mikestar13

I did indeed apologize, I had taken five whole seconds to decide; unfortunately partner has already bid, forgetting that I, not he had dealt.. Partner played mostly duplicate, though not very sensitively to tempo or his own skill(?). He liked to preempt like a maniac white vs. red, and somehow thought that was also a good style in money bridge. I can't blame him, it's so much easier to look at the markings on a duplicate board than to remember whether or not you had just dealt a pack of cards.

This game was at a senior center--the penalties tended to fall on young whippersnappers (40 year olds and younger) who were new to the game and had been told that "psychics are illegal in this club" but not the detailed rules of what a psychic was. I found out the rule the hard way as a player (invited guest of a regular) in the days before I was directing. I had just gotten my director's card and was hired a few months later to replace a director who had died (same one who had penalized me). I couldn't get the club's governing board to rescind the rule, but I did announce it in detail before the games I directed. And yes, an occasional player violated even then (first offenses only)--some misbids, some for laughs, more than a few as protests.

Back in the days, I directed at a non-sanctioned club which banned psychics (as well as sanctioned clubs who did not--I badly needed the money). They defined a psychic as deviating more than two HCP from the disclosed strength or more than one card from the disclosed suit length. (Special tighter restrictions applied to 1NT openings but not overcalls). These rules were extremely distasteful to me, but were at least clear. Penalties were severe: 1st offense was worse of Ave- or table score, 2nd offense in same session was automatic zero, 3rd offense was disqualified and placed last. Second offenses could be punished as third offenses if adjudged egregious (which I never did, but other directors in this club did). ***Kiethhus' bid would not be a psychic at this club.*** (Emphasis added to focus on the point of the story.)

Thirty some odd years ago I had a 33 count including ♠AKQx. I dealt at favorable, and while I was trying to figure out whether or not to blast 6NT, my partner opened 3♠ out of turn on ♠J seventh and out--barring me from bidding the best hand I held in several lifetimes. So it was 3♠ making 7 when we had nineteen tricks in notrump. For some reason, the opponents were inordinately pleased (this was a money game, maybe this had something to do with it?).

Yes, a Precision 1♣ opening lacking a heart control is possible but not likely. South will investigate controls, knowing from the get-go that the values for slam are present. There are 32 HCP combined hands with fourteen of more playing tricks that don't make slam because the missing 8 HCPare two aces. As for the exact North hand with ♥K converted into ♥x, no I would open the resulting 16 point piece of s*** with 1♣ even playing a Precision version that opens flat 16's 1♣. (Disclosure: I emphatically do NOT belong to the Never Downgrade school.):rolleyes:

With North dealer, North opens 1♣ and South knows slam is good ...

Off Topic: Can't avoid mentioning that this is a gimme for big clubbers, South opens 1♣ and North has the values for 6NT right there (though he will go slow--a grand could easily be on if South has all four aces and a little extra). Of course there are other hands where the 2 over one bidders laugh at us....

Suggestion for future revision of the GCC ,alerting rules and the system card: Add a check box for "may have a singleton" to the card, require an announcement, and amend the GCC to read "any defense to a 1NT opening that may have a singleton". My real suggestion, of course is that the ACBL grows up and adopts something more reasonable like EBU, for example. But I really doubt that will happen.

Woolsey-style Precision: 1♣-1♦ 1♠-2♦ 3♠-4♦ 6♠ 1♣ = 16+ 1♦ = 0-7 1♠ = 4+ spades unbalanced, may have longer minor, forcing. 2♦ = 5-7, exactly 3 spades. 3♠ = Agrees spades, forcing to game. 4♦ = Qbid. 6♠ = Slam has to be good, grand not possible barring miracles.

Just too strong in my view. Change the ♣K to ♣T and I would upgrade the 14 count to open a 15-17 1NTwithout batting an eyelash.

What they well-meaning "there's no luck in duplicate bridge" crowd (do they say it in the same tone as "there's no crying in baseball"?) are trying to say is that duplicate bridge is a truer test of skill than rubber/Chicago bridge because there is significantly less luck involved--not that there isn't a fair amount of luck involved. This statement is true, but not as catchy as the untrue statement they are making. On a related note some of these same persons dismiss non-duplicate forms of bridge as being mostly or all luck, a statement that is also untrue. Back in the days, I made a significant contribution to paying my rent by playing Chicago bridge for money, though I had some spectacular losing sessions along the way. I doubt I could have done that tossing coins or buying lottery tickets....

