mikestar13

Phil is right if you don't have a firm partnership agreement. If you do, that's a different matter. For example, 1♦-1♥-4♦ makes a great deal of sense as a slam-worthy heart raise that wants to emphasize long, strong diamonds. This is, of course, forcing.

I count five fundamental styles of responding to a natural 1♠ opener:: 1. Up the line. 2 .Majors first, unless invitational+. 3. Majors first, unless game forcing 4. MAFIA , which is majors first always. 5 Transfers. With variation on whether to permit deviations on certain hands such as hrothgar's example. For me, 5>4>3>2>1, and I allow well-judged deviations.

This is exactly the right way to play Walsh style IMO, but I've known Walsh purist who would respond 1♥ even with ♠K in hrothgar's example changed to ♦K.

Axx Axx Axx Axxx isn't worth 19 to be sure. But it''s less of a lie to call it 19 than to call it 14. I would rate it a comfortable 17, fine for 1NT 15-17, too strong for 1NT 14-16. Note to fazzzoola: ACES ARE UNDERVALUED IN NO TRUMP. Just not as badly undervalued as in a suit contract (say 1/4 point vs. 1/2 point)..

My favorite Precision method nails it: 1♣ - 1♥ -1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ -3♠, where 1♥ is positive balanced, three suited, or major-minor canape, 2♣ and 2♦ are natural five+ card suits, and 3♠ is a splinter in support of diamonds, the opener can use RKCB.

If the laws say or imply that, it's plain crazy--if the contract is 4♥, there is no other possibility than hearts being trumps.

My first instinct is 3♥, high enough to get in their way,less likely to attract a double than 4♥. The hand is too weak for 1♥ and the shape is wrong for 2♥ unless you have unusual standards. Pass is not my choice but it may well work.

The whole room bids game on goes down with these cards. Mostly in 4♥, at imps someone will get to 5♦, at matchoints some intrepid soul will find his way to 3NT and get butchered. So if you can stop on a dime you have a good board--and if you stop on a dime on a very slightly different hand your result will be quite atrocious. The game may well be laydown, or may make even when it shouldn't (especially if the auction is unrevealing). It just isn't profitable to design a bidding system around staying out of game on a hand this good, H ands where stopping works are less frequent than auctions that will get messed up by opener's fear of getting dropped below game.

Agree entirely with either bid considered in isolation, but they work poorly together. If 2♥ promises four trumps, 4♦ is fine on shape (on strength maybe not). But if 2♥ may well be three trumps, 4♦ bidder absolutely must have five trumps. A moysian taking the tap in the long hand may well sink a slam even if substantial extra strength is held--if they tap you if the missing trumps are 4-2 they just guaranteed themselves an extra trump winner, even a 3-3 split will be troublesome, and 5-1 will cause the roof to cave in. Along with whatever else it shows in context, a splinter must guarantee an eight card fit.

I think this should show doubt in the passout seat, encouraging him to run but allowing him to play 3NT with some extras and spades securely double stopped opposite a small stiff. If redoubler were sure 3NTX makes, he could just pass; if sure 3NTX.is going down,he could bid something himself. In contrast, XX directly over the X is strictly "turn the cube".

West shouldn't be trying to draw inferences like "East must have a good hand, if he had a poor hand he wouldn't call TD. So I should change my pass." This is a very different situation from "I passed because I thought 2NT was a good raise or perhaps a good balanced hand that didn't want to redouble. Had I known it was a weak raise, I'd have had an obvious bid/double"

Definitely no because of the last sentence of the twelfth amendment: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Beautiful. GIB fails to ruff the opening lead when able against a grand slam! This is an error I have yet to see a human beginner make in the forty years I've played this game.

In general, partnerships for whom memory load is a factor really ought to consider whether or not to play comprehensive relay methods at all. I think the thread cited above presupposed a partnership that uses such methods would not have memory issues.

