Siegmund

This is the type of hand that everybody who reads a book that says "strain to reopen with a double anytime you are sorta short in overcallers suit and are interested in competing somewhere" just doubles with and never posts on a forum :unsure: I don't think it occurs to a lot of us to question the automatic action on deals like this. The replies to this thread seem to be a mix of "of course everybody passes this" and "of course everybody doubles this." Just throwing one more question into the mix - does anybody's answer change MP vs IMP or at different colors? Or are we equally split about this hand no matter what the conditions?

I felt a slight temptation to open 1♠ as dealer, but even if opps had been vul I think I could have resisted. There certainly isn't any other temptation lurking anywhere on this deal.

In at least one of my regular partnerships, 3♣ on this auction almost has to be xxxx, because we would show the stopper with 2NT otherwise. It comes up very rarely - but that's as it should be, for a bid that burns up extra space.

Oversimplifying greatly: Cover cards are at their best when one partner has already shown (or denied) shortness. Then the other partner counts only-top-tricks opposite the shortness, but any A K or Q opposite the long suits. A useful approximation along the same lines - after an auction like 1♦-1♠-2♠, any A K or Q in diamonds or spades is a cover, but in the round sounds, I'd count an ace as 1, a king as 1/2, and a queen as nothing. Even with that kind of a crude understanding, "loser minus covers" runs circles around "24 - (losers + losers)" for accuracy, and things like splinters and game tries become spectacularly more valuable to you than they are to a point-counter. (And in such a framework, there's a compelling reason not to show singleton aces and kings as "shortness" since you will cause your partner to mis-evaluate his kings and queens facing them.)

As already said, it matters more that you HAVE an agreement (so you know how to evaluate your hand), than exactly what the agreement is. It matters too that you know what your opponents' agreement is so you know whether the HSGT-suit is a good lead or a terrible lead against 3M. My strong preference is that my game try says to partner "your king or queen in this suit is worth at least a full trick to me; your king or queen in the suits I bypassed are not.". As such, Axx(x) and JTx are good HSGT holdings, Qxx is questionable, xxx is wrong. (I am a big believer in LTC bidding and counting cover cards :) ) It's probably more common to play them the way p_marlowe described where the asker often has Qxx-to-xxx... but I don't think that accomplishes anything, since partner already knows an ace is worth a trick.

I've been about to get my feet wet with this convention for awhile, but suffering a bit of paralysis choosing a response structure for it. I have the ancient Match-Point Precision book, and I found Mark Abraham's SCREAM system notes, where he uses 2♣ and 2♦ as 2-under transfers and 2♥ as the strong relay. And of course there's the more natural approach, 2♥ and 2♠ to play with one of 2♣ or 2♦ as a relay and the other as... I don't know. Does anyone have opinions about what works best?

I like 2NT. I like 3H too if it's a cuebid after we've agreed on diamonds for a slam exploration. Given partner's 4H bid, um, I don't think that's what partner thinks it 3H was. (If that IS what partner thinks it is, he didn't cue 3S or 4C back at me, and we are off some cashing black tricks and we may be in a pass-and-hope-partner-makes it situation.) Best guess here is that partner is 2-6-4-1 with barely a game force, got excited when I showed a big heart, and is trying to steal an extra 20 points. If we aren't going to pass 4H I feel we have to go back to 5D, not 5C, since there's no reason to think we actually have a club fit. Are there any understandings about your slam exploration style in this kind of auction we should be aware of?

Without saying the standard meaning is best, I'll remind you that for quite a few of us, jump reverses are splinters, so we can already use e.g. 1♣-1♠-3♦ for a singleton and 1♣-1♠-4♦ for a void. If that agreement is in effect, I would play the jump to 4♣ as 4=2=2=5 (and the jump to 4♠ as 4432/4333). If you are using the jump reverses as mini-splinters or something else entirely, your idea looks reasonable. In defense of the standard way, I am very fond of long suit slam tries after I open 1M (1♠-2♠-4♣ = 5-card club suit with 2 of the top 3 honours, so for slam we just need running clubs+running+spades+a stray control or two), since there are other ways to start cuebidding or show shortness (if you use 2-way game tries of some kind.) If I believe showing the 5-5 with a view toward 10 fast tricks plus an ace and a ruff is useful, I should also believe showing a 4-6 with a view toward doing the same thing is useful. I cannot remember actually finding a slam on a 4-6 hand like that, however.

I'm sure TimG already knows this, but in case anyone unfamiliar with the idea wanders in... Before 2007, SOs could regulate only conventions, and were obligated to allow all natural bids in all events, including 2♣ openings that showed club suits. (There was and still is an issue about openings that promise a side suit; but when the side suit wasn't promised, the almost-universal interpretation was that it was a natural bid.) That notwithstanding, I did once play a system featuring a weak two in clubs, and had an opponent (in a regional in 1997) who owned a bridge club tell me to my face that I wasn't welcome in her club as long as I was using that "convention." I for one have been keeping quiet rather than urging the ACBL to update the GCC for the 2007 Laws, because I know any changes they make aren't going to be in my favour. Edited to clarify: in the pre-2007 world, "natural" and "conventional" were not antonyms. Conventional meant "conveying a meaning other than natural" - whether instead of or in addition to.

It would have been fairer of me to say that it does solve some problems with 3-card limit raises by passed hands, which can be avoided in other ways (for instance, opening lighter in 1st and 2nd than is fashionable in 2/1). I know only a handful of 2/1 players who don't use it (but many people who choose not to play 2/1 who also choose not to use Drury.) I can't help imagining that if OP isn't entirely sure she likes Drury, she may not be entirely sure she likes a few other things about the modern 2/1 approach.

