relknes

I would say "Extras, with no clear direction." Partner can bid a 5+ major, bid 3N with a good stopper, correct back to diamonds, or even pass for penalty with the right cards. If I knew where we belonged, I would bid it... doubling passes the decision back to partner. As far as what partner knows about my hand... the diamonds are real, I have 3 cards in at least one major, and I don't have clubs well stopped.

System matters a lot, in my opinion. In a big club or two-way club system it is much easier to get away with allowing 1M or 1N based on opener's judgement. This is one of the subtle benefits of limited openings. Also, it is easier to get away with if you are playing Standard American than if you are playing 2/1. With one of my partners (playing 1♣ as 11-13 balanced or any 17+, and 1N as 14-16 balanced) we tend to open the major if we want a lead in the suit, have more aces and kings than quacks, or are at the top of our range. We are more likely to open 1♣ or 1N if we don't want a lead in our suit, have a hand that prefers declaring, or have more losers than our point count would suggest. Also, we are a bit more willing to open spades than hearts. Playing with another partner (playing Standard American with relatively sound openings) we always open 1M, which is perfectly managable if you are allowed to pass partner's 1N response. Playing with a different partner (playing 2/1 Game Force) we always open 1N when in range, because otherwise the Forcing NT response would make it impossible to get all our point ranges across. All of that is a long way of saying that it isn't as simple as "You should always open 1N even with a 5 card major" or "You should always open 1M if you have 5 of them." You have to consider the system as a whole.

Hey, I have been looking around at some of the debate over "banned conventions" and whether keeping people from ever encountering them actually hurts their ability to deal with them. (Also, the convoluted rules around the various charts seem a bit silly at times) I was wondering if there is a better way to introduce people to the sort of "weirdness" that can come up, but in a very controlled way to avoid scaring people off or randomizing the results too much. It occurred to me that it could be interesting to have an event where people had to use GCC compliant systems, with the sole exception of their 2♦ opening bid, which would be "anything goes." 2♦ is already given a sort of exception for the Multi, so this would seem a relatively small liberalization (arguably much smaller than the full mid-chart), but would give players the ability to both experiment with some different ideas and gain experience defending against those ideas, without having to confront a totally crazy system with 5 or 10 bizarre preemptive bids. What do people think of this idea?

Playing ELC, there are several options: Partner could have made a takeout double and pulled a 4♣ response to 4♥ (you would want to discuss when to use this and when to use Michaels. I would suggest ELC for minimums with both majors and Michaels for stronger hands over a preempt) If partner passed, you could have made a balancing seat double and pulled 3♥ to 3♠, as you mentioned. You might even play that pulling partner out of a major at the 3 level shows a half-stopper in the opponent's suit (something like A, Kx, QJ, Qxx, Jxx, or something similar) giving partner the additional option of 3N if they have a half-stopper too. Strong single suiters could be handled with an old fashioned strong jump-shift. There is no reason to preempt over a preempt, so what else are you using 4♥ and 4♠ for here? Game in hand (or very close) and a self-sustaining trump suit (any new suit by partner after this would be a cue bid, not a real suggestion for a different trump suit).

3rd seat I understand, but 4th? 4th seat seems the worst position to psych from: if the hand belongs to the opponents then just pass it out, and if the hand belongs to us why would we psych? You also seem to be confusing light actions or slightly off-shape bids with actual psychs. Opening a 4 card major in 3rd or 4th seat isn't a psych (unless you are talking about doing it with something like 2 points), nor is preempting with a 5 card minor. Opening on a 2 card major or preempting in a suit you don't have would be a psych. Your example of opening 3nt with a long minor would definately be a psych (provided you don't play a gambling 3N, in which case it is just a convention).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Next I call the director, as North has 14 cards?

Let me start out by saying that I have only psyched 1 time in live play. The number would be slightly higher if you included online play, but not by much. Having said that, I tend to think I psych far too little, from a theoretical standpoint. However, there seems to be a lack of guidance/discussion about psych bids in any bridge literature. I assume this is because people are afraid they will be accused of having "systematic" psych bids. I would like to hear more discussion on the topic, however. Otherwise, learning will be a long, slow process. So far, the few psychs I have made have been in 3rd seat, favorable vulnerability, with a bust or near-bust hand. The live game psych was: ♠ xx ♥ xx ♦ xxxx ♣ xxxxx Which I opened 1♠. LHO overcalled 2♥, partner raised to 3♠, RHO competed to 4♥, and the auction ended with them missing a cold slam. I have psyched 3 or 4 times online, but the only one I remember was: ♠ xxx ♥ Jxxxx ♦ x ♣ xxxx Which I opened 1♥. LHO doubled, partner raised to 2♥, and the opponents eventually found 3N, making, though a misplay handed us one more trick than we were entitled to (they played me for more points than I had). As I recall, I was booted from the table after this hand... So I have 3 questions: 1. What are some interesting psychs from your own games? (Both successes and disasters would be appreciated) 2. What sort of circumstances do you consider favorable for psychs? 3. What do you think the theoretical "right" frequency of psychs is? (I imagine this will be somewhere between 0% and 1%, but feel free to surprise me)

OK, the system sucks. Good to know. Thanks for those who took the time to weigh in, especially AWM for giving some guidance and input. I'm abandoning the "honor leads ask" concept, for the most part. Still curious about the tradeoffs of 3rd best compared to 4th best, though.

