RunemPard

What time? 2PM EST? Going out, but should be able to get back before that time..can play if there is a match.

I took away the 2♠ bid by opener in #3 as it was unneeded for the question asked.

Am working on implementing XYZ into a partnership. Have run into a few dilemmas that I couldn't find things online about a few of them.. 1) 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2M Normally this would be GF for us after 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2M. Do you still play this as INV showing shape through 2C? 2) 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2NT & 1♣-1♦; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2NT - What is the difference in your partnerships? Bernard Marcoux recommends direct to show 4 card support or Hxx in partner's suit while slow denies. 3) 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♥ & 1♣-1♥; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2♠ - Does the second one show INV 4/4 majors, while the first one shows 5+H and possibly 4S? 4) 1♥-1♠; 1NT-2NT & 1♥-1♠; 1NT-2♣*; 2♦*-2NT - Larry Cohen recommends using a direct 2NT to deny 5M while slow shows 5M. This takes us over 2M with balanced hands though. Bernard Marcoux recommends direct showing Hx in partner's major and slow denying. Which do you feel has more merit or what do you use different? If I have any other questions..I will edit them beyond this point. Appreciate any feedback... Don

IMO it depends on how often you open multi on a 5 card suit..the frequency goes up a lot when 5 card suits are included. Even with 5 card suits, option 2 is still most likely better. If you only ever open on a 6 card suit, then yea..option #1 no doubt. You are sitting behind the overcall with the strong hand and want to be able to finish the work your partner's preempt has done.

Depends on scoring, location/system of opps, skill level... At mps you have to play your 5-2 better than those in 1nt of course.. But I don't know. Have never seen a sim on this.

I was thinking it could be similar to after a natural 2M-2N auction, asking for a feature, or asking for single minor...I personally have only had one time where I had a hand and felt I had the need to use garbage stayman, but I understand that it does help. I guess my thinking is that it could be useful if partner has an ok hand and wants to ask what my minors look like before deciding game or not. I don't know, however, what plays better...a misfitting 2254 vs a 54xx or 2M. We never bid 1N with a single major though. Just thinking while writing down some 1N response notes for partner and I and thought I would see if anyone has anything they typically play.

Sorry forgot to include that in the OP. Yes, 5M, 6m, 2254, sometimes difficult hands w/ 5m+4H

Playing a 15-17 NT, how do you play after the following auctions? Where 1N-2C-2D-2M shows an INV w/ 5 in the bidden major and 4 in the other major. 1N-2♣ 2♦-2♥ ? 1N-2♣ 2♦-2♠ ? Is using 2N as an artificial forcing bid more logical than natural, to play? Curious..thanks! -Don

I cannot this weekend, but I would like to try and make it to one of the next few matches.

Your partner obviously had no clue what a limit raise is. The best way to show a limit+ raise in this sequence is to bid the opponents suit, showing support. A jump bid is typically preemptive with 0-7 hcp and a 4 card suit(depending on vulnerability). You have promised no more than maybe 8 hcp, so making a limit raise on this hand is foolish.

Well that's funny...frustrates me even more as I was sitting there arguing whether it was even established. If I recall correctly, partner noticed the revoke directly after, before one of us had played to the next trick. I had asked to see the law in writing as well, but never got my demand. I will be having a talk with the people running this club for sure. Our opponents were a TD who runs our other afternoon tournament(he didn't make the ruling) and an experienced player. The irony is, if I felt it was this obvious, I would give the trick to most opponents simply because I don't wish to or need to win in such a manner. This single hand was the difference between winning or being in 3rd place. I don't agree with this law even if it was established..it is simply illogical to me to "reward" a trick to a side when the outcome is determined and no line can affect it. In my mind, it is more screwing up the results for other players by placing a completely wacky "artificial" score in the field when a completely normal result is feasible. But that's just fine and dandy...

(Swedish club level if it matters in the ruling) I believe I understand what the rule book says regarding a revoke, however, I was quite annoyed to have to give up a trick on a hand tonight. I apologize for not having the exact hands, but for whatever reason different hands are showing up on the website. I am going off of memory on the play so I have no spot cards and have replaced them with X. LHO opens... (1♠)-4♦-(4♠)-5♦ (5♠)-P-(P)-X-AP Lead ♦K from partner.. You hold AQxx Ax Axx T9xx ♦K, x, x, ♠x ♣x, x, A, x ♠J, x, x, ♦x ♠x, A, x, ♦x ♦A, ♠x, ♦x, x ♥x, x, K, A ♦x, ♠x, ♦x, x At this point, I am sitting with.. ♠Qx ♥x ♦ ♣xxx A club is played and partner does not follow suit, I ask, no clubs? Partner replies no, and the trick is turned over and another suit is led from dummy. At this point partner discovers his revoke and director is called. We finish the hand and call back the director. According to the laws, even if partner's revoke is 100% meaningless(other than trick 12), at least one trick is awarded to the non-offending side. In this situation, the trump were K to my LHO, x for RHO and Qx for me. So rather than a nice 100% 5♠X-1, the opponents are rewarded 5♠X= for a top their way. I just thought I would make sure I am understanding the rules correctly, that no matter how completely obvious a hand is, that the revoking side is always giving up a trick here? That just seemed wrong to me. Even though partner never won a trick, and the only trick we got was one that could not be avoided in any way before or after the revoke. /end rant..

