32519

Pard and me are having some fun designing our own Non-Natural System. Coming from South Africa, we have called it “South African Precision” although it has little if anything in common with regular Precision (forget the name). Thus far we are fairly comfortable with our 1-level bids, excluding the continuation bids for the 1♥ opening. We are now coming to the forums for some creative suggestions here. Without boring you with excessive detail, the 1-level structure looks like this – 1♣ = 20+ any distribution 1♦ = 16-19 HCP (a 4 HCP range) any distribution 1♥ = 13-15 HCP (a 3 HCP range) any distribution 1♠ = 11-12 HCP (a 2 HCP range) balanced in 1st and 2nd seat, 5X♠ in 3rd and 4th seat (Rule of 15) 1NT = 10 HCP exactly, balanced, absolutely denying a 5-card suit Regarding the 1♥ bid, without opposition intervention partner is forced to make a noise as the bid is artificial. The cheapest available step is a negative response (0-6 HCP); 1♠ without opposition intervention, Pass with opposition intervention. 7 HCP was decided upon as a positive response on the known guarantee that our side has at minimum half of the HCP in the deck (opener’s 13 + responders 7). With a positive response, the premise is that it should be reasonably safe to bid up to 2NT. With that as a starting point we started experimenting with “any bid greater than the 1st step (the negative response) = shortest suit” (or weakest suit with two 2-card suits, 1NT showing ♠ shortness/weakness). With ♠ as openers best suit, it is easy to just sign-off in 1NT. This scheme was working out OK until we started dealing random hands with a singleton Ace in any suit, more than half of the promised 7 HCP. The problem here being that in any trump contract responder had little left to offer in HCP in the trump suit. Hopefully somebody from these forums may choose to re-evaluate our initial assessment and provide an alternative solution. This post has been edited with what follows below. To bring a bit more sanity to this thread, I will include the 2-level bids as well. I didn’t think this was necessary initially. The 2-level bids are there for the more distributional hands – 2♣ = 1 of the following: 6-card ♣ suit or 5X♣ and 5X♦ or 5X♣ plus 4-card major 10-13 HCP 2♦ = Our own version of the current Multi. I absolutely loathe the current Multi. If you want some clues as to where we are going with the revised Multi, you can find some of them here: 1.) Is the Multi Worth It? http://www.bridgebas...lti-2-worth-it/ 2.) Flannery http://www.bridgebas...49815-flannery/ 3.) The Hated 4441 Hand Pattern http://www.bridgebas...1-hand-pattern/ 4.) Showing 2-Suited Hands http://www.bridgebas...2-suited-hands/ You won’t find all the answers, but this I will say (for now). The Revised Multi we intend using includes 4 possible hand patterns a) A natural weak 6-card ♦ suit with 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 honours, b) The 4441 hand pattern 17-24 HCP. The other 2 will be communicated at a later stage. 2♥/2♠ = Muiderberg in 1st and 2nd seat, Constructive 6-card suit in 3rd and 4th seat 8-12 HCP. 2NT = 5/5 Majors 8-12 HCP as used by Blue Team Club. We have tested BTC continuation bidding structure and found it to be very effective. Sure you get some bad results, but they aren’t that many. You can find it on Dan’s website. http://www.bridgewithdan.com/ A lot of the threads started by myself have been to find alternatives to what is currently considered the “norm”. Others are just general information being sought by myself.

The fact that one bidding system is more popular than another doesn’t necessarily mean that it is better e.g. 2/1. Neither the fact that the system may be easy to understand, again, e.g. 2/1. A defining characteristic (for me anyway) making one system better than another would be the ability to describe a wider range of hand patterns no matter how infrequently those patterns may occur. Shape is often cited as more important than HCP, these hand types being more suitable for offense than defense. A wide range of conventions have been created attempting to describe shapely hands. The problem however is that you often have to make a choice between which conventions to include and which ones to exclude. (This theme is to form “Part 2” of this thread). I don’t have any experience with relay systems, but am told that they are good to determine partner’s exact distribution. How relay systems are affected by opposition interference is an even greater mystery for me. So then, what does make one bidding system better than another?

