Cthulhu D

If you're trying to split on the basis of frequency, wouldn't that argue going for tighter definition at the lower end, which are by far the most frequent hands? I can see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure why that suggests splitting into 11-14, 15-17 and 18-19. The rationale for the 18-19 as I understand it is that you had to rebid 2NT and then you have a serious lack of room.

So the European championships had a large number of playing 15-17 NT range with T-Walsh. This doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense to me - from my experience a key advantage of the method is being able to play with an optimally spaced NT ladder of 11-13, 14-16, 17-19. I don't see what the downside is other than sometimes playing against the room if you are playing matchpoints. Two likely hypothesis that occur to me are: Most of those people playing 15-17 are aggressively upgrading 14 counts and it's really (14)15-17, or the matchpoints thing is really valuable. Am I missing anything? Why would you play a 15-17 NT with T-Walsh?

In the MBC, it is to play with every expectation of making unless you have a totally unexpected spade fit. With my regular partner, I play it similar to MrAce - 10-13 (though the notes say basically 2S is fine for anything when you don't want partner to directly bid game with a 9-10 count and solid support) - but that's in part because we open all 11 counts. We have the slightly wider range to better inform partner's chances of bidding game with a maximum passed hand after the auction 1S-Something-2S which now promises something extra which is the important auction we are trying to add extra definition too.

Doesn't a lot here depend on how aggressive you partner is at bidding 1S? It's not very exclusive, but he's looking at the colours as well.

I think leads from an honour is relatively clear (Rusinow) but small card leads ate less clear. What is the position on 2/4th English style, 2/4th polish style or 3/5th? It seems american expert standard is English 2/4 vs NT and 3/5 vs suits, wears Polish adherents play Polish regardless, but what is the theoretical merit? Combine is the other possibility

I'm interested to know what the consensus on carding agreements would be if you were building a new serious partnership today would be and could play whatever you like. I considered posting a big ass poll but that doesn't really help plus you need a monster poll. Question is inspired because partner and I have been playing virtually the same basic carding agreements from day 3 of learning bridge to here, some way down the track (we switched to upside down attitude on day 3. At some point we agreed to under-lead sequences). The amusing upshot of this is we don't play anything that makes logical sense. Obviously this is not optimal, and given the recent Bird/Anthias effort and the fact that consistently the weakest part of our game is leads, defensive signally and generally playing the cards in defence, we're going to allocate some special effort to defence (noooooo). So I guess I was intrested in what's people's take on: I've seen a fair bit of discussion (3/5 vs suits + English style 2/4th vs NT, Polish style 2/4th all the time, Slawinsky leads except when breaking a new suit through declarer). There are a ton of options and the differences are significant according to Slawinksy's analysis in 'Systems in Defence.' Bird & Anthias' work clearly has an impact here as well - they are suggesting Rusinow except K is the 'big lead' and asks for an unblock. Here is a list of things that will hopefully spark some discussion. Opening leads Honour leads small card leads NT vs Suit contracts What about when leading Partner's suit Thoughts: For Honour leads, it seems like Rusinow except with K as the big lead is optimal vs NT (enabling the lead of unsupported aces) is the optimal system of honour leads, particularly in light of Bird / Anthias work suggesting that leading unsupporting aces is a good idea (I am aware of the limitations of that analysis). Do you do the same thing vs suits? Do you play something else? Do you make a hat? For small card leads it is a ton less clear whether Slavinski, 2/4th or 3/5th are better/best small card systems, and whether you want to max Breaking new suits through declarer Honour leads small card leads NT vs Suit contracts Comments seem to indicate that whatever you are playing for opening leads except leading attitude through declarer is a good plan? During the hand Suit Preference signals Defensive signaling (UDCA?) on partner's lead Defensive signals on declarer's lead Smith Echo vs NT Suit preference (whether Odds/Evens, Lavinathal, or whatever) is a completely disconnected decision from the others, so less interested in that, more what other signals people make (UDCA, Mixed signals ala Slavinski?). Smith Echo seems mandatory.

