32519

When I was still playing Precision, after 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ a jump bid or a reverse bid second time round by opener promised 14-15 HCP, close to a maximum for the limited opening. The idea was to enable partner to better judge the final spot.

I fully agree that 4♠ after 3♥ would be ambiguous. In the actual bidding sequence up to that point, is it? 1. Kickback for ♥? 2. Exclusion for ♥, void in ♠? 3. Splinter bid? 4. Something else? North was forced to make a “temporising” bid. 3♠ for me is still a cue-bid promising first or second round control in ♠. North still has slam ambitions. Over 4♥ North pushed on to 5♣. Why would he want to play in game in a minor versus game in a major? You have to take an extra trick for an inferior score. Freely bidding on over 4♥ probably shows first round control in ♠. With South holding the Ace it must surely be a void? What must South do now? The first bid of 4♥ has already denied a ♦ control. If North’s ♦ control is the King and not the Ace, you don’t want to be in a ♣ slam with the ♦ lead through the North hand. Having said that, South can bid 5NT as “pick a slam” or bid the ♥ slam directly (not the ♣ slam). Pays your money and makes yer pick.

If this analysis of yours turns out to be correct (the ♦ issue), then I would think that partner has the Ace or King of ♦ and is searching for the other top honour in search of a grand slam (either ♥ or ♣).

I see the hand differently to what others have already said. Not having discussed Serious / Non-Serious 3NT, I would interpret 3♠ as a singleton or void, slam interest with a double suit fit. 4♥ denies any ♦ controls, yet North pushed on past 4♥, surely indicating a ♠ void and the needed ♦ control. I would bid 5NT now as “pick a slam.”

Interesting question, but where are all the ♠? Partner bid 5♣ voluntarily over 4♥ so he must surely have some values (probably a ♥ void as well). Both sides appear to have a huge trump fit and shortage in the opponent’s suit, probably intending to cross-ruff the hand out. The ♦ suit is just too anaemic to risk 6♣. If partners HCP is something like ♣KJ and ♠KQJ you still have a potential problem with the ♦ suit. I would pass. At MPs, any plus score is obviously better than a minus score.

If your partnership plays Puppet Stayman as well, just make sure that whatever method you choose for the minor suit slam try doesn't in some way or another clash with your PS continuation sequence.

With that nice ♠ suit it is unlikely that the opponents are going to outbid you. Those that tried and ended in 4♦ went down 2. Weak Two Bids in 4th Seat have been discussed before. There is another reason why I won’t open the hand with 2♠ in fourth seat. It violates the rest of my system agreements. In the other thread I posted that my agreements in fourth seat have been “flipped.” For your benefit I have copied that post in here.

I’ll have a shot at answering my own question. As bridge bidding became increasingly aggressive, the number of combined HCP required for game in 3NT (or 4 of a major) has in some circles between reduced to 24 (I believe it once stood at 25 HCP). So with 40 HCP in the pack, on average each player will be dealt 10. The 16 HCP comes from being dealt your own average quota of 10 plus a further 2 from each of the other 3 players. Those who have dropped the combined HCP for game in 3NT or 4 of a major to 24 can convey the message in a single bid from each partner. Opener: I have my quota of 10 HCP plus a further 2 from each of the other 3 players. Responder: Nice to know! I still have the balance of my 10 HCP. Let’s push for game now.

I don’t see any need to pre-empt this hand in fourth seat at all. It exceeds the requirements for the Rule of 15 (10 HCP plus 7X♠ = 17). You have the boss suit 7-cards strong so there is absolutely no need to run the risk of overbidding the hand with a 3-level or 4-level pre-empt. Converting a plus score into a possible minus is just dumb. Therefore I will open the hand with 1♠. I disagree with those who chose to open the bidding with 4♠. The hand isn’t going to take any tricks in the side suits. The lead will be through dummy and any trick taking potential in dummy will be severely hampered (both the opening lead and the subsequent play of the hand). If you want to play in 4♠ then let partner play the hand, not you. Therefore I would rather open 4♦ as Namyats and let partner play the hand in 4♠.

I know what "Reputation" is. I have no idea what "Rating" is (see below). Surely someone must know what this is? Barmar / Inquiry? What about you guys. One of you must know what "Rating" is?