Inquiry's MisIry convention is another way of showing 2-suited hands. Ben, can you please provide some more info on MisIry? 1.) What is the frequency of occurrence of the hand pattern? 2.) For the benefit of others wishing to know more, a) a short description of MisIry, or alternatively, b) a link where more info can be found. Thanks

I have seen this quite often, most notably at Match Point play. Your example of taking a finesse to AQx when holding a singleton and 3 good trumps is typical of what I see. Declarer is looking for the "perfect" hand layout and takes the not needed finesse in search of an overtrick and a top score. The opposite inevitably happens. Instead of an overtrick, the contract goes down 1. How to overcome it? Think before you play. If the chosen line of play fails, is the contract in jeopardy? If no, go ahead. If yes, don't do it!

There is a way to address this issue, although I must confess that it is not ideal. Instead of practising your conventions at a bidding table, practise them at a "Teaching Table" instead. You and partner can alternate between bidding 3 of the hands versus bidding only 1 of the hands. The partner who is bidding 3 different hands can make the appropriate bid based on the cards held in the E/W hands. This way E/W are dealt more random hands which will probably be more beneficial to your practicing anyway. Once the bidding is over, don't bother playing the hand. Simply claim after the opening lead has been made and then discuss the actual bidding. As already mentioned, not ideal but a temporary solution.

This hand presented another very interesting defensive opportunity i.e. the execution of the Grosvenor Gambit. Grosvenor Gambit http://www.bridgebum.com/grosvenor.php A Grosvenor Gambit is an intentional misplay of a hand aimed to psychologically disturb one's opponents. It can be employed by declarer and defenders alike, but this description focuses on the defence. After West’s lead of the ♣5, queen from dummy and jack from East, I will boldly stick my neck out here and say that most declarer’s will be fooled into believing that West holds the king. After drawing trumps in 3 rounds, declarer with a confident smirk will lead a ♣ up to dummy’s ♣A10. The shock on declarer’s face when East produces the king will be priceless! The contract goes down again.

The Merrimac Coup describes the intentional and deliberate sacrifice of a high card, generally an honour card, with the object of eliminating a vital and necessary entry in the hand of the opponent, usually the dummy. http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/merrimac_coup.html [hv=pc=n&s=sk643hak765dk4c82&w=saq852hj83dat9c75&n=sjhq2dq72caqt9643&e=st97ht94dj8653ckj&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1h1s2cp2hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] This deal occurred in the Main Bridge Club earlier today. It may be easy to criticise North for jumping to 4♥ with his second bid. That became irrelevant and South now had an awkward contract to make. West led the ♣5 attempting to mislead declarer. The queen from dummy was overtaken by the king. East returned the ♣ jack believing that the ♣5 was a singleton wanting to give West a ♣ ruff. As it turned out, it ended up being an unintentional execution of the Merrimac Coup. South’s only hope of reaching dummy to run the ♣ suit had been removed!

For years now I have been playing Inverted Minor Raises as follows - 1.) 1m 2m = Invitational to 3NT to be played by opener. 2.) 1m 2NT = Invitational to 3NT to be played by responder. The defining decision for both sequences is responders holding in the majors viz. in the first sequence responders HCP are concentrated in the minor suits. In the second sequence responders HCP are concentrated in the majors. Something like AQx and KJx. You want a major suit lead to come up to declarer.

In the thread titled Preempt 1st/2nd seat http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50281-preempt-1st2nd-seat/ I raised a question which never received an answer. The question is now repeated in a new thread. In the above mentioned thread the_dude posted: “Remember preempting is essentially accelerating the auction, giving less room for accurate hand description. Second seat is important because it presents least opportunity to disrupt the opponents communications and the greatest opportunity to disrupt your own. When you preempt in first seat, you may be tripping up your partner, but you are also tripping up TWO opponents. But in second seat, your RHO has already communicated SIGNIFICANT information to his partner by virtue of his pass. Accelerating the auction now often does just as much damage to your partner as it does to the opponents.” I found this thread fascinating when read alongside awm’s thread, “Shape First!” http://www.bridgebas...14-shape-first/ Here are just two extracts from awm’s thread: • Looking at the CCs of Bermuda bowl pairs, you see a lot of wildly different stuff. That's one of the great things about bridge. But one thing that seems almost universal in bidding trends is that showing shape early is good. • I like most auctions to emphasize shape and not high cards though, since shape is really what’s important. Both threads contain convincing arguments when to bid (2nd seat pre-empt versus showing your shape). The range of shape showing bids in any partnership is limited by your own imagination (and partnership agreements). Some popular shapely bids which immediately come to mind are: • Muiderberg • Multi 2NT showing 5-5 minors • Canape Whose advice is better here? Think twice before pre-empting in 2nd seat? Or get into the auction and show your shape?

