32519

OK, so I have rephrased the OP as the original was bad. The Sandwich NT gives the opponents the hand layout and general HCP distribution. This description favours a 5/5 distribution in the two unbid suits and 5-10/11 HCP. When the opponents choose to bid (in my books, stupid conventions), how can we use the information exchanged to our sides advantage? Consider this deal: [hv=pc=n&s=saqt8hkt75dq963c6&w=s53haq42dkt752c92&n=sj4hj9863djcakj85&e=sk9762hda84cqt743&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1dp1h1n(Sandwich%20NT)]399|300[/hv] On the hand posted, after East bid the Sandwich NT in 4th seat, North decided to shoot for game not knowing that his partner had opened an 11 count. On a combined 22 HCP the contract still made as East was marked as the most likely holder of the ♠K for the finesse. The hand layout was also known. South has the ♠ suit well covered and a singleton in the ♣ suit. Despite a minimum 11 HCP count, the South hand is suddenly worth much more after the Sandwich NT overcall. South needs to find a bid to be able to differentiate between – 1. A hand happy to settle for the part score. 2. A hand interested in game. 3. A hand interested in slam. So how will South do this? How about this scheme? 1. A hand happy to settle for the part score: A simple raise from 1♥ to 2♥ 2. A hand interested in game: Bidding the lower of the 2-suits shown by the opponents conveying this message, a) I have a fit with your suit partner, and b) I have one or both of the opponents suits shown well covered. Bid game if your hand is suitable. 3. A hand interested in slam: Bidding the higher of the 2-suits shown by the opponents conveying this message, a) I have a fit with your suit partner, b) I have one or both of the opponents suits shown well covered, and c) I have a big hand interested in slam. Using this scheme, the Sandwich NT bid has given the show away. N/S will now find an easy ♥ game despite a combined HCP count of only 22. So is the Sandwich NT another convention that should be dumped?

Having watched as well as listened to much of the commentary on the recent 2nd WMSG, the impression I got was that whenever the team was under threat of being eliminated, the sponsor would take a back seat allowing (hopefully) for the pros to get the team through to the next round. Some questions: 1. In a situation like this, how are master points calculated at the end of the tournament when four members of the team carried a heavier load than the sponsor and his partner? 2. Having a sponsor on the team doesn’t necessarily mean that the best players are representing a particular country? 3. In fact neither does it mean that the best team is representing a particular country. Another team may have been performing more consistently in national tournaments leading up to the WMSG. However due to lack of finances they were unable to represent their country. In steps the sponsor who does have the money to cover the cost of his team and so a lower performing team gets to the WMSG? How does all this work?

I was under the impression that Transfer Stayman was standard amongst Precision players. In the sequence: 1♣-1NT 2♣ becomes Transfer Stayman to keep the strong hand as declarer. 2♦ = 4-card ♥ suit 2♥ = 4-card ♠ suit 2NT denies a 4-card major I have seen some Precision players reply 3♣ over a 2♣ Stayman bid promising two 4-card majors. But I guess its all a matter of partnership agreement.

The dumbest agreement I have seen is something played by one of the pairs at our local bridge club. A 1♦ opening in 1st or 2nd seat is natural promising a 5-card suit. However after 2 passes, a 1♦ opening in third seat is made regardless of the actual hand strength or holding in the suit. The bid is intended as a semi-psyche. I’ve lost count on how many bottom boards this pair got with this ridiculous bid when, not holding the boss suit they conveniently reopened the bidding for their opponents and either, 1. Lost the part score battle to the boss suit, or 2. Played some unmakeable contract when everyone else passed the hand out.

♦ have been confirmed as the trump suit. I would read the 6♣ bid as asking for the Ace. Bid 7♦ confirming the ♣A. Signoff in 6♦ denying the ♣A. So 7♦ is my bid.

I find this post of yours quite intriguing. I would love to hear more on the reasoning behind it, why “the expert consensus is that "Stolen Bid" is one of the worst ideas around.” Partner opens the bidding with 1NT (15-17 HCP). RHO is holding a hand with which he is willing to compete. So his overcall is either natural or conventional. However as responder you also want to compete. Unfortunately by the time the bidding gets to you the HCP still available are starting to run out. So you wanting to enter the auction as well will probably with a distributional hand of your own. 1. A natural overcall by the opponents has “stolen the bid” which you would have used for Jacoby Transfers e.g. 2♥. Without the “stolen bid double” responder has to bid 2♠ directly now and the weaker hand becomes declarer. 2. A conventional overcall e.g. 2♣ promising both majors; doubling the bid as your real suit gives opener some more information on the hand layout enabling him to make a better decision as to what level to compete the auction.

