wickedbid1

I think Flannery can be okay if u have worked out with pard the continuations & how to find minor contracts... but I shudder when i see it in my advanced pards' BBO profiles :) Two di wk seems to me very underated. But, playing online, I think it much more useful than 2 hrt wk, for preemptive purposes. Opps are continuously boxing themselves when they have both majors & ending up playing in the wrong one, or a level too high (or, rarely, low) With two hrt weak they either have sp or they don't, a strong minor hand, or they don't, so it gets awkward much less often. People who like the neg inference of flannery (which is definitely useful) should consider using 2 hrt for their flannery bid, keeping two di wk. 2 hrt flan puts a lot of pressure on the opps cuz direct seat feels forced to bid more often.

The BBO advanced system is appealing to me, more so than the last time I checked the BWS system. However, may I suggest the label change of "Bergen" to "Reverse Bergen", as that is the method in which 3 di is the mixed raise. In Bergen the mixed raise is clubs, not what u r specifying. Also, a minor spelling thing: quizzes, not quizes.

All of us end up spam in the end :(

The example above is drawn from declarer play. I believe, in f2f play the declarer is entitled to replace any played card as long as the next hand has not followed to the trick -- declarer has no penalty cards, as no unauthorized information can be conveyed. So in online play I automatically grant declarer's play undos when I am the next hand, for the reason that I think it's a good idea to make our online play mirror f2f play wherever possible. I also tend to accept declarer play undos from the other side, as long as they r asked for quickly. There seems to be a lot of style differences regarding whether to accept undos or not. I try to figure out what the culture of the table is and fit in with that. I misclick a lot, especially during bidding, (I can't catch a baseball either) but I don't ask for undos until I am sure it is part of the opps culture at the table. I never ask for undos if I can't find the undo button before others have taken an action, I have a pet peeve about that one. I never ask for undos because I have forgotten the system, or come up with a better play a split second after I make my actual play. That is super unethical, although I agree it happens online. Sometimes, lower level players do this without realizing, I believe, that just changing their mind is not a respected criterion for an undo ask. If I am fairly sure an advanced or "expert" opp is asking for undos for shadey reasons, or making a claim on a two way finesse, etc. the simple remedy is to put them on my enemies list and move on. Life is too short.

It's not the first round of bidding that boggles beginners, it's subsequent rounds. I'm a strong advocate of five card majors right off the bat for this reason. Responder can start looking for four-four major fits, while opener has the responsibility for most of the five-three fits. The system u suggest, with a short club instead of 4+ club, would do nicely -- no beginner has trouble finding a bid over 1 club... This is basically the Vienna Club, which i played for a while. It is surprisingly effective.

You are quite right in pointing out that compensating for the 3-3-3-4 fudge leads almost inevitably to one of two more coinflip guesses. I also prefer to play the "neutral" 2 di rebid, but many pards just won't let the di's go when u try to "cancel" the di rebid by pulling back to NT. And many pards will assume extras if one bids 2nt (without discussion i usually just bid 2nt on anything with a few tenaces, but i like to have extras...and would make this a firm agreement with a regular pard). The premise of my discussion of SAYC is that one has not worked out these trickier agreements with one's partner -- the whole point of SAYC online & its f2f incarnation was to try to build a system where there would be minimal problems playing with minimal system discussion. Since this particular sequence is annoying, I noted it in passing, as an example of the elegance of system simplicity resulting in sometimes embarrassing guesses. If people want to put forward other candidates for a universal system, I am fine with that. But I think that SAYC has proven itself to be functional, overall, for this purpose. Little tinkers with it, like 1m --2nt (11-12), without changing the name, is exactly what will kill it, possibly leaving us with a tower of babble. Let's not let SAYC go the way of "Goren" until we are fairly sure we know what is going to be the next BIG THING (Is there a "Classic 2/1" yet? Not quite.) We need to be firm about the distinction between "Classic SAYC" and private partnership preferences or geographically local tendencies.

Vulcan Variable Diamond -- i like that. Pass could be any mixed raise (8-9).

