32519

So how does one bid these hands when a natural weak 2♦ screws up the opening side? This hand was recently dealt at the table. North knows about a 10-card ♦ fit which makes a cross-ruff a nice prospect for those who have ways to explore for the slam despite combined minimal values. Or do you just give up on slam automatically because of the weak 2? [hv=pc=n&s=s9864h3dak9863cj6&w=skq752hqj7dtc9875&n=sahat865dj742cat2&e=sjt3hk942dq5ckq43&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2d(Natural%20Weak%202)p5dppp]399|300[/hv] Should North not perhaps have tried something else before bidding 5♦?

Which is better, Scrambling 2NT or Lebensohl, and why is it better?

How about a small adjustment here: Open with 1NT only when your singleton is in either minor suit. Then you needn’t fear partner transferring into your singleton suit when he has a crappy hand. People do these sorts of things for similar reasons that they include a 5-card major in the 1NT hand. It defines the HCP strength of your hand immediately.

The probability of being dealt two 5-card suits is considerably lower than being dealt a 6-card suit. So to chuck away the natural weak jump overcall into your 6-card suit in favour of a silly convention which is less likely to occur (or which can be covered by the Michaels/2NT combination), is losing bridge.

A lot of players have different defensive agreements versus, a) a weak NT (11-14 HCP), and b) a strong NT (15-17 HCP). Against the weak NT, a X is usually penalty orientated promising as your own agreements show here, 15+ HCP. Against a strong NT, a X is whatever you and partner agree to. One popular method promises a single-suited hand. Partner is expected to bid 2♣ regardless. Situation 1: Over a weak NT (12-14 HCP), deciding on your coarse of action depends on a number of variables, including, a) vulnerability, b) the quality and HCP strength of your own hand. 1. When the opponents are red v white and your hand has enough trick taking value along with partners 15+ HCP (partner is sitting behind declarer in this situation), you only need to take the contract down 2 for a better score than if you were in game yourself. Therefore pass and let declarer squirm and sweat. 2. When the opponents are white v red and you think your hand has enough trick taking strength to reach game of your own, then you need to make some sort of a bid to encourage game from partner. A popular guideline for responding to a t/o X is for a jump bid to show 9+ HCP. You can use that here. Your 9 plus partner’s 15 is enough for game. You score better in a game of your own than trying to take the opponents down. 3. With a completely useless defensive hand, it is better to pull the X to your longest suit for fear of the opponents making 1NT doubled which gives them a good score. So any non-jump pull of the X shows a crappy hand. Partner is expected to pass. Situation 2: 1. With a crappy hand, pass is easy. 2. With a competitive hand (6-8 HCP and a biddable suit), bid your suit. Don’t roll over to the opponents. Your side has the majority of HCP. 3. With a competitive hand but no biddable suit of your own, you can X for t/o of the suit bid and leave the next decision to partner (leave the X in for penalty with enough expectancy to take the contract down, or bid his best suit). 4. With a competitive hand and stoppers in the suit bid, you can try 2NT. 5. With GF values (9+ alongside partners 15+) make a cue-bid of the suit overcall. Situation 3: 1. One possibility is just to ignore the XX for minors and bid the hand as though your side has opened 1NT. Then 2♣ remains as Stayman, 2♦ and 2♥ remain as transfer bids. 2. Another possibility over XX for the minors, 2♣ shows both majors, longer ♥ and 2♦ shows both majors, longer ♠. Partner is expected to choose the suit. Then you can either pass, encourage game or bid game direct depending on your hand strength. You already know partner has 15+ HCP. 3. Over 2♦ for the majors, X = that is my suit partner. Next decision is partners. 4. Over the other natural bids, see above.

I think the question is silly. You play to win, not to appease your opponent’s volatile temperament. If that IMP you want to give up turns out to be the difference between winning and losing, you’re going to be livid with yourself later on. One of the tennis greats once said, “Show me a good loser and I will show you a consistent loser.” I favour the exact opposite approach; get your opponents really mad with each other as early as possible. Inevitably it affects their level of play and they start making more mistakes. Call it a distorted twist to Grosvenor’s Gambit if you wish. The bottom line: Go for the jugular and take no prisoners!

An easy slam was missed on this hand. How should N/S have bid this hand? [hv=pc=n&s=sk3hj874dt6ck8764&w=s75h95dakj532ct92&n=saqj64hakq2d4caq3&e=st982ht63dq987cj5&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2d(Weak%202)3d(GF%20cue-bid)p3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] Or was this hand another victory for the natural Weak 2♦. Valuable bidding space was consumed?

Another big drawback that I have encountered using the Rule of 20 are those times when the partnership hands do not dovetail. You end up playing – 1. In a NT contract short on HCP 2. Playing in a suit contract 1-level too high. In both 1 + 2 the contract ends up failing by at least 1 trick. The situation in 2 arises because the Rule of 20 is geared towards suit contracts. When the bidding goes e.g. 1♥-1♠-2♦-2NT-3♦, often you are now 1-level too high on a misfit hand short on HCP. Anyway, these are some of my own experiences using this rule. I think its time to chuck it out.

Is the Rule of 20 something else that needs to be dumped? I have had plenty of bad results of my own using this rule, for one very simple reason: How on earth is partner supposed to know that I have opened the bidding using it? Again, from my own experiences, I can add this – 1. Most of my gains from using this rule come when opener places the final contract. 2. Conversely, most of my losses from using this rule come when partner places the final contract. The latest bad result occurred at our local club earlier this week. As the dealer, I held 10 cards in the black suits and exactly 10 HCP. So I duly opened the bidding with 1♠ using the Rule of 20. Partner held a big hand and blasted straight into 4NT RKCB. After 5♣ from me (1 keycard), partner placed the final contract in 6♠ with only 1 keycard missing. The contract failed by 1, the missing keycard and a second trick in one of the other suits, when my 10 count just didn’t hold that vital additional value that partner was expecting. What sort of experiences have others had with this rule? Are your gains outweighing your losses?

