EricK

It is not always right for responder to do the asking on GF hands. If you have eg a 1444 hand, you might want to know whether partner has your singleton well stopped. Finding out his shape won't necessarily do that. Also, a 2NT natural invite is possibly a waste of a bid. So you could immediate 3♥, 3♠ and 2♦ followed by 3♥, 3♠ as splinters (♥, ♠, ♣, ♦ respectively) 2NT could be weak with both minors asking partner to give preference. 2♦ followed by 2NT could be invitational with both minors. I suppose 2♦ followed by 3NT could be some GF or slam type hand with both minors. Are there any which aren't best handled by relays? Eric

I wonder... If you are not playing a weak NT, then this sort of hand has to be opened with 1 of a minor. This certainly makes it easier for LHO to overcall on a number of major suit hands on which they would be unable to open. Do the gains outweigh the losses? The hand certainly has less going for it than eg ♠KJxx ♥AQxx ♦xx ♣Qxx Eric

As I understand, you are saying this method gets banned because it has too much merits to be tolerated by those mediocres. This is self-proven why bridge is a game for nuts. Not only you have to provide defense against your own methods, but also effective methods are not allowed! Jesus. And yet another example is wilkosz 2♦ Strong pass is entirely different to everything else. What does a double of the opening pass show?! This example demonstrates that you can't simply take your defense to eg a strong club and move it over to the strong pass situation. And in general, the situations which arise are entirely different to those that arise in other systems. I think the methods were banned not because thay were better but because they were simply too different. Eric

You got it!!!!!! very good. Now if you buy some books, they will explain this to you as a "SAFETY PLAY". You are protecting against a 3-0 split in either hand. Reading it in a book is one thing, but working it out, like you did... that is something else. Now you can apply what you learned on this hand to other situations. Very well done. Several people did as you did, and led out the diamond queen. Turns out, diamonds were 2/1 and anything works. They scored their slam and moved on without knowing they had misplayed. Ben This raises a very interesting point which applies to beginners, intermediates, advanced and even experts. How can one learn from one's mistakes if it is not always clear when one has made a mistake? Looking at the results can sometimes give you a clue, but there are certainly hands where the technically correct play loses, but the "beginner" play happens to work. Also, you may have got a better or worse defense than at other tables so your results may not be strictly comparable. For example, I used to play F2F with a guy who was always looking at the results on the traveller then saying things like "You misplayed it!" because I had made one fewer trick than a lot of other tables. Sometimes I would have to point out that they had taken their tricks right at the start before I had even got in, so I didn't have much of a chance to demonstrate my playing ability! Eric

I think the "Expert" series by Danny Roth are very good. They painlessly lead even a total beginner to the point where they can make quite advanced plays. They encourage counting and so on from the word go, and don't teach rules, but ideas. They are The Expert Beginner The Expert Improver The Expert Advancer The Expert Club Player Eric

Fair enough. I note that North is minimum for a 4♥ bid (as most play it), and even now 6♥ isn't terrible. Although it turns out to be with the actual distribution. But change a small diamond for a small heart and you would definitley want to be in the slam. Eric

I believe you know what you are saying but i wonder how many of those who play sayc know about this, i think people play 2sp as 12-14 NF 3sp as 15-17. I remember a similar problem with 1S-2C-3C which i thought is a weak bid but people said in sayc it shows extra (actually it make sense). I imagine that most people who say they play SAYC haven't read the system description. I imagine that most of them don't even realise there is a system description. I imagine most of them think it just means "5 card majors, Strong NT, not many conventions", so they take the natural bidding which they are used to and change it (if necessary) to fit that mould. In the other example you gave, the raise of a minor shows extras because it is forcing on partner as does a rebid of 2NT. This means that with a minimum hand opener must temporise with 2M. Eric

Why is South "3 trumps short"? If North has a seven card suit, we don't need 3 to have a fit with him. And a 4♥ Pre-empt often has 8 cards in it. Eric

