MickyB

I consider this to be an above average 11, so I would open it.

Cheers Daniel, just read that. Seems there might be problems working out from the 4NT/bypassing of 4NT exactly how many keycards partner has; This could often be sorted out by further cuebidding, but in turn makes it difficult to further consider outside strength and the solidity of the trump suit. Has anyone seen enough of this in action to know if it is a problem? Am just wondering about having the turbo bid lower, kickback style, and sorting out the queen of trumps just below 5 of the trump suit...

Not introducing diamonds on this hand is insane. Showing it as 5♠4+♦ is almost as bad. 4♦ slam-try if pard seems to know what he is doing, 6♦ if not.

1♥, hopefully we are playing a 1NT rebid as 15-17/8 not 15-16. Pass is worthy of more consideration playing a strong NT, because the opponents are more likely to have a game (or, at least, the values to protect) if partner is short.

- Playing IJS at the 3 level only is quite common with 2/1 GF. I've heard of people referring to their system as "3 over 1 constructive" - 2/1 GF may help beginners reach games in the short term, but I'm not convinced it will help them progress. It isn't teaching them logic, it is giving them a safety net - the knowledge that their partner won't pass. In my experience, most beginner/intermediate 2/1ers don't know how to show extra strength on a lot of handtypes, which will be a problem when they want to start finding their slams. - The invitational 2NT isn't really needed - 1NT then 2NT does the job just fine if you put 5M332 with 14 points into your 1NT opener, although I guess you probably don't need 2NT for anything else in a beginner system.

Interesting. My opinion is that transfers are nearly as effective over a weak NT as a strong one. - It is usually better for the unbalanced hand to describe so the balanced hand can evaluate his honours (much easier for an unbalanced hand to show a club shortage than for a balanced hand to show no wastage opposite a club shortage) - It is often worth having the lead up to the balanced hand, even if it is a bit weaker, as it tends to have split honours - Weak takeouts are useful opposite a 1st seat 1NT opening, as they only give 4th seat one chance to bid; but opposite a 2nd seat 1NT opening, transfers are superior competitively, because after P-1N-P-2♦, P-2♥ the auction is still live.

With the Q♦, I'll bid 3♦ at IMPs and 2NT at MPs; With the J♦, I'll invite vul at IMPs otherwise pass. Mike, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on transfers opposite a weak NT.

But it gave the opps a problem they couldn't cope with. What does that tell you?

To be pedantic: assuming a 4-4 split, the probability of East having 3 and 2 is 100% (unless West has led something other than 4th highest :rolleyes:) Probability of both ♦ and ♥ finesses wrong is 24%, the probability of East having both the 2 and 3 of ♠ is 9/18 * 8/17 (we know of 4 cards in each hand, 4 spades in West's, 2 spades and 2 heart honours in East's). This works out at 5.65%, which is an overestimate, because West is more likely to lead from a 5 or 6 card holding than a 4 card holding, and he may also have led lowest from three.

In the US maybe, in the UK the first three rules didn't apply...and still don't for average club player!

Easy 3♦, a better hand with long ♦ :)

First one - given the conditions, this is fairly close IMO. Anyone in support of double showing a hand that is marginal for competing, eg 3♥ and xx in diamonds? A minority of (vocal) weak NTers advocate transfers showing something in the way of values, but this does expose you to penalty doubles of 1NT. Second one - I'd have bid 2♦ on the last round, then I would double 2♥ knowing that partner probably has a strong NT for not competing to 3♦. Having passed the previous round, I pass now - I don't know it is our hand.

What other thread, and what's the auction please? :rolleyes: Edit: Oh, I see, "decision at the 5 level". Oops, I looked at the wrong thread <_<

I quite like the idea of opps finding a spade fit, as long as they don't do it too quickly - might let me get both my suits in :)

I'd probably transfer to hearts in the hope that partner can super-accept.

Lol, am honoured to have a bug named after me... Fred - 1.2.0 was released with 4.5.6, I presume 1.2.1 (with the bug fix) will be released with 4.5.7 ;)

I thought this was quite interesting, so I did a sim. The first one came out with surprisingly few 2♣ rebids, at the expense of a lot of 8 card heart suits. I realised that the dealer was giving the hand 5 hearts and *then* dealing the rest of the cards randomly, so I went to Richard Pavlicek's site instead! Partner will have 4-5 clubs on a little over 36% of deals, and 4 spades on a little under 17%.

Inverted Psycho Suction is an improvement IMO - quite often you will have a reasonable choice between passing partner's bid or correcting it to the suit above. With Psycho Suction you sometimes just have to pass and hope! Although it is possible that this works out fine in practice. I think Meckwell is much more suitable for interfering a lot - Lionel is designed for competing for the part-score while reserving the possibility of doubling 1NT, if you use the double on few values you will get redoubled and then smacked when you run.

I want to give Inverted Psycho Suction a try at some point - 2♣ is either minors or hearts, 2♦ either reds or spades, etc. Makes everyone guess lots, which increases the chance that the contract will be ridiculous, which reduces the chance that my cardplay will matter :P

Remind me to play a 13-16 NT against you and see what happens :P

My opinion is that the software was designed with that as a default, rather than a punishment - what else can it do? If I know who is responsible for slow play, I will given any benefit of the doubt to the NOS; If not, I only adjust when there is no doubt.

I always adjust when there is an obvious line of play. I'm not quite sure how the laws work here, but I don't believe it is correct to leave A-- because the TD hasn't been called; A-- can only be awarded if the TD intervenes when playing F2F! Aside from any laws - they are there to play bridge, not to be given 40% because they are their opponents are too slow. If someone is slow, I hope that either I will notice or someone will tell me; But without any evidence has to who it is causing the delay, it seems wrong to leave A-- in when that may even be of benefit to the slow player(s).

Bridgefiles says this is Vanderbilt, and Bridgeguys says it isn't Schenken :rolleyes:

KI has its own problems...Chip Martel feels that giving the chance to double 1♠ is a big loser, and you can't rebid 1NT when partner has shown ♠. BTW, do any KIers choose between 1♠ and 1N with 4♠, depending upon whether they fancy a Moysian part-score or not?

The problem is coping with a 2♣ rebid...I'm going to go with 1NT given that we are playing 5 card majors, would go with 1♠ if we were playing 4cM.