32519

My version of the Multi copes with these hand types as follows: The 4441 hand pattern and 18-24 HCP has been removed from my Multi 2♦ opening (Why 18 HCP and not 17 as the regular Multi advertises? Answer: My 1NT opening bid = 15-17 HCP balanced or semi-balanced. With a 4441 hand pattern and 17 HCP, I am quite happy to open 1m and rebid 1NT if the singleton is ♠ and partner replies 1♠ over my 1m). The 4441 17 HCP hand falls within my 1NT range. Here’s my basic idea: 1.) Remove the 4441 option from your Multi 2♦ opening bid. 2.) The strong balanced 20-22 HCP option is retained. 3.) My 2♣ opening bid is either – ....a) 20+ Unbalanced, ....b) 23+ Balanced, or ....c) 18-24 HCP and the 4441 hand pattern This is my continuation bidding sequence after a 2♣ opening – Inevitably partner responds 2♦ as “waiting” 2NT rebid = 4441 hand pattern 18-24 HCP The continuation structure after 2NT looks like this: 3♣ = terrible hand (I use 0-5 HCP. This can be adjusted according to partnership agreement). Subsequent to the 3♣ bid, both partners now start bidding 4-card suits up the line in search of a fit. Finding a 4-4 fit won’t always be possible. You will have plenty of hands where responder will make the decision to signoff in a 4-3 fit fearing getting to the 4-level with a really bad hand. As soon as opener bypasses any suit, responder knows immediately that that is the suit with the singleton. 3♦ = 6+ HCP game force whenever opener holds 19+ (18?) HCP. If opener’s singleton is a major he bids the singleton on level 3. If opener’s singleton is a minor, the first choice would be to bid 3NT (this may quite easily be the last game contract which can make). Responders own holding in the minor suits will decide whether 3NT gets passed or not. After 3NT by opener, the contract can still be played with the strong hand hidden in 4 of a major. You can choose to use Texas or SA Texas for opener to transfer into your 4-card major. Similarly when opener has bid 3♥/3♠ as the singleton. If responder has 4-cards in the other major you can transfer into it (again either Texas or SA Texas). The big downside with this approach is this: With a bust hand, bidding 4-card suits up the line, it can and will happen that the strong hand is exposed on the table.

Where or how does Kaplan Inversion fit in here?

Under “Defensive Bidding” I found this sentence in the SAYC booklet and don’t fully understand what is meant by it: “A cuebid overcall when the opponents have bid two suits is natural in either suit.” 1. How can a bid be both natural and a cuebid? 2. Under what circumstances will you make a cuebid overcall? Some example auctions will be much appreciated.

Obviously your choices here are determined by your system. The OP doesn’t say what his continuation structure looks like. So let’s extend the OP by including different continuation structures. How do you show 5-5 minors and 8-9 HCP when your partnership agreement after a 1NT opening 15-17 balanced or semi-balanced hand includes one of the following: 1. 2♣/3♣ as Stayman/Puppet Stayman? 2. 2♠ as minor suit Stayman? The problem here is your minor suits can be 5-4. Often opener simply ignores the MSS request and blasts straight to 3NT. What now with this miserable minimum? Knowing that your minor suits are 5-5 could possibly influence opener’s second bid? How do you get the 5-5 minimum message across? 3. 4-Suit transfer bids? Do you begin with 2NT as a transfer to ♦ (the stronger suit)? If opener super-accepts with 3♣, bingo. But what do you do if opener doesn’t super-accept? A possible ♣ fit is buried. 4. 4-Suit transfer bids again? This time beginning with 2♠ as a transfer to ♣? If opener super-accepts, bingo. But if not, you can still correct to 3♦, the better suit. Your agreements will tell partner what the 3♦ bid means. Here it shows 5-5 with a minimum. With a good ♦ fit, opener can still bid 3NT or 5♦. 5. 3♣ as 5-5 minors, game invitational 6. 3♦ as 5-5 minors, game forcing 7. Something else? How does your continuation bidding structure cope with this sort of hand?

I have seen this scheme used before: 1NT-3♣ = 5-5 minors game invitational (either 3NT or 5 minor) 1NT-3♦ = 5-5 minors game forcing, slam interest I have no idea how many others use this scheme?

How would you show 5-5 minors and ♠ shortness in one bid?

