MickyB

I've never played constructive raises, and nearly always show 3 card support immediately on a weak hand, so I think it is reasonable for 2♥ to show a limit raise (particularly if the 1NT rebid has a little more variation in shape, so could well still be worth accepting an invite). Justin, I agree your example hand isn't a raise - but then I've litte desire to play a 5-3 spade part-score on this hand, so I don't mind denying 3 card support. Maybe opener should rebid 2♥ on a dead minimum 6♥4m so that 2m specifically promises 5-5 or a few extra values? Edit: Upon reflection, maybe just the inference that it is a suit orientated hand is worthwhile, I agree that x KQJxx AQxx xxx should always be rebidding 2♦

BM2K is only for declarer play. No defense or bidding. So you actually base your rating on 25% of the playing part, and 0% on bidding part? This can't be good. 25% of the playing part? Does your partner hog the contracts, or do you consider being dummy a skill? ;) But yes, I agree with your point :rolleyes:

A discussion with Mike 777 last night got me thinking... With 35(32) shape and a minimum, it is usually quite reasonable to raise partner's 1♠ response to 1♥. If you are going to do this most of the time, then partner need not consider rebidding a 5 card ♠ suit, so you can rebid 1NT on minimum 25(42) and 15(43) shapes. This has the benefit of showing that you are minimum (no need for partner to invite with 2NT or 3m over your minor suit rebid, and he can show a limit raise with 2♥ instead of 3♥) and it may well be the best spot on a misfit. It also means that 1♥:1♠, 2m will usually have either 5-5 or 6-4 shape, or slight extras, making it safer for partner to invite. If you are going to do this, there are probably some hands that should suppress a (weak) 4 card spade suit and respond 1NT; As long as partner knows that on a strong hand with both majors he must reverse into spades to look for a fit this should work out ok. Maybe this should not apply to those playing 2/1, particularly with a forcing NT, as these sequences are quite ugly compared to those playing light 2/1s. Am I right in thinking there are two distinct styles here? Any thoughts?

My view is that it is usually wrong to compete with a minor or the minors over a 1NT opening unless you are prepared to go to the 3 level. Obviously you are with a 2NT bid showing 5-5 - unfortunately that gives the opps a lot of options, 3C for the minors makes things a good bit tougher for them (but gives them an easier time when you have whatever you would otherwise show with a 3♣ bid :P )

Agreed Matt, in your style it is fine to come back in later there NV, but arguably vul you should reconsider the meanings of a bid by a passed hand - "natural" maybe :P Al - Lionel Wright suggested After (1N)-X-(P) Pass = at least 18 HCP between the sides if no spade fit, at least 22 if 4 card spade support 2♣ = pass or correct 2♦/♥ = suggestion to play 2♠ = to play 2N = invitational raise of spades 3X = splinter for ♠ 3♠ = preemptive After (1N)-2m-(P) 2N, 3m, 3H all invitational

1♠:2♦ 2♠ If you believe that you can show an 18 count with a poor 6 card spade suit after bidding like this then great :) I'm not familiar enough with the style. If so... 1♠:2♦ 3♠ - suit that you expect to play for one loser opposite a singleton 1♠:2♦ 4♠ - dunno, a string of spades and a little too much outside to open 4♠? But I imagine that could bid 2♠ and await developments...not sure. 1♠:2♦ 3♦ - Game-forcing, slight extras - with a minimum bid 2♠ and support ♦ later if partner requires another bid from you. It is worth considering using opener's 2NT rebid as artificial (eg GF single suiter) The contested auction - 2♣ nat (over the club bidder and he may be short in many methods), 2♥ good raise.

I presume you mean over a 2♣ bid showing ♣+red suit? If the opponents bid a red suit, double is takeout (AKA pass or correct); If they bid spades, 3♦ is pass or correct and I guess double has to be penalties. I now longer think that there is an advantage to the opps not knowing which is overcaller's 2nd suit, indeed there is potential for misunderstanding over the sequence (1N)-2C-(2H) where 2C showed clubs+a red suit; But I like having 2N and 3C free for other purposes given that we don't have a penalty double.

Yup, I played it last week with David_C. It only came up twice in about 125 boards - but then our opponents only opened 1NT three times, and the other time they had a combined 28 count :)

That's what the IMP scale is for B)

