MickyB

sounds like a good idea IF playing weak NT :lol: I disagree - It sounds like a good idea if playing strong NT, but not if playing weak NT. Two reasons - Firstly, 4 card majors gives you a disadvantage on hands with 5 cards in a major. If you are playing strong NT, then you get to open 4 card majors fairly often and can gain on these hands. Playing weak NT, you aren't opening them frequently enough. Secondly, it is debatable whether opening 1M on such hands is an advantage anyway, as there is less reason to preempt the opponents. Instead you are preempting yourself by opening 1M without having got your strength across, forcing you into playing light 2/1s. Having said that, it is a simpler system to get working than weak NT 5cM. Wk+5 really needs Walsh (if you bid 1♣:1♦, 1♥ on strong NTs then you haven't got your strength across, this sequence is best played as promising an unbalanced hand). Back to the original question - This is not the weak point of Weak NTs, it is the strong point, as the weakest hand you could have in support of partner would be a 5422 12 count, which is worth a couple of points more than a 4333 12 count, thus raises can show a much stronger hand than when playing strong NT. On this hand it is marginal between a raise to 2M, showing about 14-17 in support, or a raise to 3M.

I disagree, it seems to me that saying out of a 55% slam is an excellent roll of the dice in a match that you otherwise expect to lose.

Two more situations for EKCB: When you rebid the suit you splintered in. 1♥:3♠, any:4♠ When you splinter and then make another bid over your partner's sign-off. If you were going to bid RKCB anyway, why would you splinter first? eg 1♠:4♣, 4♠:4NT Obviously 1♠:4♣, 4♦:4NT or 1♠:4♣, 4♦:4♥, 4♠:4NT shouldn't be EKCB because you could have a decent hand, prepared to accept a 4♠ sign-off, that then wants slam opposite a hand that can make a positive bid. Any thoughts on what 1♠:4♣, 4♠:5♣ should mean? It's got to be either 'I forgot 4N now would be EKCB until I splintered, tell me keycards' or 'I've still forgotten 4N is EKCB so I've bid 5♣ EKCB instead', I'm not sure which would win on terms of frequency :)

Good luck winning ANY major event with that attitude... Over the course of a European Championships a few years ago, the English (or was it British?) Open team would have done better if they had not even looked at any slams. I've also been told that that isn't an uncommon situation (for a lot of bridge players, not just English ones). Given that there are some slams you *have* to bid (eg combined 34 count), and I'd imagine this statistic didn't include losses in the play or bidding due to investigation of slam, I think there is a fair case for being very conservative in slam bidding, particularly if you currently bid slams like a junior :unsure:

Antoine: I considered the option of splitting up the Precision 2♣ before (I think at your suggestion) as it seems reasonable to me, but I couldn't find any material on it all. Anyone else have any experience of this? I'm slightly worried that your method will compete past the par score too frequently, I suspect it would be better to use 2♣ for one of the meanings (probably 2♣ = 5♣4M and 3♣=6♣, but possibly 2♣=6♣ and 2M=4M5♣). Inquiry: I like your suggestion for finding the right spot when opener is balanced, a definite improvement on standard methods, but I still think the auctions where opener has a strong hand with a long minor are lacking accuracy. One more question: What do you bid with both majors, wanting to play game opposite a weak 2 but slam opposite your balanced range?

No, but responder could be weak or reasonably strong, have a fit or not. The best spot could be 3N or it could be 7m.

Gerado: My 2M openers Dutch/Muiderberg (5M,4-5m). Free: Have you never had an auction 2♦:4♥ where opener has a GF with a minor, and responder, unsuprisingly, has 4-4 in the majors? Or do you still manage to reach the correct contract after this start? Inquiry: We wouldn't normally bid 2♦-(2♥)-3♠ anyway without sufficient ♥ length to be sure that opener didn't have ♥, and even then only if the opponents didn't look like they might psyche! Instead we would use a pass-or-correct double. Even on this auction, I have described my hand and partner has chosen to bid 3♠, going to 4♠ is up to him, not me, so 4♠ would clearly show a strong 2 IMO.

