antonylee

Re 1): The point is to avoid being dropped in 2D when responder has a weak hand and opener a hand just strong enough for game opposite a hand with shortness, but was otherwise intending to signoff in 2D opposite a balanced minimum. But perhaps I'm aiming for too small a spot here. Re 3): These are responder's shapes.

This is in a new-suit forcing setting. nige1's scheme looks useful and simple enough.

I currently play a fairly classic XYZ in a classic 2/1 -- 2♣ forces 2♦ to play or INV, 2♦ GF, 2N forces 3♣ to play or shows one of the 5431s with 9 cards between opener's suit and responder's suit. I am considering switching to a short-club (unbalanced diamond) approach and ultimately T-Walsh, as described in http://bridge.mgoetze.net/21twalsh.pdf (i.e. transfer completion = 11-13 bal <4M or 11-14 5♣3M unbal). Consider the auction 1♣-1♥!; 1♠!-... It seems easy enough to keep playing XYZ here; this is also what mgoetze's writeup suggests. But there are some subtleties... (1) Over 2♣ (nominally a puppet to 2♦), it seems reasonable to play e.g. the relay breaks 2♥=3415 max, 2♠=3xx5 max... or something else? (2a) Over 2♦, should opener tend to reveal a 5-card minor immediately if he doesn't have 4♥ or 3♠? It would seem that differentiating between e.g. 2353 and 2335 may be useful for slamming, and you're not really revealing more than standard bidders who will have opened either 1♣ or 1♦ (specifically, 3♣ doesn't reveal more as the standard 1♣-1♠; 1N-2♦!; 2N auction should be exactly 2335 (or possibly 2245), 3♦ would distinguish between 5=3 and 4=4 in the minors which standard bidders don't reveal)... or would you rather conceal as much as possible? (2b) Also, I guess the 5♣3M unbal hands can be shown with 3-level jumps over 2♦? (3) The 2N->3♣ 5431 sequences mostly make sense when opener's longer minor is known; in a short-club approach, there isn't really a reason for responder to have a sequence to show e.g. 4135 but no way to show 4153. Should we keep them as is, or e.g. show 4315/4135/4351/4153, i.e. put all GF hands with 5♠ into 2♦ and be able to show club and diamond based hands equally well? Note that (2a) and (3) (mostly) apply in any short-club approach, independently of whether one plays T-Walsh or not. Any suggestions are appreciated and welcome :)

Looking for input on some auctions that came up recently, and some variants thereof... (opponents silent throughout) 2♥ (weak) - 3♠: how do you play this? (I think BWS suggests ART, asking for control in the suit with step responses) 2♥ - 2♠; ...: I assume that 4m is a splinter raise, 4♥ good hearts and a fit. What's the difference between 3♠ (which I assume is forcing?) and 4♠ by opener? 2♥ - 2♠; 3any - ... what's the difference between 3♠ and 4♠ by responder?

I play that all 5♠ invites go through 2♣..2♠ (then 2N asks for shortness, if any). The advantage is to free up 1N-2♥; 2♠-2N! for some other purpose -- in my case (modified from some gadgets common in France), it shows 5♠(4m31)'s; meanwhile 1N-2♥; 2♠-3m guarantees 5♠5m. To go back to the original question I play 1N(strong)-2♣; 2♦-2♥ as 5♥4♠ invite because I need 1N-2♦; 2♥-2♠! for invitational hands (and some GFs), as 1N-2♦; 2♥-2N! is likewise covering 5♥(4m31)s.

Thanks all :)

I am looking for a good writeup of the Meckstroth adjunct, where 1M-1NT; 2NT* shows various strong hands. In particular, after a 1S opener, how does one locate a 3=5 heart fit? Thanks! (Yes, I know, I should play Gazzilli instead :))

Thanks for the input. At the table, I won the ace, played three rounds of spades and let lefty win the fourth, pitching a diamond and a club. Then came heart to the jack and queen, and another heart. At that point I tried to sneak a club through, but righty went up with the queen after some thought. As the diamond ten was offside (so nothing was going to work legitimately), the roof fell in and I ended up down three.