Depends on the player, but you should generally try to improve the weakest part of your game. Look at your results. If you are giving up more IMPs or MPs on hands where you were in the same contract as everyone else, work on your play. If you are giving up more IMPs or MPs on hands where you over/under bid, work on your bidding.

I have been playing around with opening leads. There are a lot of systems out there (standard, journalist, rusinow, etc), and each has their strengths and weaknesses, much like different bidding systems have their strengths and weaknesses. I tend to like the idea, as an opening leader, of being able to ask for pertinent information. For instance, I liked the idea that a lot of players use where an A asks for attitude, while the K asks for count. This system came out of an extension of that principle. So here is what I am thinking: A = asks for suit preference K = asks for attitude (from either AK or KQ) Q = asks for count (from AKQ, KQJ, KQT, QJT, or QJ9) J = 1-gap "internal sequence" (AQJ or KJT) T = 2-gap "Internal sequence" (AJT or KT9) Spot card = 3rd from something or top of nothing The rationale for the A, K, and Q meanings is that most of the time you lead a bare A it is because the other suits are even worse options (better to lead a bare A than to under-lead a bare K, for example), but if partner has values in one of those side suits they are often important to attack, so it seemed like the A was the best of the top 3 to use to ask which side suit to switch to. Most of the time that count matters most in a suit contract seem to be when the opening leader is wondering if it is safe to take the third round of a suit, and most of those combos contain the Q, so I though that made sense as the lead to ask for count. That left the K as attitude, which seemed pretty reasonable. My concern with these is that the ability to ask pertinent questions comes at the cost of conveying accurate information to partner and, in particular when the lead is a Q and partner has the A, put them to a guess. The J and T leads are the type of lead that will almost guarentee partner can play the suit perfectly. Seeing any one of 4 cards in either their hand or the dummy will place every honor in the suit, and if they don't see any of those 4 cards then they know partner has one of those combos while declarer has all the missing cards, so they should still be able to play the suit correctly. Of course, the same is true for declarer, but one would hope that the information would be more valuable to the defense. The "Third from something" leads will give partner more information about honors, as well as allowing them to finesse against the board more often, but communicate less about shape when compared to fourth best leads. My concern about them is whether they might "blow a trick" once in a while, and if so how often? Maybe someone who plays "Third and fifth leads" could speak to that... There could also be other problems I haven't considered. I'd appreciate any thoughts. :)

A lot depends on your opening style. If you expect partner to have sound values for a vulnerable, 4th seat, minor suit opening, then I would think it is worth a game try. I would probably try 2N in my regular partnership, or 3♥ with someone new.

I guess that depends on whether 1♠ - 1N - 3♥ shows 5-5 or if it could be 5-4. I was assuming that sequence showed at least 5-4 and enough strength to want to be in game opposite 6 random points. Starting with 2♣ shows the same shape, but with enough strength to want to be in game opposite hands that would pass 1♠. Either way, you've shown 5-4 at the 3 level and would have to show 5-5 at the 4 level... Now, if the original sequence shows 5-5, that's a different story, but then I have to wonder how to show a 5-4 hand at the very upper range of the 1♠ opening. Bid NT with 5-4-2-2? Jump in a 3 card minor with 5-4-3-1? Probably workable, but you better make sure partner is expecting it, and that you have mechanisms for finding a 4-4 heart fit afterwards. As always, what your agreements are matters more than anything else.

I will probably be in the minority here, but I am of the opinion that the hand should be opened 2♣, especially if you are going to go looking for slam when partner keeps giving minimum responses. The hand has 3 losers. Game is laydown opposite a lot of hands where partner would pass your 1♠ bid. After 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ - (something) - 3♥, partner is much better able to judge the strength of this hand, and there is no temptation to push on if they sign off. As the bidding went, I would say it looks like a case of underbidding the hand with the first call and trying to make up for it by overbidding the hand later on... but again, I am probably in the minority.

1st or second seat I'd bid 4♥ with opponents vulnerable, 3♥ if they were non-vulnerable. 3rd seat I'd bid 4♥ regardless. To make it a 1♥ opener I'd like to see 2 defensive tricks (lots of ways to get there, but swapping out J♣ for A♦ is one way), and would be sorely tempted with 1.5 defensive tricks (again, lots of ways to get there, but swapping out the K♦ and J♣ for the A♦ and K♣ is an example).

Usually it is a cue bid, showing a strong raise of their partner's suit.

