relknes

If opener bids, say, 1♥, and responder holds: ♠AQxxx ♥xxxx ♦x ♣xxx Applying the LTC, this is an 8 loser hand. If partner has 7 or fewer losers, you sould invite game with 3♥. If partner has 8 or fewer losers, a simple raise to 2♥ is all you can manage. If partner knows you are assuming 7 losing tricks, then they have to pass 2♥ with 6 losers. If they know you are assuming 8 losers, they have to make a game try with 6 losers. Likewise, if partner knows you are assuming 7 losers, they will pass an invite with 7 losing tricks. If they know you are assuming 8 losers, they would accept the invite with 7 losing tricks.

Find 7? Sitting across from a partner who passes a 2♣ opener, I am not concerned about looking for 7. Looking for a new partner, maybe... but not looking for 7♦.

I have been messing around with the idea of using 1D as a bid promising a 4 card major. The context is a sweedish club system (1C = 11-13 balanced or 17+) with a 14-16 NT. Over 1M, 2/1 is GF. The 1D solves a lot of the "Problem hands" in this system, it seems. For instance, a hand with 4 spades and 5 hearts becomes easy to describe. Also, hands with a 5 clubs and a 4 card major become much more managable. 4441 hands become simpler as well. The structure I have in mind is: 1♦ = 11-16 points, 4 card major (good quality if balanced), not 4333, if 11-13 balanced then 44 majors .....1♥ = 4+ hearts, 6+ points ..........1♠ = 4-4 majors ..........1N = 4 good quality spades, balanced, 14-16 points, denies 4 hearts ..........2♣ = 4 spades, 5+ clubs (possibly 4441 with a singleton heart) ..........2♦ = 4 spades, 5+ diamonds ..........2♥ = 4 hearts, denies 4+ spades .....1♠ = 4+ spades, 6+ points ..........1N = 4 good quality hearts, balanced, 14-16 points, denies 4 spades ..........2♣ = 4 hearts, 5+ clubs (possibly 4441 with a singleton spade) ..........2♦ = 4 hearts, 5+ diamonds ..........2♥ = 5+ hearts, 4 spades ..........2♠ = 4 spades The drawback is that the 2♦ bid has to be used as 11-16, unbalanced, 5+ diamonds, no 4+ major (this can be even more specific if you allow hands with 54 minors and 22 majors to be treated as balanced). My main concern with this is that competitive auctions could get messy, especially when the opponents compete in a minor. If the opponents find a major suit fit, then partner can either compete in the other major assuming you have 4 card support or else double as an "optional double" showing support for the other major and some defensive value in case you had 4 of the opponent's suit. If the opponents compete in a minor, however, partner can draw fewer conclusions... for instance, after 1♦-(3m) partner has little idea of how to compete, and opener almost cirtainly won't be able to take another bid. So, 2 questions... 1) Is this a reasonable use for 1♦? 2) Are there gadgets that can be used to smooth out the competitive auctions?

This is not true for a number of reasons. First, as some have already mentioned, you have the flexability to bend the rules when your experience tells you that it is warrented (which often falls under the title of "upgrading" or "downgrading" your hand because of things like suit quality, shapeliness, controls, quacks, etc). Second, there are often multiple bids that will describe your hand, and your experience will tell you which bid is more likely to help your partner make the correct decision, or lead to fewer complications later on, etc. Some of these are prety cut and dry. For instance, most people would recognize that with a 5 card major and a 5 card minor, it is better to open the major (fewer rebid problems, more descriptive, more relevant to the likely final contract, etc) Others are such complicated questions that even experts don't always agree. For instance, with a 5 card major and a balanced hand, is it better to open 1M or 1N? This requires a lot more experience, and the correct answer will depend on your system, the suit quality of your major, controls vs slow tricks... the list goes on. So there is actually quite a bit of scope for "Free action" for players who have a good grasp of bidding, but most people seem to think that beginners are best off learning as few exceptions as possible in order to simplify the bidding. This is why some teachers will teach "always open 1M with a 5 card major and opening values" or "Always open 1N when you are in the point range and have a balanced hand". Chances are neither is correct 100% of the time, but the gains from simplicity are usually thought to outweigh the gains from flexability, at least until the player is advanced enough to make useful judgements.