After reading Zel's post above again, in conjunction with the Rusinow thread, it would appear as though Rusinow Leads have "adopted" Journalist Leads against NT contracts. The distinction between the two is starting to blur. If my understanding here is incorrect, then please help clarify it for me. The Rusinow thread has some nice examples of actual experiences at the table using it. Does anyone have some actual experiences to post here using Journalist Leads? That is the sort of info one doesn't readily find on the net. Thanks.

If you lead the top of a singleton, leading the bottom of a void is probably also part of your agreements. Is a cukoo bird, cuckoo?

Here is another thread I found on this topic; Rusinow, journalist leads. Why aren’t they popular?. Rusinow leads against a NT contract got a fair amount of support. The thread got 34 replies and 1934 views. It was started on 31 December 2007. So I haven't given up yet on trying to understand this style of leading. I'll go through everything again and decide whether I want to experiment with it or not. The information in this thread is highly unlikely to be available in a general description of what Rusinow Leads are anywhere else on the web.

I found this thread titled Rusinow Leads; like/dislike started on 22 March 2010. It received 12 replies and 287 views. After reading this, it seems as though there is a lot more to Rusinow Leads than what has been posted here so far.

Can you give some more detail on the 3rd and 5th spot leads? When leading 3rd, what does it mean to partner? When you lead 5th, what does it mean to partner? What is partner expected to do? 4th lead (the old Rule of 11) isn't part of this.

I would interpret leading the second highest in a sequence as an attitude lead. How does partner respond to the lead, regarding a) count in the suit, and b) attitude in the suit? Which of the two gets preference, count or attitude?

Is there any way that partner can differentiate between the two? Dummy and partner's holding in the suit are possible clues? When you lead second from touching honours, how many cards are you promising in the suit? My guess would be at least four (especially against a NT contract). This stuff is new to me, so please show some patience if my questions appear to be stupid.

Can anybody supply more info on Journalist Leads? 1. What are they? 2. When do you use them/not use them? 3. Pros 4. Cons 5. Do they clash with Rusinow Leads or are they an improvement on Rusinow Leads (see other thread) 6. Which is better? Rusinow or Journalist and why? 7. Maybe neither in favour of something else? Then what is the something else? 8. How many experts play Journalist Leads? 9. Anything else to add which can help?

Can anybody supply more info on Rusinow Leads? 1. What are they? 2. When do you use them/not use them? 3. Pros 4. Cons 5. How many experts play Rusinow Leads? 6. Anything else to add which can help?

How do you add the "Spoiler" to any hand posted?

I cannot believe that this is the ONLY difference between the two. A common approach that I see Acol players using is this - 2♣ = game invitational Stayman (10-12 HCP) 2♦ = game forcing Stayman (13+ HCP) In the post below, you are listing another difference.

I'm not entirely convinced with this argument of yours. South (the weaker hand) with his first bid is showing in what suit he has slam interest. If North (the strong hand) has a fit in the suit, then who better to control the subsequent auction? With no fit, North will make some other bid. There is no need to first get tangled up in auctions showing suits in which South does not have any interest. By the way, who is Hoyle? What is his claim to fame?

Let's use this as a new starting point. Then we might have an auction like this - 2♣ (22+ HCP) 3♦ (Natural, 6+ ♦, slam interest in the suit) 4♦ (Minorwood, co-operating with the slam try. With only 2-card support, opener would bid something else, in the hand posted this would be 3NT) 4♥ (1 key card) 6♦ (Good luck, hope this makes, I have the trump Queen)

This was the actual bidding sequence of the only pair who found the ♦ slam. None of the bids were alerted, so I am not sure what they all meant. 2♣-3♦ 3♠-3NT 4NT-5♣ [maybe showing 1 keycard for ♦?] 5♥-6♦ [don't know what the 5♥ bid can be] All pass Can anyone give a better description as to what all these bids could have meant?

This was the actual hand: [hv=pc=n&s=s82hkt87dkjt763c6&w=sq4h52da54cqt9542&n=sakj7ha4dq92cakj8&e=st9653hqj963d8c73]399|300[/hv] So now the bidding goes: 2♣-P-2♦-P 2NT-P-3♣ (Stayman)-P 3♠-P-4♦(?)-P TWO4BRIDGE has an interesting question here: 1. What is the expert standard agreement here, a or b? 2. If a, then does 4♦ over 3♠ become minorwood for the suit? 3. If minorwood, do you blast into 6♦ after hearing 3 keycards, or do you first enquire about the ♦ Queen? 4. If you first enquire about the ♦ Queen, how do you do so below 5♦?

Partner opens the bidding with 2♣, 22+ HCP and you hold this hand - [hv=pc=n&s=s82hkt87dkjt763c6&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2c(22+%20HCP)p2d(%22Waiting%22)p2n(Balanced)]133|200[/hv] After 2NT, is 3♣ the second negative or Stayman? After 2NT, is 3♦ natural or a transfer to ♥? So how do you explore for the ♦ slam in this sequence? Out of 16 tables, only 1 table found the ♦ slam. [incidently, on the actual lie of the cards, 6NT also made, although no one actually bid it. With South's distribution, the ♦ slam is the safer option.]