biggerclub

My partner and I have a lead convention. Failure to lead A♥, denies. :lol: Where is the best place to find a worthwhile discussion of GIB's methods? I mean like a manual. I will be following this topic, now that I have found it. I have been learning as I go playing lots of robot tournaments.

This is obviously not a serious partnership. In these cases, I don't impose a system on partner, but rather interview her about what she thinks various bids mean. Then I believe her and play her way.

Hmmmmm . . . so you are thinking 2MAJ shows 5+ MAJ (10-15 HCP), unbalanced is GCC legal? Even if we agree, thru notes to open Flannery type 5-4 hands 1♥? To the community, how about it? Within the spirit as well as the letter of the law?

Our club is a bit unique in that about 60% of the members have been taught bidding from the same source. While they don't use your specific methods, they do agree that 1♠ is limited only by the failure to open 2♣. If 1♠ is limited (to 18HCP, for example) then some other suggestions (such as PASS) make sense. If it is limited on the upside only at something like 21-22 HCP and a bunch of losers, then 2♠ is mandatory (obviously). If you are not going to bid 2♠. start earlier and don't bid 1♥. Here is where the auction likely went off the rails. Opener made a game try with 3♥, was rebuffed by Responder and then chose to bid on anyway. Given that 4♠ went down 2, we may safely conclude that 3♥ was not a slam try, rather a game try. Opener is either not a good partner or has been (in past hands) given reason not to trust Responder's judgment. I have been in such partnerships. The more I overbid, the more my partner underbid, locking us in an endless spiral of mistrust and compensation. (I am older now and tend these days to err on the side of the underbid.)

I am not all that familiar with the ins and outs of the ACBL's GCC, but here is what I would like to play in a serious partnership. Which, if any, are barred because they are not permitted by ACBL's GCC? Strong hands (or possible strong hands): 1♣= most 16+ HCP hands, balanced or unbalanced (exceptions - See 2D and 2N) . . . 1♦(Responder) = <9 HCP, any distribution 2♦= multi; that is, weak 2 in a MAJ OR 22-24 Balanced OR 16-24 4-4-4-1 with any singleton 2N = 20-21 Balanced Limited Openings: 1♦ = 10-15 HCP, at least 2♦, denies 4 card or longer MAJ 1♥ = 10-15 HCP, at least 4♥, if 4-4 in MAJ may have equal length ♠, may be unbalanced with longer minor 1♠ = 10-15 HCP, at least 4♠, if specifically 4♠, not 4♥, if 5+♠ may have equal or shorter 4+♥ suit 1NT = Seats 1-2 NV 10-12 HCP, balanced, no 4 card MAJ; all others 13-15 HCP, balanced, no 4 card MAJ 2♣ = 10+-15 HCP, No 4 card MAJ, usually 6+♣ 2♥ = 10+-15 HCP, at least 5♥, unspecified minor of at least 4 cards (minor could be equal to or longer than ♥; for example 5-6) 2♠ = 10+-15 HCP, at least 5♠, unspecified minor of at least 4 cards (minor could be equal to or longer than ♠; for example 5-6) 3 bids and up = standard pre-empts with some tendency to take liberties with 6 card suits since the two level is reserved for other purposes. NT Ranges: 10-12 HCP, if NV in seats 1-2 open 1 of 4 card MAJ holding one, or 1NT otherwise. 13-15 HCP, other than above, open 1 of 4 card MAJ holding one, or 1NT otherwise. If NV in seats 1-2, open 4 card MAJ or otherwise 1D and rebid 1NT. 16-17 HCP, open 1♣, rebid 1NT over 1♦. 18-19 HCP, open 1♣, rebid 2NT over 1♦. 20-21 HCP, open 2NT 22-23 HCP, open 2♦ 24-26 HCP, open 1♣, rebid 3NT With 27+ Balanced, open 1♣ and improvise forcing bids from there. Major suit openings: 1 MAJ (O) 1NT ® 2min = canape. MAJ specifically 4 card length, min = longer. 2/1 is GF unless R rebids suit at 3-level. For example: 1♥ (O), 2♣ ®, 2♦ (O), 2♥ ® = forcing to game. 1♥ (O), 2♣ ®, 2♦ (O), 3♣ ® = 10-13 HCP good ♣ suit. 1♦ opening: R tends NOT to bid 4 card MAJ suits, but may show a very strong 4 card suit. 1/1 response is forcing to 1NT (subject to exception for passed hand bidding). 2♣ = GF unless ♣ rebid. 2♦ = GF. 2 MAJ = Soloway (Strong) JS. 3 ♣ = INV ♦ raise. 3 ♦ = Pre-emptive. 3 MAJ = to play, similar to opening 3 bid. 2NT = 11-12; 3NT = 13-15/bad 16. 2 ♣ opening: 2 ♦ = artificial 1 round force with 10+HCP. Opener bids strong MAJ fragment max or min, 2N or 3♣ min, 3N max. 2 MAJ = NF attempt to improve contract. 2NT = 10+-12, INV. 3 ♣ = weak/pre-emptive. 3♦, 3♥, 3♠ = splinter slam seeking values. 2♦ responses, typical multi structure. 2MAJ responses . . . . nothing unusual or conventional here. New suits force 1 round. 2NT asks opener to bid min, but is often game going.

This is not all that different from where it has been historically. What has shifted is that once (in the 50s and 60s) we were our parents children, dependent on them for support. Now (in the upcoming 20s and 30s) we are heading into being our children's parents . . . again, dependent on them for support. But the ratio of non-working humans is not changing that much over time.