I like (and I nicked this method from BBF, but forgot to credit the author in my notes, so I expect someone to say 'you stole that bro' shortly) 1M-2NT: 3C: Any minimum (we define minimum as less than an ace more than a minimum opener) 3D: Extras with any shortage - ask for shortage by bidding 3M 3M: Extras with extra trump length 3oM or 4m: Good (5 card) 2nd suit 3NT: Extras in a 5332 (or, potentially, 5422) balanced (this is super important for my partner who hates to open 1NT with a 5 card major. I imagine if you had my moral philosophy of open 1NT erry day, it might matter less) After 3C-3D is an ask, and you show shortage by bidding the suit or, 3H with extra trump length and 3NT with balanced minimum. I like this because the symmetry in the method makes it easy to remember, and it's relatively natural if you can remember 3C and 3D are artificial. I'm not totally sold on 1M-2NT-4m as being the two suited because as you point out you can get some really cramped auctions after 1H-2NT-4D where respondent may basically have to guess.

That's not a meta rule, that's an actual rule. Meta rules are rules about your agreements, not actual agreements. Meta rules are what you do when you don't have a position.

It's very different, you're going to have a lot more constructive auctions that I am playing a 21+ or weak diamonds. Basically any 11-12 count is fine letting the partnership sit in 2D, but opposite you that is a danger hand. As a result you can afford a really conservative 'packing' of responses - and indeed even squeeze additional weak options into 2C. On a related note, from experience with a Diamonds + major opening it's really awkward because often you want to advance if partner has hearts but really do not want to if partner has spades. That might be less of an issue in constructive auctions that with 2D as a diamonds + major pre-empt, but ti is torturous. My hardest decisions at the bridge table in random club session are often whether to bid 2H over 2D. We can deal with this at the 1 level in a !C = balanced or clubs 1D = unbalanced type structure with flip flop responses (so 1D-1S-1NT= 5D-4H weak hand.

Some people around here play 15-18 in face to face bridge for reasons that I do not understand.

Not having hand records is dumb. Like, that is the biggest single amenity. I wouldn't play at a club that didn't have hand records.

On a side note I floated this with partner and he said that he was fairly sure that it was a big majors hand, but that gambling 3NT was possible and concluded that it should probably be majors but he's not sure what he'd do at the table. I was surprised to realise that we Yeah, we have something similar, but we approach it differently in club games (particularly pairs games) vs something for which there is a prize. There our agreement in club games boils down to is it's natural unless on the balance of probabilities it is not. In a serious event it's natural unless it is overwhelmingly unlikely to be natural, e.g. (1S)-5S. I'm much more willing to take chances in a pairs game that doesn't matter other than the 0.2 master-points for winning, vs a two day teams event where I don't want to have to explain that I decided to do action X completely undiscussed and it turned out we had different perspectives on what is 'obvious' Indeed, I think that not taking the chances in the random club game is wasting the random club game. That's the time to find out exactly how bad a hand you can bid 2C with over a 1D opening.

Isn't the point of random club games to hone your partnership? Me and my partner recently had a situation where we both simultaneously realised mid action that in completely undiscussed sequence X with interference there was a logical and artificial way to arrange the available bids, but I wimped out from implementing that artificial scheme without discussion, partner assumed I had, and a result we got a poor board. If I had of sprung the artificial bids on him and he got it wrong I'd feel slightly bad, but it's just some random match-points game that neither of us care about. The line of logic for (1NT)-3NT to be 66 majors in a game going hand isn't torturous, so if partner meant it as that I'd roll with it. Anyway, random assumptions 1) Strong 2) Gambling style (thinks he can rattle off a bunch of tricks but that they have an easy escape) 3) Probably 66 majors because X is penalty.

Can you not get sunk when partner passes a 13 count and you have an awkward 12 with two card support for partner? Those the the ones I worry about the most - (though they basically never happen). Though this might be a style thing - we open a 14-16 NT and partner passes a 1NT response with a weak NT.

How common is playing 2C as a 3 card limit raise or some strong options? I've been playing that for a while and seems OK. It means the only danger hands (playing a 14-16 NT and opening 11 counts are) 4432 12 counts with 2 card support for partner.

Because you're playing 2/1 and what 2D to promise a real diamonds hand?