At equal vulnerability, 4♠ is unlikely to be an out and out save, but could easily be a make or save two-way shot. I would not want pass to be forcing. At matcpoints there an argument that it should be, but this is imps. I think most of us would be better off with fewer forcing passes, not more. The rule I suggest: Passes are forcing if and only if our partnership has done one of the following unmistakably based on strength not shape only: Voluntarily bid game.Forced to game.Opened a natural 2NT.Doubled for penalty (distressingly uncommon in the modern game).Redoubled for business.

For myself, 5=4=2=2 or 4=5=2=2 is a definite no for 1NT, even with a more notumpy hand than this. I open 1NT freely with 5M-3-3-2, and don't mind 4M-5m-2-2 shape. 2=2=4=5 or 2=2=5=4 are possible but I prefer not to open 1NT: 2-2 majors can mess up the response/rebid structure.

I don't know if C.C. Wei knew about Nottingham Club or not. I have understood that he derived it from Neapolitan club by substantial simplification including dropping Canape and using five card majors. But my understanding is from the Goren precision book. I have not read any of Wei's writings apart from Profit From Preempts, which is not relevant to the question. I would interpret the unqualified term "Precision" as meaning 1♣ SAF as the only unlimited opening, combined with five card major openings. A system which scraps Wei's 2♦ and opens 1♥ with exactly 4=4=1=4 is still "Precision": the deviation from five card majors is so infrequent partner can disregard it. OTOH, I would not regard the System Sabine Auken plays (frequent four card major openings) as "Precision", though she has a different take on it and does call her system "Precision". [sabine's system is an excellent system, I am only discussing terminology.] I would not describe Vanderbilt, Schenken, Blue Team, or Nottingham Club as "Precision" though there are undeniable similarities, especially in the last case. I would call a precision system essentially the same as Wei wrote about "Wei Precision."

This seems sound. 2NT as 5-5 minors will wrongside 3NT fairly often: when opener has positional stoppers in the majors. in contrast, consider the 1NT = 5+ spades unbalanced case where we probably play in spades anyway.

Maybe. But East is clearly gaming the system if hesitating with 13 spades. Are you saying director should allow this?

Assuming the director will rule correctly, double, then call the director if East has 13 spades. East should have known at the time she hesitated that an opponent could have been misled by the hesitation. So the score would be adjusted to 7♠ undoubted making. So double won't cost and will gain substantially if East doesn't have 13 spades. Even if you can't count on this director for a correct ruling, the probability of "I made a mistake" is greater than "I actually have thirteen spades" for Jeff Meckstroth, never mind the actual East.

This is a very pretty response structure for any Big Club system. A different set of followups would be needed if a different base definition of 1♣ were used, but this structure is an interesting starting point. I particularly like 1NT as 5+ spades unbalanced, risking wrong-siding the no trump on one of the least likely hand types to play in no trump. Do 2=2=(5-4) hands go into 1♥? Do the 2M bids imply 5-5 or better?

But the Red Chart does allow middle cards to have distinct meanings, for example Woolsey's T98=high SP 765=encouraging 432=low SP. What is illegal is odd-even or more complex card orderings, even if there is no third meaning..(After first discard). IMHO, this was probably what ACBL was trying to do with the "dual message" prohibition but they botched it. Compare the attempt to ban "relay systems" with the nonsensical definition of "relay".

The following links have some useful ideas about the 2♣ response: http://bridgewinners...ebulous-2c-bid/ http://bridgewinners...us-2c-response/ http://bridgewinners...-to-1m-opening/ You will need to modify these structures a bit as your 2♣ can include GF with long diamonds. Perhaps also the GF long hearts type after a 1♠ opening--but you might try 2♦ transfer to hearts, <11 or GF., or perhaps just GF with the weaker heart hands bidding 1NT.

2♣ followed by UNT if they boost it to 4M and probably 4♦ in the unlikely event they don't. No chance at all 2♣ gets passed out. Meckwell have been known to open 1♣ on a 13 count with extreme shape if they have the spades, but here the enemy does (and the hearts to boot).

[double post deleted]