Three similar yet different 2-suited opening bids can be placed alongside each other and compared for effectiveness. 1.) Tartan Two’s can be weak 7-11 HCP (5-cards in the suit opened and 5-cards in a minor suit) or strong balanced 20-21 HCP http://www.pattayabridge.com/conventions/Tartan-twos.htm 2.) Muiderberg Two’s 5-10 HCP with 5-cards in the suit opened and at least 4-cards in a minor suit (having 5-cards in the minor suit as well is becoming the norm) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muiderberg_convention 3.) Lucas Two’s (The only difference between Lucas Two’s and Muiderberg Two’s is that the second suit can be the other major when ♠ are opened) I would love to hear from other players who have played Tartan Two’s (or still do play Tartan Two’s). How does this stack up e.g. when compared to the Multi 2♦ which contains the strong balanced hand pattern? Now your 2♦ is freed up for some other use as is the 2NT bid. What do you use these bids for now if you play Tartan Two’s? Just having a shot in the dark here to generate thoughts from other more experienced players. How about including the Multi 2♦ and Tartan Two’s into your 2-level bids as follows – Multi 2♦ promising 1 of the following hand patterns: 1.) Natural weak 2 in ♦ promising 2 of the top 3 honours or 3 of the top 5 honours 2.) Weak 2 in either major 3.) The 4-4-4-1 hand pattern and 17-24 HCP as suggested by Zelandakh in this thread http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50262-the-hated-4441-hand-pattern/ Tartan Two’s/Lukas Two’s/Muiderberg Two’s promising 1 of the following hand patterns: 1.) 5-cards in the suit opened and 5-cards in a minor suit 2.) Possibility of holding 5♠+5♥ 5-10 HCP when ♠ are opened 3.) Strong balanced hand 20-21 HCP The 2NT bid which has been freed up can be used for anything you choose. Any thoughts?

This post reminded me of another convention showing a 2 suited hand as an overcaller: Sandwich NT. When the auction has gone: 1x (pass) 1y 1NT - 1NT here shows a 5-5 holding in the 2 unbid suits. More often looking for a sacrifice bid? I have my doubts about its effectiveness. Partner is already a passed hand. All you have succeeded in doing with this convention is roadmap the hand layout to declarer. What are your experiences with the Sandwich NT convention?

I have absolutely no idea what a "RCO Two" is. Please help!!! ELC Doubles I found with a Google search. For others like me who don't what what ECL Doubles are, it stands for Equal Level Conversion Doubles. I found it on the BridgeHands website http://www.bridgehands.com/E/Equal_Level_Conversion_Doubles.htm Can you please give more detail for the items under point 3? Exactly how do they work and what do they show? Thanks so far for the input received. I keep learning. There has to be plenty more examples.

Can you kindly provide more info here? Especially regarding the 2NT by a passed hand. An example auction to illustrate will be helpful. This is easy enough where either opener or responder bids 2 different suits as the auction continues. How would this be affected by 4th Suit Forcing where the 4th suit is artificial?

1) As opener, how about Flannery to show a major suit 2 suited hand? 2) As responder, how about Smolen when responding to an opening bid of 1NT? What about the sequence 1X, (1Y), X (showing the two unbid suits?). While technically not a 2 suited hand, you are showing the 2 unbid suits as responder. There must be loads of other examples.

How many ways are there for showing a 2 suited hand? 1) As opener? 2) As responder? 3) As overcaller?

What is a - 1) Western Cue-bid? 2) Eastern Cue-did? 3) Invisible Cue-bid?

An expert once told me that he considered Revolving Discards to be superior for suit preference although he didn’t specify why. How can one method be superior to another one?

This is an extract from a reply to a bidding query on a different website: In my opinion "Last Train" as part of your cue-bidding mechanism is the most valuable and vital cue-bidding tool that has been invented in the last 30 years. Last train operates in major suit slam auctions and when spades are agreed the bid of 4♥ (one below the major) is the Last Train bid and when hearts are agreed 4♦ (again one below the major) is the Last Train bid. I have yet to witness LTTC in action, either against me (online bridge or offline bridge), or being used during a Vugraph Live Broadcast (including the recent Bermuda Bowl). Possible reasons for its invisibility – 1.) Opportunities for using it are rare. Therefore few players make the effort to learn it properly. 2.) LTTC is a complex convention. Therefore few players make the effort to learn it properly. 3.) Partnership has other slam exploring agreements. LTTC is not one of them. Any thoughts on LTTC? How often have you encountered it? Does your regular partnership use it?