Here is another wrinkle for u to consider Phil. Playing wk nt is largely about yr run-out method, especially vul. There is another thread on this site discussing the merits of some of these. It is a good thread. Putting 5 crd majors into one's wk nt puts strain on one's run-out methods, obviously. And life is even more difficult if one has both the lousy 5 crd majors & the good ones in the NT bid -- now in competitive auctions it can be tricky for the NT bidder's partner to make decisions, without info about the quality of the 5 crd major. I would advocate putting just the Good 5 crd majors into the wk no-trump bid, rather than the bad ones, like some have suggested. These r my reasons. 1) the negative inference of 1sp - (no raise by responder) helps the opener give up on sp when the spades r bad, & quickly consider finding a minor spot to land in. When these hands r stuck into 1NT by the time one is ready to investige for a minor fit, it is too late. Conversely the direct major raise auction(s) give opener confort in competitive decisions after opps put their two bits in. 2) Altho a good game can be missed when languishing in one's 1nt opening if responder is too cowardly to invite, the decent 5 crd major is one that can proudly be descriptively introduced in constructive situations. 1NT-p-2cl/2di-2hrt-2sp describes one's hand perfectly & very efficiently (sp is a touching suit with NT!). Balancing at the two level is much less scary with a decent five crd major to run to, as well. If one has bad five card majors in one's hand all the balancing decisions must be pre-balanced by pard, and pard will get them wrong a lot (cuz opener is not always as flat as pard is gessing). 3) In NT auctions it is responder who "takes charge" and starts showing stuff, or asking questions. If opener has a good side suit to introduce in a constructive sequence, this will only be good news, and will give our side lots of chances to get to optimal spots (an important consideration at matchpoints especially) So, for example 1nt-p-2cl-p-2hrt-p-2sp-p-3hrt (now prd can pick the right game.) 1nt-p-2cl-p-2sp-p-2nt-p-3sp... (now prd can pick the right game) Bad 5 crd majors can only be introduced in these sorts of sequences when u have started with a maximum, and they can only help pard judge whether to play NT or the major if they r known to be bad & not good. Two-way suit types on this sort of auction --so confusing. I assume that with a good 5 crd major, yr hand has enough to accept any invitational sequence invite, (tho responder can obviously pass 3hrt/sp in the examples above when feeling nauseated) because a hand with a good five crd major & two wk side suits doesn't look notrumpy at all. It should be treated as "unbalanced" at first view. Those r my thots. Happy hunting.

I agree with whereagles, except I would take 3♠ as to play/obstructive with an extra spade, minimum values. Pretty well any bid other than 2 sp is showing extras, so we don't need 3 sp to as well. Pard may choose to go on with this in mind, of course. The spades will not be rubbish.

You hav probably thot about all I say below, but maybe some readers have not. There r many good possible reasons to bid 1nt forcing: constructive major raises, a place to put 3 crd limit raises, slow slam investigations in 2/1 auctions... but I think the last is the most important, esp. with pards who don't want to have advance discussions of every little sequence, which is the sort I mostly play with. Yet 2/1 gf doesn't go well with wk NT. Putting the balanced 15 counts in a major opening creates a problem if u r making two-over-ones game forcing. The 10-11 point responder hands that bid a semi-forcing 1nt may languish there, tho 3nt is the spot. And if the 1nt bid is absolutely forcing, it's got to be a decent 7 count or yr side will be playing a lot more 2♦ or 2♥ contracts on a bad fit than one would like, cuz rebidding 2nt over a forcing 1nt on a 15 count feels kind of sickening, but doing it on a 17 count is not too bad. The sick fifteen counts with no minor fit don't get "saved" by opps overcalling in second seat very often, like 12-14 major openings do. One might think the opps not overcalling would be a system advantage, but it is not if our auction is destined to roll to an unhappy spot. So getting those pesky middling hands out of 1M openings is important, but if one wants the fun & advantages of wk no trump, i think it good to stick with the trad K/S two-over-one, so those juicy 10-11 long minor hands don't languish in 1NT when they could be making 3nt. It seems to me that putting 5 crd major flat hands into 1nt (or not) is an extension of this basic problem regarding how strong 2/1 auctions ought to be, not so much about worrying where the optimal fit is with 5-2 or 5-3 spade or heart fits, which can be either NT or the major, depending on the actual layout of the hand and which side has the balance of high card strength. I can see that if one is playing wk NT without including major 5 carders and 2/1 openings without a game force promise, the major hand now has a problem, cuz 2nt rebids by him/her can't be RANGEY. So yr 12-14 hand might bid 2nt, & yr 15-17 3nt, & yr 18-19 icky 4 nt? Or else, in order to make 2nt by major opener rangey & forcing, one makes a return to 2 of the major "nothing special", and has to clarify major shape over a possible sign off bid of 2nt by the 2/1er. I prefer the latter.