1) Standard American and Acol are systems, as are Precision and a bunch of others. Systems deal with the basic approach to bidding and attempt to cover every situation you will encounter. Conventions, like Blackwood and Stayman etc., deal with a particular situation that might come up in any system, but don't apply unless specific criteria are met in the bidding sequence (for instance, you can play stayman in a lot of systems, but 2♣ is only considered stayman if partner has oppened a natural 1NT). If a bidding system were a city, than conventions would be the individual streets. 2) Whatever is the most popular system in the area that they are learning in. The exact system is far less important than the ability to practice it with people who know and use it. 3) I am not sure. Sorry. 4) Yes, it is possible and legal. It is what most people cal "Natural bidding", and what people fall back on when they get into situations that their conventions don't cover. Conventions are usually more effective, provided you never mistake their meaning or response structure (a big "if" for beginners). Most beginners would be better off with only a few conventions that they know backwards and forwards, rather than trying to learn complex systems. Stayman, blackwood, game tries, and cuebids should be sufficient for most beginning partnerships. Hope this helps!

Hi. I have recently started incorperating the Losing Trick Count into my bidding. I was wondering how the lighter openings that a strong club system allows would affect the LTC. In systems where an opening promises a minimum of 12-13 points, responder can safely assume that opener has at most 7 losing tricks. However, many people who use a strong club routinely open hands with 11 or even 10 points. How does this affect the LTC? Should responder now assume 8 losing tricks? What if opener will only have 10-11 points if they have an unbalanced hand?

How about 4th suit forcing after the reverse? 1♣-1♠ 2♦-2♥ 2N-3♣ and then the cuebidding starts.

Thanks, everyone, for your help. I am currently leaning toward 2♠ as a range check or weak minor signoff. The reason for this is that I am hoping to experiment with a slightly wider range weak NT (12-15). The wide range makes the ability to sort out the 12-13 point hands from the 14-15 point hands critical in some sequences, and the weak nature of it makes it necesary to have ways to run to a suit contract with a weak hand and a long suit. Since 2♠ handles the invitational hands, what is the best convention to use 2NT for, when paired with this 2♠? I am leaning toward 5-5 minor hands, either weak or strong (the weak version passes opener's preference while the strong version bids a major singleton or void). Is there a better use for it?

There is a convention that is part of SAYC, but I have never heard its proper name. Most serious partnerships seem to do away with it anyways in favor of 4 suited transfers or minor suit Stayman, etc, but I was looking for further information on it and didn't know what to search for. The convention is over a 1N opening, 2♠ is used to force partner to bid 3♣, and responder passes or corrects to 3♦.

Puppet Stayman is the clasic way to check for a 4 or 5 card major when partner's NT opening could contain a 5 card major. This has several drawbacks, however. 1. You loose the ability to use "garbage stayman" on weak hands 2. You give away a lot of information to the defenders about the shape of both hands It seems to me that the first could be solved entirely, and the second addressed in part, by using the following: 1N - 2♣ = regular stayman. Opener will bid a 4 or 5 card major, and bid 2♦ without either major 2M - 3♣ = followup asking if opener has a 5th card in the major This will give detailed information to the opponents much less frequently than puppet stayman (i.e. only when responder makes the followup ask) and still allows the use of stayman on a weak hand. It dosn't solve the problem of finding 2M when a 5-3 fit exists, but you can't have everything. The obvious cost is that you loose whatever meaning you otherwise had for 1N-2C-2M-3C (for instance to show a hand with 5+ clubs and 4 in the other major) but I don't find myself using that sequence much anyways. The rationalle seems the same as for giving up the natural meaning of 2♣ over 1NT. Any thoughts?

So what would you do if you have, say, diamonds and hearts, but not clubs?

Thanks, everyone, for your replies. It seems from people's imput like the idea itself is workable, even though I havn't been able to find any info online about it (except for "spiral scan" which is a one-sided version that works with step responses). I had been planning on using 3NT for one of three things, Serious NT, Frivolous NT, or denying 2 of the top 3 trump. So my next question is: which of the three works best with this style of (anti-)cuebidding? With controls in every suit you can still actually start cuebidding, they simply start looking a bit more like asking bids than cuebids. You can bid a suit where you only have one control. If they sign off, showing no controls there, you can push on and ask for an ace in a second suit, or rebid that same suit to ask if they have the queen or a doubleton. For instance, with ♠AQ754 ♥AJ93 ♦KQ97 ♣void, if spades were agreed at the three level then you might continue with 4♥. If partner signed off, you could continue with 5♦, and partner would sign off at 5♠ without the diamond ace or bid 5♥ with the diamond ace but with three heart loosers, bid 5NT with the diamond ace and third round control of hearts but no top spade honor, or cue bid something at the 6 level with the diamond ace, third round control of hearts, and one of the top 3 spades.