You pose an interesting question which hopefully will draw feedback from others as well. In the end it always comes down to system agreements. So making this part of your system agreements, on face value certainly appears worth exploring further. What would the rest of the agreement look like? I can think of 3 different options for consideration here (there may well be others): 1. Negative doubles 2. Negative free bid 3. Natural with values sufficient to explore for game Structure 1: a) 1♥-(2m)-X Playing Flannery, a normal negative double showing 4x♠ is pointless in the sequence posted. Changing it to promise 5 and 6-10 HCP makes sense. b) 1♥-(2m)-2♠ Natural 5-card suit with 11+ HCP, worth further exploration for game Structure 2: Playing negative free bids, the structure may need to change as follows: a) 1♥-(2m)-X In this sequence the X promises 11+ HCP which will be followed up with a new suit bid, ♠ in your example. b) 1♥-(2m)-2♠ The 2♠ bid being a negative free bid with 6-10 HCP, a good 5-card suit or a weakfish 6-card suit. Which structure is better? I have no idea as I have never played it before. Would love to hear from other more experienced players.

The robot system notes are great for getting to grips with 2/1. Does BBO have similar sort of system notes for ACOL, SAYC, etc? A great source of info to up ones knowledge about the game.

I voted “something else” here. With 5-5 in the minors and 14-18 HCP, I open 2NT telling partner that I have no real interest in playing anywhere else except in a minor. This is what my continuation bidding structure looks like with these sorts of hands: a) Pass = both majors and no fit in the minors. If 2NT makes, you score 120 where the rest of the field scores 110 or minus 50. b) 3m = suit preference, signoff c) 3M = 6-card suit, inviting 4M if opener has 2-card support d) 3NT = to play, both majors plus values e) 4m = Minorwood for the suit bid, slam interest f) 4M = to play, 7-card suit plus some values g) 5m = to play, distributional fit, cross-ruff potential

Your bidding sequence is wrong. It says in 3rd seat you pick up a nice 17 count. By inference you state that partner is already a passed hand. For that reason alone, my next bid is 2♣. If partner was an unpassed hand, I would venture 3♣.

There is a heck of a lot of responses to this thread with very little actually addressing the question in the OP. The OP wants to know which is better and why? 1. OGUST, or 2. Feature Showing The OP correctly states that both have their merits. The question not adequately answered yet is, “which is better?” Your weak 2 range barely cuts the grade for using either of the 2 asking methods above. Many play a weak 2 in the 5-11 HCP range. A minimum response shows 5-8 HCP and a maximum response show 9-11 HCP. When partner makes the 2NT asking bid, he is showing around 15 HCP and a fit with the suit opened. More helpful input here would be this, “what is regarded as a fit?” Is 2-card support enough, or do the experts recommend 3-card support? Partners request is simple: If you have 9-11 opposite his 15 HCP, game is on. If you are minimum, a 3-level signoff is required. With a minimum, you simply return to 3 of the weak 2 suit when playing “Feature Showing.” So to answer what you actually asked, here is my take on the 2 options available: OGUST 1. Ogust has this advantage: It does not give information away to the opponents as to where your other HCP are located if you are max (9-11 HCP). This can be both positive and negative (see Feature Showing below). FEATURE SHOWING 2. Feature Showing has this disadvantage: If you have a max and bid a side suit King, LHO has a cue-bid double demanding his partner lead the suit through you should his partner get the lead at any stage. The doubler is advertising the AQ sitting behind your King. 3. But the double of your side suit King can also be advantageous. Your partner has been alerted to a bad layout in the suit and 2 sure losers. Seeing a poor fit with the rest of his hand, he can signoff in 3 of the weak 2 suit. 4. The advantage of a Feature Showing bid is obvious: Partner can decide whether the feature you have shown fits in with the rest of his hand. It assists partner to signoff in 3 or to bid game. Which is better? In the end it will come down to personal choice. My personal choice is Feature Showing because of point 4 above.

This solution of helene_t works. Until the print problem is resolved, consider making this work-around known to others wishing to print out any of the threads like I do.

Zel: How does one imbed the url link underneath a word as you have done here. Usually I just copy/paste the url into whatever document I am working with. This is obviously much neater.

The print function still doesn't work. Any news from Ben or the vendor yet? It is hugely frustrating having to copy/paste into a Word document to print. Thank you.

