MickyB

xxx KTxx Q9 Kxxx 1D:1H 2S:2N 3D:?? Edit: 2S natural GF. We've been known to rebid 1S on poor 19s because we respond light. 2N natural, doesn't show extras. 3C would have been 4SF, usually showing doubt about clubs. 3D shows 4-6 distribution.

Does pard ever raise this with four trumps?

Did you even read the other thread? If you had, you'd have given up arguing by now. 2C, wtp?

I've just discovered that the abomination of a VP-scale that has been used by the WBF [see my previous rant on the subject] is to be replaced. From the EBU newsletter for AC members and TDs - "A Scoring Committee was set up by the WBF President in January of this year. The committee was chaired by Ernesto d’Orsi of Brazil and co-chaired by Max Bavin (UK). Other Committee members are Henry Bethe (USA) Bart Bramley (USA), Peter Buchen (Aus) and Maurizio de Sacco (IT). After deep and long analysis, the committee proposed — and the WBF Executive Committee accepted — the following: 1. The adoption of a 20-point victory point scale with the following features: The scales are continuous and given to two decimal places Subject to a cap, each IMP margin translates to a specific VP award Each additional IMP in the winner’s margin is worth no more than the previous one Relative to the current WBF scales, the “blitz” margins in the new scale will be approximately equivalent to the 25-2 in the old scales. There is no reduction of VPs for the loser when the margin exceeds the blitz margin. 2. It is recommended that the new scales be used in the next World Bridge Championship (including Youth tournaments) and be available to all NBOs by the end of 2012. 3. Also, the Committee will prepare new “discrete” scales (whole numbers) to be used by NBOs if they wish to during the transition from the old to the new VP scales. 4. On the World Bridge Federation website (www.worldbridge.org), the Committee will publish the “continuous” and “discrete” scales for the most-used number of boards per match and will publish them together with instructions on how to determine VP scales for other sizes of matches. Also on the website, using the actual algorithm, users will be able to enter the number of boards and the preferred scale type to read, print or download the result. 5. Future work by the Committee will include consideration of aggregate score, the IMP scale and match-point scoring, although not necessarily with a view to suggest changes." Committee member Henry Bethe posted on Google groups to say that it is the existing USBF scales that are being used - see the last two pages of this document. Does anyone have details of the discrete scales, or know the formula for the continuous scale? Thanks.

I was given this hand and said 4H > 3C > 3H > 3N, but thought it interesting. The player who held it rebid 3H and got a raise to 4H from Q9xxx xx AJxx Ax or similar. Spades were 4-1 which meant that 4H+2 scored 12/14 mp, not because people were going off in grand, but because 3N and 4S only made 11 tricks.

My thoughts precisely B-)

Yup some form of 2/1 and semi-forcing NT is almost certainly the way to go, unlike 15-17 NT and 4cM which doesn't really work with GF 2/1s unless you open very soundly on unbal hands. I'm mainly just annoyed that my preferred variant of 2/1 GF except rebid doesn't seem to work as well playing 4cM [6m4S invites can't bid 1H:2m, blah:3m if 4-4 majors has to rebid 2NT, and 1H:2C, 2S as 4♠4+♥ doesn't feel best].

You have to be very careful with this sort of analysis. It's better to break it down by how well you do on handtypes [weak NTs, strong NTs and unbal hands]. 4cM weak NT is the worst of the mainstream systems, it has few advantages over 5cM weak NT, especially if you open the minor with 4M4m. 4cM strong NT certainly has its drawbacks but it at least has a point - open 1M frequently on weakish hands and try to preempt oppo. Anyway, this isn't really relevant to the system I'm working on, which isn't pure 4cM anyway. Coming to a vugraph near you soon :rolleyes:

Partner will probably gently tell me that, if I hadn't underbid by three tricks earlier, I wouldn't now have an ethical issue over a bid that is logically a strict sign-off.

