Siegmund

Is 4NT pick-a-minor? If not, 5D.

In District 18, attendance was terrible last year when they tried online GNTs for the first time, and almost twice as good this year, though still a smallish event. It may be that you'll have to do it a few years in a row before attendance perks back up. It may also be that the reduction of the prizes (from "free trip" to an amount that doesn't even approach the cost of a plane ticket to Philadelphia let alone hotel or entry fees) has cut way back on the number of people interested in trying to win the district event. I confess I was rooting for the Martindales, whom I see often at sectionals and have played with as teammates, but happy to see the forum well represented too.

With the second hand, it helps to have an agreement that either 2C-then-4C or 2C-then-5C shows this type of hand, while 2C-then-3C shows the normal 21-pointer with 5 or 6 clubs. I'd rather try that with an unfamiliar partner than open 5C at least two and maybe more tricks heavy, depending on the vulnerability.

It just so happens that I played a Swiss last Sunday with a sweet old lady who was playing for the first time in several months, with Stayman, Blackwood, and weak two-bids on our card. In the course of 49 boards, we..... Went down in 6NT instead of making 6H because a 5-3 fit never came to light (NMF/FSF would have found it, so too would abusing a natural system with a phony jump shift or something. And, in all fairness, 6NT was a 75% contract, just not a 90+% contract.) Went -110 instead of -50 once because we didn't have a second-round takeout double available and had accidents even with 'simple standard': Played 2D when 1NT was making, when partner responded 2D to 1NT with 11 points and a diamond suit. Playing transfers she would have gotten a second chance to bid and recover, even if she had mangled the transfer auction. Played 5D instead of 3NT on the sequence 2C-2N-4N-5C-5D when she thought 2NT was the negative response to a 2C opening, and thought 4NT was blackwood rather than quantitative, and didn't know how to sign off in 5NT after using 4NT. (Luckily her 2-count included Txxxx diamonds.) There were several other hands where there was blasting instead of careful exploration, but only the 6N-vs-6H hand above resulted in a loss from doing so. It's a small sample size, but on this particular set of boards, playing 1950s standard american badly cost us 2 boards and 11 imps vs. playing 1950s standard american straight by the book, and another 2 boards and 15 imps vs. playing 1980s Bill Root bridge straight by the book. None, that I am aware of, from failing to play any high-powered exotic systems, though its possible there was something I didn't see. The life novice's declarer play cost more than her bidding did, with no less than 3 makable games going down on misplay. Remarkably her defense was actually quite good. So even as bad as the bidding was, I would still have suggested serious study of declarer play, and just a little polishing of her fuzzy bidding memory, if I were giving advice how to improve.

I voted "other": encouraging spade spot on the first trick, then count, since Smith attitude applies only when an attitude signal hasn't already been given in spades (I would assume, without discussion otherwise -- in general, we don't give the same signal twice in a row, whatever our system.) What I wouldn't know without discussion is whether that means I am giving count in clubs - smith completely off - or count in spades - smith on and I'm now giving my 2nd spade signal. The latter is one reason why I never agree to anything of the smith or odd/even variety in a casual partnership.

I am not convinced I've seen anything better than Stayman and transfers, but I do enjoy experimenting with variations on ETM's approach where 2C asks about hearts and 2D asks about spades. That approach works better the more constrained opener's distribution, as mentioned above. I have always thought 2-way stayman was the wrong way around -- 2C either drop-dead or GF, and either 2D for all invitations, or 2D for inv 4CM hands plus a few other GF hands, seemed like it might work better. But I've never seriously played 2-way stayman or bothered to experiment extensively with it.

Any particular reason why 3C is listed in the poll as GF rather than a game try just like 3D would be? (Playing garden variety standard I would have thought 3C was the obvious invitation to use, if you decide the hand is worth an invite at all - I voted pass in the poll.)

For me, I still play 'weak or strong' and I like this hand enough to call it in-between rather than weak. I start with 1H. Taking away either of the aces I would be bidding 2N.

Why is it a poor result? Not everybody is going to get to 4S. In some fields, not anybody will get to 4S. One common auction will be 1H-X-3D-swish. The abovementioned heavy 2C overcall is a possibility. And there are lots of variations ending in a spade partscore: 1H-X-P-1S-P-2S or 3S, 1H-X-3D-p-p-X-p-3S, and many others. As NS, I would expect a fairly good board for -100, averageish for -150 (I would hope for A+ if there are lots of 170s, but on a bad day it'll be A- if there are lots of 140s), and a near-bottom for anything worse than -170. I would be pleasantly surprised to get 2 on a 12 top for -300. If the question is specifically why the EW pairs in spades didn't take 10 tricks... a diamond opening lead from North, a losing finesse "since north has almost all the points", and a diamond back, losing the first 4 tricks, at any table where South hasn't bid diamonds and warned West about the 6-1 break. It's a slightly easier fate to avoid if they cash hearts first.

I was thinking 3S -> ostensibly inviting 3NT, but after pulling, 4H sounds like "a cuebid for diamonds, and 3S was a cuebid too even though it didnt sound like it at the time." I remember a bunch of posts in the past where jdonn played a whole lot of 4M bids as non-forcing slam invitations / encouraging COGs where it wouldn't have occurred to me to do it that way. It makes quite a bit of sense here, but isn't what I'd assume without discussion.

As Frederic said to dear little Mabel.. I would if I could, but I am not able.

I've never seen someone bid 3C on only 4 here - I'd say the 3C bid shows about 5.5 clubs - but on the posted hand most people are going to be very short of options to investigate 6C vs. 6NT. Lacking the methods I would be endplayed into a big notrump raise, unless I was playing a first-round toy that allowed me to show 4441s.