This is purely a random thought, shooting from the hip - 1. Use Michaels with a strong 2-suiter (16+ HCP) showing slam interest. It gives you a bit more wriggle room. 2. Use Leaping Michaels with an intermediate 2-suiter, topping out at 15 HCP. The Leaping Michaels bidder in this situation doesn't have any interest in moving past game. Partner will take control of the bidding with any slam interest.

The ♠ slam is on here but only if played by South (South needs to protect both of his kings). So how would the bidding go with the options already posted in this thread? Option 1: mfa1010 (A slight modification here to the sequence suggested sees the ♠ slam home). [hv=d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp2h4d(Leaping%20Michaels)p4h(Agreeing%20Spades%2C%20mild%20slam%20interest)p4n(3%20keycards%2C%20above%20minimum)p5c(Do%20you%20have%20the%20trump%20Queen%3F)p5h(Yes%2C%201st%20or%202nd%20round%20Heart%20control)p6s(This%20should%20make%21)ppp]133|100[/hv] The contract is played from the “right side” protecting South's kings, so this is a winner. Option 2: Frances Hinden [hv=d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp2h4d(Leaping%20Michaels)p4h(Agreeing%20spades%2C%20slammish)p4n(Keycards%20for%20spades)p5c(1%20keycard)p]133|100[/hv] What now? North doesn’t know if the Keycard is the ♣A or the ♥A. The best North can do is signoff in 5♠ which makes on a ♣ lead. The ♠ slam from North is doomed. Option 3: TWO4BRIDGE This runs into the same problems as option 2.

[hv=pc=n&s=st63haj5dkck76432&w=s74hkqt972dt94caq&n=sakq52hdaqj765cjt&e=sj98h8643d832c985]399|300[/hv] Board 14 Sweden versus Poland: Michaels versus Leaping Michaels? Balicki sitting North chose Michaels (3♥) over Leaping Michaels (4♦) when Nystrom sitting West opened 2♥ in third seat. With such a powerful 2-suiter, what would be the reasoning for bidding Michaels and not Leaping Michaels?

For those who were listening to the voice commentary Monaco versus Sweden, on board 10 David Bird made a classic comment regarding Jacoby 2NT. His comment “Making a game forcing Jacoby 2NT bid is pretty useless on its own. It’s all about the continuation bidding. Showing distribution is not enough. Opener needs to be able to convey a minimum hand or a hand containing extras.” He suggested a follow up bid of 3♣ to show a minimum with opener. Anything else would show extras. What do others feel about this suggestion?

I tried to do a topical search of the BBO Discussion Forums for all threads on the XYZ Convention. The way the search engine is currently set up, this is not possible. I keep getting the following error message – “One or all of your search keywords were below 4 characters or you searched for words which are not allowed, such as 'html', 'img', etc, please increase the length of these search keywords or choose different keywords.” Help!! Or is there some other way that I can pull up all the threads on the XYZ Convention?

There is a lot you haven’t told us here. Is the overcall on level-2 natural or conventional? Also, what is the vulnerability? The answer to those questions changes the meaning of the X. On the 2-level: If the overcall is natural and the vulnerability equal, then X = “Stolen Bid” for both Stayman and Jacoby Transfer Bids (could even be 4-way transfer bids as well if the overcall was 2♠). If the overcall is natural and the opponents are red v white, then X = penalty orientated. If the overcall is conventional, then the X shows interest in penalising at least one of the suits shown by the opponents e.g. Multi Landy or DONT On the 3-level: With the opponents red v white, then X = penalty orientated. With the opponents white v red, then X = negative. At equal vulnerability, then X = negative.

In my books, an appropriate system incorporating Gazzilli is streets ahead of Precision. Why? The answer is straight forward. Against good opponents, the Precision 1♣ opening is vulnerable to aggressive pre-empting (I think it was Vampyr who suggested that the 1♣ opening is Precision’s biggest weakness!). Depending on the level of the pre-empt and the vulnerability, the 1♣ opener may never get to show his real suit. Now compare that to an appropriate system incorporating Gazzilli – 1. You get to show your real suit immediately, sidestepping any possible pre-empt. 2. The 2♣ follow up bid now shows the 16+ HCP hand (equivalent to Precisions 1♣ opening). 3. Responders second bid now gives an indication as to whether or not game is on. I see Gazzilli as a serious attempt to overcome Precision’s shortcomings (although I do admit you still run into enough problems with hands not dovetailing well).

Whatever you do, just don’t try and build Gazzilli into a system that is wasn’t designed for. You are going to run into a wall like so many other Gazzilli threads in these forums bear testimony to. I found 20 threads with “Gazzilli” spelt correctly, another 7 spelt “Gazilli” (only 1 z), and 2 spelt as “Gazz.”

