32519

Stolen Bids Quite a few club players play “stolen bids” after partner opens 1NT and RHO intervenes with an overcall at the two level. A double here advises the 1NT opener that the opponent’s overcall “stole” the bid that the responder wanted to make. The purpose of the stolen bid double is to allow Stayman and Jacoby transfer sequences to proceed as if no overcall had been made. Normally, in both 2/1 and SAYC, Jacoby transfers are OFF when opponent’s interfere. Thus, in the sequence partner opp you 1NT 2♣ dbl playing “stolen bids”, your double is Stayman. In this following sequence, partner opp you 1NT 2♥ dbl your double requests a transfer to spades. There are two serious difficulties with “stolen bids” after 1NT openings. 1) Firstly, they deprive you of the penalty double which is a powerful deterrent to opponents contemplating an overcall after a strong 1NT opening. Playing stolen bids is an open invitation to your opponents to have a field day with obtrusive interference at the two level and deprives you of the ability to penalise them for their impunity. 2) Secondly, it is not always possible to make a stolen bid, especially when the overcall is artificial, as in the Landy and Cappelletti defenses to no trump openers. In Cappelletti, 2♦ shows the majors, so you can hardly want your partner to transfer into hearts with a stack of hearts behind her. The same is true of a Landy 2♣ bid showing the majors. Now Stayman doesn’t make a lot of sense. One reason that experts eschew stolen bids is because they usually employ Lebensohl to cope with interference after 1NT. Lebensohl retains the penalty double, but it’s a complex convention (entire books have been written about it) and the average club player is unlikely to want to invest the time to learn it fully. You can read the rest here http://www.bridgeaholics.com/bidding/gadgets/stolenbids.html This is my last post for 2011. Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and only the best for 2012. May goodness and mercy follow you all the days of your lives!

In any partnership agreement, which doubles would be considered mandatory? The take-out double, negative double and penalty double would surely all be included. But there are literally dozens more to be considered e.g. 1.) Double of a Stayman bid 2.) Double of a Jacoby Transfer bid 3.) Lightner Slam Double Which doubles would be considered mandatory and why? Conversely, which doubles could a beginner/intermediate partnership live without?

If our side has a double suit fit, then the opponents probably have a double suit fit as well. The ensuing gunfight (continued auction) will inevitably be settled by the side holding the boss suit (spades). Have I over simplified this assumption? I have one final question on the Snapdragon Double. How many cards does the double promise in the 4th suit? 5-cards or can it be just 4? Thank you all.

I see the Snapdragon Double displayed on quite a few BBO players cards. But does it really work? 3 players have all showed a suit by the time the bidding gets to you. Now the player sitting in the 4th seat jumps up and says, "Me too! I aslo have a suit," while showing tolerance for partners suit. Some questions: 1.) What is considered as tolerance? 2 cards if a major? 3 cards if a minor? Something else? 2.) If the opponents steal the contract, have you not roadmapped the hand layout for declarer? Hasn't your eagerness to enter the auction not given away unnecessary information? 3.) How many HCP are required to make a Snapdragon Double? Would love to know what others think about this bidding gimmick.

Having proper partnership continuation bidding agreements over minor suit openings cannot be underestimated. From reading some earlier threads on the topic it would appear that even top flight players aren’t all in agreement as to the best methods to be used and/or have their own preferred methods for doing so. Regular partnerships (especially beginner/intermediate) can only gain through having proper agreements on the following – • Weak/preemptive raise (0-7 HCP) • Constructive raise (8-10 HCP) • Limit/invitational raise (11-12 HCP) • Game force raise (13+ HCP) You need at least 3 different bids to differentiate between minor suit raises. The 4th is optional. Some of the posters suggested 1m-2M for constructive raises (8-10 HCP) and support for the minor. In a different thread covering Reverse Flannery http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/36072-reverse-flannery/ 2M over 1m showed 5♠4♥. The HCP for the bid can be adjusted according to agreement. Some more interesting threads covering minor suit openings and continuations – 1.) Minors in 2/1 http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/28642-minors-in-21/ The thread covers different minor suit continuations. The opening poster asks the question, “Can you play them all?” 2.) Inverted minors: How weak? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/36947-inverted-minors-how-weak/ 3.) Inverted minors revised http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/37915-inverted-minors-revised/ (The plot thickens!) Up to you now. Over and out.