Read S.J. Simon's Why You lose at Bridge. the chapter "Fixed by Palookas" is on point for this discussion--psyching against weak players is self-defeating. But how can you know someone you are playing against in a national event is a bad player until you've seen them in action? The OP doesn't describe a situation where the opponents definitively showed themselves to be unskilled on board one so he threw a psyche at them on board two: he estimated their actual skill higher than it was and tried to psyche them, reasonably enough. Were I director, I might consider advising them to be grateful for the complement (undeserved, though I wouldn't say that).

WRT item F, I am prepared to argue for the extreme lack of merit for Stolen Bid Doubles. Worse than almost anything else. Exception: a SBD of a 2♣ intervention is a reasonable treatment if and only if the 2♣ bidder has no known suits (for example, Cappelletti 2♣= any single suited hand).

Edgar Kaplan advocated for takeout doubles of suit overcalls of a weak NT to collect more penalties. The NT opener is known to be balanced and is more likely to have four cards in the enemy suit than responder. Plus some of the lost penalties when responder does have the length come back when opener reopens with a takeout double after responder's pass. This last part happens even more frequently after a strong NT, as opener is able to reopen more often. I have been in this camp ever since I read the KS system book back in the 70's, and it has paid well.

Best possible use of 2NT-3NT = "Let's play 3NT" Now 3♠ can be a minor suit slam try, with 3NT as opener's default bid, but opener can bid higher to show suitability for either or both minors. Say 4♣=like clubs, 4♦=like diamonds, 4♥/4♠=Qbid (Ace) liking both minors. 4NT=likes both minors but can't bid 4M, is one possibility that isn't too hard to remember.

Off topic, but not totally: Legend has it that a blackjack dealer caught player cheating by sneaking a few chips off of his bet if he expected to lose the hand, or sneaking a few extra chips onto his bet if he expected to win. In spite of this advantage, he was playing so badly that he was losing heavily. Dealer was unsure how to handle this and consulted the pit boss whose response was "Let him keep playing as long as he keeps losing. If he starts to win, call me over and we will have him arrested."

Obvious 2♣, intending a 2♠ rebid. A player who struggles with whether to open 2♣ with these cards is trying to remember whether his partnership is playing 2 over 1 or Precision. If the former, 2♣ is textbook.

Totally agree--the grand is good with these cards, and lacking them, a small slam should make in 2 cases: Partner controls clubs.Clubs aren't lead.If we stop in six, I'm going for 6NT in case partner is ♣Kx(x+).

I rather like passing flat 11's and poor 12's and don't mind a wide range 1NT, I should probably give MICS a closer look. With the adaptation suggested above, the weak balanced problem disappears.

Echoes of Sidney Lenz and the "challenge" this is deliciously ancient.

I would have bid 3♣ with either East or West, both a shade under strength, but reasonable because this hand probably won't play in 3NT anyway--the question is how we get to 6♣ (examples given upthread). If we don't have the stuff for six we play 5♣, no disaster here even at match points as 3NT is very unlikely to make an overtrick if it makes at all.

The double of 2♠ should be takeout (though partnership agreement is essential). It facilitates the handling of game invitational flattish hands, and it will collect more penalties than a penalty double. Because NT opener is considerably more likely than responder to have spade length if either of you does, 1NT-(2♠)-X for takeout-(P); P with spade length will happen considerably more often than 1NT-(2♠)-X for penalties. Edgar Kaplan advocated this view when he and Alfred Sheinwold were working out the KS system (which uses a weak NT-- but I prefer this treatment after a strong NT as well).

Double is easy. With your strength and spades, partner is extremely unlikely to make a penalty pass--and the rebid over the dreaded 4♥ is 6NT. (over 4♣ or especially 4♦, I might be searching for a grand.)

West's double is a bit too aggressive for my tastes, but why oh why doesn't East pass it for an easy 800? With the waste ♣Q, East should know the West is more likely than usual to be (sub)minimum, so slam is unlikely. Take the money.

Petkov never seemed to grasp that "Bergen Points" were never advocated as a general hand evaluation technique, but specifically to decide whether to open a hand at the one level, which even Marty Bergen believed and taught requires a modicum of defense (HCP) as well as shape. Petkov does show that the so called Bergen Points are not that good an evaluation technique, though better than HCP alone, when the decision is whether to invite or bid game or slam.