(2) is by far the most important of these. If you sort that out, you will have less of a problem with (3) and (4). Why not find examples of where you fear your judgement let you down in this area, and psot them to this forum. Post the bidding up to the point you had the decision to make and see what other players would have done. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether you made the right decision but were just unlucky, or you made the wrong decision. (1) and (5) are linked. Unless you have an exceptional memory, you will forget conventions and treatments and so on, until you have practised them enough. Obviously you can't practise them with a partner who won't agree to play them. My advice is to find a regular partner who also wants to play these treatments and try to play with them exclusively (or as much as possible) until they are fixed in your mind. Eric

2♠ would not be forcing for us. This shows 6 card and minimal. Is it forcing in SAYC? It is forcing in SAYC because a 2/1 bid in SAYC promises a rebid unless opener bids game. Thus SAYC is a halfway-house between "old-fashioned" systems in which opener can make a minimum non-forcing rebid and 2/1 GF systems. This does mean that the 2/1 bids in SAYC must be kept up to strength, but it also means that opener doesn't have to jump unless he has a definite message to send. Eric

I thought that NFBs only applied to disturbed bids. In other words, after 1♥ (2♣) , a 2♦ bid wouldn't be a NFB (if opps hadn't bid, you would still have to bid ♦ at the two level), whereas 2♠ would be a NFB (if opps hadn't bid, you could have bid ♠ at the one level) Eric

It may not be understood as such, but it clearly should be! If opener has "nothing more to say" over the FSF 2♥, then he doesn't have rebiddable ♣. So when responder shows that his hand has genuine ♥, thus making the hand a misfit, opener can not possibly want to rebid ♣ naturally now. The trouble with bidding 4♥, and not 4♣ is that responder might be worried that openers hand is ♠x xxx ♦AKQJx ♣QJxx. Eric

This is the theory, but I am not sure it isn't going a bit far. If I think that I will be able to bid to the correct contract after eg 1♠ 2♥ with any GF hand with long hearts (and that is what one does believe if one plays 2/1GF), then I should also be able to do it after 1♣ 2♥, even if I have a second suit, or non solid ♥ or even a measly 16 balanced points. Lawrence's points, however, are valid if the JS is to the 3 level. So my "2/1 extended" system (patent pending) says that all 2/1 bids are GF whether they are jumps or not, and all 1/1 bids are therefore non-forcing. It's so simple, it must work :) Eric

If partner is going to rebid 3♦, then you are screwed even more if you have made the overbid of 3♣. Eric

1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ 4♣ 4NT etc The 2♥ is FSF, 3♦ is nothing more to say, 3♥ is natural GF at least 5-5, 4♣ is cue-bid. If you have the agreement that this hand starts with a SJS, then you probably need to also play that 5-5 hands show the second suit, but 5-4 hands rebid NT if there is a danger of using up to much room. In your sequence, then, opener could support the 3♥ bid knowing it was a 5 carder. Eric

With the given conditions I pass. Although this could work out badly, it seems less likely to than the overbid of 3♣ or the off-shape X or the support showing 2♠. Quite commonly, the bidding will continue (P) X (P), and now I can bid a good 3♣ (2NT would be Lebensohl). In my experience, pass is often right with 3 small in the opp's suit. Eric

Ben & Flame, I think North's pass has to show something in this sequence, despite the forcing Nature of West's 4NT bid Suppose East decides that 4NT down 10 is a good save against your vulnerable game? Now South has to make a decision about what to do. It is important that North has given him as much information as possible. Eric

Partner's pass is forcing. Therefore he doesn't have significant extra offence or defence. I double now as I have extra defense (I have defensive holdings in the 3 outside suits and a neutral holding in ♠). Eric