The multi is commonly played with the strong options being a balanced range and strong 2s in the minors. The problem here is that when partner bounces opposite the strong option, you have preempted yourself and haven't even found a fit. It would seem to make more sense for the strong options to promise at least 5 cards in a major, then if partner bounces then you have your fit. The two logical alternatives that I've come up with are 5+cards in a major, game forcing, and 6+ cards in a major, acol 2 strength. Could these both be included, or would this make subsquent bidding too hard? Which would you prefer? Would this change if I told you I had no other forcing bid that I could make with a 5 card major?! Thanks

Obviously, it is technically superior to preempt more soundly when in 2nd seat than when in 1st, and when vul than when NV. But how do these factors compare in importance? Would your answer hold true for a mini NT (most likely 10-13 instead of our usual 12-14) and a 'Rough Diamond' (4-5♦, 4=major, weak)? The background to my question, for those who are interested: I like systems in the style of Nightmare (well, more in the style of Millennium Club as I prefer the natural 1♦ opener, but Nightmare is a much better name for a system than Millennium Club!) Something like: 1♣ 15+♣ or bal, transfer responses 1♦ 5+cards unless 4441 or 4♦5♣ 1♥ and 1♠ 5 cards 1N 12-14 2♣ 6♣ or 5♣4M, 11-14 2♦ Multi, possibly with strong options promising a major (Acol 2 with a 6 card major and GF with a 5 card major are both options to consider, see separate thread). 2M 5M and 4-5m 2N Weak in either minor (possibly including GF with 5D) 3♣ 5-5 ♣+red 3♦ Good preempt (2 top honours, 7-10 or so) 3M Nat, usually 7 cards Sound preempts and sound opening bids (eg vul 2nd seat might make preempts 8-11 and 1M show 12+, or 11+ with both majors, with 6-10 and 11+/10+ in other situations). In situations where the destructiveness would be worth the loss in constructive bidding, I would like to use a more aggressive version: 1♣ Same, but 14+, occasionally passed with 0-2 and no 4 card major. 1♥ and 1♠ 5+ cards, rule of 19 1N 10-13 2♣ Same, 10-13 2♦ Rough, 4-5♦4major 2M 5M4-5m 3M 6-7M, usually what most would consider a weak 2. Here preempts would be more like 3-9. Would you use this second variation 1st vul or 2nd NV, or keep it to 1st NV?

What is the suggested logic behind having different sequences for good and bad 5 card majors? How is opener meant to treat them differently?

I can understand why fert openers are banned in short matches, as it isn't an easy thing to defend against. However I don't see why the forcing pass itself is banned, there is no problem defending against that, treat it as a strong club opener. This would allow forcing pass to be played with Lorenzo two bids.

Qs and Js in your long suits do better on offence, Qs and Js in your short suits do better on defence. And I agree with that lying about strength is better than lying about shape, a good or bad lie of the cards will make over/underbidding work out well more often than being in the wrong strain.

I agree with the other comments, go with option 1 on frequency. However, 2NT as both minors gives them too many options (eg Unusual over Unusual) so I would go for a 3rd solution: 2N as ♣+red or ♣+another would increase frequency and make it harder to defend against, at the expense of missing your best fit occasionally. You could find your best fit slightly more often by assigning meanings to pass and XX after they double 2NT, if you are prepared to give up trying to take them for penalties on this auction.

Yes, Qxx is 2.5 losers, and Axx is probably 1.5. Without this 'adjustment' it is almost useless. However, as I've said, this is only the start of LTCs problems. I've had someone else tell me that they have had 'no problems' with it, so it proves its a good method. Have you ever reached a bad game using this method? If so, how do you know there aren't better methods?

IMO the same doesn't hold for 2NT, because it is so infrequent compared to lower ranges, and there is less difference in playing strength between 20 and 22 than there is between 15 and 17. With one range as a 2N opener and one as 2♣ then 2N, I'd go for 20-21 and 22-24.