Obviously you need to be a "somebody" to get here. Does the client “pay” the pros on his team a “monthly salary?” After all they also have bills to pay etc. Is it a contractual agreement for a specified period e.g. a year? What does the client gain from the relationship? People like Pierre Zimmermann are part of the team and actively play in the big tournaments. Is this always the case? I’m not sure outside of the USA how wide this practice occurs. My guess is that it is probably on the increase in places like China. How many pro/client names do you know about?

What's the "Rating?" Where does it come from? How is it determined? Or who determines it?

There are plenty of ways to reach a 3NT contract with the cards actually held. To name a few: 1. Incorporating a 2/1 bidding style into your system agreements 2. A change of suit is always forcing 3. Fourth suit forcing 4. Inverted minor suit raises 5. 2NT to show 13-15 HCP as game forcing can double up as showing 4441 with a singleton in the suit opened 6. Etc. etc The 4441 hand opposite a 5431 hand worked well. The OP has been edited.

I’ve spent a bit more time mulling over the bid and your post here. I am starting to think it fits in quite well playing Short Club, where 1♠, 1♥ and 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit. Open one of those, the 2NT bid from partner showing a 4441 hand and a singleton in the suit opened works well. Opener is in a good position now to judge where the auction is heading. With a 5332 holding and good (better) values in the suit opened that can stand a singleton from partner, 3NT is the place to be. The 5♦ contract worked well because I had a 5431 holding. As you rightly say here, the ♠A would have seen a ♦ slam (although I don’t believe we would have bid it). I will be following your advice here and retrieve the actual hand. I will then do some thinking on how to explore for the possible slam. Jacoby 2NT can still be incorporated into our bidding agreements. I just need to explain to partner how it works. Constructive posting is always appreciated. Thanks for this!

I am currently playing in a new F2F partnership where we are still sorting out all our bidding agreements. My partner made a bid tonight which I had never seen before. I am posting it here to find out what others think of the bid and its possible wider application. The system we are playing is the Short Club (1♠, 1♥, 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit). I opened 1♠ and partner responded with 2NT. Now I know very well that she doesn’t know the Jacoby 2NT convention. I also knew that she was showing real values. I bid out my shape, 3♦ was my second bid which partner lifted to 5♦. Dummy comes down and partner held 1444 (singleton ♠) and an opening hand as well. We were the only table that made the contract when everyone else was playing in 3NT which goes down 1. The ♠ suit was crummy; KQ and 3 babies. Partner’s singleton was also a baby. You get only 1 ♠ trick in 3NT. See post 7 below. In a Short Club system where 1♠, 1♥ and 1♦ all promise a 5-card suit, this bid actually fits in quite well. The 2NT bid over the suit opened promises a 4441 hand, a singleton in the suit opened and an opening hand as well. The probability of being dealt a 4441 hand and 12+ HCP is low at only 1.04%. My question: Does the sequence 1♠-2NT (promising 1444 and an opening hand) warrant further exploration? So what else could we use the 2NT bid for in a Short Club System? 1. Jacoby 2NT is the obvious one. But that can be accommodated in a different way as stated by aguahombre. 2. 11-12 HCP balanced and invitational. 3. 13-15 HCP natural and balanced, game forcing. 4. Mini-splinter or strong 16-19 splinter in any suit (as used by Zelandakh). This post has been edited.

Naah! Much easier way to solve this. Currently we have: 1. Main Bridge Club 2. Relaxed Bridge Club Just create a third one: Expert Bridge Club. The table host can activate "Permission required to join" for players. Anybody can initially "Request to play" by the table host. Give the guy a chance first time round. If it turns out the guy is a novice, boot him off the table and mark him as an enemy. When he tries to join a table on a later date it is now easy to "Reject."

