EricK

The way like to play it, a jump does not simply show 5-5, it shows two good 5 card suits, and some slam interest. With a weaker 5-5, one bids and rebids the suit. It is all to do with being able to show some slam interest below the level of game. With a splinter, there is less need to show it immediately (your comment that we are already in a GF auction applies equally here!). One can simply raise the minor with support and a few extras (with a minimum opening and support go via a catch-all 2M then delayed support), and then responder can bid a new suit to show values there and opener can see if there is any wastage. Eric

Actually, Tim the Frelling 2 bids were Midchart legal as well, up until the point in time that the Conventions Committee refused to consider defenses to them. Of course, the Conventions Committee also ruled that assumed fit preempt that didn't promise at least 5-4 shape was inherently destructive... But thats a different story. Do they have a rigorous definition of "inherently destructive", or is it a vague term that they can use to ban whatever they want to? Eric

I find that available space if properly exploited is seldom worthless. I dislike using the 4 level to investigate strain. If I can get the shape definitions across at the 3 level then I am much happier looking for other features at the 4 and 5 level, even with 30+ combined values. OK, you are right about available space rarely being worthless. What I should have said was that I think it is a more helpful use of space to differentiate opener's strengths. With the NT rebids, there is not that much more shape information to get across, is there? Opener will be 5332 with a doubleton or weak trebleton in partner's suit (I suppose that rarely he might be 5422 with a weak 4 card minor and strong unbid doubleton) Eric

I quite like 2NT = 15+ (upper limit constrained only by upper limit of opening bid). It means playing a weak 1N opener, of course. This means that the 2N rebid can be GF even if the 2/1 response itself was NOT GF. With the 18-19 there is still a lot of scope for using the bids below 3N. With 30+ points between the hands, there is not so much need for space below 3NT. My answers might vary if 2/1 were not 100%GF, or if balanced 15-17 with a 5 card major were always opened 1NT. Eric

My favoured style is 1) 2M is catch-all 2) 2NT shows 15-17 (3NT shows 18-19) 3) Raise shows 4 or a good three and extras (ie at least a good 14) 4) Bids above 2M show extras (bids at or below 2M don't necessarily deny extras though) 5) I think this should show 5-5 with good suits (I realise that splinter is more common, but those hands should just raise the minor IMO). 6) Make it clear how either side can show extras below the level of game. If one can not make a clear slam try below game level then one loses much of the benefit of playing 2/1. Eric

This hand is a bit of a freak in terms of number of tricks that can be made, so it is possibly not right to ask who is to blame. However ... Maybe my thinking is a bit off here, but I don't like East's pre-balancing double of 2♦. Why make a take out double when there is only 1 unbid suit, and no guarantee that partner has anything in it? Why stick your neck out, vulnerable, when opener could still be sitting with a powerful hand? eg swap ♥K and ♣6, and the bidding will start exactly the same way. What is West suppose to do when 2♦ doubled is passed round to him? 2♥ will be 2 off! Eric

This is a 2♣ bid for me. Swap the majors and (if playing the stated methods) I would bid 3♣. Eric

At MP: The weaker you are, the more you want to be in 2m. Conversely, the stronger you are the more you want to be in 1NT. The reason being, if you have say 23 points between the two hands you have a good chance of making 2NT against 3m (120 v 110). Whereas with only 19 or 20 points you have a good chance of being -1 in 2m but -2 in 1NT (-50 v -100) although here, the opps are probably missing a part-score. At IMP: The same thing applies, but for a slightly different reason. For weak hands, 2m is more likely to make than 1NT, and is rarely a lot down (as 1NT might be), so you definitely want to be in it. For strong hands, 1NT is also more likely to make than 2m because of possible cross-ruffs, or bad trump breaks etc. Unfortunately, this isn't one of your options, so I shan't vote! Eric

This is exactly the sort of thing I was asking for in another thread. Unfortunately, I am not able to see the June edition of Australian Bridge from where I am sitting (South East England). What do you suggest I do to make playing against unusual bids "not a major problem" for me and pick-up partner's from this side of the globe? Eric

I am not looking for optimal defenses. I want there to be one (or more) all-purpose meta-defenses which become so well known that people can agree to play with pick-up partners. I suggest that it is the people who devise new bids (or want to play them) who should also publicise the counter-measures, because having well-known counter-measures is the only way (as I see it) that system restrictions will be lifted or eased. So it is in their interests to show that these bids (and indeed any new bids) can be defended by rank-and-file players. Your comments seem to be addressed at the sort of players who form long-term partnerships and yet still don't want to have to learn to defend against "unusual" stuff. I am more concerned with two lots of people 1) Pick-up partnerships - If there are no well publicisied general defences there is no way they can compete against stuff they've never seen before. 2) Long-terrm partnerships who aren't very good at system design - I don't think it is right that they should be left to their own devices when it comes to constructing meta-defenses. After all they are not left to their own devices when it comes to constructive bidding because there is so much published material. Eric