Oh, I definitely prefer to open 1N on such hands, but this was a pickup partnership. I also just moved back to France, so I don't actually know what percentage of the field would open 1N with a 5cM, but a non-educated guess would be somewhere between 30% and 70% (IOW, not everyone, but not no one) either. I also started with high heart, spade to the ace, jack (holding) and king. Spades break 4=2.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5h543daj94cj963&n=skj874hakjd65ckt4&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1sp1np2cp3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv] Club game, partner opened 1♠ as you don't include 5cM hands in 1N. ♥T lead (standard). What's your plan?

While thinking about Han's excellent article (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-price-of-information/) on the cost of information leakage, I realized that the modern puppet structure (looking for a 4-4 fit via 3C, 3D does not promise a 4cM) is quite conducive to another swap: what if responder bids his 4cM over 3D rather than the oM? Then you will play the 4-4 fits from responder's side, which may be "wrong-sided", but would truly minimize the amount of information the defense has about the hidden hand (game-only strength, 4 cards in that suit). In a WNT context, I am pretty sure this is overall better, but what about in a SNT context? (You also remove the option of a lead director to the opponents) A second swap that is possible is to exchange with the direct 3M calls. mbodell mentions a bit further in the thread that he plays such calls as 4oM (i.e. you don't bother going through 3C first, thus denying the opps the information about whether a 5cM is held), although playing them a 4M works too. It may look wasteful to lose 3M as splinters (the most common treatment, I think) but in fact you can put the splinters back into puppet: over 1N-3C-3D, 3M is a splinter; over 1N-3C-3M, if you were planning to splinter in this major you bid 3N (to play); if you were planning to splinter in the other major you have now instead directly found your 5-3 fit. Such auctions leak a bit more information but are of course much rarer than "opener has a GF with a 4cM", so it should be fine.

gwnn: going to BPS? I'll be there too, we should meet there if I guessed right :-)

And I lost the last set 16-31, so Stephen Tu wins the match by 5. Good game! http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:6c1aa4d5.a82e.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1478882801&u=antonylee

antonylee vs stephen tu, I won the third segment 34-19. http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:0c37775f.a7c7.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1478838402&u=antonylee#a

I won the second set against Stephen Tu 28-21 (+7). http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:f4ae554e.a790.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1478815170&u=antonylee

Stephen Tu and myself already started the next round. I lost the first segment 16-28. I did get a much softer defense on board 13 after the same start (up to equivalent cards played from dummy)... http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:b2766b6e.a6f5.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1478748487&u=antonylee

Wow, that was close. Good match!

antonylee - diana_eva third quarted, antonylee +37 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e77eb729.a4e4.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1478521372&u=antonylee Apparently GIB really thinks that doubling their game after their unopposed strong notrump auction is for takeout... my table diana_eva's table

antonylee - diana_eva second quarter, antonylee +2 (30-28): http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:4d5b705e.a457.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1478460554&u=antonylee

antonylee lost by 3 (31-34) against toast1.

antonylee lost 15-28 (-13) against olegru. Clearly I should have known to jump to game with AJxxx K Axx J9xx after 1S-2S. On the other hand I was the clear beneficiary of an egregious misdefense in a 2-card ending (board 12...).

Won by 11 against ovncylmz: http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:68981ddf.9e15.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1477772546&u=antonylee

in

Specifically asking for KQ seems to be a rather small target. We agreed with my partner to follow Kungsgeten choice-of-strains suggestion, which has the benefit of being 1) natural (always good for rare auctions...) and 2) certainly useful in some cases :-)

One RKC auction that I just realized wasn't defined in my notes is blackwood, followed by a queen ask by an asker who is looking at the queen and then bidding 5N or at the 6-level over partner's known signoff. I play a fairly standard structure where a direct 5N over RKC asks for specific kings and 6-level bids ask for third round control. It seems natural that going through a "useless" queen-ask first should show some kind of hand where the grand cannnot be found via knowledge of specific kings or of third round control in a specific suit, so perhaps the slow 5N should be some general invite. Thoughts (also about 6-level bids)?