It's better to teach stuff like this like: 1. Make the point, e.g that hands with a long suit or two suiters play better, here are some examples 2. Here is a good rule of thumb that you can use in your decision making. 3. However, remain aware that there exceptions - e.g. your example hand. The rule cannot be taken with blind faith and you should use your judgement. You can then pose some questions about when you might apply the rule and when you might not. Teaching the rule of thumb and teaching people to think critically are not mutually exclusive. Rules of thumb are very useful.

What are you going to do with 3C and 3D? Playing something similar we have 3C as both minors and 3D as 6/4 diamonds + major Playing in such a place we play 2S as a 3 level pre-empt in a minor or a good 3 level pre-empt in a major. Not a huge fan of the bid though. However, 3C as both minors weak 54xx or better when it's good to pre-empt aggressively is a big winner when it comes up. What we do play is BSC overcalls, which are really good and I am a fan - the biggest being: (1C) - 2C - Diamonds + Major 2D: Either major (the actual BSC) 2H: Both majors 2S: Pre-empt 2NT: Intermediate jump in diamonds w/stop 3D: Diamonds without a stop. And so on/ WE've experimented with canape overcalls (3-4 in the suit bid, 5 cards in another), but I honestly have no idea if they are good or not after playing them for 6 months. You win on this auction: (1C)-1S! (1S: 3-4 Spades and 5 card in a red suit) and lose on this auction: (1C)-1D! (1D: 3-4 diamonds and 5 cards in a major) when they raise clubs. It works better vs 5 card major style stuff than ACOL systems where it is not very good.

Given this is A) Really good and B) Free, this is imho the best bidding book you can get.

For the Ekren's bidders, what do you do when the auction continues: [hv=pc=n&e=st98632hat743d9c3&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=2h(Ekrens)p2n(Inquiry)3dp(Suggests%20a%20min)3nd4cp4ddp]133|200[/hv] Anything 4-4 to 5-5 (continuations make no provision for more shape than 5/5). Vul vs not our general agreement is that partner will have something contextually decent first in (say xxx xx KJxx QTxx as a dead minimum. A 'max' in response to an inquiry would be an 8 count with concentrated values. Compensating distribution lets you offset HCP a bit). Really this hand has more shape and less HCP than the partnership expects.

Is the double really clear on hand 1? It feels awful with 3 spades to the ten, given that it suggests 4.

[hv=pc=n&e=st98632hat743d9c3]133|100[/hv] Playing a system of pre-empts with 2H as both majors (Ekrens style) and 2S as a good pre-empt in a major and 3M as a bad pre-empt in a major, what is your plan for bidding this hand? If you pass, what is your anticipated strategy A) Generally and B) specifically if your LHO bid hearts?

System context - 2/1 GF, 5 card majors, variable NT, short club with transfer responses. Hand 1: I'm pretty sure we just got done on this hand. (1NT would have been 11-13 at this position and vul) re[hv=pc=n&w=st85hj4dk63cak863&e=s32haq2daj42cqj94&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1c(Clubs%20or%20bal)3h]266|200[/hv] I tried 4C which didn't feel great, but 3S and double felt real bad. Partner then bid 5 and we went off. I think this is just 'pre-empts work' and nothing you can do, but open to suggestions. Or maybe I should just pass and he re-opens with a strong NT? That doesn't feel that good either I must say. Hand 2: [hv=pc=n&w=sajt8764h83d76ca9&e=skq3h5dakq52cq872&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1d2h]266|200[/hv] 1D promises 4+ diamonds in an unbalanced hand (2/1 GF w/short club context). I tried 2S and partner tried 3H and I bid 4S, but I don't feel like that sequence was good with slam being such a strong prospect. Niether of us were sure exactly what 4C is - does that set trumps to spades always? Should 4H be last train? What's standardish agreements here?

Been plagin g 2/1 with a variable NT for a while, and this definitely works best with a short club. Then you don't have the awful sequences after 1D because you can play 1D-1S-1NT as 4 hearts. Agree with Hrothgar that support doubles have to go.

I'm pretty sure 99.99% of the complaints about computer delt hands being'distributional' is because hand dealt hands are excessively flat and people are making the comparison.