When I played poker, I often jokingly lobbied for a no talking at the table rule. Now that I am back to serious bridge, I do find that opponent's seemingly innocuous comments, questions and commentary distract me ever so subtly and lead to some fairly ridiculous errors by me that I would never make with clear concentration. A most recent example: Partner opens 1MAJ. LHO asks me a question about (I believe) another hand. I need to think to answer her question. I see RHO extract a card from the front of the bidding box and place it on the table. As I answer LHO's question, I place my 3C bid on the table (Bergen). Then I see that RHO didn't pass, but instead x'd. Now even though I can correct my bid (same motion rule), I can't . . . really . . . because partner has UI. All of which is pretty irrelevant to the current question . . . .except, I wish no one would talk to me while I am playing cards. FWIW.

I have changed my mind after having been pointed to Law 58 by our club's owner, manager and lead director: A. Simultaneous Plays by Two Players A lead or play made simultaneously with another player's legal lead or play is deemed to be subsequent to it. He "ruled" (actually explained to me) that the two leads were simultaneous . . . and that the true timing actually doesn't matter that much so long as they are nearly simultaneous.

Had she emerged with 5D instead of 4, I would have put her in 6. Knowing that she is not assuming that I have a nearly perfect card. All the more reason I should bid one of the games over her 4D. Very bad pass by me.

I don't see how 1S leads to a better slam decision. I prefer 2C as more descriptive of strength, letting partner know that just a single A could be crucial. (FWIW - in our methods, 2D over 2C promises at least one A or K) As I said above, I am not dogmatic about such matters. If I were, I would insist that all partners play a forcing 1 club opening. But that's another debate. I do think that you finding the preference to 4S over 4D with my hand (x, ..., Ax, ......) was the best comment in the whole discussion. Anywhere. 4S is the best contract. An opening C lead scuttles 6S. 6D makes on some kind of amazing double dummy play that perhaps a few declarer's would find (depends on precisely Kx opposite Txx in the opponents' hands).

Only if I am the one who opens it. <_< When the spade suit stands alone -- even opposite a void -- I think 2c is a better choice. But I am not dogmatic about such things. One of the leading players at our club put in a word for opening 1d -- anticipating competition and planning a 4s bid for his second call. One of the other leading players had a tongue in cheek quiz for my partner: "What do you call AKQJT9 of Spades?" . . . "Trump."

I PM'd partner with a comment about opening 2.5 loser hands, especially those that feature a stand-alone MAJ suit. However, I am working on improving my game, not finding partner's mistakes. In my "bridge comedy" routine, I do suggest changing the name of the game to "what my partner did wrong."

This auction almost doesn't exist for me. Partner is supposed to reopen almost anything that could respond when 2S comes around. So if I want to bid 2N to show 18-19, I really want to pass so P can x. If she bids something else, I can always bid 3N. I would only bid on over 2S to show a H fit, or to show something really imbalanced, so 2N is out. If my partner bids it, we have a little discussion on trusting me and partnership bidding theory after the hand.

I have given up on even hoping that GIB will interpret x's properly. If I can beat a contract 2 tricks and I know it, I have to pass or end up playing in an unmakeable contract 1 level higher.

People don't overcall 4 card suits here? Ever?

It must be penalty. Standard. If you don't TO over 1♣, your x over any subsequent # of ♣ says, "I have a stack."

I don't really like Jacoby with 4 card MAJ (I played a fair amount of forcing club, canape). Using the methods you have described, you must bid 2min here and I would choose 2♦ although 2♣has some arguments in its favor. 3NT is also a fair choice, provided that you never do it with more or less than three card support and partner knows this (In other words, partner with an unbalanced hand of any sort bids 4♥ and passes otherwise). Even a crappy 12 opposite 12 will produce more than its share of 3NT games (as pointed out by Kaplan-Sheinwold centuries ago).

Partner held AKQJT9, -, QJ9xxx, A. I think I am clearly in the wrong for passing 4D. I worked out that she was 6-5 or maybe even 6-6. I just didn't keep going to work out her strength. She ruffed the opening H lead, finessed against the Kd doubleton, led to the Ad, dropping the K, ruffed a H back to her hand, drew the last trump and claimed 7. There were 3 different straight flushes on the hand, including 2 in 1 suit (Clubs).

So I agree with the discussion here, but I do have a suggestion for the ACBL Laws committee. Below is an email that I sent to my partner:

Just a clarification . . . in case it isn't clear from my OP. I clearly made the face down lead first. Then before anything else happened, partner made his face up lead. Because your post says "at the same time" which is not what happened exactly. For purposes of bridge laws, it may be simultaneous, given that my lead had not yet been faced. Just want to be clear about what happened.

Partner opens, 1♠, RHO overcalls 2♣. You hold x, Jxx, Ax, 8765432 and discreetly pass. (You are playing negative doubles.) LHO bids 2♥. Partner emerges with 4♦. RHO passes. Your call.

Exactly. A forcing bid is forcing and may conceal support, even very good support.

Edited to make clear that partner intended to lead.

Does not seem close here. Open 1♦. Rebid 5♣. Clearly you see all the problems that arise if you start 1♣, don't you? Of course you will hate it if you end up defending (doubled no doubt) and partner's 4th best♦ is swallowed up by dummy's single Q while a small♣ goes away on declarer's A. C'est la vie.