The opening lead is invariably the most difficult decision as it is made before dummy is exposed on the table. Once the opening lead has been made, partner can signal a continuance or discontinuance of the suit. Additionally, a poor opening lead is often the deciding factor whether declarer makes his contract or not (or makes an overtrick or not). So how does one decide what to lead from amongst the myriad options available? In no order of preference, below is a list of some options available. Kindly add others not currently listed here. 1. Ace, for Attitude: ...a. What would the suit typically look like when leading the Ace for Attitude? ...b. Does it differ when leading against a suit contract versus a NT contract? 2. King, for Count: ...a. What would the suit typically look like when leading the King for Count? ...b. Does it differ when leading against a suit contract versus a NT contract? 3. When partner has bid: ...a. The highest card in partners suit when holding a doubleton ...b. The lowest card in partners suit when holding 3-cards topped by an honour (Queen or higher) ...c. The middle card in partners suit when holding 3-cards without an honour, then up, then down (MUD or Middle/Up/Down) 4. Singleton (I often hear BBO commentators say, “the only reason not to lead a singleton is because you don’t have one”) 5. Top of nothing: The problem here is declarer is given the same information as partner allowing him to play the suit better as the hand unfolds 6. 2nd highest of a weak 4-card suit, followed by the lowest. Partner needs to workout whether you started off with 4 or only 2. 7. Against a NT contract: 4th best or the Rule of 11 8. 3 / 5 lead: ...a. When and why do you lead 3rd / 5th in a suit? ...b. Probably only against a NT contract? 9. Top of touching honours or top of a sequence 10. Top of an interior sequence, typically against a NT contract 11. Dummy’s first suit bid or an unusual lead after a Lightner Slam Double from partner 12. Journalist Leads: What are they/how do they work? 13. Slavinsky Leads: What are they/how do they work? 14. A trump lead when the bidding suggests declarer will be cross-ruffing the hand 15. The “Sucker-Punch” Lead: Sucker-punch is the only name I could come up with here for this lead. So, what is it or how does it work? Against a 6NT contract the player on lead holding an Ace in any of the 4-suits and a small doubleton in any unbid suit e.g. 32 in an unbid suit, leads the 2. Normally declarer would read this as 4th best; small card from dummy, small card from RHO and declarer winning the trick with the smallest card necessary. To make the contract, a finesse is required in the suit led. Declarer was suckered by the opening lead, taking the finesse through LHO, and horror upon horrors when RHO produces the card setting the contract by one trick. On BBO I have already been suckered 5 or 6 times by this lead; always by someone labelled an expert in their profiles. Which leads me to this question: Has the sucker-punch lead become expert standard against a NT contract or were these guys just having fun against a less experienced player? Murphy’s Law says the next time I need a finesse to make a 6NT contract, remembering past bad experiences, I will take the finesse through RHO only to find out that this time LHO did in fact lead 4th best. Down one again. What are the most common or most effective methods for partner to signal a continuance or discontinuance of the suit led? How does partner signal which suit to switch to if a discontinuance of the suit led is required? This is probably even more important when defending a NT contract? Thank you. This post has been edited with the following lead possibilities: 16. Busso (added, see post below) 17. Rusinow (added, see post below)

Quiz: Can your defence to 1NT find the major suit game in the 4 example hands below? Hand 1: 4♠-5♥ 11-15 HCP (Flannery) [hv=pc=n&s=sa2hqj4daqjtcqt65&w=skq96hakt96d732cj&n=sj85h875dk98654c7&e=st743h32dcak98432]399|300[/hv] Hand 2: 5♠-5♥ 10-15 HCP [hv=pc=n&s=sa97haq2dk98ckt84&w=skqj32hkj543d73c7&n=st864ht6dqj6cj632&e=s5h987dat542caq95]399|300[/hv] Hand 3: 4♠-6♥ 10-15 HCP [hv=pc=n&s=saq64hq93da865ckt&w=sk983hakj854dkt3c&n=s5h6dj972cj976542&e=sjt72ht72dq4caq83]399|300[/hv] Hand 4: 6♠-4♥ 10-15 HCP With this hand, once West’s distribution is known, East has a choice of where to bid game, either in a 6-2 ♠ fit or a 4-4 ♥ fit [hv=pc=n&s=sak8ht83dkj43caj3&w=sqjt642haj96d8ck9&n=s53h75dqt52cq6542&e=s97hkq42da976ct87]399|300[/hv] Those with any real interest to find the answers to the above quiz, many can be found in the one and only bridge book I ever wrote. You can get a copy from Baron Barclay in the USA. Click here http://shop6.mailordercentral.com/baronbarclay/THE-MAJOR-TWO-DIAMONDS/productinfo/5296/ I have a file full of actual hands from actual tournaments broadcast on BBO to know that the concept covered in the book is sound. However due to the low frequency of occurrence of the hand pattern, it won’t find a large following as a “stand alone” convention. However once it is combined into a multi purpose bid with other hand patterns, suddenly the concept becomes very attractive indeed. Which is exactly what I have done with my defence to a 1NT opener as well as my version of the Multi. Both bids have a lot in common, reducing memory load. Both use the 2♦ bid to advertise values and 4 different hand patterns. I am currently tied up in some amateur research into Israel’s history which is placing a heavy burden on my available free time. I need to wrap it up before the end of June. I am signing out from the BBO forums until then.