Yes, u r correct about what the ACBL Sayc says. My post was a good example of hasty, emotional posting because i was conflating opening one of a major & one of a minor. 1 cl/di -- 2nt was always, I believe, and still is, 13-15 on the Standard American Yellow Card, the Standard American Green Card and the Standard American Orange Card. Yet it is true that i have had people respond "jacoby?" at this site to my one of a minor openings, and they pass 1cl-2nt sequences quite often, even when only Sayc is on their profile. A large percentage of the people who play in the Relaxed Room in particular put "Sayc" on their profile, but respond to 1 of a Major with 2nt 13-15, bal., or 11-12 bal. The 13-15ers can be somewhat excused because the ACBL does not teach Jacoby Two NT as part of its lessons. If u go to the "Bidding in the 21st Century Teacher Manual" at the same ACBL site (sounds promising doesn't it?) u can find examples on p. 80 of auctions 1 M - 2nt, with bal. 13-15. This is how it was done on the Standard American Green Card and the Standard American Yellow Card back in the 80s. But if memory serves me correctly, the Standard American Orange Card had Jacoby 2NT and a few other of the common at that time conventions, so it could be perceived as a "step up" from the Standard American Yellow Card. The SAGC evolved into Audrey Grant's Club Series (which improved it through simplification). I am not sure exactly when the SAYC was revised to include Texas & Jacoby 2NT (there was still a bit of a war going on between supporters of Texas & South African Transfers) -- the Orange Card was never used by anybody really, because once people thought they had mastered the Green & the Yellow, they felt it was time to individualize their systems. Orange cards only came out at our club for individual events, where u could flip from the one standard profile to the other.... the green & yellow cards were always dog-eared, but the Orange ones pristine.... The REAL reason these cards came out, in my opinion, is that alerting was driving players crazy at the time -- every three months the Board of Directors was changing around what had to be alerted and what didn't (and what was being allowed to be played, and then they added ANNOUNCEMENTS too!). It was just a side benefit that the pre-filled-out cards could be used by the students too lazy to fill out a regular Convention Card at our ACBL sanctioned university club. (I was playing Polish Club at the time -- SHHH, don't report me to the Downvote Police!) Sayc has been revised, and I guess the point I was trying to get to in my sadly confused way was that the SAYC genie is out of the bottle with on-line play... 1 cl/1 di -- 2nt (inv.) is destined to become "Standard" some day soon. Right now it is a coin flip, unless pard's profile is laid out so logically that one feels confident about it.

The downvote police handcuff and gag u. They throw u into their van. They drive around with the GPS turned off, discussing water-boarding, tazers, Byzantine Blackwood, and o/e discards with doubletons. It is traumatizing. p.s. I got away when they uncuffed me cuz they needed a fourth. While my pard was coping with a doubled slam, West forgot who I was and sent me out for coffee and donuts. Scored $20! :)

"Waist naught, want naught!"

Thanks for providing this info, I was oblivious to the little green boxes. I am not sure at all how I feel on principle upvoting/downvoting. There are plusses & minuses hee hee. One idea tho: since people seem to want to use voting buttons for a wide variety of purposes, perhaps we could discuss a modification, if it hasn't already been rejected. The idea is THREE possible vote buttons to disambiguate some important meanings. How about "agree", "disagree" and "i like it" for the vote buttons, with "i like it" being usable in conjunction with either of the other two. This way the vote could function as a mini-poll for, for example, a new convention, but then one could vote to like the post even if one did not like the convention. Presumably, if one voted "dsagree", but did not vote "i like it" at the same time, that would function sufficiently as a downvote. One would not want the buttons to start multiplying like ACBL convention card boxes :)