Some more interesting threads dealing with Gerber - 1.) What is the meaning of 4♣? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/38337-this-4c/ Emphasising again the importance of partnership agreements. There were 69 replies. 2.) To Gerber or not to Gerber? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/47878-to-gerber-or-not-to-gerber/ Another Gerber misunderstanding. There were 44 replies. 3.) The Beginner and Intermediate Forum also had some advice on Gerber http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/5286-gerber/

Minor suit openings have lead to some interesting threads in the various forums. Here is one sharing thoughts on "Inverted Minor raise by a Passed Hand." http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/41220-inverted-minors-by-a-passed-hand/

What do the following abbreviations mean? 1.) WTP 2.) PTP 3.) f2f 4.) OP 5.) r/w Thank you.

In the thread “Justin Lall to play with Bob Hamman” Justin himself had this to say about Flannery “I have always played Flannery with Bob in the past, do not expect that to change if we don't play strong club. I am pro-Flannery.” http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49541-justin-lall-to-play-with-bob-hamman/ There you have it. Surely Flannery cannot be such a poor use of the 2♦ bid if so many top internationals employ it.

Some more interesing threads discussing minor suit openings and follow ups: 1.) Playing a 5-card major system “1♦ is 4” http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48097-1-diamond-is-4/ 2.) A thread discussing CrissCross http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/19854-crisscross-for-beginners/ It received 41 replies. 3.) Opening the bidding on a 2-card ♣ suit allows the introduction of Transfer Walsh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_Walsh which appears to be growing in popularity.

This thread is from the SAYC and 2/1 Forum. Here other forms of Gerber and meanings of a 4♣ bid were discussed. Gerber Keycard, MiniMax Gerber, 4♣ Cue, Splinter http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/34303-gerber-keycard-minimax-gerber-4c-cue-splinters/

Here is an interesting thread from the SAYC and 2/1 Forum titled “Which Minor to Open: How many styles are there?” http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42738-which-minor-to-open/ The thread starts off with a list of 8 possibilities for opening the bidding with “Better Minor” in natural 5-card major systems. The opening poster also raised and interesting question, “I also wonder which percentage of bridge players know what their regular partner is playing here.” The thread received 36 replies. Which brings us back to the question raised here: Where there is overlap between different systems, choose the better (best) option and standardise opening bids and follow ups. It simplifies the memory load.

The latest CCs I could find shows Grue-Lall playing Precision and Hammon-Mahmood playing 5-card majors. Hammon had Flannery on his CC for the 2♦ opener. It will be interesting to see if Justin will also be expected to play Flannery should they choose to play a 5-card major system.

2/1 has moved on. This thread titled “Max Hardy’s 2/1: Revised…Expanded…Outdated” can be found in the SAYC and 2/1 Forum http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/38656-max-hardys-two-over-one/ Threads like these advocate what once might have been considered “standard” are no longer so. As the game of bridge continues to evolve, a “new standard” will keep on replacing the old one. And it is for this very reason that people are forever building new systems. It is probably only at the highest level that anybody will be up-to-date with the latest developments. The rest of us will always be in “catch-up” mode. Threads in these forums are started to learn from more experienced players. Constructive / objective posting helps the “catch-up” mode of less experienced players.

Your post here seems to support both of my suggestions – 1. Once enough people have deviated from the original to something different, should the deviation not become the new standard? To start off this thread I used Paul Thurston’s “The Pocket Guide to 2/1.” It was published in 2005 and no doubt considered “standard” back then. Your post suggests that the standard has changed creating a “new standard.” 2. For players learning and playing more than 1 system, standardizing responses such as this will surely make memorizing the continuation bidding of different systems much easier. Your post suggests support for this proposal as well. Where there is overlap between different systems opening bid and continuation bidding structures, choose the better (best?) one and standardise the bidding sequences. Memory load is reduced.

