Gerben47

So we have a rule that does not apply on 40% of all hands (balanced ones). My rules for opening: * Rule of 20 or good rule of 19. * At least 10 HCP unless the distribution is very extreme AK Kxx Jxx xxxxx Pass: Rule of 19 and bad honors. QTx QJ9x AT8x Kx Rule of 20. A clear opening bid, not borderline at all. -- AQxx Axxx xxxxx (added a queen for clearness) Rule of 19 but no rebid. Pass. Switch the suits so that there is a rebid and I consider it an minimum opener. - x Axxxxxx Axxxx Now this is the kind of hand that can be opened with less than 10 HCP. 2 defensive tricks and a void for partner and few losers. If partner doubles them in a major he won't be a disappointment. Change one ace to the king and forget about opening. Compare this with: - x KJxxxxx KJxxx Weak with both minors or a diamond preempt is okay. 1D is not. KQT98 AJT9 xxx x Only rule of 19 but good spots, majors and all honors working together. 1S. Who needs Zar points?

Good post Justin! Zar points just don't work. We all know that more distribution equals more potential and that aces are undervalued. Zar points try to put this in numbers but there are many aspects it does not recognize as Justin pointed out. Also I think that some people open hands with few HCP with Zar points as an excuse that should not be opened, mostly this means hands with 8-9 HCP and much distribution. In my opinion hands under 10 HCP should either be passed or opened with some preempt. If you have a misfit then partner will drive to game with 13 HCP and you will be in 3NT with a combined 22-count and a misfit. Oh joy.

2NT (mixed raise). I'm an older junior...

Another impressive reply from inquiry! Great examples! I agree with Inquiry and not with Nikos about the intermediate ranges. The point of the "don't bid unusual 2NT with an intermediate hand" is this: If partner gives a preference, you don't know what to do. Example: No one vulnerable, RHO in first seat opens 1♦ and you have: Ax KQTxx x QJTxx A nice hand for unusual 2NT you'd think: 5-5 in the lowest unbid suits. You bid 2NT and partner bids 3♥. You have 5 losers which is pretty good, but partner was forced to pick one of your suits so he might have nothing, or he can have something but not enough to force. Conclusion: you don't know what to do next. This hand should bid like this: 1♦ opener as before, but now 1♥ overcall. LHO bids 1♠ and partner volunteers 2♥. Now you know that partner has something. RHO bids 2♠ and you jump to 4♣. This shows your long second suit and desire to play 4♥ which basically needs two key cards from partner to make, or it is a good save to whatever they can make in Spades. LHO bids 4♠ and partner can now make a well-judged decision: double, pass or bid 5♥. And on another day: Partner does NOT volunteer 2♥ but passes instead. RHO bids 2♠ and you bid 3♣. You will not go past the 3-level but you offer two suits to partner who knows you have this inbetweenie and can use that information to make a well-judged decision whatever happens next.

Let me just throw around a few loose turns: Hand type first Game before slam Let's have a look at this auction: 1♣ (pass) 1♠ (2♠) Which would you rather know from partner as the strong club opener? a) Responder has exactly 1 Ace and 1 King B) Responder has a GF response with at least 5♥ (this seems to be the fashionable thing to play) I don't think you will get many votes for (a)...

Does that mean that Checkback Stayman is not allowed? I.E. 1D - 1S 1NT (12-14 bal no 4S) -2C* (invite or better relay, asks min/max and distribution) This is a relay that is not GF so it is forbidden?

Hi, I have a couple of suggestions: 1) If people are asking to join the table (you hear doorbell) you cannot type in the chat. I would like to be able to ask other people in the room something. 2) People always want to reset the score. Can it be please be done in a way so that my own scores in the 'movie' window don't disappear?

That makes me wonder if you get enough mileage out of your 1NT opening bid. I'd rather include hands with a 4-card major to a) Preempt my opponents some more <_< Relieve the pressure from other opening bids So what's possible to do is to play 1NT as 11-15 and no 4-card major and 2C response as a range check (so 1D is unbalanced only) or to include 4M in the 1NT bid. The vague Precision 1D bid is a mess anyway, somehow you should take hands out of it.

Agree with your partner on both. 1st hand) Partner has only passed so I think this should be T/O. It is possible to play this as penalty but I doubt it is worthwile. 2nd hand) They bid 2NT double is penalty, partner thinks opps have 23 HCP at most and their suits are not breaking.

I would see as standard: 2D (2M) dbl = pass or correct 2D (2H) 2S = I know what major you have and will bid it now (I would never bid that, better to play this as a minor suit 1-suiter NF) 2D (2NT and higher) dbl = PENALTY. Partner preempted and after preempt dbl is penalty. 2D (dbl) pass = Unless you are short in D I want to play 2Dx 2D (dbl) rdbl = Want to play 2Dxx and maybe double someone later Other bids as without interference so 2NT strong inquiry and so on.

