MickyB

The wrong kind. I'm not sure I can think of a hand that only has 3 card support and wants to force to the 3 level in the 4-3 opposite a random 6 count. Surely they have a more descriptive call besides 3♥ once they've already shown support. Maybe 3♣ or 2N or something... What if pard preferred to make a sufficient call? :rolleyes:

Ok, as expected. What kinda hand do you think partner has?

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skxxxhkxxxdxxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1C-P-1H-2D X-P-2H-3D 3H-P-??[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxhqt8xdqtcakjxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 4S-P-P-5D, P-P-?[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=saj9xxhqjxxxdkjcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 15-17 1NT from pard, so you transfer and bid 3H; He bids 3S. Worth a try, and if so, what?[/hv]

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=saxhkjxxdqxckq9xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-P-2D, your go.[/hv]

1N, not close. Even if pard raises 1S, it's not clear that it's worked out better than bidding 1NT.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skxhj98xxxdkxxxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P)-P-(3♣)-P (P)-?[/hv]

Ok, cool. I have a habit of persuading myself I've done the wrong thing/had a close decision after whatever I've done hasn't worked out. Pard's hand is AK Jxxx xxx Kxxx (fairly pipless), is missing a decent game here just one-of-those-things?

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq97haqt73dk74cq2]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♥ (P)3♥(P) 1♥ shows 5, 3♥ shows a four-card LR Thoughts?[/hv]

3H, closely followed by Ken Rexford. Nothing else is worthy of consideration.

Ahh, that explains it - I was feeling a little insulted that I hadn't been contacted about commentating on the Spingold, thought it meant I wasn't considered as good as those who were asked to, lol. But yeah, some of it was dire. Guess the motto of the tale is to have Roland organising, in which case there's not that much more to be said.

Is this 5341 or 4351? I presume the former, but the latter is still possible. Also, what about 1m:1H, 2N:3H? I guess this is at least 4-4, with 3S now denying 4S and promising 3H? Am wondering if it's better to use 3C as a puppet to 3D - feels wrong to give so much ability to show hands with diamonds but not be able to indicate a heart shortage on a 4144 or a 4135.

Just been thinking about this, seems better than Wolff and similar, and possibly simpler - anyone know of any existing write-ups or have their own preferred version?

Wouldn't surprise me if both 0 and 4 were more common than 2 in the UK - can't remember ever seeing a club-standard player playing it as 2+. How light do you open - take it the balanced range in 1♦ is 11-13, and that 3♦ over 3♣ would be NF? Anyway, I'm probably doubling, and the problem will come on the next round.

The bid looks right to me, and occasionally bidding 2m on a three-card suit surely can't be alertable. Maybe the opps were annoyed because they had seen your sig :(

Yup, I used to think it was ridiculous how many people upgrade all the time and never downgrade. I once had a selector ask if I'd miscounted my points when I failed to open a weak no-trump on a terrible 12 count, and pointed out that I'd made it easier for the opponents to get to game. Guess I better start opening 0-counts then, the opponents are even more likely to have game on then! However, a decent 14-17 NT actually makes sense. It means that a passed hand opposite a balanced hand too weak to open 1NT needn't consider bidding game unless a fit is found, which makes life a fair bit easier. Of course, I doubt many of the upgraders are aware of that reason - I think they just like overbidding!

did you thought that maybe already partner did something and 2H would be a good contract?

Is this used on other sequences, or only when the "transfer" is to opener's first suit?

Ah yes, good point - seems to only apply for this sequence though. Will add a note to my system file - 2M INV with three and not wishing to declare no-trumps, 3M four card GF - or should 3M be better defined than this? Some kind of picture jump? Guess it might be useful to work out what the default response is with 4D4S GF first :rolleyes:

I'd probably treat them as balanced more often than not, depending upon quality of the major, and, in the case of spades, right-siding.

Precisely. Except I prefer transfer extensions, so ...2D - 2H - 2NT shows clubs. I'm much more comfortable playing 1S promises an unbal hand, never really given much thought to which is superior until now though. It's best to have unbalanced hands describe themselves to a balanced partner. If 1S can be either balanced or unbalanced, it's difficult to get this to happen. If you bid 1S on unbalanced hands and 1NT on balanced hands, it's very easy to get this to happen. Of course, for the best of both worlds - 1C:1D!, 1H! where 1D shows 4+H and 1H shows a weak no-trump, 1S is now a puppet to 1NT and 1NT shows 4-4 majors NF.

Ok, so you gain on constructive 5-5s after a high level preempt. I still maintain that the majority of hands are better placed opposite a 1D opening with Polish influences - for example, a single-suiter on the same auction. There are no-trump bids available to show this hand-type. With regard to 2m openings - TriBal is opening them more frequently and on weaker hands, whereas 4M6m 14-16 are opening 1D, making it much easier to find a 4-4 major fit. Surely this is advantageous from both a constructive and desctructive point of view? With regard to 1D:1H, 2D as a good raise, we are quite happy to raise to 2H on 11-13 bal and 3H on 14-16 unbalanced.

Talking of alternative rules - you start off with the whole deck (or as much as possible) being divided between the players, and you work down to one card each then back up again. I suggested that the cards not dealt to anyone on the 'way down' should remain out of play until the way back up again, but we decided that would take a little too much concentration!

I'd rather 1C was 17+ so opener didn't have to strive to act with a balanced 19. However, a 2C opening showing 11-16 would be a bit of a stretch. 1D does include any 11-13 balanced, but having this as the Meckwell-style catch-all fares quite poorly. I'm advocating removing hands from the 1D opening to make it much easier to respond to, especially in competition.