Yes, LTC is a very poor method of evaluation. It overemphasises shape compared to high cards, if you compare it to counting points, with 3 points per trick (40/13 being just over 3) then you can see it equates to a 9-6-3 shortage count. I think this means it assumes that you have the ability to ruff all partner's losers in the suit (when you are the short trump hand), and that he doesn't have any wasted honours there. Also it is hideously inaccurate if you count Axx = Qxx, or xxxx as only 3 losers. Some of Klinger's adjustments are poor, sometimes adding a jack to the hand means you should treat it as having 0.5 more losers. Finally, if you use it for opening bids then you will overbid wildly when you have no fit.

Ron, I wouldn't want to compare myself with you, PM or SB, but purely based on intuition I agree, that was one of my thoughts when reading through the system file. Another was that I wouldn't want to bid 1♦:1NT, 2♦, 2♥ on 4-2-3-4 shape, a 4333 seemed much more appropriate for this sequence. (Opener has shown 5-4 reds either way and is expected to bid 3♦ now with 5♦4♥). Free, I don't think you can pull partner's pen X of 2♠ to 3♥ on many hands with 5♥, possibly with 5♥ and 1♠ at the right scoring+vul (at MPs, only when they are NV unless you are a dead min). The big advantage of responder denying 4♥ on this auction is that opener knows *not* to pull on many hands with 5♥.

As you know, I'm not a big fan of 2♥ denying 4♥ here, I prefer 2♥ on flat hands with 4 card support. You are still getting your penalty on this hand either way. But yes, this does show the advantage of 4 card majors - while they can give you LAW problems it gives your opponents the same problems.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq98xxhak8xxdt8xc&s=sathqxdacakt8xxxx]133|200|Scoring: MP East opens 3♦[/hv]

I'm also a Keri convert. A couple of comments: A: Yes, 2♠ is a range enquiry. Then 2N = min, 3♣ = max. Responder has to bid 4♣ with a club single suited slam-try. B: 1NT:3M = splinter in the suit above, as you say later. I think the invite with a 6 card major is just the normal transfer sequence. C. Transfer then 2NT shows 5+major, =4 cards in a minor. With both majors, you transfer then bid the other at the 3 level. The big advantage of Keri, IMO, is being able to invite and still play in 2♥ or 2♠ in a 4-4 or 4-3. If you like opening 1NT enough to play a mini then I think you should like it enough to add a point to the range and play 9-12 or 10-13, in which case invites are much more important.

There's too great a chance that partner has the red suits, you have to pass. If they have a huge diamond fit you will probably hear a raise anyway, then you can get involved later. I like double as pass or correct in this sort of situation.

The queen lying over the jack actually makes a lot of sense, assuming the cards haven't been shuffled too well. Not sure that it is too useful on BBO. As Cascade mentioned, there is a difference between info you have discovered yourself and info the opps give you. Say you have 9♣, 7♦, 5♥ and 5♠ between your two hands, and bid 1NT-P-3NT-P. The lead is the 2♦, 4th highest. Some would now say 'LHO has 9 empty spaces, RHO has 10, so I should play for the Q♣ to be with RHO'. However, RHO didn't get a chance to lead. The implication of the opening lead is that LHO does not have a 5 card major, and is unlikely to hold 4 card majors, else he would have led from a major suit instead. Therefore it is clear to play LHO for the Q♣.

I haven't seen anyone mention Empty Spaces yet, I think this is the easiest way to understand it. Missing Q432, you play off the ace and lead towards dummy's KJ. LHO has shown up with the 2 and the 3, RHO with the 4. Having seen LHO's 3 and 2, there are 11 'empty spaces' in his hand. You have only seen one card in the suit from RHO, so he has 12 empty spaces. Thus RHO is a 12:11 favourite to have any given missing card, including the Q of this suit.

Yes, I've played a *direct* seat double as 'optional' rather than takeout (basically promising 2-3 in their suit). I'm not sure how this compares with playing a balancing seat double as optional, nor, indeed, if this is better than just playing takeout doubles.

What is the logic of a balancing 2NT being substantially weaker than a direct seat 2NT? If I have a balanced 14 in 2nd seat then I am already fairly certain they aren't bidding on (except with a preemptive 3♠). Seems to me the ranges should be fairly similar, maybe as light as 14-16/17 in both seats?