mikestar13

Thought I'd share my current favorite set of responses to 1NT. For reference, this is used opposite a NT which is a bit wide range but strictly 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2 (five carder may be a major) If your NT is laxer on shape but tighter on values, you will likely want to make some modifications. 2♣ = Stayman .....2♦= denies 4 card major ..........2♥ = Garbage Stayman, 4-4 or better majors, less than invitational values. ..........2♠ = 5 spades, invitational, not balanced. -- then 2NT asks second suit. ..........2NT = natural invitation, may or may not have a 4 card major. ..........3♣/3♦ = game force with 5+ card minor. ..........3♥/3♠ = Smolen. ..........3NT = to play. ..........4NT = quantitative. .....2♥ =4 hearts, may have 4 spades. ..........2♠ = 4 or 5 spades, invitational. ..........2NT = natural invitation, no major interest. ..........3♣/3♦ = game force with 5+ card minor and 4 spades. ..........3♥ = heart raise, minimum. ..........3♠ = heart raise with slam interest. ..........3NT to play. ..........4♣/4♦ = splinter bid. ..........4♥ = to play, no slam interest. ..........4NT = quantitative. -- to use RKCB for hearts, bid 3♠/4♣/4♦ first. .....2♠ = 4 spades, denies 4 hearts. ..........2NT = natural game invitation, may or may not have 4 hearts. ..........3♣/♦ = game force with 5+ card minor. ..........3♥ = spade raise with slam interest. ..........3♠ = spade raise, minimum. ..........3NT = to play. ..........4♣/4♦/4♥ = splinter bid. ..........4♠ = to play, no slam interest. ..........4NT = quantitative. More installments to follow (it's after midnight).

Thought I'd share my current favorite set of responses to 1NT. For reference, this is used opposite a NT which is a bit wide range but strictly 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2 (five carder may be a major) If your NT is laxer on shape but tighter on values, you will likely want to make some modifications. 2♣ = Stayman

Missing the 4-4 spade fit is the price you pay for getting a lead into your 4 card spade suit when you don't have a fit. On probability grounds, I think the latter is more likely. Also 1NT is more likely to buy the contract than 2♠ when you do find the spade fit with a less than invitational values. Another advantage, using this style, the 1♠ rebid promises a real club suit.

Nobody plays forcing to 4m, which would indicate 4m is passable but 3NT is not (at least to a very fair number of players). When we have a minor suit fit isn't 3NT at least a possible contract? The distinction is between is game forcing and forcing to 3NT (which does indicate 4m is passable). Where a minor suit is not a possible contract (for example partner opens 1NT and you show game values with 5-5 majors) the distinction is meaningless, and as this type of situaton is not uncommon, it contributes to players and writers being careless in their terminology. I do think that it would be great if there were some standardization of terminology.

Com on guys, if your are looking for a funny system, how can you pass up 4NT as a specific jack ask?

What does (presumably support) double mean to your partnership? If it implies values, the East hand is worth an invitation, if it might be a a flat 11 that happens to have 3 bad hearts, it's rather less clear. I would upgrade the West hand to a 15-17 NT, then East is clearly worth a heart game.

This is exactly what my favorite partner and I play, but you have better-defined followups (which we will probably adopt). Ghestem is likely to get you too high, and in any case I don't think 5-5's are frequent enough to use three bids on, especially the devastating (1♦ )-3♣ sequence. If I really insisted on an unambiguous method, perhaps this: (1♣)-2♣ = ♠ and ♦. (1♣)-2♦ = ♠ and ♥. (1♣)-2NT = ♥ and ♦. (1♦)-2♦ = ♠ and ♥. (1♦)-2♥ = ♠ and ♣. (1♦)-2NT = ♥ and ♣. (1♥)-2♥= ♠ and ♦. (1♥)-2♠ = ♦ and ♣. (1♥)-2NT = ♠ and ♣. (1♠)-2♠ = ♥ and ♣. (1♠)-2NT =♦ and ♣. (1♠)-3♣ = ♥ and ♦. This make the non-cue bid suit show two other suits, so it can also be used on strong hands. I still don't like to give up a WJO, but if I must, let it be the cheapest.

This is a perfectly reasonable double of 1♦---of course, the year is 1905, the game is Auction Bridge and this is a penalty double. . . .

Thanks for the many helpful replies. My main concerns are keeping WJO's and (gasp!) GCC legality. Raptor is legal and worth a try but I will need some experience to evaluate the tradeoffs. 4-4 assumed fit was never in the picture for me, I assumed at least 5-4, and it's reasonable to insist on 5-5 on minor two-suiters. Virtually any use of the cuebid is legal. Avoiding the use of ELC would be a plus, but using it is not a deal-breaker. I would be willing but reluctant to sacrifice the 2♦ WJO but absolutely must keep the 3♣ WJO. I will carefully examine the suggestions with my constraints in mind, and would give due consideration to any other suggestions which may be forthcoming. Thanks again to all for the fine discussion of this topic.

One method I've always been interested in but never played is Max Hardy's two-suiter method: Equal Level ConversionTop and Bottom Cue Bids(1♣)-2♦ and (1♦)-3♣ as showing the minor and heartsIn the last two cases the major is 4 cards or a bad 5 and the minor is longer or substantially stronger if the bidder if 5-5. I've been unwilling to give up Michaels and especially the 3♣ natural WJO. But after some recent threads discussing two-suited preempts, I find myself rather less enamored with them. So for partnerships willing to give up on both Michaels and the Unusual NT an improved Hardy-like method is possible: With the two highest suits, use ELC.With the highest and lowest suit, cue bid.With the two lowest suits, bid 2NT.In all cases, the higher suit held is 4 cards or a bad 5 and the lower suit held is longer or substantially stronger as above. With a decent 5 cards in the higher suit, overcall in the higher suit and if not raised, bid the lower suit on the next round if expedient. Comments?

