MickyB

Helicopter coup?

Interesting position, if I've got it right. If the K♣ gets ruffed, you are still home on an endplay similar to Dwar0123's. If LHO pitches on the K♣, you now can't throw him in, because if he is 5341 he'll give a ruff-and-discard and you'll have only one trump left between the two hands. At that point, you have to draw the last trump and exit the ♠K. Edit: Sorry, you can still cross to the trump queen and lead a spade up, but playing the K out is just as good so long as the overcaller has the ace - very likely given the non-spade lead. Oh, and obviously leading a trump when holding a stiff club would be a little odd too...

Unless I'm missing something - your line works, but wasn't the one intended!

Yes, that sort of thing. Also 1M:2C relay, 1H:1S Kaplan Inversion leading to relays, some 4SF auctions, etc.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I'd just made this post and should have linked to it. Despite the fact that more is known about opener's hand than responder's, we have responder describe to opener. Relays work best when an unbalanced hand describes to a balanced hand. However, I suppose there might be a case for allowing responder to ask as well, to be used when he has no shortage.

3-2-1 obviously does a much better job of showing the value of the hand. How are you meant to judge whether to bid slam when you don't know if partner has several queens or no queens, in addition to the aces and kings he is showing? What are the advantages of 2-1? The main one is, presumably, making it easier to locate the aces and kings later, but we don't have any problems with that in most scenarios, and even in other situations I doubt the gains from this could counteract the disadvantages.

That was kinda my point...pass is obviously an LA, thus no need for peers, but that isn't sufficient for an adjustment.

We are very happy with the scans that we use when facing an unbalanced hand. When you have a 17-19 NT opposite a hand with a shortage, you can usually place all honours by - Finding out about 3-2-1 points - Scanning the first suit for 0/2 or 1/3 of the A/K/Q - Scanning the second suit similarly When opener is weaker, say an 11-13 NT, there are more possibilities, such that it might be best to scan the third suit as well, or carry out some other sort of cross-check. Any thoughts on this? What about when opener has a 14-16 NT? This method of scanning doesn't really seem to work when responder has no shortage. Any alternative suggestions for scanning 5422s and the like?

I play full relays in a few situations in my main partnership - pretty soon, we'll be playing them whenever a balanced hand can ask and an unbalanced hand can describe, e.g. over a 1NT rebid. The memory load with the current schemes is horrific, I'm trying to bring them all in line to make it more playable, but it's pretty tough - The amount of space available varies Relay responder is sometimes limited 5440 is sometimes possible 5-5 is sometimes possible There are almost certainly some other variables I've forgotten to mention I'll probably post specific questions in the near future, but first, any general advice?

No need for peers, pass is clearly an LA [under the new(ish) rules].

My having diamond length reduces partner's expected diamond length. Partner having short diamonds increases his expected club length. However, just because A implies B, and B implies C does not mean A implies C

Lebensohl is used in two main situations - a) Partner has narrowly limited his strength, and we can pass with all weak hands [eg 1N-2S]. We give up on invites and play suits are forcing, lebensohl is competitive. b) Partner is wide-ranging and we cannot pass with a weak hand [eg 2S-X-P]. Suits are invitational, weaker hands go through 2NT. In the former case, transfers are clearly an improvement on lebensohl. In the latter case, transfers do not work, as you cannot distinguish invitational hands from weak ones. There is, however, a case for using 2NT as some form of scramble.

Ok, so the two methods being suggested are - i) Play your card, then leave it face up while you think about the hand. ii) Place your card face-down while you think, then play this card when you have finished thinking. The main advantage of option i is clear - everyone gets to think with the maximum information available. This is [usually] also beneficial for the player in question, who gets to see what declarer plays to the trick. There are practical problems with both methods. If you use method i, and the rest of the table continue playing while your card is face-up, there may be some confusion. Usually this should be minor, though - partner should presumably be sufficiently aware to not play until you have quitted your card, and even if he is not, it will rarely cause any problems. This is, in my opinion, a less significant problem than that of a card being placed face-down and then changed. Besides the ridiculous amount of UI that is created when this happens, what about the times that it doesn't? Declarer may be deceived into thinking that the defender had no problem, when in fact he did. What about if someone plays against ABC in round 1, and he pulls this stunt, and then plays against DWS in round 2? Apparently leaving your card face up as a means of slowing the game down has no backing in the laws. This is surprising to me, I'll admit, but I don't see that as justification for method ii. After all, if this was really what we were supposed to do, wouldn't the "change of card" problem above be dealt with in the laws? It would be both simple and sensible to say that a card intentionally placed face down in these circumstances is played and cannot be changed. What advantages are there to method ii? Maybe if declarer is allowed to use *my* thinking time efficiently, he'll realise something that he wouldn't otherwise. Then again, the same applies to partner. Similarly, with a time monitor present, doing this may reduce declarer's thinking time. Maybe if I just waste declarer's time he'll lose focus. Hardly sound reasons. That it is not prohibited to use method ii is barely relevant. It is still misguided or inconsiderate.

Slmplicity and I are available.

If I "play" my card face-down, think, reveal it and then partner/declarer get to think at the end of trick one, then more time is used than if we all think at the end of trick one. This means that we are more likely to run into time problems.

Because 1m:1M, 2NT as 17-18 or 17-19 is pretty bad. There are lots of solutions to this problem, of course. Maybe, one day, one of them will simply regarded as expert 2/1, but that's still quite a long way off.

Ah, excellent, this is what I was fishing for with my second set of questions, I wondered if anyone played that. In my most serious partnership we'll probably switch to 1H:1S relay any strength and 1S:2C GF relay at somepoint. I started this thread with other, less system-heavy partnerships in mind.

fyp

I always thought it would be hard to play this without just wanting to play relays. I briefly thought it might be possible - how foolish!

Really? You'd bid 1H:2C, 2H:2S on 4243? I like the idea of 1H:2C, 2S not showing extras in conjunction with 2/1 GF except rebid, as this would mean you could respond 2C with 4S6C invite, intending to rebid 3C unless partner shows four spades.

I'm keen to try 1M:2C as 2+cards, GF unless responder rebids 3C. To those who play this, or who play it as 2+cards GF - Do you respond 2C to 1H when holding four spades? If so, do you play 1H:2C, 2S doesn't show extras? If so, what do you rebid on 4S6H? If always 2S, what does 1H:2C, 2H:2S show? Natural unbalanced but can be three cards? Does (53)14 still bid 1M:2C, 3D splinter? How do you continue after 1M:2C, 3C - eg could 3D now be 2-4-4-3 with weak hearts? Does 1M:2D, 3D still show four cards? Does 1H:2D, 2S show extras? Anything else I've missed?

I believe that one of Meckwell treats 1NT as non-forcing and the other treats 1NT as semi-forcing [using Wank's terminology]. I think it was Meckstroth who would sometimes bid again on weak NTs.

http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org/eng/2012-wmsg-14th-world-bridge-games-program.html Cliffs: Lille confirmed, mixed starts on Friday 17th August

There was some discussion about this recently. My experience is that "non-forcing" indicates that you do something else with an invitational 2NT bid. "Semi-forcing" is used when you don't, regardless of whether opener is supposed to bid again on a maximum weak NT. I agree this is a bit silly.

I think those passing 3♣ are undervaluing the hand and overestimating our matchpoint score for defending 3♣.