The_Badger

To me it's not even close. I'd open 1♠ every time in any position. Nothing wrong with a 1NT opening with 5332 distribution, but when you have a rebid (5 card ♠ suit, with a 4 card side suit) it's best, I feel, to show the two suits than to open an skewed distribution 1NT with 5422, especially when the 2nd suit is a reasonable ♥ suit topped by 2 honours. I know there will be players who'd say that it's the sort of hand that you want the lead coming up to, and that if partner responds 1NT it might wrongside the contract in 2/1, but that is a weakness, I feel - and I've mentioned this many times previously - of having a catch-all response of 1NT in 2/1 covering a variety of hands. The only 5422 shape I would countenance as a 1NT opener is where you have 5♣ and 4♦ where opening 1NT seems preferable to 'falsifying' a rebid to show both suits.

I think that one sentence has clarified how you feel about this aspect of your relay system. It is good most of the time but not good enough: it has a flaw. How many times have we all said that about a particular aspect of our system?

It's reassuring, Ken, that it's not just the human population that is being helped when these hurricanes evolve. Though I dread to think what will happen when a water surge hits the Everglades and those alligators end up in the middle of towns... However, on a different note, I've always wondered why no-one has tried dissipating hurricanes in their infancy with a bomb in the mid-Atlantic away from all the land masses. Obviously the energy needed to this would be enormous, and some will say it is dangerous to confront Mother Nature like this, but given how much devastation hurricanes cause each year, isn't it a viable alternative? Not a nuclear bomb obviously, but a conventional explosive MOAB or Daisycutter bomb.

3rd in hand opening in a minor suit is not effective as in a major, so if you are going to do it at least have a half-decent suit. (And if you have a half-decent suit there's always the possibility of opening 2♦ weak too). So it's pass for me here.

I'm passing too. My opinion is that you can delude partner on your strength but not your length with a 3rd in hand opening one level bid playing 5M. The hand is a crummy 11 count with not much going for it. Pass.

2♥ despite the 5332 shape. 1♥ lets the opponents overcall too easily.

Tough call. To me that hand is so close to a 3♦ pre-empt opener vulnerable that if you overcall 3♦ partner is going to expect more in the way of high cards. With 22 cards missing in the majors, I'd rather Pass and see what happens next. You should never overcall a pre-empt with a pre-empt, and even if partner is weak, overcalling 3♦ doesn't exactly take any bidding space away from the opponents.

Bermy, don't get me wrong: I like what you are doing. Good luck! I respect that you do not wish me to comment further on your version of Precision, and that's ok with me, too. What I was trying to emphasise with the 'jalopy' scenario is that Precision - perhaps because it is called precisely that: Precision - is perhaps the most 'tinkered with' bridge system ever invented. Many Precision bidders wants to make it more precise. And I have been guilty of that, too. There's absolutely nothing wrong in bidding theory and making things better, but there's a point I believe where the audience gets smaller and smaller, and that's directly proportional to the complication of a system, I feel, any system, not just Precision. And there's the added difficulty of finding a compatible partner who wishes to play a complex system with you too. And remembering it. Most partnerships such as Welland-Auken, Brink-Drijver, Meckstroth-Rodwell, Fantoni-Nunes, etc. have evolved their complex bidding systems as established bridge partnerships. I am glad that other players have showed interest in your Control Precision system, but there's a gulf between showing interest and playing a system in a regular partnership. If I said to my regular bridge partner that I want to use Fantunes from now on, I think she'd be horrified. We're about the same age, mid-fifties, and whilst I'd like us to do things better generally, changing things wholesale would not be way to do it. However, there is probably a specialised niche of younger players, maybe perhaps in the country that first used Precision, China, that'll welcome a new version of Precision.

I will ask the question another way: What's the minimum for partner to make a negative double on this auction? It's sometimes assumed that partner has passed as he's holding the opponent's suit when in reality he's just got a poor hand. A 2♥ overcaller on this auction could have 15+, especially vulnerable, preferring an overcall to double and bidding his suit, or being totally barraged out of the auction by a pre-emptive raise of 3♠ from opener's partner. Nige1 makes some good points, as always, but as he says this scenario, especially this ♠s vs. ♥s auction where there's less space to operate, is for partnership agreement.

Yes Bermy, it all looks ok to me. Nothing too complicated to learn, basically straightforward common sense relay Precision bidding brought up to date. I think with all systems it is important to keep them accessible to many. Whilst I found learning Sontag Precision not too difficult in my 20s, I think I would have some difficulty now: as for Asymmetric Relay Precision systems, except if you are in an established partnership playing regularly it's brain overload in my view. The beauty of Wei Precision is that it is easy to learn. And it proved popular in the 1970/1980s. I firmly believe why Precision went off the radar after this period is that it became too complicated for non-regular partnerships. Yes, you can stick a V8 in your old jalopy, re-spray it, add a sunroof and the latest sound system, new gleaming bumpers, etc. but it's still your old jalopy underneath, and if your old jalopy got you from A to B fine, then what's the point of tinkering with it too much :)

Why complicate things by trying to work out if it is a forcing pass here - in my opinion, agreeing entirely with the other posters, it isn't - just bid 5♠. You have a little bit more in the locker room than partner would anticipate, even vulnerable.