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario: the ACBL makes the multi GCC legal, but doesn't change the rest of the GCC. (This will never happen in the real world, but pretend it did.) Would the multi be worth playing in a GCC event if no interesting uses for 2M are legal? By the way, I know the GCC is idiotic, but the vast majority of ACBL players are stuck with it whether they wish to be or not. I'd love to hear opinions on this scenario and I'm not totally sure which I think is best. Call it thread hijacking if you wish.

For all of my strong club partnerships, 1♣-(4M) is not a forcing pass situation, so PDI can't apply. Do you really want to have to take a constructive call on 0 opposite a hand that may only have a 16 count? If they have shape, they may well have slam on with all your sides high cards placed for them and there own 4M call has preempted them out of it. You should be able to pass naturally and let them cut themselves with their own two-edged sword. If partner is not minimum he still has a call coming. PDI is useful in situations where you are sure to want to bid or double--this isn't one of them.

I'd pass this one without regrets--ask yourself if you would balance with a hand a king weaker over 1♠. I wouldn't.

Many players who normally lead A from AK do not use this agreement in partner's bid suit--because an unsupported ace is more likely the correct lead than in an unbid suit. There are never guarantees but you get better odds for leading the ace in partner's suit.

1NT for me, describes shape and strength well. Opening 1♣ leaves it too hard to convey the strength. Clearly it's reasonable to treat the clubs as a six carder, but do we underbid with 2♣ or overbid with 3♣ on our rebid. This hand is a systemic gain for bid clubbers, it is clear IMHO in that context to open 2♣: about as preemptive as 1NT and a better description. Big clubbers also have systemic loses on other types of hands, of course.

Never heard of this technique, how does it work? I prefer KI except in ACBL GCC events (where only Flannery is legal), but it can't figure out how it could be useful to use both treatments. I am quite willing to be convinced.

Clearly a pass on values, especially considering that 2♠ may be shaded. Make the hand about a queen (maybe a king) stronger and I can see this as an invitation. Double should not be penalty, but should have reasonable defense. With an offensively-oriented invitation, just bid 4♠. There is a great chance in that case it is either a make or a good save.

Mcphee posted this while I was writing my post. In view of this clarification, it seems obvious that the results should stand in case #2. As to the public flogging, this is an overbid but not by much.

Question 1 is the easy one: for such egregious cheating, the penalty is much too light. Make me the boss and we're looking at a lifetime ban, perhaps with the chance to asks for reinstatement after 5 years, if the overall circumstances suggest mercy. I'd need to be convinced that there were significant mitigating factors to even allow the possibility of reinstatement. Question 2 needs better facts--what exactly happened here. I do believe that members of Team A (or for that matter, members of Team B if had been any) should recuse themselves from considering the matter when it was appealed to the league. A rather settled concept of law in most jurisdictions is that no man should be a judge in his own case. Question 3 is also easy: vote for better leadership, throw these guys out.

Two thumbs (and a big toe) up for this :D! I can remember reading Culbertson's Blue Book and one of Sydney Lenz's books (can't recall the title) where the authors rejected this idea. Back then it was actually controversial. But at the time of Culbertson's Gold Book (six years after the BB, IIRC) 1/1 was so much expert standard that Ely C. taught that it was forcing, just like everybody else did.

Punting 6NT on this hand is better than 2♠ without 4 of them. Why on earth is anyone afraid of landing in 4♣ in a hand which clearly wants to be in slam? The reasons for bidding 3♦ instead of the direct 6NT jump: 1) Get to the right slam 2) There may be a grand slam if the fit is right. Or go right ahead and bid 2♠, then when you eventually bid 6NT, partner can evaluate his cards and bid 7♠, expecting to snag the thirteenth trick with that lovely 4-4 spade fit you (don't ) have! Wouldn't everybody like 7♠-1 better that 6NT=? (Well everybody holding the defender's cards, that is.)

My own preference in for Danny Kleinman's method here, for high cards in both balanced and unbalanced hands. Very different from Banzai points but not as extreme in the other direction as ZAR. No counting method is a replacement for judgement, but some kind of tiebreaker when your judgement doesn't provide an answer seems better than a blind guess. I seem better able to learn from my evaluation mistakes this way, and a suspect I am not unique. At least when I count something I know why I made a certain evaluation, whether for good or ill. When I guess I don't know why I guessed a certain way, so I don't learn much right or wrong.

In these 3-level competitive sequences, most of my partnerships follow Kit Woolsey's advice in his book Matchpoints: there are no invitational sequences, if your hand is worth a game invitation, just bid game and let them guess. Notwithstanding the name of the source, that stategy works quite well at IMPs, too. He also suggests a similar strategy at the 5-level with slam invitational hands. This is a special case of his general principle that one should choose the action that has more ways to win.

I second this-- I adjust N/S to 3NT-1 because of North pulling in a notch and only raising to 2NT and a hand that virtually everybody would bid game opposite 15-17. Sounds like a CPU to me. North bid as if he knows that South either 1) often forgets, or 2) often upgrades, either of which the opponents are entitled to know. Might instead give N/S a PP if that is more appropriate in the EBU, I'm guessing here. Redress for E/W I'm less sure about--how would they have bid or defended differently if given proper disclosure?