Not related to this thread, but equally unpleasant. Being "taken to the first available seat" one of the players starts verbally abusing the other 3 players calling them ash***s, etc. Attacking all for poor bidding, declarer play etc. Most just leave the table (including me).

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj97542hdq7532c&w=sthqjt984dacaqjt6&n=sk83h652d864c9842&e=s6hak73dkjt9ck753&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1d4s4n(2%20Places%20to%20play)5s6h6sdppp]399|300[/hv] 6♠X was an easy save on this freak!

I need to confess that I didn’t know the story of The Sneetches by Dr. Seuss. I had to do a Google search for it. To save others the need to look it up who don’t the story either, I have copied it in here for you. Read this alongside the thread “The New Star Policy” http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45519-the-new-star-policy/ Brilliant! The Sneetches This story is an allegory for prejudice and discrimination, and also offers a lesson of materialism and entrepreneurship. Sneetches are a group of vaguely avian yellow creatures who live on a beach. Some Sneetches have a green star on their bellies, and in the beginning of the story the absence of a star is the basis for discrimination. Sneetches who have stars on their bellies are part of the "in crowd," while Sneetches without stars are shunned and consequently mopey. In the story, a character named Sylvester McMonkey McBean, calling himself a "fix-it-up chappie," appears, driving a cart of strange machines. He offers the Sneetches without stars a chance to have them by going through his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The treatment is instantly popular, but this upsets the original star-bellied Sneetches, as they are in danger of losing their method for discriminating between Sneetches. Then McBean tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars. The Sneetches formerly with stars happily pay the money to have them removed in order to remain special. However, McBean does not share the prejudices of the Sneetches, and allows the recently starred Sneetches through this machine as well. Ultimately this escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next, "until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one... or that one was this one or which one was what one... or what one was who." This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean departs a rich man, amused by their folly. Despite his assertion that "you can't teach a Sneetch," the Sneetches learn from this experience that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friends.

Absolutely brilliant article, just loved it! :D

I find this thread fascinating read alongside awm’s thread, “Shape First!” http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/9814-shape-first/ Here are just two extracts from awm’s thread: • Looking at the CCs of Bermuda bowl pairs, you see a lot of wildly different stuff. That's one of the great things about bridge. But one thing that seems almost universal in bidding trends is that showing shape early is good. • I like most auctions to emphasize shape and not high cards though, since shape is really what’s important. Both threads contain convincing arguments when to bid (2nd seat pre-empt versus showing your shape). The range of shape showing bids in any partnership is limited by your own imagination (and partnership agreements). Some popular shapely bids which immediately come to mind are: • Muiderberg • Multi 2NT showing 5-5 minors • Canape Whose advice is better here? Think twice before pre-empting in 2nd seat? Or get into the auction and show your shape?

As a side note: Does anyone know what the Reese scandal was about in the 1960's? What sort of unethical conduct was involved there? Was it this scandal which led to the introduction of screens? In what year were screens introduced?

The unemployment rate in Africa (including South Africa) is disproportionally high (40%+ in SA currently), primarily due to low levels of education. This is exacerbated by militant trade unions who blackmail their ANC government buddies with withholding their votes if certain labour laws (that the unions want) aren't pushed through parliament. It has become virtually impossible for big business to fire underperforming employees. Ironically ressions are an opportunity for big business to cut out the dead wood. Unfortunately having done so, they are reluctant to rehire again because of draconion labour laws. Poaching rhino horns is massively profitable for the unemployed. These guys don't have any other source of income. One rhino horn fetches USD 7500 (R60,000 South African rands). That is a lot of money for the unemployed, which makes it so lucrative. The people buying the horns are from the East (mostly the Chinese). The poachers enter SA from both Mozambique and Zimbabwe. Both of these countries border on the Kruger National Park, the main area being poached. Private game lodge owners are going to extraordinary measures to safeguard their own rhinos. They started off with dehorning all their own rhinos. But even that didn't work. The rhino horn stump was still chopped out (with an axe). They have now started drilling holes into the rhinos horns and filling it with an orange coloured poison making the horn useless to any would be poacher. We have yet to see if this works.