With the myriad of conventions available to any partnership to pick from, is it any wonder that “standard systems” quickly deviate from the original? Once enough people have deviated from the original to something different, should the deviation not become the new standard? Let’s look at two well known systems: 2/1 and Precision. In 2/1 an opening bid of 1♣ or 1♦ promises 12+ HCP. Now for (some of) the responses – • 2♦ over 1♦ = natural, non-forcing raise with 6-9 HCP and 5+ ♦ (some allow only 4). The bid denies holding a 4-card major • 3♦ over 1♦ = limit raise with 10-12 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major • 2NT over 1♦ = 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit, balanced or semi-balanced • 2♣/3♣ over 1♣ = the same as over a 1♦ opening • 2♦ over 1♣ = game force artificial raise of ♣, 12+ HCP, 5+ ♣, no 4-card major (Criss-Cross) • 2NT over 1♣ = the same as over a 1♦ opening • 2♣ over 1♦ = game force, 12+ HCP (compare with Precision below) • 3♣ over 1♦ = game force artificial raise of ♦, 12+ HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major (Criss-Cross) (Can anybody supply the detail as to what the latest official ACBL SAYC booklet says regarding minor suit openings and responses?) In Precision an opening bid of 1♦ is the “catchall bid” for opening hands that don’t fit anywhere else in the system. We will again only look at some of the responses – • 2♦ over 1♦ = 11+ HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major (Inverted Minor Raise) • 2NT over 1♦ = 11-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit, balanced or semi-balanced • 3♦ over 1♦ = weak preemptive raise with 6-9 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major, usually includes a singleton or void (Inverted Minor Raise) • 2♣ over 1♦ = natural, 5+ ♣. The bid can either be game-forcing or limit bid showing 10-12 HCP according to partnership agreement. No problems thus far until we start clouding the basic system through the introduction of conventions. To start off this thread, the following 3 are introduced: Inverted Minor Raises, Criss-Cross and Flip-Flop (please add others). Definitions: Inverted Minor Raises: http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/inverted_minors.html Criss Cross Raise: http://www.bridgehands.com/C/Criss_Cross_Raise.htm In general, those partnerships using Limit Raises in responding to a minor suit opening encounter bidding problems; if the responder also holds opening values, balanced distribution, and no other suitable bid after a minor suit opening by partner. Several solutions have been invented and devised. One is the Criss-Cross Raise, or Criss-Cross Jump Shift, as it is sometimes called. The bidding sequence: 1♣-2♦, shows (a) opening values, and (b) a forcing raise in Clubs. The bidding sequence: 1♦-3♣ shows (a) opening values, and (b) a forcing raise in Diamonds. Flip-Flop: A reversal of the usual meaning of a 2NT response, normally agreed as a Jordan 2NT raise, when a minor suit opening is doubled. The concept is to use the bid preemptively, thereby using the jump raise to show invitational values. An example clarifies this concept: North East South West Meaning/Description 1♦ X 2NT Flip-Flop or a preemptive raise in ♦ (6-9 HCP) 1♦ X 3♦ A jump shows a limit raise in ♦ (10-12 HCP) Inverted Minor Raises (as used by Precision) must surely be an improvement on the natural (6-9 HCP) and limit raise (10-12 HCP) (as used by 2/1). For players learning and playing more than 1 system, standardising responses such as this will surely make memorising the continuation bidding of different systems much easier. What are your thoughts on this? The example introduced here is very likely already being used by many 2/1 players. I am of the opinion that blindly following system rules and conventions must never be allowed to override judgement and experience built up over years of play. As an example here consider the response of 2NT over a minor suit opening from both 2/1 and Precision. With these sorts of hands the auction is steering towards 3NT. But from which side will it be better played? The fact that responder does not hold a 4-card major increases the probability that opener does. Depending on responders holding in the majors, it will probably be beneficial for 3NT to be played by opener. An Inverted Minor Raise could possibly convey this message to opener. On the other hand where responder holds e.g. AQx in either major, it will probably be better for the lead to come up to responder. Playing 3NT from responders side now looks more attractive.