Seeing GIB bidding like this makes me feel relieved. We are safe from a robot take over...for now.

You didn't mention bidding methods.. Was 4sf not available? I see east's hand as worthy of 15 balanced and opposite an unlimited partner why jump? 1h-1s 2d-3c 3d/h-bid hearts

We had splinters available..I just decided that the hand seemed either too good or almost too good to use one... Wasn't sure if I could get more information by splintering or starting with Jacoby. Should have said in my post, but we are playing 2/1 w/ reverse bergen, splinters, and jacoby. 1M-2N 3C=all mins 3D=extras, no shortage 3H=extras, single club and so on up to voids

Partner opens 1H and you hold... ♠AKQx ♥QTxxx ♦Jxx ♣x 1♥-2N* 3♦*-3♠* 3N*-4♣* 4♦*-? 2N=Jacoby 3♦=extras, no shortness 3♠=control 3N=undiscussed 4♣=control 4♦=control Agree up to here? Now what?

Do not have the exact cards, but they were not very relevant. You are 2nd to bid after a pass from your righty...You are NV, opps are V...2/1 Opps leads are 3rd/5th If I recall correctly, the lead was the C9 or C8.. [hv=pc=n&s=saqjxxxxhTdTcAxxx&n=sTxxhAxdAKQJ98cxx&d=e&v=e&b=1&a=p1sp2np3sp4hp4np5hp6sppp&p=c9]400|300[/hv] 2N=GF raise 3♠=extras+diamond single 4♥=control

Yeah, I figured that may be the better line after...but, too late for that. :P

Was bidding hands randomly with robots, and this came up. Don't have the small cards. [hv=pc=n&s=sT82hakjt2d32caj9&n=sak3h34dak54ckq32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=7cppp&p=s9stsjsah3h5hah6hkhqh4h7]400|300[/hv]

I went through all the results posted in the OP and updated the most appearances/wins for what was provided. I thought we won another match somewhere but I don't see it there? 0 COBAN ---- L abcxL ------ LL anthonylee - W ArtK78 ----- LL aurora ----- L awm -------- LLLLL AyunuS ----- L barmar ----- LL BBradley62 - L benlessard - LLL broze ------ L cameron_1 -- LL catch22 ---- LLLLL cherdano --- LLLL columbo91 -- LL cousin it -- L CSGibson --- L dakota by1 - L diana_eva -- LLLLL eblem ------ L elianna ---- LLL f0rest_zzy - L finch ------ LLL Fluffy ----- LLL foobar ----- LL francine21 - L frederic --- L GaelClichy - L gipsona ---- L glfolgy ---- L goodwinsr -- L gordontd --- L gnasher ---- LLLLLLL greenman --- LLL guymath ---- LL gwnn ------- LLL gszeszycki - LLLLWLLLLLLL han -------- LL hefaistos -- L helene_t --- LL hrothgar --- LLLL huyou959 --- L ibraves ---- L jallerton -- L javabean --- LLL jdonn ------ L JeffFord76 - L jfaria ----- LWLL jillybean -- LLLLLLLLLLLL jjsb ------- L jlall ------ L jodizc ----- L joegrue ---- L jsabate ---- L jschafer --- L julies ----- L keylime ---- L kfitz ------ LL koncik ----- L kristen33 -- LLLLLLLLLLL krivents --- L inquiry ---- LL lesh ------- L levin ------ L lorne50 ---- L lupoveloce - L maasik_jr -- L marc2007 --- L markleon --- L mayors ----- LL mbodell ---- LLLLL mgoetze ---- LLLLLL MickyB ----- LLL minimonkey - L MrAce ------ LLLW NaeosPsy --- L neduddki --- L nige1 ------ LL offshape --- L p_marlowe -- L paulg ------ L pcooper ---- L pheonix214 - LL Phil ------- LLW philking --- LL PrecisionL - L Raff90 ----- LL rathia ----- L ritong ----- L rogerclee -- L rosenovobg - L RunemPard -- LLLWW s1mplicity - LLL sieong ----- LLLL sooth ------ L Stoicaadi -- L straube ---- LL sylviafay -- L the_clown -- LWLLL thearb ----- L TimG ------- L tylere ----- L wank ------- L yunling ---- L zzayats ---- LL Most Appearances: gszeszycki - 12 jillybean -- 12 kristen33 -- 11 gnasher ---- 7 mgoetze ---- 6 awm -------- 5 catch22 ---- 5 diana_eva -- 5 mbodell ---- 5 RunemPard -- 5 Most Wins: RunemPard -- 2 anthonylee - 1 gszeszycki - 1 jfaria ----- 1 MrAce ------ 1 Phil ------- 1 the_clown -- 1 Best Win % - Matches Played: anthonylee - 100% -- 1 RunemPard -- 40% --- 5 Phil ------- 33.3% - 3 jfaria ----- 25% --- 4 MrAce ------ 25% --- 4 the_clown -- 20% --- 5 gszeszycki - 8.3% -- 12

