Siegmund

My oldfashionedism showing through once again: It will be responsive if and only if you've agreed to play responsive doubles this high. Otherwise it will be penalty. The actual hand you've posted is a tough one, on which I'd lead toward 5C but can see a case for passing or (if its your agreement) making a responsive double. A quick scan of the posted convention cards on the USBF team trials site shows that almost everyone who made it to the late stages of the event plays responsive through 4D, 4H, 4S, or simply checks the "responsive" box without saying how high. The built-in BBO Advanced convention card recommends regative and responsive to 4D. On the other hand, with pickup partners at live games, it is VERY rare for me to have a partner willing to play these above 3S (more often you have to talk them into using them at all, or raising the limit from 2S to 3S) -- I literally remember one, and only one, time that I've had a partner want to play responsive to this level. With an unknown I would assume responsive doesn't apply at the 4-level.

I too have heard both usages, but regarded #2 as a rather obscure oldfashionedism/Britishism/something-else-ism. I expect "finesse the queen" to mean "lead towards the queen" and "finesse against the queen" or "finesse for the queen" to mean "lead towards the jack." I never ever ever call leading Q from QJ toward the A "finessing." That is running the queen. (Yes, many books cover QJ-Ax and QJT-Axx in the same breath as lead-toward-style finessing. It's a damn nuisance that they do; once a beginner has heard it described that way, just see what happens when they have A32 opposite QJ54 and you tell them their best chance for 3 tricks to finesse.)

I am interested. Inquiry is in to my regular partner. Hope I get an answer by Wednesday. As to the options... 16 boards is a nice number. Not so keen on the KO format, but we DO have a few too many for a RR now.

1. Pass 2. Should have thought of that before you opened, eh? (In all fairness I do open this type of hand with one partner, but with that partner we explicitly agreed that 1♦-pass-2♣ is followed by stopper-showing, so in this auction I might get away with 2♥.) 3. I am willing to try 4NT. I understand that there's a case for passing. 4. Pass. It is a max pass, but not a close decision IMO. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this be the last making contract. If partner doesn't have a 2NT overcall, pretty much no chance of 3NT. I'd be interested to hear more from the other respondents who bid...

At this vulnerability, if partner is weak, I expect an awful board in just about any contract whether I am doubled or not. (Yes, I know it matters how far down we go at imps... but by doing ANYthing other than pass, we are gambling on finding partner with values.) That's why I rank pass in 2nd place and would rank it nearly tied with 2N at MPs. If partner is strong, on the other hand, I'd like him to know what my hand looks like so we reach the right contract :)

2NT>P>>X in my book. A dead minimum balancing 2NT so I have some sympathy for pass. Axx is better than Qxx for doubling, but still, we are going to be playing a LOT of 4-3 fits taking the tap in the wrong hand. I feel better about defending than I do about playing a shaky semi-fit at 2S or 3m.

[double-post deleted]

2S now. 3S is forgiveable but risky against greedy opps. I'd much rather bid now than later. Preempting after opps know their strength and distribution sorta misses the point.

One more voice in the crowd... 2S now, looking forward to defending 3H with a fair shot at setting it (made somewhat less fair by the fact partner's liable to lead a spade against it.) I'm not doubling 3H. Doubling 1D would be yikesomgawful. Understrength, too many diamonds, a face card in diamonds, not a single suit where I have a classic holding like Kxxx for the TOX.

I am never quite sure if "Jammer" is intended to be English or German when I hear of this convention.... :lol: I will second the suggestion to use hearts as the anchor rather than spades. But still, it's going to be quite a bit less effective than conventions where opener promises a bit more shape and you can scramble more confidently. I would not be convinced that there's a reason to play it, other than experimentation and generally sowing chaos.

I am a doubler. I am not eager to defend 5S given the vulnerability, but I see a lot more ways to go down in 6C than pooltuna does. I do have two trump fillers, but "having 9 when partner has already played me for 7" is hardly a huge hand, and I don't share the optimism about avoiding spade losers.