Congratulations, jillybean on discovering Drury occasionally does harm and virtually never gains. :P (Yes, I know I am in a minority, on a 2/1-centric forum. ) Still, on the posted hand, you aren't going to have THAT much fun even if you're not playing Drury.

The 4S rebid was a serious underbid. I wonder what 3N,4C,4D,4H mean over 4H here. Without any agreements I think I just bid 4NT over 3H. Given the auction as posted, we gave up on a slam, but I still feel like pulling - we likely have no spade tricks at all on defense, and unlike MPs, 450 instead of 500 is not a disaster. Any other vulnerability it's an easy pull. Only EW red and MP is this tough.

I'm a big believer in the Polish family. Of course the Precisionists believe their 11-15 openings gain more than their 16+ 1C loses; I never felt I was losing THAT much playing Standard 12-20ish 1Ms so I don't happen to agree with them. (My experience is also that opening all 11s is possible in a Polish structure, and that negative free bids after 1C-interference are not necessary, but obvious others' mileages have varied.) As noted, Polish club feels a lot more like SA+short club that it does like Precision; and the 1D and 2C openers work better than their Precision equivalents do. Polish+weakNT, just switching 1C-1X-1NT and 1NT ranges, is IMO bad and defeats the purpose of including weak bids in the 1C opener. Now, 1NT=11-14 denying 4CM and 1C=11-14 promising 4CM, or 15+ bal/clubs or 19+ any, THAT can be interesting :P The 2D-and-higher bids are more or less interchangeable in any system. If Wilkosz was legal in the US I'd gladly take that one convention into my SA or 2/1 system any day :)

Dangerous to count more than 2 cover cards for AKQ. My four tricks and partner's six or so at these colors add up to... making four. At r/w there is some chance I would go on but the clubs are scary (if we were 1-5-6-1, I'd bid six at r/w, make some sort of inquiry at equal, and still pass at w/r.)

Thanks all for several alternatives which are better than what most people came up with over the table. That last one, 2C-2D, 2S-3C, 3D-3H, 3NT, possibly 4NT, is probably closest to what my reg p and I would produce.

I don't think I get to this slam. I don't think I feel all that bad about it either, missing the DKT along the top heart. After showing both minors and a spade singleton, my p MIGHT be happy enough about the SA and potential double fit to set trump with a 4C bid. But after I fail to cuebid, I think we are subsiding in either 4NT (very possible at pairs) or 5C.

At the table I can't see any alternative to 4♣. I am not happy about knowing we're losing two heart tricks followed by a very likely missing diamond honor. Looks like I need the CA plus either SAQJx+DA or SA+DAK to have any play for five - and 15 in prime cards including 3 aces is a darn sight more than my partner's average doubles. Partner IS allowed to bid again if he has a big hand so we are still getting to 5 if he has 18 or something.

Here is a hand which gave people lots of trouble at the club today (I was lucky enough to be sitting North and just got to watch my opps land in the 5-1 spade fit.) [hv=d=w&v=e&w=saqjt9hajdaj876ca&e=s3hk864dq9cqjt754]266|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] What's your preferred auction, playing something standardish? (And if you want to open 1♠, please also comment on how you see the auction going if you had started with 2♣, since for better or worse that was the more popular choice at the table.)

So just for kicks I fed it to a simulator this afternoon. North as posted, South 2-4 spades 2-3 hearts 4-5 diamonds 2-4 clubs, 18-19HCP. After 3000 hands (so we have ±2% confidence), Lose 3 imps (7 or fewer tricks): 24% Lose 7 imps (8 tricks): 40% Gain 10 imps (9 or more tricks): 36% ... which multiplies out to an imp expectation not significantly different from zero. Seems to confirm that it's a pass at matchpoints, but at worse breakeven at IMPs, and probably a small winner at 3NT against human defence.

The answer is going to depend a lot on what the 3D bid showed, I think. In the not-quite-comparable auctions like 1N-2D,2H-4N, where opener has said nothing at all about the quality of his support, the notion of "max" has a lot to do with whether your long suit is running - such that holding Kx or Qx and 16 is likely better than holding xx in partner's suit with 17. If 3D has already denied possession of a top diamond honour, then I think this is pretty close to a straight pass-with-15 go-with-17 sequence.

Great discussion points in this thread, guys. Especially the bit about 3N-vs-2N requiring a lower success rate than 3N-vs-1N never crossed my mind before.

Without addressing specific spots on this hand (having a sure entry with the DA is nice), my impression has been that 19-opposite-6 is a LOT less likely to make game than 13-opposite-12 or 15-opposite-10 is. Without simulating it, I'd guess that with 19 it's close to the breakeven point for a red imp game. I could well be wrong - I stick to matchpoints unless someone puts a gun to my head - but I must say I was surprised to even see this question asked let alone 3NT getting so much support. Do any of y'all who like going on play the 2NT jump as forcing, the way it was in the 50s, or do you all respond on so many 4-pointers you want to still bail out?

I was a big fan of Matula's 1994 book. I admit I haven't read WJ2005 yet, but I am a big fan of Polish style clubs in general and would be interested in looking it over and possibly trying it sometime. Shoot me an email and remind me to read it.

I can see a case for 2NT but 3C feels more honest. Can't really imagine passing - though I do expect to end in 3D fairly often. I am assuming the 2D is natural 6-9. Am I the only one in the world who likes to play Inverted still on after doubles and suit overcalls (but off after 1NT overcalls)?

pass wtp :) and be pleasantly surprised if p makes it. "TP" for 3NT is that this is just about the worst hand I could possibly have had for my 1H bid - only 6HCP, not where my partner expects them to be, 2 of them possibly worth nothing at all. I would not have minded passing 1D here.