Because the first sequence uses so much room, it should be very specific. In particular, if partner has a lot of wasted values in ♠ and bids 3NT he should not be disappointed with your holdings in the other suits. When you bid 2♦, you leave much more room to investigate whether 3NT or 5♦ is the correct contract. If opener rebids 2NT (as here) it might be a good idea to play a new suit at the 3 level as a splinter. Saying, in effect, "I have a singleton here also my hand wasn't suitable for an immediate splinter." That should allow opener to decide if NT is really the place to play. Eric

so you'll probably play many 22 HCP 3NT without souce of tricks. good luck! Well, 22 hcp is usually enough, with the 3 more I add for fine card play :lol: In the old days, 26 was considered to be the amount you needed for 3NT. It was only when experts started adding points for their own play, that it got lowered to 25. :lol: Eric

Yes, absolutely. I think it's no fun at all. But the truth is in ACBL, the first item in the "disallowed" table is "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods." Isn't preventing opponents from bidding the best contract as important as bidding best contract of your own? and another item explicitly disallows you to bid without cards. here we go: "Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)" is disallowed. Also, I would like to try forcing pass system, but of course, it's disallowed. So, ACBL is trying hard to make this game boring, isn't it? I propose we don't play with these crapy politics, modify the penalty table and what those people don't like will disappear automatically. Then at least we wouldn't bother to come up with this ridiculous idea of providing defense to one's own method, at least we can call ourselves "sane" I wish ANY method is allowed, but it definitely won't happen in this insane world. it's so obvious, this is not about what is "good" for bridge, or even what is "destrutive" method at all, this is all about what they think can maximize their profit. I think you are under a misapprehension about e.g. Strong pass systems. They reason they work has little to do with the how big the penalties they might suffer are. When the bid is anything other than the Fert, they are more accurate and so less likely to suffer a penalty. And when one opens 1♦ showing 0-7, one often gets into some sort of playable contract at the 1 level. However, if one adjusted the scoring table so that doubling 1 level contracts was quite often more beneficial than scoring your own game, it would simply ruin defensive bidding. It would become dangerous to overcall on much less than an opening bid, and would lead to unopposed auctions for the side with cards. Also, I don't think the ACBL equate "making it difficult for opponenets to bid their contract" with desttroying opponent's methods". I am not sure exactly what they do mean, but they have no intention of outlawing your opening 3♠ on ♠KQJTxx x xxxx x, if you want. Eric

Probably the most important difference between 1M and 2M is that opener's partner is in a much better position to punish you if you are wrong to compete. Over 2M, the third hand will generally have some idea of where the hand should be played (usually in the major) and at what level. So if you compete and are wrong, you will get doubled. If the opening is 1M, 3rd hand is in a more awkward postion. It will often not be clear where the best place to play the hand is, nor the correct level. So he must put more effort into constructive bidding and less into trying to penalise you. This means that a lot of the time you can get away with competing over 1M even when it is theoretically wrong. Eric

I don't know what you mean by bluff/psyche bids or systems. Psyching is far less popular now than it was in, say, the 1950s. The major changes of bidding in recent times have been: 1) An effort to make bidding systems more accurate (this is the direct antithesis of bluffing/psyching) 2) A more aggressive approach to pre-empting. This has become necessary as the opponents' systems have become more accurate (due to the above point). What this has meant is that the balance during the auction between the side with the cards and the side without has stayed the same, but the overall standard of bidding has improved. If you look at hand records from "the old days" you will see a lot of bad contracts which no pair of club standard playing today would reach. And they bid to them without the amount of interference they would have got today! A similar thing happens in almost all sports. The overall standards improve, but the balance remains (or in a lot of cases the games become more balanced). Most lowly chess grandmasters of today would beat all but the top players of 50 or 60 years ago (and maybe even them). And it's not due to their memorisation of openings. The number of mistakes made nowadays is lower. The understanding of attack and defense is higher. But the games are no less interesting for all that. Getting back to bridge. If I understand your proposals correctly, bridge would become a much more boring game, especially at the higher levels. The side with the majority of cards would bid to their best game, and when they had bad cards they would leave their opponent's alone in the auction. Where's the fun in that? Eric

In the given circumstances, I ask the guy who is holding the gun what he would bid on my hand. It seems the safest approach. Eric

ArcLight, Just out of interest, what system(s) do you like to play? Eric