4C over 3S for me too. That's your one chance to show extra shape to your partner, and you have a sixth club and a well-placed void. Waiting until after 4N-5S to do anything has screwed the pooch.

Given the Gerber auction, I ask for kings and bid 7NT if partner has any, 6NT if he doesn't. I also think that 3S sets trump and calls for cuebids, in which case CA+HA+DK is again enough that I take a shot at 7NT. (Three cheers for continuing to cuebid at the 5-level... a vastly more powerful approach than switching horses in midstream and changing to blackwood after 4-level cuebids.)

What you havent told us yet, Onefer, is why you leap to the conclusion that either one of these should be Michaels...

I've only ever used it as either strictly-minors or any-two-suits, scrambling. Will be keeping an eye on this thread to see what others have been using and liking.

Without discussion, I would assume a bid of either suit is natural. With discussion, I might feel otherwise about a major bid on my left. I would be unhappy to be forced into any agreement that always made one of the two actions Michaels. With double, 1NT, and 2NT already available I don't feel much need for a fourth artificial bid.

I am not at all happy with 3Dinv if it's available immediately; I would bid 1S first if 2D was GF. 1H-1S-2H is about the only auction that doesn't offer us an alternative (1H-1S-1NT or 2C-3D). I am sympathetic to stretching to bid 2D immediately. I am not at all sympathetic to anyone starting with 1NT. Of course I play more MP than IMP, and have been a MAFIA devotee for a good ten years now :)

Interesting thread. My default agreements with all my partners make this a count situation, but the "2/4 vs 3, or 2 vs 3/4" argument is a compelling one.

Too many flaws for me (only 6 cards, only 5 1/2 tricks, a two-suited hand, an ace that likely cashes on defence, with some chance that AQ in a suit of only 6 is a 2nd defensive trick). Really a style thing though (and my preempt style is agressive but classically shaped.) I would open 3H in 3rd at equal vul, but not in 1st or 2nd.

Well, they were right that you were playing different systems, as evidenced by the fact that they took the bids differently than you intended them :) If they had wanted to, they had the option of having a conversation to agree on a system though... either after or preferably before the accident.

For me, the posted hand is a nice solid Medium in direct seat. In balancing seat I've never really had firm agreements about what was strong enough for Strong. I do still believe in weak-or-strong for Michaels and Unusual though I know not everyone does... but truth be told, I don't much care for using Michaels at all. My preference is to bid out the 5-5s naturally and use the artificial bids to show the 4-5/4-6 hands. More a matter of frequency (4-5 comes up more often) and of biddability (you at least SOMEtimes get a chance to bid both halves of a 5-5, but very rarely a chance to naturally show a 4-5.)

hanp either meant to say means A,B variances x,y, yielding combined mean A+B and combined variance x+y... or standard deviations x,y and combined standard deviation sqr(x^2+y^2). But the general idea of finding P(sum>1) is correct. His worked example came out right accidentally, since when x=y, sqr(x^2+y^2) and (x+y)/sqr(2) both happen to equal x*sqr(2). While we're on the subject, I have always felt that "matchpointed teams" -- score every board across the whole field, and your team's score on the board is the sum of your EW and NS scores -- would be an interesting way of scoring a game, lower-variance than a BAM, though the people who think "teams is better because you can point your finger at the only 8 people who influenced your result" would dislike that.

I would assume natural, splinter, natural, but be prepared to be wrong about #2. tbh I'd guess on #2 according to how many spades I held myself and whether the opps looked tempted to bid.

No poll option for "I can see either 3D or 2NT on the 2nd hand, but the 1st is too strong for either of those"? I suppose I am endplayed into an offshape 3C.

I like mike's 1d-1s-2h-3s. (Well, I don't like it, but I know I dislike any sequence starting with 2nt on West's hand.) After that start slam seems more or less inevitable - though there are just enough choices of how to play it that I will no doubt pick the wrong one.