MickyB

I voted for O'Rourke-Moss. Thought I'd copy and paste the teams - Nick Nickell, New York NY; Richard Freeman, Atlanta GA; Paul Soloway, Mill Creek WA; Bob Hamman, Dallas TX; Jeff Meckstroth, Tampa FL; Eric Rodwell, Clearwater Bch FL vs Reese Milner, Los Angeles CA; Sam Lev, New York NY; Jacek Pszczola, Chapel Hill NC; Chris Compton, Dallas TX; Andrew Gromov - Aleksander Dubinin, Moscow Russia George Jacobs - Ralph Katz, Hinsdale IL; Robert Levin, Bronx NY; Steve Weinstein, Andes NY; Zia Mahmood, New York NY; Michael Rosenberg, New Rochelle NY vs Bart Bramley, Dallas TX; Mark Feldman - Martin Fleisher, New York NY; Michael Kamil, Holmdel NJ James Cayne, New York NY; Michael Seamon, Hollywood FL; Alfredo Versace - Lorenzo Lauria - Fulvio Fantoni - Claudio Nunes, Rome Italy vs Jim Mahaffey, Winter Park FL; Mark Lair, Canyon TX; Peter Bertheau, Taby Sweden; Fredrik Nystrom, Stockholm Sweden; Fu Zhong, Beijing People's Republic of China; Zhao Jie, Tianjin People's Republic of China Lou Ann O'Rourke, Scottsdale AZ; Marc Jacobus - Geoff Hampson, Las Vegas NV; Eric Greco, Philadelphia PA; Giorgio Duboin, Torino Italy; Norberto Bocchi, Milano Italy vs Michael Moss - Chris Willenken, New York NY; Peter Fredin, Malmo Sweden; Agustin Madala, Buenos Aires Argentina Rose Meltzer, Los Gatos CA; Kyle Larsen, San Francisco CA; Alan Sontag, Gaithersburg MD; Roger Bates, Mesa AZ; Geir Helgemo, Trondheim Ca Norway; Tor Helness, Oslo Norway vs Team Orange: Ton Bakkeren, Oisterwijk Netherlands; Huub Bertens, Tilburg Netherlands; Bauke Muller, Hoorn Netherlands; Simon de Wijs, Doorn Netherlands Ron Rubin, Miami FL; Russ Ekeblad, Providence RI; Chip Martel, Davis CA; Lew Stansby, Castro Valley CA; Brad Moss, New York NY; Fred Gitelman, Las Vegas NV vs Bill Cole, Silver Spring MD; Alan Schwartz, Fairfax VA; Ai-Tai Lo, Reston VA; Mark Dahl, Richmond VA; David Butler, Keswick VA Christal Henner-Welland - Roy Welland - Bjorn Fallenius, New York NY; Antonio Sementa, Parma PR 43100 Italy; Adam Zmudzinski, Katowice Poland; Cezary Balicki, Wroclaw Poland vs Carolyn Lynch, Scottsdale AZ; Dennis Dawson, Santa Fe NM; Larry Cohen - David Berkowitz, Boca Raton FL; Joe Grue, New York NY; Curtis Cheek, Huntsville AL Piotr Tuszynski, Warsaw Poland; Apolinary Kowalski, Warsaw Poland; Farid Assemi, Fresno CA; Ed Wojewoda, Clovis CA; Srikanth Kodayam, Fremont CA; Nick Bykov, Stockton CA vs Jason Feldman, San Diego CA; Steve De Roos, Brasschaat Belgium; Rutger Van Mechelen, Heverlee Belgium; Eric Debus, Leuven Belgium

I certainly want to be able to compete, and would xfer on both hands if available, but partner has the right to play me for more. I don't see that it can be right to bid a natural, forcing 2m on this hand.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq63hqt865dt53ct5&s=sakj54hak2dq62ca4]133|200|Scoring: XIMP 1♣-X-P-1♥ P-2♠-P-3♠ P-4♠-AP[/hv] I'd have bid 1♠:2♠, 4♠. Occasionally a 1♠ rebid might miss 4♥, I guess, but not often. Seems to me that the actual South did rather a lot of bidding on his hand. I believe 2♠ traditionally shows an Acol Two, but I'd have thought that could get away with rebidding 1♠ nowadays. 2♣ then 2♠ sounds GF, and I don't think I have that.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sakj54hak2dq62ca4]133|100|Scoring: IMP Genuine expert table, RHO opens 1♣, you double, partner bids 1♥. What's your plan?[/hv]

You would weaken the Irish team. England are falling way behind; just look at the Camrose Trophy results. Ireland have won it three years in a row, by a margin even. You may well be right, but I don't think the Camrose is sufficient evidence - after all, England had six pairs playing (and not their best six either - Sanqvist-Malinowski had a poor butler in the trials, but qualified due to the Hacketts' impressive performance), so one very good pair could easily have been lost amongst weaker teammates. Besides, maybe the prospect of Hanlon-McGann as teammates, or possibly a partner from elsewhere in the UK, would get Andrew Robson making a serious effort at the Bermuda Bowl.