I have been curious recently about the posability of reversing the meaning of cuebids. In other words, the first cuebid of of a suit would show 2 quick loosers while skipping over it would show first or second round control. There are a few reasons that this seems atractive to me. First, you will never need gadgets like "last train" since you won't have a desire to show something in a suit that was skipped over. Second, it makes it more economical to show multiple controls (which you will usually have in a slam auction). Basically, the more cramped the bidding space, the more sense it seems to make. There are 2 disadvantages that I can think of. First, it seems like it might be easier for the opponents to find a good spot to double for either lead direction or identifying a sacrifice. Second, it could make it easier for the opponents to find their opening lead when you sign off in game. In normal (positive) cuebidding, when partner skips over 2 suits and you sign off in game, they have to guess which of those suits to lead. With anti-cuebids, if you bid a suit and partner signs off, they can be prety confident about leading that suit. Do these disadvantages make it unplayable?

Does the decision to use the forcing NT in 2/1 affect the decision of weather to open a balanced hand with a 5 card major 1M or 1N? I use a weak NT in a 2/1 structure (basically K-S). Historically, I have opened 1M whenever possible, but that basically gives up on a 1N final contract when that is often the best spot, because of the forcing 1N response. Then again, opening 1N basically gives up on playing 2M as a final contract, which is the best spot about as often. I know that, in general, it is ok to open either way, but I assume that the other conventions used weigh in on the decision. Given that I use these two conventions (weak NT opener and forcing NT response), is opening 1M or 1N better with 5M332 and 12-14 points?

Hi, everyone. I am currious what the best way to develop bidding judgement is. Is it simply a matter of bidding and playing more hands, or does going over how professionals bid cirtain hands help more? Does the system you play matter? For instance, would a natural system do a better job, or an artificial one? How about constructive vs preemptive? Does it help most to look over professionals who use your system, or to look at how they bid with different systems? Or does it help to stick with playing one system, or to use a couple of systems? Bidding judgement is hard to quantify, I know, but what do people think is the best way to get better at it?

Does anyone know where to get a writeup of the orriginal K-S system? I have a modern version via http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/KaplanSheinwold.pdf, but there are many deviations from the orriginal scheme, especially in the followups.

Ok, so I was fixing the wrong problem... in that case, if I were to use an opening notrump structure like: 1♣ = 11-13 balanced or 17+ (20+ balanced) 1♦ = 11-16 natural unbalanced or 17-19 balanced 1N = 14-16 balanced which of the two response structures would work better, or should I ditch the idea of transfer responses?

Alright, I am going to take one more shot at improving this structure, then set it aside for a while if it still dosn't satisfy. Most of the concerns are about the responder having 0-7 points and no 4 card major with no long minor to run to (perhaps skipping a 3-4 major fit to play in a minor at a level higher). So... how about: 1♦ = 0-7 with 3+ hearts OR 13+ with 4+ hearts 1♥ = 0-7 with 3+ spades OR 13+ with 4+ spades 1♠ = 0-7 with a 5+ minor OR 8-12 balanced or 4441 1N = 13+, no 4 card major 2♣ = 8-12, 5+ 2♦ = 8-12, 5+ 2♥ = 8-12, 5+ 2♠ = 8-12, 5+ After 1♣-1♠-1N (confirming 11-13 balanced) the structure might look like: Pass = 8-10 points, balanced or 4441 2♣ = 0-7, 5+ clubs 2♦ = 0-7, 5+ diamonds 2♥ = 11-12, 4 hearts (or 5332 with hearts) 2♠ = 11-12, 4 spades (or 5332 with spades) 2N = 12 (or a very good 11) points, balanced, no 4 card major The big problem now would probably be in figuring out what to do after responder transfers into a major and passes (showing 0-7) and the opponents double. Figuring out when to scramble and when to play 1Mx could be tricky at times. Is this weakness preferable to the other structure, or am I simply trading one unplayable system for another?

Since I took the 1♠ bid almost directly from Bende's post, which he says is a system used by an expert sweedish pair, it is not that "I figured out something that the whole country missed over the last 40 odd years," it is that some expert pairs use one system while others use a different system. Maybe you think that I chose the wrong one, but both Bende and Free suggested a 1♠ negative. If you would like to point out some specific weaknesses of that and suggest an alternative approach, I'd like to hear it. If you think there is a better way to handle a 1♠ negative, I'd like to hear that too.