This is interesting. About a year ago I was playing a version of Precision called “Control Precision.” The creator is someone called Ray Bermeister from Israel. He claims that he took his system to the semi-finals in the Israeli Nationals. He also had Multi in his system. The 4441 hands in the 11-15 HCP range were opened 1♦. The 4441 hands in the 16+ HCP range were opened 2♦ Multi. First round responses to his version of Multi weren’t standard. 2♥ = No game interest, 0-12 HCP. When opener has a weak 6-card ♥ suit, he simply passes. With a 6-card ♠ suit, he corrects to 2♠. When holding a 4441 hand, the singleton gets bid on level 3 over 2♥. Responder places the final contract. 2♠ = Game interest, 13+ HCP. I can’t remember exactly how it went after that but opener’s rebids now become messy. I think it was something like this: 1. With a weak 6-card ♥ suit, he corrects to 3♥. 2. With a 4441 hand in the 16-19 HCP range, second round bids were: 3♣-3♦-3♠ shows the singleton. 3NT shows a ♥ singleton (3♥ would be a weak 6-card suit). 3. With a 4441 hand in the 20+ HCP range, second round responses were on the 4-level and obviously either a game force (20+min=game) or slam interest (20+13=33 HCP). I am not convinced that 2♦-2♥ as P/C is a good idea. With both opener and responder conveying a minimum hand, the opponents may just be enticed to throw a bid of their own in. What do others think of this scheme?

The players I saw/know using the method in the OP never had an official name for the treatment. For the lack of anything better I chose to add "something similar." No offense.

This post of yours got me thinking. How about a cue-bid of the intervention suit conveying the message, "My normal response would be 1♦ with my 4441 holding, 8+ HCP. The opposition intervention allows me to show my distribution and HCP holding in a different way now." In a different thread, it was suggested that after opposition intervention "double" showed 5-7 HCP and a suit bid showed 8+ HCP and a 5-card suit. Now you need some other way to show what you have. PrecisionL How does your methods show the 4441 hand 8+ HCP after opposition intervention in second seat?

Looking at the various ways to show a raise truly makes the game of bridge fascinating. I can choose from the following but cannot have them all. Without Opposition Intervention 1. Jacoby 2NT Raise = 12+ HCP and 4-trump support 2. Limit Raise = 10-12 total points and 4-card support, typically 1M-3M 3. Fit Jump Raise = 10-11 HCP, good 5+ card suit, 4-cards in partners suit if a major (5 if a minor) 4. Bergen Raise = 3♣: 7-9 HCP, 4-trump support, 3♦: 10-12 HCP, 4-trump support, 3M: 0-6 HCP (4-6 HCP?), 4-trump support 5. Pre-emptive raise = minimum values, 4-trump support With Intervention from either side 1. Mixed Raise = 8-11 (6-10?) total points, jump cue-bid of the suit opened by the opponents on the 3-level, 4+ trump support 2. Cue-bid Raise = Cue-bid of the suit overcalled promising 10-12 HCP and 3+ card support for the suit opened when a major, 4+ for ♦ and 5+ for ♣ Mixed raises and cue-bid raises are not to be confused. But everything comes at a price e.g. If I include Fit Jumps and Mixed raises, I need to rethink my agreements and/or lose one of the following: 1. Weak Jump Shifts 2. Negative Free Bids 3. BROMAD 4. Splinters/Mini-splinters What do others recommend to retain and what gets sacrificed?

What do you recommend?

Pre-emptive raises and limit raises both have their plusses and minusses. But which one do you think is better, and why? How is your decision be influenced by the auction?

Only thing I can come up with is that either someone revoked or played out of turn and the laws could be applied. 2♥ tricks? You're kidding right!

Using 2♥ as negative after 2♣ is pretty much what partner and I are now playing. It works well here because South has 5 HCP. Removing the ♦J from the South hand and replacing it with a spot card, reduces the hand to 4 HCP. How would you bid the hand now? The ♦J wasn't needed anyway.

I have already acknowledged the fact that my partner and I were guilty of not having proper continuation agreements following a 2♣ opening bid. I am hoping to find out how other methods would have found the ♣ slam. I have played with many random pickup partners on BBO who had either, a) Albarran, b) Control Showing Responses, or c) Jacoby Step Responses on their CCs. So can you or anyone else provide an auction using these methods illustrating how the slam could have been found? Thus far we have 1. Kokish from Cyberyeti 2. Natural from Yu18722 3. 2♦ as GF, 2♥ as negative from ggwhiz and blackshoe 4. Romex from blackshoe