As far as easing partner's penalty doubles, when you open 1♦ and the opponents compete in a major, partner doesn't know much of anything about your length. If partner can count on you for 3+ in the opponent's suit and 12-15 points, it is hard to imagine they are not better off. I had imagined that, because of the greater frequency of the weaker hand type, responder would usually bid with that hand in mind. The exception being when responder had a very weak hand (i.e. a hand that would normally pass a 1♦ opener) where they bid 2♦ and possibly run to a major if doubled. So initial responses would be something like: 2♦ = 5-9 points, prefers diamonds, OR 0-4 points any 2♥ = 5-9 points, prefers hearts 2♠ = 5-9 points, prefers spades 2N = Club stopper, balanced or semi-balanced, inviting 3N 3♣ = GF asking bid 3♦ = club stopper, 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, inviting 3N if partner has both majors stopped 3♥ = invitational 3♠ = invitational 3N = to play opposite 12-15 After a 2x response, opener either passes with 12-15, raises to 3x with a a good fit and a hand now worth 16-18, or bids something else with a GF hand. If responder bids anything other than 2x and opener has a strong 2♣ opener... well then there is a lot of room to explore, since we seem to be safe at the 6 level...

Not sure where to post this, so sorry if it is too "standard" for this forum. With one of my partners, I am considering making a change to our 2♣ opening. We normally play a pretty vanilla system (a variation on Standard American), but we were curious to try 2♣ showing either a minimum opening hand with 0-2 clubs, 3-5 diamonds, and 3-4 in both majors, OR a normal strong 2♣ opening. The perceived benefits are: 1. Our 1♦ opening can be 4+ 2. Preemptive value on competitive hands 3. Easy for partner to know when to double for penalty compared to opening those hands 1♦ 4. Fixes the frequency problem of the 2♣ opening. The perceived drawbacks are: 1. Might end up in a sub-optimal 2 level contract 2. Skips over 1N when that mitt be the best contract 3. Reduces the frequency of the 1♦ opener (not bad in and of itself, but might reduce it too much) 4. Makes auctions with legitimate GF hands a bit more awkward What are people's thoughts? Is it playable?

Would it change the legality if the bid didn't necessarily show any other suits? For instance, the bid showed either 3+ diamonds, 3+ hearts, and 3+ spades with 9-11 points, or a single suited hand in diamonds with game forcing values? This would be somewhat analogous to a 1♦ bid that shows 3+, but only has 3 with 3+ in both majors and 12-14 or 18-19 points (a feature of Standard American).

The GCC talks about a natural bid being "in a minor showing 3+ in that suit and in a major showing 4+ in that suit." Is a bid which satisfies that requirement, but says other things as well, required to be specifically mentioned on the card in order to be legal? For example, would a bid of 2♦ promising 3+ diamonds, 3+ hearts, and 3+ spades be legal?

Most partnerships have some set of meta-agreements about when a double is for takeout, penalty, support, cooperative, etc. My partner and I use a pretty simple set. Doubles are for takeout unless: 1. partner and I have already agreed on a suit (double is for penalty) 2. someone has bid NT (double is for penalty) 3. three suits have been bid (snapdragon if partner bid, penalty if partner was silent) 4. you had a chance to make a takeout double of the suit earlier and didn't (for example, after (1♠)-P-(2♠)-P-(3♠)-X is penalty) This is probably not optimal, but it is pretty easy and prevents misunderstandings. We are considering modifying a few of these agreements (#4 in particular may be better as takeout in the balancing seat when the opponents end in 2 of a suit, along with a double after 1m-(1M) or 1M-(2m) showing 4 in the unbid major rather than both unbid suits). What are your partnership agreements?

To be fair, that is far from a standard agreement. For instance: 1♣-(1♠)-X It would be unusual to play this as penalty. P-(1♥)-P-(1♠) P-(2♦)-P-(3♥) P-(P)-X It would be unusual to play this as takeout.

The double should be for penalty, in my opinion. You would have doubled 1♠ for takeout if you could have, and partner has already told you they prefer clubs to diamonds (or at worst that they are equal length) so why go fishing for a diamond fit with 4-4 minors? If you don't want them to play at the 2 level, 3♣ seems fine, though 2N is pretty useless as natural here, so using it to mean both minors is ok I guess if your diamonds are longer or significantly stronger than your clubs. *side note, my partner and I have a meta-agreement that doubles on any sequence involving a bid in NT are for penalty. It saves a lot of misunderstandings without giving up all that much.

Hmm... well, maybe I am crazy then. The theory came from the 5-4-3-2-1 count, which I thought was supposed to be better for marginal NT contracts. So what do the sims say about Axxx, Ax, Axxx, Axx? As a 16 point hand, I take it that it is an accept, but what are the percentages? By the way, in deciding to invite or not, the hands that you mentioned would just jump to 3N with decent intermediates the way my partner and I play. We count an extra point for a 5 card suit, and invite on 8 with decent intermediates or 9 with lots of spaces.

When debating whether or not to accept a NT invite with the middle value, I have a rule that I often use: count your honors, and if you have at least half as many honors as points, accept the invite. For instance, after 1N-2N, playing a 15-17 NT, I would pass with AKxx, Ax, JTxx, ATx (7 honors), but I would bid 3N with KQxx, Ax, QJTx, KJx (8 honors). This is somewhat related to "Suit texture". Suit contracts mostly rely on aces and kings, but NT is often about developing your lower honors so having a bunch of them to develop is a bonus. Your expected number of honors is half your high card points, so you will upgrade about half your middle hands and downgrade about half of them.