A few people have mentioned putting bridge on TV, which is a fun idea, but it needs some "Bells and whistles" so to speak to make it palatable the the general public. Poker was on TV for decades, but didn't get popular until they introduced the "Hole cams" that let the audience and commentators see the player's cards. Statistics litter the screen so that people at home know as much about what is happening as the pros (or at least they can feel like they do). It became popular on TV in part because people could understand the player's dilemmas and think "What would I do here?" To make bridge work on TV, you would need commentators who could explain the hand in a way that people with only a basic knowledge of the game could understand the dilema and ask "What would I do?" Immagine, for instance, the player's cards displayed at the bottom of the screen and a commentator saying: "Well, a lot of beginners would bid 4 Notrump here, the Blackwood Convention" (a sidebar pops up saying "Blackwood is a convention that allows your partner to tell you how many aces they have) "but Fantoni knows that, with his heart void, knowing which aces partner has is just as important as knowing how many, so he is probably going to continue on with a cuebid instead." Or imagine a comentator saying "Well, I would expect Meckstroth to open 1 spade here, but wait, he opens 1 club instead!" (a sidebar pops up saying "Meckstroth plays Precision, a system where all 16+ hands are opened with 1 club") "This seems a little dubious to me, but he apparently decided that the suit quality justified upgrading this hand to 16 points." Or "He knows he has to lead one of the black suits here, so he is probably either going to lead the 6 of spades or the 3 of clubs" (a sidebar pops up saying "Typically, when leading from a suit not headed by a sequence, the fourth highest card is led) etc. These sorts of things are needed to get people interested who don't already know what's going on. Also, it helps if there is a couple million dollars on the line...

It is true that the opponents could double, but that would also give us another chance to pull to a better contract. For instance, after 1♣-1♠-1N (confirming 11-13 or 17-18 balanced), responder passes with no 5 card minor (showing 44 or 43 in the minors with 33 or 32 in the majors), or bids 2m with 5. If the bidding goes 1♣-1♠-1N-P-(x), then opener can bid their better minor which is guarenteed to be at least a 7 card fit, likely 8, or can pass with 17-18 points giving responder the choice to play it, redouble with a good 5-7 points or pull to their better minor. If the bidding goes 1♣-1♠-1N-(x), then responder bids a 5 card minor, redoubles to show 44 or 43 in the minors, or passes to show 5-7 points and let opener decide if they want to pull it, play it, or redouble to show 17-18 points. Either way, it seems there is little risk of playing in 1Nx and going for a bunch, unless there is something I had missed. side note: it is true that you will end up playing 1N with 18 opposite 7, when the majority of the field will probably be in 3N, but my general phillosophy is never to bid a game with 23 points (with the exception of very good fits) and never to miss a game with 26 (with the exception of bad misfits), so this seems acceptable to me.

I like the general idea. Would it be good to extend this principle to the majors as well? Something like... 1♦ = 4+ hearts, 0-7 or 12+ 1♥ = 4+ spades, 0-7 or 12+ 1♠ = 0-7, no 4+ major 1N = 12+, 5+ minor or balanced with no 4 card major 2♣ = 8-11, 5+ clubs 2♦ = 8-11, 5+ diamonds 2♥ = 8-11, 5+ hearts 2♠ = 8-11, 5+ spades This eats up a lot of space with the 2M responses, but it is a fairly narrow bid, and as you mentioned it is GF if opener dosn't have the weak balanced variety. The preemptive value drops a bit since one opponent has already had a chance to speak, however. Is it worth putting pressure on partner like this to pressure opponents who may very well have nothing to say?

The structure that I described has you respond 1N with 9-11 points and balanced. I had no idea if this was legal at midchart or not, or general chart or not, hence the question. I should probably add the caveat that a hand which wants to play 1M opposite a balanced 11-13 should simply transfer to that major and then pass, and a hand which is undecided about playing 1N or 2M opposite an 11-13 balanced should transfer to the major and follow up with 1N. That would adress some of the more obvious flaws in the orriginal plan. If it is not GCC or midchart legal, however, it is probably not worth developing. I have few hopes of getting something new approved for midchart, even something as vanilla as this.

Two questions. 1. Is it reasonable to use transfer responses to a Sweedish Club opening, expecting partner to complete the transfer with a weak balanced hand or refuse the transfer with the strong variety? 2. Would this be legal in ACBL land? the response structure would look something like this: Opener: 1♣ = 11-13 balanced or 17+ any Responder: 1♦ = 4+ hearts 1♥ = 4+ spades 1♠ = 4+ clubs 1N = 9-11 balanced 2♣ = 4+ diamonds If opener completes the transfer then responder, knowing that opener has 11-13 balanced, can set the final contract. If opener bids something else, showing 17+, the bidding continues on much as in a standard strong club context.

I also take 3♣ as 4th suit forcing. Now 3♦ seems perfectly natural. I would want better spades to bid 3♠, personally.