Sorry, by "Standard", i mean "most common statistically if one has to guess", which i suppose is a very idiosyncratic usage. I was not recommending stolen bid as a treatment, nor would i as i don't like it, nor would i presume that my system preferences are those which should be adopted by a reasonable player, whatever that term might mean in your corner of the universe. SAYC was once a fairly stable system, but no longer. Playing on-line pick-up I can't respond Two NT to a one level opening anymore, for example, because 30-40% think it is 10-12, 30-40% think it is 13-15, 5-10% treat it as forcing unlimited, and quite a few assume Jacoby without Jacoby being on either of our profiles! There are on-line guidelines in some sites recommending 10-12, but this is an infection from 2/1 (and other systems, but mostly from 2/1, esp. people who switch back and forth between 2/1 & SAYC), tho no doubt 10-12 jump to two NT will eventually become "Standard" SAYC too, [i.e. the statistically best guess (not quite yet tho, unless one is partnering somone from Eastern Europe)]. Classic Sayc, of course you know, is 13-15, like BBO Standard. Classic Sayc has no bid for 11-12 very flat hands that can't respond one over one in a four card suit, rather embarrassing for such a venerable system, but there is a price to pay for simplicity. The Standard American Green Card and even more exotic Standard American Orange Card have gone the way of the Dodo, sadly. By "LOL standard" I assume, mgoetze, u mean "lots of laughs standard" and not "little old lady standard", as the latter term seems to include a lot of prejudgement. Some of my best friends are LOL.

U r quite right, unless the defenders r of the same level as the declaring side appears to be, in which case they might not start on sp (assuming sp to be 4-3 or 4-4 for dclarer), and North when in with the hrt j may not play sp either, as no entry & dummy's sp r sick to lead into... one can dream... Swap either of the pointy tens to the other side, and 3nt is pretty good contract, so worth bidding.. but as i mentioned before, i would rather play from West than East on most layouts.0

Playing pick-up one must forgive both the East who invites with this hand and the East who forces. It's a tweener, & one would really like to know if pard tends to open light or not. West must be forgiven for refusing an invitational sequence, after all, with his non-fitting good textured 13 count. Your hypothetical examples confuse me -- why r u not ALSO being told, as East, that West has the majors double stopped & his stiff di is the Jack? Surely then u r wanting to be in three nt on these cards? Surely then u r thinking that the worst that can happen is 4 di, 5 cl, or 5 di, all of which would make on a lot of layouts? No, the clear culprit is West. Pulling 3nt seems unforgivable to me when he has already shown his 4 crd sp suit, and he has a fill card for his pard's suit, and no extras other than all that lovely texture. If pard wants to be in three NT i am quite proud of this dummy. And 3 NT ought to make for them, as long as East has the foresight to start on the hrts quickly.

No this is not quite correct. Standard SAYC has always included pen x of interference at two level, tho this is modified by a lot of partnerships, esp. those who like "stolen bid", which wasn't around when SAYC first came out, but is pretty much standard treatment now when not playing lebensohl. In Standard Sayc, it should be noted, an auction like 1nt -- 2♥ -- 2♠ is supposed to be forcing too. 3 level minor bids also forcing. Original SAYC did consider it a good idea to play x of jump overcalls at the 3 level as takeout, but commentators always urged one to discuss this with partner :) Over weak nt 12-14 (10-12 did not exist) it was considered okay to play take out at both the 2 & three level, but we were advised to treat it as a penalty situation if we had not made this specific agreement. That's how i remember it anyway -- been twenty yrs since i last looked at the booklets.

East's bid is a little pushy, i agree. But the blame must be placed with West. West should know they hav not discussed the sequence, so 2 sp might be a reverse, or it might not. It is game forcing for sure, so the obvious bid is 2nt, right siding the nt contract with all those tenaces, if that is the denomination they r going to eventually play. Don't forget, these sequences often end in slam of one sort or another. Pard will usually show di length next, so there will be time for spade support to be shown, if pr is looking for that. If West has not thot like this & insists on bidding 3 sp, i do not understand the 3nt pull at all. West has shown his hand with THREE bids & pard is in control.