AKx AKQJxx xx xx MP, 2/1. You open 1H and pard responds 1S. Pick-up partnership, but you can assume pard will interpret 3NT as a suggestion to play with a hand too good to bid 3H.

1H = 4+cards [includes any 11-13 NT with 4♥, otherwise will have 5+♥] Any thoughts on continuations? I am aware that the Hacketts play 1M:2C as nat GF or a 3-card limit raise, which seems reasonable, but I am interested in what else is out there.

While I am unsure if pass is a logical alternative for an expert - 5D rates to score poorly anyway as 4S will surely make - it is clearly a logical alternative in a weakish game, particularly as we've already made a non-forcing bid. This leaves us with the question of whether the hesitation has suggested that a 6♦ bid is more likely to be successful. My answer is no - while partner could have been thinking about making a slam-try, he could also have been considering passing or bidding 3NT.

I think you can assume that, by "limited", Han meant "same lower bound, but a lower upper bound". Maybe, in ten years' time, "limited" will imply 11-20 rather than 14+, but that's not the case yet. While there are auctions where I've felt I was at an advantage knowing that my oppo was limited to 15, I think Han's statement (if read as intended) is rather uncontroversial.

3♦ is usually played as NF, Kathryn, so seems quite an underbid. If we take a different route we might get to bid keycard. As it is, I'd guess at 6♦ [trying a 5♠ cue now seems too risky].

1N [14-16] shows your strength better than 1M [11-16]. 1C [assumed to be 11-13] doesn't have this advantage, because if you open 1M partner will start with the assumption that you are minimum anyway. 1N (2H) P (P); 2S is a reasonable way to bid a 5233. 1C (2H) P (P); 2S obviously isn't an option on the equivalent 11-13 NT. These reasons tip the balance for me. I could be persuaded to open 1C with five hearts if it improved our auctions after a 1H opening, but giving up opening 1S on a weak NT with five spades is quite a loss IMO.

No idea. I was just fairly confident that 3N = good 4H bid is reasonable, simple, but not the best theoretical meaning B-) Thinking about it, the disadvantage of 3N [or 4m] promising a specific suit is that it's much easier to defend against, in direct seat at least. It's unclear what a dbl of 3N [good 4M bid] should show. 3N showing a two-suiter is surprisingly rare, I'd expect 3N = minors to be quite a common agreement. IIRC Brad+Fred play it as the majors. I don't really get that, hearts+minor makes more sense to me, or perhaps something multi-ish like majors or minors. Edit: Don't know how I missed Gwnn's post. 3NT = H+minor was the "MickyB 3NT" for about 5 minutes. Reedit: It's ok, the MickyB 3NT can show 5H6m instead of 6H5m.

Have you tried looking next to the diamonds?

Well, you could bid 1S:2C, 2N:4S with no interest opposite 17-19, or 1S:2C, 2N:3N with a no-trumpy "no interest" - although I guess you'll still land up in 4N there.

Ok, so does opener have to go past 4S to show the 17-19 NT?

1S:2C, 2N:3S. Is 3N now natural or serious/friv? If natural, what does opener need to do to show 17-19 rather than 11-13?

5.9%, I believe. It'll be less for most pairs in practice because that doesn't include any 5422s/6322s, but still well clear of 1%.

I was ever-so-subtly pointing out that 1H:2H, 3C:3H will result in going off in part-score more often than 1H:2C!, 2D!:2H. Last post itt

And who knows, maybe if you bid 1H:2H, 3C:2H on a hand where I'd bid 1H:2H, P, oppo will accept it. You'll still have told the table about opener's clubs though. What were you saying about "leakage"?

So he'd routinely double 1H on a 2-4-4-3 13-count? What about a 1-4-4-4 13-count?

I don't understand the aversion to Drury after a 4th seat opening. I'd play Drury opposite 1st+2nd seat openings if I knew I wouldn't pick up a GF hand with clubs, instead I have to make do with 1M:2M constructive and putting my weak raises through 1N. And yes, the actual hand is an obvious Drury bid.