What's going on here? These channels are nothing like the brutal ones for ISIS propaganda and provide valuable intelligence to the International Community as per the comments in the article. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/youtube-shuts-down-north-korean-propaganda-channels/ar-AArwIHt?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp Today, is North Korean Independence Day - 9th September. South Korea believes that another show of military force by the North will happen today. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but the timing is so coincidental.

At pairs I'll just bid 5♦ in response to my partner's weak NT. Pussyfooting around and letting the opponents bid is not an option in my opinion. It's a distributional hand, so let the opponents make the final guess.

Awkward. The fit looks excellent. I'd content myself with RKCB 4NT bid here. It should agree ♠ on this auction. All you want to know about is the ♠AK, ♣A and unlikely but possible the ♥A. After the response you should be able to gauge the final resting place. There are various combination of cards where a grand slam is possible, but it's likely on the bidding you have at least a ♥ loser, so I want to know whether to be in a small slam or to sign off at the five level. There is a slight chance there may be two ♥ losers on this hand, but I'll take the risk that partner has a singleton at the most.

My view is West has overvalued their hand. What's the point of East using a 4NT quantitative bid when partner just ignores it and bid 6NT. That ♥Q9 isn't necessarily an asset. (After writing this I did a K&R evaluation and West comes out at 17.50 only) For completeness I did a K&R on the East hand and that only comes out at 13.40. But I still blame West. Agree with ahydra's analysis too.

If you are rebidding 3♣ - rebidding 2♣ is a serious underbid in my view - your partner needs to tell you the good news immediately by raising to 4♣, in my opinion.

Yes, the ♣9 is the all important card. Well spotted that a ♣ lead was safe and that North had denied a ♣ control. By the time I had worked out the squeeze play, the bidding and the inferences the defenders would have drawn had all but eluded me. You're right: Maybe a 2nd cup of coffee needed :)

This is the one situation - an opening weak two raised pre-emptively to three (raising to three is not a game try amongst the vast majority of players, but a barrage action) that you need the double as responsive as Helene says. What you did was right, but partner didn't understand it. Technically, a responsive double is in the auction 2♠ - X - 3♠ - X* asking partner to choose a suit but it also applies if partner has bid a suit as in your auction. A different way of looking at responsive and takeout doubles is all doubles on the first round of bidding up to 4♦ are takeout because the worse thing you can do is double the opponents in a part-score into game as happened here. Easy to remember.

Needed some coffee, but I've got this now. What needs to happen is to rectify the count immediately by letting West have the ♥Q after ♥AK. Forget about cashing ♦AK. This allows you to both play for ♠QJx in both hands, and ♠ QJxx in West's hand. Let's say West returns a ♠ at trick four. Cash ♠AK and ruff third ♠. Play ♦K and remaining trumps. The end position is [hv=pc=n&s=sh3dtck8&w=sqhd6cj9&n=s8hdact5&e=shdc]399|300[/hv] I believe we can assume that West led from ♣QJ9. He is squeezed on last trump and last ♦ led towards dummy.

♠A

Deleted

Take up chess. Though on a serious note, I have seen in documentaries how bad housing is in Hong Kong, old men living in small cages with just a bed, etc. Truly dreadful. As for this bridge hand, no-one in their right mind is going to bid 7♠ straight off without having 13 tricks. Or are they? As for the hesitation, that's all part of the game. Or is it? Ok. So partner promises 11+ points which means he should have ♦KQJ, ♣KJ and ♥Q not counting opening lighter using rules of 18,19 or 20. So that means 7NT can be made as East is not on lead. It's taken me over a minute to work this out, so I'm going to bid 7NT with at least a minute's hesitation. Probably the wrong decision but I'll go with my gut instinct.

Quick look only. Straightforward if West is 3334 distribution as you can eliminate/partially eliminate the suits and throw him in with the winning ♥ to lead away from the ♣J. That's only a quick look as there is probably much more to this problem than meets the eye

Just having a quick look, at IMPs (teams) I would take the first trick in dummy, finesse in ♠s playing ♠J first, then finessing the ♠Q, and have a ♥ and ♠ entry for the double finesse in ♦s looking to take three tricks in ♠s, ♥s, and ♦s plus ♣A. It's too much of a greek gift at trick one to work on getting four ♥ tricks thanks to a favourable lead: I'd rather be in dummy with a tempo. That lead looks suspiciously like a singleton.

I better post the solution after five days on the forum. The international who played this hand, drew trumps, cashed ♣AK, ran the ♣J as a ruffing finesse - wins, and then exited with a small♦ won by the ♦10 in West's hand. West was then forced to lead into the ♥AQ.