The SAYC and 2/1 Discussion Forum had a thread titled "How to play Flannery in 2/1." One solution posted is to use “Kaplan Interchange” You can read the rest here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/3516-how-to-play-2d-flannery-in-21/

The SAYC and 2/1 Discussion Forum had a thread titled: "Name the worst convention." The thread received 6 pages of responses. Gerber was mentioned quite a few times. Flannery was also mentioned. You can read it here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/3537-name-the-worst-convention/page__st__60

In an external thread Chip Martel says why he plays Flannery. You can read it here http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/msg/d1d18e7b9260d393?pli=1

I believe that this idea is certainly worth some deeper analysis. Compare - 1.) This suggested opening (4 cards in that minor and a 5 card major), to 2.) Muiderberg (5 cards in that major and 4(5) cards in a minor When responder sees a looming misfit the hand probably belongs to the opponents. You can bail out sooner. On the other hand I would like to know what your suggested continuation bidding structure looks like when a fit is known (found) e.g. Getting the weaker hand on table as dummy.

The Advanced and Expert Bridge Forum had another thread discussing “Problems with RKC for minors.” The thread was started by kgr back in April 2010. It can be found here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/38434-still-problems-with-rkc-for-minors/ Kgr’s thread received 30 replies for anyone wanting to read them. We are making steady progress towards locking down the Gerber / Minorwood discussion. The goal is still to provide a thread with as much info as possible for all to make better decisions regarding their use (especially for newcomers to bridge). If you have anything to add to the discussion don’t give up just yet.

The Advanced-Expert Forum discussed RKC for minors in a different thread. You can find it here http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/32271-rkc-for-minors/

I just couldn’t resist replying to this post. Quite recently I had a religious nut saying something very similar to me but from a completely different angle. I will probably be attacked for repeating the nut’s statement/argument, but hey, who cares? These forums can be fun. The nut’s argument? He asked me to read Revelation Chapter 18 which deals with the fall of Babylon. He went on to equate Babylon as the final world finance centre (the city which is to be destroyed). With Babylon’s destruction the world will weep over it. So what exactly is Babylon? None other than the world’s banking system and the stock markets. I have been reading what onoway has to say about water as well. This may not be as crazy as some think. In many places across the globe bottled water is already more expensive than e.g. the equivalent quantity of Coke or beer. I stand to be corrected here, but didn’t one of the James Bond films not too long ago cover water conspiracies? The White Nile River has its source in Lake Victoria (bordering 3 countries; Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania). The Blue Nile River has its source somewhere in the Ethiopian mountains. The two rivers converge in Sudan before flowing down to Egypt. Ethiopia and Sudan are both predominantly desert countries. The people of both countries have been channelling water away from the Nile for their own use. The more they channel away the less reaches Egypt. These 3 countries are often in discussions as too how much water can be channelled away. Too much and suddenly Egypt is in huge trouble. Water (or the lack of it) can quite easily spark off the next civil unrest.

You are absolutely 100% spot on with your assessment here. I cannot ever remember these two cue-bidding above the 3 level. In a recent inter-club match my partner and I were the only pair to reach a thin slam which made. The key to finding it was via cue-bidding. A side suit King had to be located to get there. Declarer now had a second suit which would provide a source of tricks.

So then what is this version of Gerber that the two women from my hometown play? They call it CRO (Colour / Rank / Odd). This is how their version works: After a 4♣ Ace ask, responses are as follows – 4♦ = 0 or 4 Aces 4♥ = 1 or 3 Aces 4♠ = 2 Aces of the same colour 4NT = 2 Aces of the same rank 5♣ = 2 odd Aces (this last response is absolutely awful as a whole level of bidding space has been lost) King asks and responses are the same as regular Gerber except that 5♦ becomes the King ask where the Ace response was 5♣ showing 2 odd Aces.