PhilKing

I voted other - Stayman followed by 2♥. The real issue is what to do if someone then bids 2♠. If it is pard, I will bid 3♣. If it is the oppo I will bid 3♠. I remember Gawrys bidding this way against me once with a 1435 and it worked on a one hand sample. Maybe it will still work with only 4 clubs. I think this should be a scramble with short spades, but obviously I am winging it.

Yeah - it seems pretty intuitive that transfers over a 12-14 1NT are pretty close to neutral ev in terms of right-siding the contract. The break even point may be around the 12 point mark - who knows? Obviously the people who discussed it in midwest bars after thrashing lols in the regionals back in the day know "the answer". The truth is it does not matter much, so playing the same responses over a mini as over a strong NT is perfectly acceptable to avoid memory overload.

I'd probably bid 4♥ in both cases.

The database is not freely available. Anyway, it contains fewer than 30000 deals, so it's not really large enough to examine auctions like this. This database will not grow much, since compromising the quality of play becomes an issue, but I might make a second one including weaker events to get 100k+ hands to examine more obscure situations. I just looked at the equivalent heart auctions to see if there was a single instance of getting to 3NT. And sorry - the Wolpert auction was against a limit raise. The second opposite a semi-pre raise, I think. The fact is, preemptive raises are not that common in championship play - they are more common amongst decent young tournament players. I could only find a handfull of genuinely weak raises, and 3NT was never in the frame.

I consulted my database and no one has ever bid 3NT to play in this auction within the last decade in top-level championship play. A couple of illustrative hands did catch my attention: Gavin Wolpert held: ♠J2♥T62♦K964♣7432 He guessed to bid 4♦ and got smacked for 500. Partner held a less than ideal ♠T4♥AQJ8♦52♣AQJ85 on which 4♣ makes ten tricks. And no, they could not make 4♠. On another hand Jassem held:♠93♥K♦T9763♣J9862 He did not guess - he bid 3NT for the minors and conceded 300 in 5♣ against a vulnerable making game. Widening the search slightly to include 1♥-pass-3♥-x-pass, Bertens held: ♠A95♥AJ4♦J8543♣J4. He cued 4♥ and converted 5♣ to 5♦ down 2. The winning action was 3NT, but maybe that was not an option. If that is true he had another chance - pass would have gathered an easy 500.

It's probably best to play 3NT as pick a minor here, but you could also make a pretty good case for Lebensohl. Playing "the gadget" you can get the best of both - a direct 4♦ is constructive. With a bad diamond hand we bid 3NT (minors) and remove clubs to diamonds, showing the weak hand - not diamonds and hearts. So my choice here is 4♦ constructive.

Yeah this is basically how the 1995 convention worked - the theory was that if opener made a bid other than 2♦ we were in a game force, otherwise the bidding of good hands became hopelessly compromised.

Baronised Acol is fairly popular in Australia. In Melbourne there was (and probably still is) a group that play Borinised Acol, which was Jim Borin's interpretation of Acol, but it only produced one hit on Google, so they are in danger of being erased from world history.

Yeah, this is true - I introduced them to this treatment in 1995. The version I gave them was that 2♦ over 2♣ was natural, a weak NT or a minimum with clubs, but they did it a bit differently. Had the hand you quoted occurred in the 1994 Junior European, it would probably have been a raise to 2♠ - this sequence brought in a lot of penalties against ill-considered junior balancing, but is not so great in the open game.

Your post shows a good depth of knowledge, but the fact is that the penny has still not dropped as to what SAYC is. There is no old way or new way of playing it. It is not Standard American - it is a specific convention card (Yellow Card) put together by a committee based on their interpretation of SA with an accompanying booklet. The aim was players from intermediate level and above to be able to sit down and play without discussion, though most fall into the same trap. What you have been doing is discussing why a camel is not a Ferrari. The "booklet" is SAYC - not someone's opinion of what it should be.

Quite a lot of the hands where partner has 5H and 0-2 spades are 1NT responses.

Anyone who think 4♠ is exclusion is basically confused and, for their own safety, should be barred from playing conventions invented after 1970. My guess is that grand will be cold at least 90% of the time, so if I have no real way of investigating (eg 5♠), I will just punt it via RKCB.

Let me get this straight - your motivation is just to bring BBO ACBL games into line with ACBL games for entirely altruistic reasons?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's entirely possible that that BBO do not care whether this disadvantages the top 0.01% of their clientelle. If it's a nice little novelty feature for the majority, just go with it. The death of online poker came about when the main sites started to cater to the wishes of the high volume pros. As long as the punters have features they like and a game they like then everyone wins. Footnote: serious question - how many of these sharks are examining your results and rivering you?

Yeah, gotta love the ♦Q in 2♣ doubled. I think it's underestimated how that can affect later boards - obviously Nunes line in slam here is just plain wrong.

I'm glad you didn't go so far as to actually recommend pass.

I might be being a bit thick, but in a DD simulation I think the result would be an exact tie.

I'm a paper tiger, so I'll go for 2NT. There's lots of ways we could stop the suit - I'm rooting for Tx with partner.

As who would not? This one shows extras - the others don't. To give a concrete example of a "sound values": ♠KT986 ♥AJ43 ♦J6 ♣A4 After 3♣ on the right, Cohen and Schwartz both doubled and passed a 3♦ response. I would continue with 3♠. I am only telling you this because 3♦ went 2 down and 4♠ makes. B-)

No - don't apologise. I was stupid for thinking that what we used to call the "human" element was still part of the game.

1) What does a Double of 3C by Opener show (in your world)? Either a) Diamonds, too good to bid 3♦ b) 4CM, too good to bid 3M or c) 18-20 balanced. It's not formally a game force, though thinking about it now, it probably should be. But if I double and then pull 3R to 3♠ that is definitely forcing anyway. 2) With a weak opening (KQXX KX KTXXXX X) or a more balanced mini, does Opener have to just eat it and Pass? With good shape, I think we should always bid in an auction like this, so I would call 3♠ with no guilt. 3) Does my responding hand gut out a second Double with no Diamond Tolerance and weakness? No. Definitely not. 4) 3♠ in the passout seemed suicidal, but I did think about it before letting them have 3C. See 2. If the player with short clubs takes up the slack, we don't have to push as well.

But you didn't tell us it was a robot duplicate - I would snap bid 4 against bots, not just because their defence is bad (it is much weaker than their declarer play) but the bot partner will tend to invite on some hands that should insist on game.

How can it be better to pass and make a WJO in diamonds with a chunky 5-bagger than open 2♦? Anyway, I bid 3♦, since unless partner is insane, he is more likely to to 4M 6D than be trying to go for 1400.

Just relax, take a deep breath, and come over to the unequal level conversion club. I've looked at so many of these hands from top-level play recently it's scary. Basically, these sequences should just show sound rather than huge values (there is one exception - removing a major to a major). And as long as we have tops in our suits, we have "blockers" to the raise. It's such a huge winner I considered not posting!

Since West is a robot, the ♠8 is never a falsecard. And robots give standard count, if any. On the assumption that West has 1 or 2 spades, overtaking the heart is indicated within the weak 2 parameters advertised. West's possible shapes are: 1363 2164 1264 2362 2263 In the case when West is 2164, we have no winning line, since he is bound to have the diamond ace. We gain when he is 1264 and all other cases are a wash. edit - GIB signals as follows: When it's following to partner's opening lead, it will give an attitude signal: High spot card with an Ace or King High spot card with a Queen behind dummy's Ace or King Low in any other situation Which marks the spade as a singleton, so overtake the heart and claim.