I leave the cards under the table as well for a couple reasons. I started doing it when I was first starting to play as an attempt to conceal where I was reaching for cards and to avoid showing them to my sides. I continue to do this for the reason mentioned. I find it comfortable.

I always liked a C+D or H+S preempt...

Hey all, Would like to work on my bidding after a quantitative NT invite w/ a (14+)15-17 NT that may have 5M, 6m, 22(54), or very rarely a 44(41). What do most of you use for replies to a quantitative invite. Should only "special" hands be described to conceal lead information, or is it considered good to show as much as possible for finding the best slam? There doesn't seem to be much room to include too many possible hand types using 1 hand type with each bid, but is there an optimal relay type way to show as many as possible? My thoughts (which are quickly thrown together and probably horrible!)... 1N-4N; 5C - one or both minors(4 card) or 5cM - 5D - asking - - 5H - 5H - - 5S - 5S - - 5N - 4/4 minors - - 6C - 4C - - 6D - 4D 1N-4N; 5D - 5cm or 5/4 minors - 5H - asking - - 5S - 2245 (5C) - - 5N - 2254 (5D) - - 6C - 5C - - 6D - 5D 1N-4N; 5H - 44(41) - 5S - asking for single minor - - 5N - single C - - 6C - single D 1N-4N; 5S - 6cm - 5N - asking - - 6C - 6C - - 6D - 6D Again, these are just replies I put together in 5 mins to put my thoughts into perspective. I am interested in easy and simple methods and complex. As of now, we have nothing. Thanks for the help, Don

It is a nice hand, but we still need a lot. 2C is the only bid to me unless we are desperate to find a game. Then I might try 1H or double.

At our local club, most of the good players tend to play this... Short club, 5cM...normal so far, but.. After a 1C opening, they all like to play 1D as showing a hand with no 5cM and 1H/1S promising 5. OK for MPs I guess if you find your 5/3 major fit in hands that normally might just pass out a 1NT rebid, but otherwise to me 100% useless. Some play that 1C-1D denies 4/4 in the minors where 1C-1N promises 4/4+ in them. Any time I play against them I try to preempt after 1C-1D far beyond what may be considered aggressively. I just fail to see the point of ruining our chances to show distribution and know immediately about a 5/4 major fit to find 5/3 part scores. For example, when I play with this method...I have a much more difficult time judging if I should go further after a fit is discovered thinking...well if partner does have 4 card support, I would really like to consider game, otherwise, I really hate the thought of being higher than 2. Another issue is that if playing more standard showing 4cM after 1C, most would play 1C-1H; 2H-2N as a sort of asking bid. When we use this method it would go... 1C-1D; 1M-??? Now what? What do we do with hands that want to force game w/ a fit. What do we do with balanced invites with spades. Do we even really have 4SF? I normally play with xyz or 2-way checkback. I strive to show distribution over 1C-1x rather than bid 1C-1D-1H on Sxxx Hxxxx Dxxx Cxxx just because partner most likely has a 4cM. I cannot even do this because most have no method of finding out after and will assume I have no major if I bid 1N. In conclusion...My main question, how bad is this method? What can I possibly do more to get them to stop using it with me! I have tried explaining to any I play this with that I cannot stand it and think it creates more problems than it solves. I find it unnatural. Using this method severely hurts my judgment and confidence while bidding and if I wish to play with any of these top players at our club, I am stuck! (They are all brilliant players, I just question their bidding choices a lot.) Thanks for the input as always, Don