)=this is our hand, swing the aXe or pass it to me. XX (by PH)=no 5-card suit but I have 4 spades. 2NT (by UPH)=strong, too distributional to look for penalties After 1NT-(X)-P-P: 2 suit=running with 5 cards. XX=no 5 card suit, let's get out of here. P=let's try our luck. When showing 4 card suits we go up the line excepting when responder makes a passed hand redouble showing 4 spades--then supporting spades is first priority, obviously.. The idea here is that when we are scrambling with no five card suit, let them bid if possible. The XX=spades wrinkle by a passed hand is just a grace note: a passed hand can't hold a power XX, so this use is free.

IMHO, advanced styles which use transfer walsh or the like do well opening 1♣ on a doubleton and should not restrict it to the 4♠-4♥-3♦-2♣ case, especially if your style has a good unbalanced ♦ structure. But I am convinced that 5542 "short club" in an otherwise vanilla 2/1 or SAYC framework is inferior to 5533 "convenient minor". There is no point to this discussion in a 4 card major (for example Acol) framework, so 5 card majors must be assumed. As for the lead implications a 1♣ opener never suggests not leading clubs--the alternative lead does not need to be as good as in the case of an overcall or a major suit opening, but the alternative should be decent. Even a fully artificial 1♣ (for example Precision 1♣) which in no way whatever suggests leading clubs does not suggest not leading clubs! Perhaps your partner of the moment was trying for the "coveted" CHO (center hand opponent) designation.

First seat, I open this one 3♥ white v white, 4♥ red v white, pass red. Change ♠Q to ♠x and its 4♥ white, 3♥ red v red, pass red v white. Exchange ♠Q with ♥x, and its 3♥ red v white and 4♥ otherwise. Second seat, 3♥ white v red, pass otherwise with the given hand. Third seat, I never even think of not bidding 4♥. Forth seat, I pass it out. I never consider 2♥ in any circumstances. I do not claim these answers are "correct", but my best estimate of how I'd bid in absence of an agreement on a different style.

Maybe North should have opened 2♠. With 5 spades this good and 4 hearts this poor, it's not much of a lie to bid as if the majors were 6=3. This hand looks more like a one suited hand. This hand is not strong enough to open at the one level playing SAYC or 2/1. In Precision, 1♠ is more reasonable, but I still think I prefer 2♠. Had I elected to pass, I might choose 3♠ now as the least of evils, but it is for more dangerous than opening in the first place. The style of opening as often as reasonably possible works pretty well.

Borderline penalty double: I probably wouldn't do it, but also wouldn't criticize the bidding judgment of a player who did. No action other than double or pass need to be considered, regardless of your NT defense. CAPP is very simple and GCC legal, unlike many much superior methods; Multi-Landy, for example. This probably explains its popularity it North America: I don't understand why players from elsewhere would play it.

Never had a Gerber disaster with a non-beginner. For those partners who insisted on playing it, this is the rule I insisted on using: 4♣ asks for aces if and only if bid directly after a 1NT or 2NT bid which is our first natural bid of the auction. The opponent must be silent except for (1x)-1NT-(P)-4♣. GERBER IS OFF IN ALL OTHER SITUATIONS. Don't need it even then, but it lets Gerber-lovers scratch their itch once or twice a year without much potential for harm. I believe this is similar to the rules Mr. Gerber himself had when he invented this thing.

North hand is worth a 2♠ raise even if 3 points lighter, add a point and exchange the quacks for a couple of kings and you have an easy 3♠. So how can pass be defensible? Give the North hand 4 trumps and a stiff with 0 HCP and I would give a single raise opposite a 16-21 1♠, and surely the given hand is better than this.

A possibility for sane bridge jurisdictions (NOT ACBL) is to use 2♦ and 2 ♥ as Frelling while retaining 2♠ as the6 card spade suit. 2♠ is by far the most effective usual weak two, 2♦ less so, and 2♥ least of all: they can bid spades at the two level and know to give up on playing in hearts. 2♦ at least can present a problem to them with both majors if the suits aren't relatively equal.

I would prefer a 2♥ rebid on this hand as a heart fit is still possible, but 3♦ is OK on values. 3NT on a misfitting 8 HCP is out of left field unless partner visualizes you as at least a king stronger than you are. This would be true in some systems, but not in SAYC as I understand it.

1♠ playing Precision, pass playing 2/1. Make ♥Q into ♣Q and I open it in 2/1.

This hand needs downgrading--the 4-3-3-3 shape and the poor controls make the hand worth about 14. Do not open a 15-17 1NT. This is particularly important if partner bids game freely on a good 9 as many players do.

Are you Al Roth's ghost?

Clear pass at MP, much less at imps; the tops you get for -300 vs. -400 are so much less likely than going for too much or taking a phantom. At imps risk/reward is far worse.

A simple way to play the 2♠ transfer: weak with one (six-card or longer) minor, or weak with both minors (5-4 either way or longer). Opener assumes responder has both minors, then rebids 2NT if he prefers diamonds or 3♣ if he prefers clubs. Responder will place the contract.