I've been a fan of CRASH (X, 1D, and 1NT) with the other overcalls agressive and natural (on the 11-count with 5 diamonds Justin mentioned, I would have bid 2D)... after the discussion in this thread, I am thinking that taking the minors out of 1D and having a bid for majors only instead may be better. I wonder why I never thought of doing that before; over 1NT, I have played CHASM ("color-shape-majors") instead of CRASH to be GCC-legal for years. I did have one regular partner who insisted on Truscott, and it did work better against weak opps than strong ones.

I play 1X-P-1Y-2X and 1X-P-1Y-2Y both natural, whether major or minor, with most my partners, and was under the impression that it was the substantial-majority treatment. I have heard a few people say that opener's suit was a cuebid and responder's was natural, which has some positional sense, but it's opener's minor that you are most likely to be long in.

As I tried to point out in my last paragraph, there was always some dispute as to what counted as conveying a message other than willingness to play in / length in / strength in a suit. But that problem lived in the interpretation of the definition of a convention, not in the way the ACBL wrote the GCC. (There were problems with the 1987 definition, too, which were partially fixed and partially made worse by the 1997 definition.) The ACBL's intention was clear enough, pre-2007 -- "among all bids which we have the power to regulate, we wish to allow only these" -- and there was some inconsistent case law about having traditionally accepted precision 2C as not conventional (and weak twos promising no void and no 4-card major as not conventional) but 5+4 bids as conventional. Plenty of us were upset about it at the time, but more or less learned to shut up since we knew all we would accomplish was getting more stuff banned by drawing analogies with things that were tolerated :( @gnasher: at least some of the rule-writers understood that natural vs. artificial was a matter of how bids were described in common usage, while conventional vs. not conventional was a matter of law, and there were bids that fell in each of the 4 possible combinations of the two.

On the actual auction, I would think that East denied a spade control by bypassing 3S and West denied a diamond control by bypassing 4D. If two kings are missing and there isn't a club suit to run for pitches, we don't want to be in slam, even if the hearts are solid. Why are we feeling enthusiastic at all about a slam after the first round of cuebids? Admittedly it'd be easier with firmer agreements around 3S/3N/4C.

I have a toy to show 4S5m here, but lacking one, X for me.

No. A bid which shows the suit named and no other promises, any level, any strength, is not a convention, and is GCC-legal unless it runs foul of the rule about 1-level bids a king below average strength. Remember that the GCC was written before 2007, at a time when non-conventional bids could not be restricted -- there is really no choice but to treat the 1997 definition of "Convention" in the laws as part of the GCC now. (And count our blessings that the ACBL has not yet moved to restrict any additional non-conventional treatments since they gained the power to do so in 2007.) We argued then, as we still can today, about whether a natural weak two that denies a 4-card major, vs. a natural weak two that can have any side distribution, vs. a natural weak two that promises an unbalanced hand, "convey a message other than" length and strength in the suit named.

Assuming you got 170, you win 2 on the board: if I am North I am passing 3D, having already shown my sixth heart, and liking Kx in partner's suit.

I confess that with most of my partners this is a pass. I can see a case for 3D (I hate the other listed choices) but even if we aren't worried about a heart fit, KQ in a side suit is a pretty serious flaw and I am being slightly optimistic to get this hand all the way up to 5 winners. Now, take away the king of hearts, and I can start seriously considering opening 1D. Or even 1S. :)

You've mentioned this in prior threads, where you explained why you disliked Sandwich and wanted to still have a natural 1NT available after 1m-Pass-1M. I'll be interested how long it takes for it to, to use your phrase, quit being 1970, at the sectional and regional level. (My bet is 2020.) It has definitely changed in the past 20 years even at lower levels, where 11-and-5 is now a reasonable possibility against certain opponents, and the people who wait for 13 in first have become nearly extinct. But it would have, literally, been years before I considered overcalling on hands like this one, or of giving up Sandwich (it's still on the way in, not the way out yet, in my area), if I hadn't seen posts from people like you, and encountered a few internet people who fixed me with ultralight 1NT responses.

It would be alertable in the ACBL (and most other places, I imagine) but legal. Artificial, yes. But not a Highly Unusual Method, as the WBF terms it. The banned bids are generally ones that show extremely weak hands at the 1-level, or show weak hands but don't specify a suit at the 2-level. Bids to show full openings are legal most places, though artificial use of 1 of a major is sometimes allowed only in certain events. Almost any meaning of 1C or 1D is allowed.

It's the closest thing to a situation where Thrump actually makes sense that I have yet seen.

It wasn't 100% clear to me which of several lines to take. What I actually did was start with three rounds of spades, everybody following low. Then my plan was to cash the red-suit winners (I am still not 100% clear whether I should cash DA or hearts first) and see what developed. Now, Question #2. When you cash the DA, *West* is going to pitch a small club. the DQ opening lead was a singleton. If you've run spades you now know West is 4216 or 3217 and East is 3352 or 4351. Playing West for the CQ is now a very high percentage play, but I didn't find out until after I had burnt all my entries that would have let me take advantage of it. Which of your lines -- most of them based on assuming West alone guards diamonds -- will survive that news?

#2-4 are a question to ask any new serious SA partner. All three NF was how I learned in the ancient past, and was/is a very common style among the mediocre-and-worse club players. For many years I played with a serious partner with whom #4 was forcing, #2 and 3 were not, and we did a lot of inventing fake bids like 1H-2C-2S to handle the hands we were afraid of being passed on. I have since switched to a style where #3 is also forcing. As mentioned by many others, "2/1 promises a rebid", in which case all of these are F1, is a very common style, and an easy one to agree with a new partner if you don't want a long discussion.