In a first-time partnership, presumably I don't know how strong 3♠ is, so I don't need to decide between three and four spades; I'll just bid four.

Over a NT, there's more case for a bid offering spades and another place to play on 4-5 or even 4-4 shape, because having a spade fit can often be the key to winning a part-score battle. Over a suit opening, these hands can be spread between doubling, passing and overcalling (often a level lower than they would over 1NT, decreasing the chance of playing in a silly contract).

I think Lionel is pretty reasonable, so I can understand giving up a penalty double. What I can't understand is just having a double described as "takeout". It doesn't seem to give partner much idea of where your fit might be, and given that partner will often be flat why not defend 1NT X when you don't have a suit of your own?

Landy is very good considering how simple it is. IMO, Asptro is a lot more complicated than it appears at first glance, and the major two-suiters are problematic - Kx AKxx xxxx xxx Pard overcalls 2♦. If he has 5♥4♠, you want to be looking for 4♥, but you have no way to do so. Kxx Kxxx xxxx xx If pard has 4♠5♣, I'd want to be in 2♠, but bidding 2♠ would miss a ♥ fit opposite 4♠5♥. My favourite defence to 1NT is David Collier's invention, 'Half-Astro' - 2♣ shows both majors, 2♦ shows spades and a minor.

That editorial was based on Jeff Rubens' opinions, not the way that the laws are (currently) interpreted. The original statement was correct, IMO, and I'm yet to be convinced either way on it.

2♠ for me.

Instinctively I find this to be a clear 4♥ bid, but maybe it isn't quite as clear-cut as it feels - there is a reasonably high chance that pard has a weak NT. At least 4♥ is unlikely to be doubled.

I prefer a 3♦ rebid on the North hand.

How did you guess that I agreed with David? :)

Eugh eugh eugh I wouldn't be close to bidding 1NT even if partner wasn't a passed hand. As it is, the main plus side of bidding 1NT (reaching game when pard has a decent hand) has gone. Easy pass. Btw, if there had been two passes to RHO I wouldn't mind 1NT. This is partly because I'd expect partner to open more conservatively in second than in first, but mainly because LHO is much less likely to find a double opposite a potentially light third seat opening.

Besides the competitive auctions where opener doesn't feel able to introduce his spade suit at a high level, having to respond 1♠ on only three of them must make it harder to find an 8 card fit when responder has five of them. Requiring 1♥:2♥ to "usually deny 3 spades" is a pain too. Fair enough, but my understanding is that many MOSCITO players disagree with this. It also makes finding 5-3 fits somewhat harder. I've edited my original post, hopefully I've done a better job of explaining what I believe the gains to be.

Apologies, have been away for a few days. Yes, as Adam says, competing over 2♠ in a guaranteed 5-3 spade fit is far from automatic. I'd advocate protecting much less aggressively over your 1♥:2♠ auction than standard methods - I would almost require a stiff/void spade. When both hands are balanced, 2♠ will often play appallingly. I also feel that you will often have issues deciding whether to compete to 3♠ in a 5-4 fit, either immediately or over any balancing action. I don't know if this is the predominant style amongst MOSCITOers, but I think automatically preempting to 3♠ on a possible 15 total trump deal will often result in going minus when the hand belonged to your side (or it did not, but you would have bought it for 2♠ anyway).

Hi Mike: For kicks and giggles I'm going to select a couple quotes from your last posting I would make the argument that thee two statements are incongruous. More specifically, the second statement is an assumption (a big one at that). I will readily admit that opening a 5 card major is more descriptive than opening a 4 card major. You provide a much more accurate description of your hand. However, you're going beyond this. You are asserting that this type of precision is more more useful to partner than to the opponents. I normally associate these types of thought processes with two handed bridge, with its emphasis on constructive bidding. Agreed, I am asserting that it is more useful to partner than to opponents. I think it is true, and I don't think it's close. It is useful in that it allows responder to preempt further and compete more readily than a 4 card opening would. This is four-handed thinking, right? It does a better job of putting one member of our partnership in a good position to judge the auction. What he does with that position is up to him. If your style is to "embrace the chaos", then fine - let responder raise the 5 card suit on a doubleton.

