Liversidge

Thanks everyone. Just one further question - what if responder is 4333? The usual guideline is: If the holding is 4-3-3-3, most partnerships treat the holding as two-suited. Not sure what that means but I am guessing that if the 4 card suit is a major then you start with your better 3 card minor?

Just found the source for the second reference to a DONT run out after 1NT doubled: http://www.bridgesights.com/hondobridge/WeakNTPart3.pdf The writer is Howard Schutzman, and the site describes him as a teacher and expert player on BBO. His BBO nickname is hondo717. Neither is what I would call a modification of DONT, rather they are adoptions of elements of DONT. I should have been more accurate with my original post.

http://www.bridgehands.com/M/Moscow_Escape.htm This refers to a DONT runout after 1NT doubled. I have come across other references including one in PDF format which which I have downloaded but can't remember the source. The relevant paragraph is: It is based on the DONT convention played by many pairs when competing over 1NT opening bids. I have therefore named this approach “DONT Runouts”. It lets you to find the best place to play when the opponents have doubled your partner's weak 1NT opening bid. Interestingly the writer claims to have invented it.

That's what I had in mind when referring to DONT, an adaption I came across recently. It also deals with the double in the protective seat - opener passes, responder redoubles asking opener to bid 2♣, and then responder either starts the runout, bids a 5 card minor that he could not bid on the first round, or passes, happy to play in 1NT doubled. It is simpler than Exit Transfers, so easier for my new partner to learn. The only disadvantages I can see is that after an immediate double it is not possible to transfer any 5 card suit so that declarer's hand is hidden, and you can't leave a redouble in for penalties.

Which system do you advise for NB partnerships? An ex partner taught me to play Exit Transfers but it is quite complicated, using 4 suit transfers (including XX for clubs) to rightside the No Trump bidder if partner has a 5+ card suit, and having to remember the different approaches when doubled by RHO or LHO. I have had a quick look at DONT and it seems simpler (same method for LHO or RHO double) but from what I can see it does not rightside opener unless partner's 5 card suit is clubs, and it doesn't allow a redouble to be left in for penalties by responder. Not sure how important these are when weighed against simplicity.

No5. !! I had forgotten that a reverse is unlimited!

Delete

When I asked the player who opened 2♥, bid and made 4♥, why he opened 2♥, he said it was because he only had four losers. This links back to my earlier post about assessing whether you should count playing tricks or losers when assessing whether your hand is good enough for a strong opening bid. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76056-do-i-count-losing-tricks-or-playing-tricks/ I hear the 'I had only x losers' or 'you should have counted your losers' a lot where I play, yet all the advice I get in books and here says I should count playing tricks. That's what I will stick to.

[hv=pc=n&n=sakqhakj63dkcqt86]133|100[/hv] Yesterday I played teams with a pickup partner playing Acol strong 2's and had this hand. I opened 2NT (reluctantly), RHO bid 3♦ and partner (who had nothing, and 4 diamonds to the 10)) bid 3NT which went 1 off. At the other table they opened 2♥ and made game in hearts. I didn't think my hand was strong enough for 2♥ as I didn't have 8 playing tricks, but then I didn't have a semi-balanced hand either. I have run the hand through Jack and Bridge Baron and they both open 2♣. Leaving aside the result at both tables and the question of whether partner should have bid, should I have opened 2♥ or 2♣, rather than 2NT??

Very helpful, thanks.

I have been encouraged to use the Rule of 22 rather than the Rule of 20, and the example hand seems to illustrate why it is a better rule (at least for me).

Your first example shows how PTs and LTs don't match, but in a way it is an example of my query. Playing Benji, and counting PTs the way I do, that would be 9 PTs, so I would open 2♣ rather than 2♦, as to open 2♦ shows that you have game in your own hand opposite a bust. But some players would say I should have opened 2♦ as I only had 3 losers. Your second example raises a related query. Why do Kxx Kxx count as just 1 PT but 4 LTs?

I am starting to use a method like that with my partner, but using playing tricks and the rule of 2-3-4. Partner knows (or should) how many PTs I have and estimate how many he can add with quick tricks and ruff. In a lot of areas I am using 'scaffolds' like this to help my judgment. In time I hope to be able to shed them all. I still occasionally read bridge articles where the author says "now after partner's bid your hand has become huge" and I have to use my 'scaffold' on my so-so hand to see why.

When is it better to count losers than playing tricks? With distributional hands that I have looked at, usually (by my counting, which may be incorrect) the number of losing tricks = 13 - the number of playing tricks. The relationship only seems to break down with more balanced hands. When deciding the level at which I preempt, one source will say I need to be within x tricks of my contract depending on vulnerability, but when deciding about overcalls the usual guideline is to evaluate your hand by counting losers.

So playing 3 weak 2's with 9 PTs and a single suited long minor I would bid 2♣ even though I need two tricks from partner to make 5♣. With two tricks wouldn't partner be unlikely to pass 1♣ - which gives more bidding space? 2♣-2♦-3♣with 9 PTs could be a two suiter with 5 clubs and and I would have to go to the 4 level to describe it.

I play with two partners, Benji with one and 3 weak 2s with the other. Just so I am clear on required playing tricks using your methods: Benji Opening 2♦ with a single suited minor? Opening 2♦ with a single suited major? 3 weak 2's Opening 2♣ with a single suited minor? Opening 2♣ with a single suited major?

Do you make any adjustments for a single suiter depending on whether it is a major or a minor?

What is K&R?

On Richard Pavlicek’s website he states that an opening bid of 2♣ requires at least 23 points or a hand with a self-sufficient suit that is at least within one trick of game (his italics). He then immediately goes on to give an example hand: ♠2 ♥KQ72 ♦AKJ ♣ AKQ109 I count this as 9 ½ tricks, which is not within one trick of game in clubs, although it looks a good 9 ½. Counting losers I make it three, which equates to 10 playing tricks if you use simple arithmetic. I know it’s just half a trick, but am I just failing to find that half trick, or can I use either method to evaluate strong hands for opening 2♣, or 2♣/2♦ playing Benji)? Or in the above case does one consider that ‘game’ might be in hearts, so 10 tricks required for game? Or does 23 points include distribution with an unbalanced hand. If you count 1 extra point for club length then it's 23 points? I have always thought it was 23 HCP and a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

I bid 4♠. Partner looked at my hand, smiled and asked if I wasn't in a talkative mood. We made 11 tricks, which was a relief. He's not into splinters yet, so I should have bid 3♠ with fingers crossed that he would not pass.

We play Acol, weak No Trump, Stayman and Transfers. A couple of hands came up recently where partner opened No Trumps (once 1NT, once 2NT) and I was 5-5 in a major (let's say hearts) and a minor, with a small singleton in the other major, and with enough points to put us into the 30 -32 HCP range. If partner has 3 of my major or four of my minor a slam could be on, but I can't figure out a way of doing so.

We play Acol and are subject to EBU regulations. I have just read about the Rule of 18 and Rule of 19 in the EBU Blue Book section on Permitted Understandings, but no mention of the Rule of 20. Do I take it that an agreement to open at the 1 level using the Rule of 20 is not alertable but the others are?

[hv=pc=n&w=sqt74hakj864dk92c&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp1sp]133|200[/hv] I has 5 losers by my reckoning so 4♠ was on even if partner was minimum, but if he had just 7 losers a slam might be on. What bid can I make that is forcing but allows for exploration?

Excellent. Answers all my questions.