MickyB

It seems wrong to me to restrict the use of different methods opposite a passed hand. An "opening pass" communicates vital information; saying that a 1st/2nd seat 1D opening should mean the same thing as P:1D makes about as much sense as saying that P:1D should mean the same thing as 1C:1D.

In first seat, Fantunes two-bids will often have good results from preempting the opposition, but I'd expect them to have a fair few bad results from preempting our side too. In fourth seat, I'd expect them to preempt us much more often than they preempt the opponents.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skq6ht76dq862ck62]133|100|Scoring: IMP Well, okay, it's the worst ten-count with support that you'll ever see. I think I know what I should have done, but just to check... P-[1♠]-2♥-[p] ??[/hv]

That does not surprise me. Indeed...he's obviously the noobiest. But yeah, that was my best guess from the original post. I voted for 4 - there are times when I just "switch off" and play the cards in front of me, I certainly wouldn't notice a deliberate revoke 100% of the time when playing like that.

In answer to most of the early questions, I wouldn't normally point out partner's infraction once it had been committed. Waiting until it has been condoned and then pointing it out seems pointless, it's just likely to cause needless upset. If partner was about to lead out of the wrong hand I would try to stop him. In the case of a dropped card, I'd normally let the defender pick it up. The exceptions are - If I thought the oppo would/could take advantage of this info If it was a big event and I couldn't see past winning at that moment in time! In the case of the lead out of turn, I'd normally call the TD. On BBO, I'm much less competitive. Oppo are welcome to discuss agreements (although if they do that after we had to guess on a previous board I might be slightly annoyed) and I'd probably accept the claim for four tricks before I'd read it, let alone counted their tricks :) But if I did spot the error in time I'd usually decline.

There were only four teams between 1951 and 1998. Five teams is, indeed, a pretty bad number. Unless you have live boards between sets, the average pair in a six-man team will be sitting out almost half the time. The same issue exists in the junior series.

Likewise. If the hosts don't wish to field a second team, the holders are asked to instead; it will be interesting to see whether future hosts send two teams when it would otherwise have been an achievement for their first team to not finish last!

Most? What makes you think that? Did "most" dump invitational sequences after a 1NT opening? If your answer is "yes, you don't invite", your point is valid. If you agree that invitational auctions exist, it is not. Roland A fair few have given up most invites that don't allow you to play *two* levels below game, or at least use them very rarely, even opposite a good 14-17 no-trump. I don't think that not being able to invite opposite a range of 15-16 is Acol's biggest problem!

What's wrong with being committed to game with 15 opposite 9? Most would bid game on 9 if partner opened a strong NT. In Acol, a 2/1 response should show a hand that wants to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, as that hand has no option but to pass after 1M:1N. For most people, this means that their 2/1s have to be quite light. On the original hand, 3♣ looks normal. I much prefer the style where 2♥ is forcing, having to jump on a good hand preempts your auctions horribly.

A few points - I think the 2♣ opening would be a big loss. While you may, in most cases, be able to stop at the same level as standard systems, it is likely that you won't have been able to describe your hand so well in that time, especially in terms of showing a second suit. Using paradox responses may well be best, but how do you expect to explore for a fit in responder's major, when he has one? I think you'll have more range issues with 1♦ and 1M than you'd expect - having opened 1♦, opener will be making a move past 1NT/2 of a suit with a 16-count opposite a potential yarborough, while having opened a major the "light 2/1s" will get you too high too quickly opposite a balanced minimum opening hand. I play 1♥:1♠, 1NT as strong and artificial in a standardish system, I agree with Gerben that that is the best way to resolve many of the range issues. Without this, 1♥:1♠, 2♣ would be difficult too - surely responder can't invite on an 11/12-count opposite an 8-15 opening, so opener would have to make a move on a maximum after responder gives mere preference - suicide if you want to respond on KQTxx xx xxxx xx or similar. When I play Polish/Swedish club, I use limited 1M openings but a wide-ranging 1♦ opening - an interesting similarity. A little while ago, a modification of the Hackett system occurred to me - 1m = 17-19 bal (3+cards) or natural, 1NT rebid shows 17-19 1M = 4+cards, if only four then will be 11-13 1NT = 13-16, if 13 then no four-card major Pass with flat 11-12 counts with no 4cM Playing "minors forcing, majors non-forcing" would probably work quite well with this opening structure, particularly as I think the Hacketts play that sequences like 1♣:1♦, 1M tend to be 14+ (4M5m would have opening in the major if minimum - I don't know what they do with 4=6 shape).

The majority prefer to upgrade hands more often than they downgrade. This means that the stated range usually applies to 4333s, with 5332s in a strong NT being closer to 14-16 than 15-17. This is common knowledge. The problem comes when players a] think a 6322 with a good six-card suit is worth three HCP more than a 4333 b] think this hand still counts as "balanced", despite having two short, weak suits I don't think there is an easy solution to this. Just announcing the literal range might be better as it would encourage further questioning, but it gives the impression that the agreement is illegal, which it certainly shouldn't be IMO.

This isn't adequate disclosure in my view - it needs to be "15-17 if balanced, could be as light as 12 with a good six-card minor" or wtte

That sounds a little categorical. You've taken it a bit out of context. This was stated mainly to make clear that, in terms of memory load, it would be a sensible option for playing in 4th.