Are you suggesting there should be a "standard" (unless explicitly agreed otherwise) also for defensive tools vs weird openings so no need to discuss them everytime ? Yes, there should be (at least) one well-known, named standard. So you could easily put one (or more) on your profile. Eric

Most Advanced/Expert players (and even most intermediate players) seem to know a whole load of conventions. They must have picked these up from somewhere. I want to reach a situation where there are similarly well known defensive conventions to all manner of things. Playing with a defense you have just been provided with by opps is not much of an improvement over trying to explain your own defenses to your partner on the spur of the moment. Eric

[hv=s=saqj932hdaqt975c5]133|100|[/hv] Are you denying there's a play for 15 tricks here?! I am not saying that a grand is certain, but on the information we have, it must be a good bet. Eric

So if I don't have a t/o of Spades but a 4441 shape, I must pass. I suppose then, that if 2S come round to me, double is penalties, and if 2/3 of anything else comes back to me, X is t/o? Eric

As regards the second hand, how can North not raise to 7? Try to construct a hand for South consistent with his bidding that doesn't have a play for 15 or so tricks. Eric

To make slam we need 12 tricks (this may be obvious, but it is surprising how many people seem to forget this when bidding). I can see 12 likely tricks on hand 2 (5 hearts, 6 clubs and a spade) so a slam try is clearly indicated. On hand 1, we need an awful lot from partner to make 12 tricks. I suupose, if I could find out below game level that partner had a 4+ club suit headed by the king, then I might head for slam, but without that, 12 tricks seem a distant prospect. Eric

You might like to consider a two-way pass system where the initial pass shows something like 16+ or 0-7. This makes (destructive) intervention harder for the opps, and also allows you one extra one level bid to separate out the 8-15 hands. Of course, the responses to the initial pass have to be constructed more carefully as responder does not know which hand "opener" has. Eric

I agree 100% with this. But if these defenses are not published and made widely available how can I and my pick-up partner agree what to play in a few minutes. It is no good me having one set of defenses which I may have developed with my long term partner, and he another. We still won't be able to compete. We need these things to be so well known that I could say to a fairly well-read random player "We''ll play 'Rado' against their two-level bids and 'Inquiry relays' over their transfer openings" (or whatever). Eric

Rhetorical Question 1: Is it fun to be able to log onto BBO (or go down to a club), play with a pick-up partner, have a short system discussion, and get results which are someway indiciative of your skill? Answer 1: Yes Rhetorical Question 2: Is it fun to be able to play with a long-term partner, hone one's system and understandings, and challenge equally equipped pairs? Answer 2: Yes Rhetorical Question 3: Are these two things compatible? Answer 3: No. Not as things stand. There is no way I could sit down opposite a parter of equal strength and hope to compete long term against a well-seasoned pair of equal skill. This is especially true if their system is at all "unusual" to me or my partner. What can be done about this? The problem is that there is nothing published (at least nothing I know about) which shows how to defend against any new convention one comes across. While there is this lack, there is never going to be any hope for pick-up partners (especially if they come from different parts of the world) to adequately defend themselves. Until an excellent set of general defenses is widely known, there is really no hope of reconciling these two types of bridge, and also no hope of National Sponsoring Organisations easing their system restrictions. So all those in favour of easing restrictions, do your bit: write a book or web page or whatever demonstrating how best to defend against anything you may want to throw at us. Maybe a start would be to outline your general defenses in this thread. Eric

I note that 2H in response to 1NT shows 4+S. That isn't part of Keri as far as I know. Any ideas when he transfers into a 4 card spade suit? Eric

Ben, Is it really more complicated than any other full structure over 1NT? I found it pretty easy to memorize. Eric

That is what I assumed when I read the book. Eric

To answer your points one by one: - Partner "never" has the best possible hand - He "never" has the worst possible hand either - If partner has a semi-fit, you won't get to play in ♥ at a low enough level - It might seem to opps that defending 2♣ is bad and they will protect. All in all, pass is probably the best call. Eric

Very odd. Why doesn't declarer let the first ♦ run round to dummy? But there are so many clues that point to North not having 4♦. He pre-empted in ♥ in second seat (so surely has at least 6) and has shown 2♠. If he had 4♦ and 1♣, then he probably would have switched to his singelton and not to his 4 card suit headed by the J! Of course, East should play a second round of ♣ first, to confirm that North does not hold a singleton ♣. To imply that East is taking a double shot, is to say that he is smart enough to plan this claiming-early coup, yet not smart enough to find either of the above plays. I am not sure that this holds water. Eric

Do you have a bid in this sequence (1♣ 1♠ 2♣) which is simply forcing? Suppose you have a strong (i.e. at least enough for game) 5-3-3-2 or 5-3-2-3 hand. Possible contracts are in ♠, ♣, or NT. How will you explore which is best? It makes sense to play that 2♦ is an artificial GF. I believe this is known as a Bourke Relay. Apologies if this isn't suitable for the Beginner/Intermediate forum. Eric