Ok, if you want a pet theory - I consider Lionel (or a slight variation of it) to be the best defence to any 1NT range down to about 11-13. Double = spades+another 2C = Hearts+Clubs 2D = Hearts+Diamonds - all of these "2 suiters" are at least 4-4, 11+ 2M = Natural - The double is very frequent, and let's you take penalties of a weak NT almost as frequently as an outright penalty double. If the opponents run, you are much better placed to decide what to do, and the defence is often easier due to having the high cards split between the two hands, and a bit of knowledge about doubler's shape. - It lets you get in on 4-4 shapes. I consider this desirable because a 4-4 fit cannot be worth more than 4 tricks against NT, but can be worth a couple more as a trump suit. It is less necessary to find a 5-3 fit - if you have an entry to the long hand you will probably cash those tricks against 1NT anyway, so competing usually only gains trump control. - It focuses on the majors. If you find a fit in a minor suit, quite often the opponents will just compete over you into a major fit. - It doesn't resemble any of my weak two structures, so I can use it as a passed hand without any modifications. As I consider it suitable against most NT ranges, this means there is no extra memory load remembering what overcalls and continuations mean. My only reservation about the method is that I'd rather get in slightly more often with spades+another than hearts+a minor, due to the competitive advantage that spades offer; But to do so would make it harder to take penalties of 1NT. I considered a structure that used double as hearts+another and 2m bids as that suit+spades, but this wasn't all plain sailing - search for my topic on Lionel vs Pagan if you are that interested B)

I think the current BM pricing policy is fine - Most would only buy one or two levels if they had the option. It costs little to nothing to include the extra levels (think of it as a bonus B) ) but works well as advertising, because when someone else tries your version of BM there will always be some hands that are the right level for him or her.

I'm not too keen on either of these suggestions. National events vary in quality from country to country, and some fairly weak players have won such events through use of their chequebook. My problem with Jimmy's suggestion is that it seems to define advanced and expert by knowing how good advanced and expert players are (as well as how easily they get embarrassed :) )

I agree that pass should be forcing, I consider 4♠ to be a constructively bid game. Frances - I don't see how you can consider playing 3♣-3♠-5♣-P as forcing but not 3♣-4♠-5♦-P. Yes, 5♦ may have been bid to make, but so may 5♣; and partner of the overcaller is unlikely to have a trump stack on either auction.

Not sure about this. - It is normal to think at trick 1 before playing from dummy. This would encourage people to play from dummy immediately so they could think with their opps' time. - It isn't automatically the fault of the pair that uses more time - on some hands the defending side has little to think about

Just copied my defence to 1NT from direct seat, when I attempted to paste it to balancing seat FD closed without giving an error message or affecting BBO. Reopened FD, attempted to do the same thing again with the same result.

I think K+R has this one wrong, Richard. Our most likely game is 3N, and Thomas Andrews' work evaluates this as equivalent to a flat 17 count in NT. Given the auction, it seems reasonable to downgrade this to a 2♣ bid.

1. 2♣ 2. 4♦, looking for a ♠ cue 3. Pass 4. 3♣ (surely forcing, given that we could have passed 2♣ or 2♠), looking for 4♠, 5♣ or 6♣

I'm finding myself too easily persuaded here...I had one person tell me that 4♥ was an underbid, so I decided I would definitely bid 4♥ and not 3; Now Roland has told me he would bid 2♥, so I've decided that 4♥ is insane and 3♥ is just right :P Whether 2♥ is reasonable depends upon its lower limit, which in turn depends on the range for 1♥. For me 2♥ would be a definite underbid, but I can imagine a style in which it is normal.

This feels marginal between 3♥ and 4♥. Not sure I like 2♦ - is it still possible to show 4♥ but a hand not worth forcing to game on?

Agree with you completely about these sequences being nasty in book Keri. I need to think about this more, but I'll post what has come to mind so far... I'd be inclined to include an invitational NT bid in there if possible. Firstly, some are comforted by its presence (much better to get a decision wrong as a partnership than on your own!), secondly I think it is needed for a 3.5 or 4 point NT range, and is useful for a 3 point NT range at MPs. Revised Keri transfers and bids 3N on hands with a 4 card major that just want to hear if partner has support. I don't see any significant losses to this method. It also uses 1N:2S, 2N:3D+ as GF Stayman. You could use the same (or a similar) system after 1N:2N (puppet to 3C). This should free up some space for something or other, should you need it ;)

Yup.

I think there should be a definite break between the styles, because responder needs to know what to do with a GF hand with a trump stack. Having a reopening double at any level showing an extra queen seems wrong to me, it should either show an extra king or no extras at all. I also think that there is a limit to how far you can go saying that you need more points because you are at a higher level. If you say that responder needs a near-opening hand to bid over a 3♠ WJO, and opener needs significant extras, you land up missing a lot of games when neither partner can act.

After play started.

Whereas my IMP expectation is rarely positive if I am declaring or defending the hand.

I think I've been convinced that this reopening double should show extras. How high should you get before switching style? Does 1♥ (2♠) require extras to reopen? Hrothgar - I agree that *mandatory* reopening only works if it isn't disclosed, but I don't think it is true for always reopening on shortness. If 4th seat passes on a 20 count short in partner's suit, he is missing a game if opener has some of the remaining length. If 4th seat passes with length in partner's suit, the penalty won't be huge anyway. Obviously 4th seat should pass on strong, misfitting hands which would otherwise be marginal game bids, as there are two ways to win.