Yes, likewise. 1, 2 and 3 aren't ridiculous here, but I think I'd go for 2♠.

I don't see how this can be true. If nothing else, hands with a 5 card major are better placed having opened a 5 card major. I'm not aiming to reach a known 8 card fit, just to give responder the power to decide. As I said before, a weakish hand with three card support and an outside singleton would be expected to bid 2♠ over 1♦. If responder's singleton happens to be opposite opener's second suit, the penalty for balancing could be huge. Playing against some MOSCITO pairs, I would advocate balancing rarely after 1R:2M, as it is more likely that they have already over-competed the hand than under-competed. The suggestion that I am playing two-handed bridge is misguided, IMO - I know of very few systems that ensure finding a spade fit but not a heart fit when opener is balanced, and the reasoning behind this is clearly four-handed. Fair point. Okay, I've just read up on Caroline Club. As far as I can tell, the only reason that it advocates opening 1H on 5S4H is because hands with 5+M4+m open at the two level, so there are few unbalanced hands with 5 spades opening 1♠. Obviously, this isn't true of my system, or the similar systems that I am discussing. The authors acknowledge that responding to 1♥ is much more complex due to the inclusion of these hands. I believe that some of the problems this approach causes are insurmountable.

This is an attempt to explain how I reached the opening structure for my new system, 'Gemini'. Any thoughts or corrections would be greatly appreciated. -- It is clear to me that strong club systems should use the 1D opening to show spades. When a spade fit exists, it is important to find it, because spades out-rank all other suits. If you open 1NT and miss your heart fit, this is less likely to matter, because the par contract could well be 2S by your opponents. Indeed, you may find you get a good board when your weak NT preempts the opponents out of their spade fit. For this reason, I believe that you should try to avoid opening 1NT with 4 spades, but to freely open it holding 4 hearts and 2-3 spades. As your opening showing spades already includes balanced hands, but your opening with hearts does not, it is preferable to put hands with 4-4 in the majors into your opening showing spades. Also, assuming that you don't have an opening to show both majors, it is clear to show spades first on all hands with 5+spades and 4+hearts, because this allows you to follow-up with a rebid in hearts. If you show hearts first, you may then want to introduce your spades later, forcing preference to hearts a level higher. Indeed, there is a case for showing spades first even with 4 spades and 5+hearts, intending to bid both suits yourself. In this case, it is clear that you should use 1D to show spades (as opposed to using, say, 1H and 1S both showing spades). With an unbalanced hand with only 4 hearts, the situation is different; if you pass a natural 1NT opening and miss a 4-4 heart fit, you are unlikely to have missed a good 4♥ contract. If you opened a natural, unbalanced 2m and partner, assuming a misfit, passes, you could well have missed a good 4♥ contract. So, I think it would be an improvement on current MOSCITO variants to have - 1C = strong 1D = 4+spades 1H = 4+hearts, either unbalanced or 5332 1S = 4+diamonds, either 6D or both minors 1N = 11-14 (or whatever), denies 4 spades or 5 hearts 2C = natural, 6+cards When holding 4S5+H it would clearly be superior to open 1H in this context, as it promises an unbalanced hand and allows opener to differentiate between having longer hearts and equal or longer spades. The problem with this is that your (very frequent) 1D opening isn't that well defined. I believe that MOSCITOers generally believe it is right to raise freely to the 2 level with three card support, but when responder is balanced this can easily be a silly contract. Similarly, with four card support, it isn't clear to responder whether to raise/compete to the two- or three-level, and if he raises to only the two-level opener won't know to place him with a fourth trump. With an unbalanced hand without a 4 card major, natural openings at the two level work well; They preempt against the opponents presumed major fit, and leave partner well placed to further the preempt, knowing that opener either has a six card suit or a bit of shape - (13)(45) pattern. This is especially advantageous when opening in first seat, as you can have the auction at a high level before 4th seat gets his first chance to call. These points encourage me to use a natural, constructive 2D opening, and remove some hands from the 1D opening into the 1S opening. The downside to this is losing 2D from the preemptive structure, but I think that is a price easily worth paying. Nick Hughes suggests using 1S as both majors, and I think that this works very well, as when partner opens 1D or 1H and you have length in the both majors, you can happily preempt knowing that you aren't missing a better fit in the other one; when you hold length in partner's