Let me react to the original poster's question. It is possible to play these kinds of preempts. There is a system called OltBrink which has been played in the highest Dutch competition that uses these kinds of opening bids, but instead of 0-10 it uses 0-7. An example hand can be found on my webpage. This hand occurred in the Dutch national team selections some years ago, so these were very good and very serious players. Let me add that I do NOT recommend this style to anyone. It is just an example what is possible. Although you probably gain on some hands the wide range aspect of this preempt make it very hard for partner to find the right contract if he is strong, and of course there is the danger to score -1100. I think one should have discipline when preempting, agreeing with partner the strength range and suit quality needed in different seats and vulnerabilities. In my style I can imagine opening some 0-point hands with a preempt but you would have to think of something like: [hv=s=s2ht98765432d2c2]133|100|[/hv]

I remember bidding a making 5♣ once on a combined 8-count but our opponents did not let us play it. The auction was: (2♣ strong) 3♣ (3♦) 5♣ (5♦) pass (pass) pass It did not seem the right time to make the cheap save in 6♣ because the bid of 8♣ over 7<not-clubs> would not have been allowed. Anyway, I feared a ♣ lead would concede a ruff and sluff so I led something else and 13 tricks were claimed. Our hands were: x x xxxxx Jxxxxx xxxx Jxx - AQxxxx I guess the problem is not bidding the game but to get opponents with a combined 32-count to allow you to play your game contract.

First hand east has a weak 2 in diamonds, but assuming he passes this is not a weak 1NT opening bid with 5♠. Unlike after hearts, you don't have a rebid problem with spades. North makes a minisplinter and south bids game. This hand is why I play transfer minisplinters. 3♣ shows a minisplinter in ♦ so they can't double and possibly find a save. My auction: 1♠ - 3♣ (mini in ♦) - 4♠ The game has a 39% chance to make on a ♣ lead and more on a different lead, good enough vuln. at IMPs. Second hand: 1♥ - 2♦ (2/1 GF) 2♥ minimum - 2♠ 3♦ ... Now it's tough and will probably end in 4 in either red suit.

Let me put this more strongly. If the director adjusts score on this board then he should return the appeal deposit out of his own pocket. I think his persistence has to do with his antipathy of Polish Club. I would open 1♦ playing SAYC or Acol or Polish Club or whatever other natural system I might be playing. (Yes PC is natural, in fact more so than SAYC). Nikos, you say that in French Standard you open 1♣ and then rebid 2♣. I respect the opinion of the French but I think it is terrible. Dragan says that if partner bids once more you can show your diamonds. Wrong! Are you ready to bid 3♦ with a minimum?

No. It's not my style. Discipline in preempts is very important and without agreement you have to assume standard style which means this is not it.

Well, I recognize something like my home-bred forcing pass system. http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~di...e/tuebpass.html If you would like to play this on BBO let me know!

I bid 6♥ then double 6♠ to show a spade loser.

No agreement but in the logic I have with my partner it should be a 2-suiter with longer spades and maximum for the overcall. Something like: AKJxxx x AQJx xx or the same thing with 4♥ instead. Gerben

Thanks for the responses. I think pass is defenitely out and so is 1NT, leaves 1♥ and dbl. This was played in a tournament and all four options were chosen at least once. The most interesting auction developed after dbl: 1♦ dbl 1♥ dbl 2♣ pass 2♦ 2♠ 3♦ Dbl of 1♥ was penalty, but what do 2 alternative bids 2♦ and 2♥ mean here (instead of 2nd dbl). Both natural or just one of them? Anyway, what do you think the full hand is and what do you bid now?

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s852hajt2daj74ca2]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] RHO opens 1♦, pick your poison! 1NT would be 15 - 18 balanced + stopper.

Control bid with 3-card ♠-support, probably short ♣.

If 3♣ shows extra's (normal) that was wrong. 3♥ looks like a strange bid as well. Looking at the diamond suit 3NT should be in responder's hand. 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ (minimum) - 3NT - pass seems to work well here even though the ♥ stopper is not great.

Pass. Lack of HCP Length and strength in opponent's suit A big danger in an unbid major Why are you considering double with a spade void?

Everyone at the table (even dummy!) is allowed to call the director after attention to the irregularity has been drawn, but everyone except dummy is allowed to draw attention to the irregularity. In fact the director MUST be called after someone draws attention to the irregularity. It is common practice, however, that whoever noticed the irregularity first calls the director. In this particular case anyone can call the director who will have no choice but the apply the Law, which is as Dr.Todd quoted: The auction goes back to redoubler who has to make a legal bid. Openers pass is cancelled without penalty and redoublers partner has to pass throughout. Brian: The situation you were thinking about was if partner makes an insufficient bid.

Agree with Free. I think something like: 3 6 1 3 and maximum for the previous 2♥ bid.