Siegmund

What I was asked to play 2 weeks ago is very close to the published Fruit Machine Swiss, including the 2nd-round shortness ask. The reason I got interested in Swiss again was that a reg p and I had gotten frustrated with the lack of bidding space over the 1S-4H splinter, and found a way to pack all the splinters into cheaper bids... but needed SOME meaning for the double jump shifts. We had been using 1S-3NT balanced forcing raise, a la Root and Pavlicek, and pondered whether there was a way to "sensibly" divide those hands among 4M-1 and 4M-2... or find any hand type at all that was so well described by the jump to 4M-1 that we didn't need further tools for opener to decide whether to go on or not. I am always happy to see other people's raise structures as food for thought. Particularly the double-jump-shift bids, in this thread.

<--- greedy little blastard.

Between the HK and the only-three-small-trumps, I would bid 3S almost automatically. I could be wrong, of course, especially if partner has something like AKx in clubs already... but I would not count on covering 2 club losers, that is for sure.

This same style is what is advocated in Commonsense Bidding and Modern Bridge Conventions. "The point" of playing FSF-INV is to make other sequences like 1C-1H-1S-3C, 1C-1H-1S-3H, and in some partnerships 1C-1H-1S-3S, gameforcing, which beats the pants off having everything except FSF be invitational. XYZ wasn't around at the time Pavlicek started advocating that method; FSF-Game and FSF-Round were the two competing toys. XYZ has wisely restored some badly needed forcing sequences. It shares that benefit, with Pavlicek's method, that most of those second-round jumps become forcing again. Is XYZ or Pavlicek 'better'? Pavlicek's way allows 1C-1H-1S-2C, for instance, to be natural and weak (either to be passed, or corrected back to hearts if opener has 3 hearts.) XYZ abandons weak minor-oriented hands, in exchange for providing more invitational and GF sequences than you can shake a stick at. Do you need 1C-1H-1S-2D-any-3H and 1C-1H-1S-3H to BOTH be game forces with long hearts? Maybe you have a useful distinction between these auctions. Some people don't. Personally, I think XYZ is a bit misguided, in that it is set up to favor invitational sequences at the expense of weak pass-or-correct sequences. a natural 1D-1S-1NT-2D can be corrected back to spades while a forced 1D-1S-1NT-2C-2D signoff cannot. Others find the tradeoff is worth it.

There is also David Bird's Endplays for Everyone, at a very introductory level, that does quite a good job explaining the why-and-how of the simpler kinds of endplays.

I would still try 3H favorable, knowing it is an overbid, to apply pressure - but at unfavorable, definitely sticking to the quiet 2H.

I played 3rd/low against NT for a few years - and wound up abandoning it in favor of attitude leads (lowest if I want it returned, regardless of length, usually 2nd-highest if not). I realize that's not quite an answer to your question. When I did play it, I still led 9 from KJ9x, for instance, though that will sometimes blow a trick; having partner not return the suit because he things you started with just Kxx can blow a trick or two also.

From the Sunday Swiss at a sectional last weekend. ♠AKJx ♥x ♦KQTxxxx ♣x ♠Qxxx ♥AJxx ♦AJ ♣Axx Playing with a pickup partner, we had a simple boring auction, 1NT-2C-2H-6D. At the other table, a regular partnership took six rounds of bidding, to tie us in 6D. Something like 1NT-2C, 2H-3D, 3S-4C, 4D-5D, 5H-5S, 6C-6D, which resulted in a director call and a bunch of argument about whether their cuebidding style was well disclosed. I trust all of you can get to a better spot with your regular partners:)

It had something to do that, for most of my life, 6C was GSF (after steam Blackwood); without discussion I assumed it was some type of further cuebid/probe toward a possible grand. The chance of his clubs really being better than my 8 spades, at matchpoints, seemed pretty remote if he didn't care to bid 4C over 3S. It did at least cross my mind he might have been trying to play clubs.

My partner tried 1S-2C, 3S-4NT, 5C(0314)-6C, and with a void in clubs, I went back to 6S. Partner was hopping mad I took him out of his clubs that "make six if they don't lead a heart". Heh.

At the table, I bid 4S, and partner thought forever and leaped to 6H. When I put down the dummy he was annoyed I hadn't cuebid 4C. He thought hearts "obviously" was already agreed as trump. I can see why not everyone devotes bids to finding a second fit after already finding one, but I don't think one can afford to always assume hearts are trump on this sequence. As many of you, I assumed it was a generic natural probe probably with four hearts. Having it automatically become a cuebid if partner moves again is a good extension, in a regular partnership.