I've been considering how conditions affect what systems are best. I think position is probably the most significant factor. So far, I think that - Polish Club is best 1st vul/2nd seat (although both vul at MPs it is very tempting to pass flat 12-counts, especially when they might be about to open a weak NT on your left - last time I did this I went +300 when +200 would have been a near top. Not sure I can really justify changing the system to encourage this, though!) Polish Club's strong NT/5cM base probably isn't aggressive enough to be considered optimal 1st NV. I quite like 10-13 NT, 1♣ as 14+♣/bal here. Whether I'd ever want to be playing both this and something completely different simultaneously is another matter! In third seat, frequently opening four-card majors on weak hands seems beneficial. Assuming that your 1st seat openings are fairly middle-of-the-road, a 14-16 NT seems best - with 13 it's not the end of the world if partner has a maximum passed hand and you bid P:1M, 1NT:AP. I quite like the idea of having 1♣:1Y, 1NT as any 17-19 bal here - with 13 points or fewer, you'd have to find another action, most frequently passing. If adopting an aggressive style 1st NV, the third seat 1NT opening range could be increased - flat 14s will have no interest in game opposite a passed hand. 4th seat, I'm less sure about. There's less reason to preempt with a 4cM opening than there is in third seat, but it doesn't hurt your own bidding much to do so IMO. It's tempting to revert to Polish Club, but I don't like how the ranges mesh - a 1♣ opening that is frequently a 12-14 NT leaves game a possibility opposite a flat 11 with no fit, it seems inefficient to let responder think that there might be a 24/25 point 3NT on when opener knows this isn't the case. Any thoughts as to whether 14-16 4cM or Polish Club would be better here? Or what about something else entirely?

Lots of things to say here. I agree with Gnasher that it is far from clear that weak take-outs make life harder for the oppo than transfers do. IMO they make some sense opposite a first seat 1NT opening (you are preempting a hand that is yet to bid) but no sense opposite a second seat 1NT opening. This is quite convenient actually, because given the decision I would only ever play a weak (mini) no-trump 1st NV. There's no way a 3433 16-count should be doubling a 2♥ weak take-out. Partner is still there, with a few points and a heart shortage he will protect. Note that this wouldn't work over a transfer, as partner wouldn't enter a live auction on such a hand - the 16 count has to take some action, presumably doubling the 2♦ transfer to show a good hand. If David (Burn) was to convince me that leb isn't of great merit in this auction, I would instead play 2NT as scrambling rather than natural. In fact, maybe this is better - you still get a weak and a constructive way to bid to 3♥ over 2♠ and to 3♦ over 2♥ - put the weak option through the scrambling 2NT and the constructive option bids it directly. Maybe many should be looking towards England for bidding theory...David Collier's blog for starters :P

Lol. I have indeed. I don't really feel qualified to review it, maybe you could :P

Not as a passed hand, I haven't :rolleyes: But yeah. I play reopening doubles at the two-level don't show extras (so it would be a big mistake to not protect over 2♠) but at the three-level they do show extras.

Okay, I considered it to be fairly close between the black suits, so went for the bulletin! The conditions seem right for an ace-underlead - both declarer and dummy are balanced and there's nothing else particularly attractive to lead. Why would a club be so bad? Part of the reason for leading a spade against NT is that the club ace might be the entry to cash your long spade. That's not an issue against a suit contract :) So I don't think it's necessarily true that the club lead is less attractive against a suit contract than against NT.

[hv=d=e&s=sj876hq54dq4ca987]133|100|Scoring: IMP / 1N 2♦:2♥ 3NT:4♥ P Playing standard (4th/2nd) leads, what's your choice?[/hv]

I got the auction wrong, opener corrected to 4♥. I've started a new thread, you can find it here.

[hv=d=e&s=st5ht64da642ckjt4]133|100|Scoring: IMP / 1♠ 2♦*:2♥ P *2♦ showed 10+ with hearts.[/hv] Edit: Spots added, including the ten of clubs. Sorry, not doing too well here!

[hv=d=e&s=sj876hqxxdqxca987]133|100|Scoring: IMP / 1N 2♦:2♥ 3NT:P Playing standard (4th/2nd) leads, what's your choice?[/hv]

He could have a fair few HCP with a 4=3=4=2 or similar with no spade stop. I guess you can argue that a 4=2=5=2 with small spades should bid 3♦ over 2♠, but I'm not convinced.

I don't like to admit it, but maybe I was wrong :rolleyes: As Adam says, Stayman handles the weak hands and the "light invites" fairly well. Anchoring 2♣ and 2♦ to ♥ and ♠ seems to not do so well on these hands. Other structures in this thread have put all the low level bids into showing these hands, which seems to make life harder on the strong hands. It seems to me that while game-forcing, unbalanced hands would rather describe themselves, there simply isn't room for that to work for most weak and invitational hands - you have very limited space to work with when the best contract may well be at the two-level, so you need the better defined hand to continue describing itself.

It seems to me that Stayman is a poor convention. It is generally accepted that, when one hand is balanced and the other unbalanced, the unbalanced hand should describe itself; Stayman violates that principle. It also discloses declarer's shape, which can help the defence. I suspect it is better to have responder describe his hand, probably anchoring the 2♣ and 2♦ responses to hearts and spades, although I'm not sure which way round would be better - you could have 2♣ showing 4+spades with 2♦ being a fairly standard transfer to hearts. Does anyone know of any structures along these lines? The only one I've found so far is that played by England international, Peter Crouch.