What all of you are actually after but none brave enough to admit is this; what does my continuation bidding structure look like if my defence to a 1NT opener is able to distinguish between the following 3 major suit holdings – 1.) 4/5 Flannery 11-15 HCP 2.) 5/5 10-15 HCP 3.) 6/4 or 4/6 10-15 HCP, AND 4.) Being able to show real values in a minor 2-suited hand I’m afraid you are going to have to wait. I have every intention of releasing a rival book to Mark Horton and Jan Van Cleef’s book, “The Mysterious Multi: How to Play It / How to Play against It.” The hinge to the whole thing is my version of the Multi. My version of the Multi and my defence to a 1NT opener have a lot in common reducing memory load. I intend titling the rival book: The Multi Two Diamonds – Revisited and Re-engineered.

This begs a reply. Following the majority (the sheep syndrome) is no guarantee that you are correct. Eventually all the sheep end up in the slaughterhouse! I’m actually astounded that you are unable to recognize the benefit of a NT defence that can distinguish between a merely competitive overcall and an overcall that has game possibilities if partner has some values as well. I will leave you to stick to whatever method you choose. I will stick to mine.

You guys appear to be totally blinded with the 1NT opening bid. How many times have the opponents opened with 1♥ or 1♠ and 15+ HCP and your side stole the contract via a Michael’s cue-bid? Michael’s also tries to differentiate between weak and strong hands, therein providing responder with enough information to make a game decision or not. My defence to 1NT caters for strong interference AND competitive interference. My 2♣ bid guarantees at least one 5-card major. However it does not EXCLUDE 4-cards in the other major. In my reckoning, that already places some pressure on the opponents. If your defence to a 1NT opener only caters for a part score battle, you need to go back and rethink it. There was a thread not too far back titled “Shape First.” With a shapely hand dovetailing with partner you DON’T NEED the normal 24-25 HCP for a major suit game. Additionally, you can make use of the fact KNOWING where the bulk of the missing HCP are located. ANY 1NT defence MUST make provision for game possibilities as well. If you are happy with your current agreements then NOBODY is going to change your mind!

Wouldn't you also like to have the ability of bidding that "impossible slam" in any tournament which would mean the difference between winning and just placing. I have constructed such a hand below after the opponents have opened 1NT: [hv=pc=n&s=skq2hkqj8dj93ck92&w=saha7dqt874caq643&n=sj98743ht52dcjt85&e=st65h9643dak652c7]399|300[/hv] Once dummy appears, declarer knows that North has a maximum of 2 HCP. The ♣ finesse becomes a no-brainer. 12 tricks are there for the taking. When I show a minor 2-suited hand, I am showing real values. Granted this hand was constructed and the probability of it occurring at the table is so small as to be negligbile. But when it does, won't it be nice to be able to explore for that impossible slam! I use Minorwood for the suit bid by responder with these sorts of hands.

Adam, I appreciate your sentiment here, but my defensive agreement is currently able to differentiate between a part score battle and values invitational for game when held in the right combination with partner. Revisit the 4 example hands I posted higher up in this thread. They weren't randomly chosen. They were chosen because my agreement is able to show the values to make the bids advertised. The 14-18 HCP 5-5 minor suit hand will seldom occur as you rightly say. Bur when it does, bingo, partner is well placed to pick a minor suit game. With these sorts of hands people quite happily bid 4NT over 4 of a major as "two places to play." I'm just making the announcement at a lower level. I lump all the distributional hands with 5-10 HCP into the 2♣ bid. So I'm still competing for a part score battle. If a fit is found and partner has some values, probing further reverts to partner. With these sorts of hands I can still push the bidding up. As there is no anchor suit, nothing prevents me from bidding 2♣ holding 5/4 in the majors.

Someone kindly correct me if this an incorrect understanding of these terms. It appears to me that Marty Bergen's name has been somehow attached to raises that were already part of bridge jargon (or did it take place the other way around?). When ♥ is the agreed trump suit, then: 1. An invitational raise/limit raise and a Bergen 3♣ raise are the same thing, promising, 7-9 HCP and 4 card trump support. 2. A mixed raise and a Bergen 3♦ raise are the same thing, promising 10-12 HCP and 4 card trump support. When ♠ are the trump suit, 3M-2=♦ now becomes the invitational raise/limit raise, and 3M-1=♥ now becomes the mixed raise. Seems easy enough now, thanks.

I forgot to add the third possibility; what is a limit raise? So I am looking for what defines the three different types of raises: 1.) Limit raise? 2.) Mixed raise? 3.) Invitational raise? Number of trumps held is one item in the equation. What about HCP and distributional points. Surely they also form part of the equation somewhere? If someone can post an illustrative hand of all 3 types of raises it will be highly appreciated. Thank you.

Can you please post the full hand? I would like to see the actual layout.

What is the difference between: 1.) An invitational raise? 2.) A mixed raise? An illustrative hand of each will be much appreciated! Thank you.