I can confirm I have never seen #1 (and reasonably rarely seen #2 - there is almost always either a 4th pass card, or a few seconds of conversation before cards get faced.) Doubles used in place of stop cards, yes - but that brings the auction to a halt anyway. (in this auction -- it does get interesting if there has been a double-able call, and the auction continues before the skipbid emerges.) Never pass cards. If it did happen... I tend to put more blame on third hand than on fourth, but you can find both of them to be offending sides.

This hand is dangerously close to being too strong to risk a discouraging rebid like 2♠, rather than the ambiguous 2♣ or encouraging 2♥. On the posted hand, you may get away with 2♠; make it a tiny bit stronger -- add a stray jack or something -- and 2♠ is now telling two lies, partner expecting a minimum opening and four spades. I worry a lot more about languishing in 2♠+4, than I do about reaching 4♠ when 3NT was better. As such I quite often make slightly subminimum reverses when I have 3-card support for my partner's major; I would at least seriously consider 2♥ on the posted hand -- but not even dream of 2♥ on x KTxx Kxx AKJxx (or the same hand with a jack added or a king turned into an ace.) All assuming you and your partner know what your continuations after reverses are, of course - an area that is a minefield for many novices (and advancing players, hence the forum sticky in the int/adv forum)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it: stop in a makeable contract. South deals, uncontested auction. ♠x ♥Jx ♦x ♣AKQJxxxxx ♠AKTxxxxx ♥Qxx ♦AQ ♣--- Our own auction left something to be desired; I will post it later, and we can discuss which was the first wheel to detach.

Seen them in lots of old textbooks, but can't remember actually playing against someone who used them before. I was surprised to have a pickup partner today ask me to play them. He proposed a version a little bit different than I was familiar with. He wanted to play 3C,3D Reversed Bergen (9-11ish, 6-8ish) 4C = 12-14, 3+ keycards or 2 keycards + trump queen; 4D asks 4D = 12-14, 2- keycards 2NT = Jacoby promising 15+. He didn't get around to telling me what he wanted to do with the unused jump shift - he gave me the impression he preferred keycards first, shortness on the next round by responder , which seemed quite unsound to me - but I was interested to see the idea still alive. Anybody still using a (presumably more sensible) variation of it?

As shown in the poll... Your hand is something like ♠Qxxx ♥Jxx ♦K ♣AKxxx. You deal, and the auction goes 1C-P-1H-2D X!-3D-3S-P X = 3-card heart support. Very good but unfamiliar partner. What does he want you to do now?

Most the time, responder will now be placing the contract. The exceptions are 3D -- if you need it to show a 4-6 type of hand of a different strength than 1c-1h-1n-3d does -- and the suit bids between 3H and 4H which can be slam tries in hearts. The details depend whether you put all your invitations through 2D, or all your game forces.

k, have heard of 5n pick a slam, some reason the abbreviation didnt click. Got up too early to drive to a sectional today, that's what I blame it on. And my afternoon result confirms it.

@benlessard: PAS? Apparently I am once again behind on the lingo. Let me check and see if a new grey hair appeared in my beard this week.

Blasting 5D is practical, but my matchpoint instincts force me to choose 3H and try for the extra 30/40/60 points anyway.

2D certainly should rank ahead of two of the choices included in the poll (and behind one of them.) Wonder how opener decides whether to sit for 1NT or not. A lot of people use the 2H bid on the 3rd round as showing extras, but it's when EW are weak that there is the most profit in running from notrump.

I wouldn't have downgraded... but I sure hope none of my partners would have done anything foolish as West. 1NT-P-P is the obvious auction... it's after North overcalls that it turns interesting. Will EW defend a red suit or find their way to 3C?

You certainly need to have an agreement with partner about major-suit distribution. With several of my partners we play splinters over 1m as exactly 4 of the unbid major(s), 0-1 of the splinter suit, 4-5 of each minor; partner's next bid (1C-3D-3H up to 1C-3D-4D) sets trump and shows slam interest, any of his four game bids is to play. I do agree that the alternative of denying 4-card majors is more frequently agreed, though I am not sure it is more useful in practice.

Partner should be shot for that leap from 3S to 4NT, unless ALL he cares about is how many keys I have and is then able to place the contract. Of course we pass now.

Not close for me. On values it is close to 2D, but that doesn't tell partner where I live.