major and shortness in the other, you can preempt higher against the opponents' known major-suit fit. (FWIW, using this structure I would prefer to open 1NT on 4=3=3=3 patterns, giving responder the guarantee of a little shape for a 1D opening). Instead, I advocate using 1D to show precisely 4 spades and 1S to show 5+. [beginning of edit] When partner has opened 1D, responder will initially assume that he has a flattish hand (he will be balanced or 4(225) approximately 70% of the time). He doesn't feel the need to raise on a flat hand with 3 card support to cater to partner having a suitable hand for playing in spades, but he can still raise on 3 cards when holding an outside singleton. It is much less likely that opener, having promised precisely 4 spades, will wonder whether he should be competing further later; responder is firmly in control of the auction. When opener has five spades, responder is able to compete higher or preempt further than he would opposite a 4+card opening. There is also no later confusion over whether opener has a canapé opening or not, as he has shown or denied a 5th spade with his first bid. This is very useful both in contested and uncontested auctions. Are the gains of this method greater than using a 1S opening to show both majors? I believe so. Splitting the balanced hands with four spades between the 1D and 1S openings seems wrong to me, it makes it much harder to judge when partner has a weak NT. My method also allows more balanced hands to be opened - In an uncontested auction there is room for opener to show a minimum or maximum, while in a contested auction responder can usually find an action if he wishes to be in game opposite a maximum. 4432s with 10-15 points and 4333s with 11-15 points can open 1D quite comfortably. Compared to MOSCITO, I feel that we are better placed in competitive auctions on nearly all hands with a 4+card major (arguably, the exception being hands with 4S5+H). Unlike MOSCITO, our 2C opening can be (13)45, but I think that the loss there is minimal. It's hard to say how the natural 2D opening will compare to the MOSCITO 1S opening showing 4+D. Overall, I think this system leaves partner better placed in competition than any strong club system I have seen. So, what are the losses? Well, as mentioned before, we've lost the 2D opening from our preemptive structure. Also, starting with 1S rather than 1H on hands with 5+spades pushes us up in uncontested auctions, particularly as 1NT is probably needed for investigating the best part-score. [End of edit] So, here we have Gemini - so called due to the twin openings showing spades. 1C - any 16+, or rule of 25 (EBU regulations require this) (10%) 1D - 10-15, precisely 4 spades, any shape (10.5%) 1H - 4+hearts, 0-3 spades, if precisely 4 hearts then will be 1444 or have a longer minor (8.5%) 1S - 5+spades (7.2%) 1N - 12-15, denies 4S or 5H (7%) 2m - 11-15 nat, unbal, denies a 4 card major (1.8% each) 2NT - 5+/5+ minors, fairly offensive when vul Btw, this opening structure is legal under the ACBL GCC. I don't know whether any sensible continuations are permitted. Some of my calculations of the frequencies of the openings do not merit the level of precision given above! 22(45) would always be treated as balanced; (24)(25) and 6m322 would open 1NT if particularly suitable, as may the odd (13)(45), with a stiff king and a poor five card suit. 7-4 patterns would be treated as single-suited, indeed there is a case for opening 2m on some hands with 6m4M. The response structure is not yet finalised, but I am leaning towards - 1D: 1H = natural F1 1S = ART INV+ 1N, 2C, 2D = nat NF 2H = 4+spades, inv+ 2S = 4 cards, or 3 cards with an outside singleton, weak 1H: 1S = ART, denies 5 spades or 3 hearts, looking for best strain 1N = ART GF 2C = 5+spades 2D = 3+hearts, inv+ 2H = weak raise 1S: 1N = NF/F1 2C = ART GF 2D = 5+Hearts 2H = 3+spades, inv+ 1N: Standard stuff, except invitational hands with a 5 card major go through "Stayman" 2m: Step one ART enquiry, otherwise 2M is natural constructive NF 2D:2NT = hearts, F1

Double. Yes, if pard bids 3♥ it could be very wrong, but it doesn't have to be, and it rates to be right otherwise.

I thought I just said that I didn't :)

I disagree with this. When you bid over their 1♣ opening, you are removing a whole extra level of bidding. It's much harder for them to penalise you because they don't have a forcing pass available. At the vulnerability, I think pass here is entirely reasonable, although if I think that the opposition will be on much firmer ground in an uncontested auction I'd be tempted to throw a spanner in the works.

Indeed. As long as the opening denies 4 cards in the other major, you can use step one and step two as weak and strong bids, with a 2 level bid showing 5 cards in the other major - not that I'm saying that this is optimal when the opening is natural. You don't always get to relay. In many competitive auctions, you will wish you had shown spades first so that you can follow-up with a heart rebid. How do you bid to a spade part-score, 1♦:1NT, 2♠: Pass?