I would prefer to play this sequence as a one rnd force still eliciting pard's cooperation. We will go to game if pard can find 2nt, but i will respect a sign-off of 3 cl or 3 hrt with my 18 count. Of course if i bid 4cl or 3 hrt myself at the next turn this is a hand too big to bid 3 hrt or 3 club initially. A lot may depend on how aggressive one's 3 club bid could be, and whether one tends to shade 1 NT hands "up" or, as in my case "down".

This is the sort of analysis they do in the Klinger book, and i think it is very fair. The basic strong argument of their case is that trad count overvalues a & k & undervalues 10 for hand combos destined to reach nt contracts. Thin nt games need texture, not Empty A & K combos, essentially. On the other hand, in suit contracts js & tens in yr hand outside the trump suit (or a secondary fit, sometimes) r usually superfluous, because once the suit is played a couple of times, trumps get in ther from one side or the other. It might be fair to say that for bidding purposes Banzai count assumes nt contracts & loser trick count assumes suit contracts, and Milton-Work count compromises between the two. It is interesting, tho, isn't it, that these new count methods demonstrate a much larger gap between evaluating nt situations and suit situations than many of us have realized until now? One problem I hav noticed with Banzai count in practice is it is very difficult to "backpedal" partner out of optimistic suit contracts... based on assuming u hav fewer "texture" points & more quick tricks than u actually do at times. It may be that banzai evaluation should be left to 2nd or third stages of the auction... or else, I think it might be good to start with a SUBTRACTION for the flat empty suit holdings (cuz reevaluating UP later is usually a lot easier than down -- at least with my pards )

The big problems occur not so much when one tanks, as there there is often more than one possible reason, but when one plays (or bids) unusually brisky compared to one's normal tempo. A lot of players also "flip" a singlton out of their hand as they play it. The only real solution to these sorts of things is to play & bid in tempo as much as u can, and occasionally allow a tank to pass by without comment. If one allows no tanks, thinking goes away -- bad idea. If one allows all manner of bluffs, a pard on defence will soon be able to learn his/her pard's mannerism tendencies... seriously unbalancing the game for pick up partnerships & declarers.

I like to play 1nt forcing, and put opening 1nt as 14+ to 17- in my profile. This gives me maximum flexibility with those awkward hands. With a balanced 14 count & a 5ve card major, i usually open 1M. If the hand has a couple tenaces that need protecting & will generate extras, i may upgrade to a 15 count. (i also giv weight to texture -- 10s & 9s) With 15-16 (the range that would accept an invite) I open 1nt to keep these hands out of the major opening. They r too weak to take two voluntary bids on, in my opinion. Yet one rarely will be in the wrong contract if opener has at least invitational values (one can show the 5 crd major "on the way" to 3nt), and the 15-16 hcp generally means 1nt is playable, tho not always ideal. Ther r many hands which will score about as well in one or the other, or that play better in the 5-2 fit than in nt or that play better in nt than the 5-3 fit... even a 5-4 fit often can make 3nt just as easily as languish in 3 h/s making 3. So these considerations largely cancel each other out, in my opinion. It's more important to maximise the chance of an extra trick from right siding the contract -- in nt or with transfers -- and the negative inference of "no 15-16 bal" in major openings is invaluable. When several methods appear playable, the best way to decide between them is to add together the positive implications and the clear negative inferences about what pard SHOULDN'T have. Most of the good treatments do double duty in this way (4th suit forcing, cue-bidding up the line, etc.) A bad 17 count is treated like a 16 count. 1m - 2nt being 17+ to 19. A lot of people don't like to languish in 1 minor when they could hav found som way to bid nt, but this is not a problem to me... when pard is wk i am happy to squeak out any old small plus if i can. I strongly dislike opening two nt with as little as 19 -- and even dislike opening it with 20-21, but at least here there is a fair amount of "field protection" for a somewhat wonky bid. I suppose when the majority shift to 19-20 or some such, i will feel forced to shift down too, and just hate the bid 30 percent more often. I think the above method is pretty good, even if one is not playing 2/1 style, but if one is, one shld note that 1M - 1nt(f) - 2c/d is not very encouraging at all (12 to ?) so a lot of games would be missed with 16 opposite 9 or so.

Grad school = retirement... nice work if u can get it :)