That article on Richard Pavlicek's site has some other very interesting reading "What flavour Two Diamonds?" Seems like Multi scores the worst (another of my pet hates). Thanks a million for the link. Much appreciated.

If the hand belongs to the opponents, how do you parachute out of 1NT after say e.g. a penalty double? Escaping to the 5-card major now is silly. How could 2M in any way play better than 1M? The question was about the DRAWBACK of including a 5-card major in your 1NT when partner is too weak to respond. Without a trump suit you have no way to stop the opponents running your 2-card suit. Naming your 5-card major immediately has other advantages. Partner with an otherwise bust hand could easily have a distributional fit with your suit (Law of Total Tricks). Immediately lifting the auction to level-3 (or even level-4) when the hand belongs to the opponents makes it tough for them to enter (especially at favourable vulnerability and the major is ♠). Many players are big fans of Bergen Raises. Including a 5-card major into your 1NT range reduces the use or effectiveness of Bergen Raises. Since this thread was started I have swung from the anti-Puppet camp to the pro-Puppet camp and now back to the anti-Puppet camp again. The more I see posted on this topic the more convinced I am that Puppet Stayman is just plain dumb! Puppet Stayman must be losing bridge. To repeat the question, here it is again – With proper partnership agreements, you should always be able to find game after 1M and 15-17 HCP. The only concern is that the weaker hand may become declarer in 3NT. I cannot see how this poses a problem for Precision players where the weaker hand is often declarer.

What is the expert standard treatment when there is a double over your Inverted Minor Suit Raises in this sequence: 1♦-Pass-2♦-X? What would the double mean? My guess is that it would be a takeout for the majors (much like 2♣ over 1NT = takeout for the majors when playing Multi-Landy).

The biggest drawbacks for including 5332 hands (5-card major) in your 1NT (or 2NT) come when partner is too weak for either Puppet or Stayman, not when he has a game force. Any thoughts?

Didn't fully undstand what trevahound suggested. How about this? 1♦-Pass-2♦-2M Now what? X = Penalty? Asking for stopper to play NT? (other major stopped) 2NT = Invitational to 3NT? (the suit bid by opps is stopped) 3m= To play, hand more suitable for offence than defence? 3M = GF cue, shortness in opps suit? Inviting a slam try cue bid sequence? 3NT = To play? (the suit bid by opponents is well stopped)

What is the expert standard treatment when there is interference over your Inverted Minor Suit Raises e.g. 1♦-Pass-2♦-2M? Since the 2♦ bid is merely game invitational, 10-11 HCP (usually) and denying a 4-card major, what do opener’s next set of bids mean? And how is partner expected to react to each option?

Some play Inverted Minors as – 1. Game Force (with or without a 4-card major) 2. Game Invitational (denying a 4-card major) Which sort of systems would include method 1? It’s certainly not part of any system that I am familiar with. This would appear to be a “partnership agreement” thing. What then does this sequence promise: 1♦-2♣? Natural below GF strength?

I've seen a number of posts criticizing Max Hardy's methods, so I'm not too keen on getting his book on 2/1. Anyone have a suggestion on a modern up to date book on 2/1?

Inverted Minor Suit Raises according to my source are not part of 2/1. Yet they would certainly appear to be superior to standard treatments. So why not just make them standard, or is my source hopelessly outdated? If so, does anyone have the title of a good up to date book on 2/1 incorporating all the latest recommended bidding sequences? Shep’s website has a nice treatment for Inverted Minor Suit Raises. It can be found here.

... I play Stuppet

The Links Bridge Club in Johannesburg, South Africa may well be one of the largest clubs anywhere. On any given Saturday afternoon they can have up to 100 tables divided into sections A-H. The players get assigned into the relevant section based on their last four average scores. The lower the average, the higher the section you are allocated to. Assigning or calculating a score goes like this: Winning the A section = a score of 0, second place = 2, third place = 4, etc. Winning the B section = a score of 2, second place = 4, third place = 6, etc. Winning the C section = a score of 4, second place = 6, third place = 8, etc. The same pattern gets repeated all the way down to section H. Using your last four scores ensures that you need to be on your game every week, not just 1 random lucky week. With this scheme for seating arrangements you get players of similar skills playing against each other. Everyone wants to play in the A section because then you can announce “I know something about this game called bridge.” When it comes to national selection, interprovincial selection or interclub selection, it is the players who are consistently in the A section who inevitably progress further. Conversely if you are assigned to the H section every week, your game sucks. The only way you can get into a higher section is to up the standard of your own game. A club with enough players can look at doing something similar to ensure that players of equal strength are playing against each other. A Mitchell movement is used.