Rebound

I would not pass 5C. With all due respect, why not? Partner has made a 2-level penalty double and you've pulled after a game forcing response to her opening. To me this should imply slam interest. The alternative is that you hold short on the hcp for a gf but with compensating distribution but in that case I think the call would be to pass 3NT or go direct to 5♣. You've then made not 1, but 2 further attempts to push to slam with 3♦ and 4♠. If partner is still trying to sign off after that, I don't see how you can bid again over 5♣. Bidding again would be the equivalent of arbitrarily going to slam, in which case you've wasted 2 or 3 rounds of bidding imo. You might as well go right over 2♠X. I would have liked for partner to be able to take control after 4♠. In fact, holding KQx in ♣ I think she would have been well placed to make the 5♠ call over 4♠. All that having been said, I think I agree that the problem was the 2♣ call. 1♦ offers more chance to communicate the strengths of the hand. Next question: with the given hands, what do you do after this auction - 1♣ / p / 1♦ / 2♠ X / p / ?

Well that's for sure. I would need to know only the quality of partner's clubs then. Inquiry's comments are pertinent here. I appreciate the usefulness of 4♠ as EKC, however, our agreement is that it applies only above game so as logical as it sounds, I'm fairly certain it would be interpreted as a normal cue. The nice thing about a 3♥ call is that it will allow me to cuebid more to give partner the opportunity to decide if slam is in the picture based on her club holding. Our methods currently lack an effective way for me as responder to ask about her trump holding. And that's a problem because if she holds good spades (I had pictured somewhat better than K10xx) and the heart A it might not leave much for her in the club suit. 4NT is yucky and 5♠ would be effective, but slam would be dicey if she held Axx or Kxx in ♣. The point is, it is better if I show rather than ask on this hand, I think. 3♥ keeps the bidding low enough that I can cue bid at least a couple more times to make sure she gets the hint <grin> such as 3♥-3♠-3nt-4♦ - the second diamond bid should be a big push toward slam IMO. EDIT Of course, I suddenly realize that the above closely parrallels Inquiry's auction. I guess it amounts to almost the same thing. But to me the above is a clearer auction. The 3♠ call in that one, however, comes at the expense of the earlier 3♦ bid which I think is important. Just my 2 cents.

Point taken. I thought (somewhat too late I might add - I had already bid 4♠ lol) that partner may have excellent spades and not such good clubs, particularly after the penalty double of 2♠ at IMPS. We don't play WJS, so the 2♦ call you suggest makes a lot of sense. However, the phrase "support with support" was ringing in my ears, so it seemed prudent to make the game-forcing raise in clubs immediately since it was available. I now see the reasoning behind bidding the diamond suit first. Winston: if, by criss-cross you mean 2♦ shows a GF with clubs while 2♣ would be limit or weak or what have you, we rejected it in favor of the simpler structure. I won't argue that it is more or less effective, but it does not fit with our style. Bearing in mind all of the above, would any of you be concerned about being pre-empted in the majors?

[hv=s=shkxxdakqj10cj10xxx]133|100|[/hv] Auction: North/ East/ South/ West 1♣ / p / 2♣* / 2♠ X / p / 3♦ / p 3[NT] / p / 4♠ / p 5♣ / all pass I was South. 2♣ was, of course, inverted, game-forcing. I am most curious whether you believe I should bid 1♦ instead, and if not, what you think of the remainder of the auction. I believe I pushed as hard for slam as I could, but partner just wasn't having any of that. It's too bad tho. I think her hand was something like K10xx AQxx xxx KQx. At the time, I felt 3♦ and then 4♠ pinpointed the problem with the heart suit such that with AQ, she could confidently bid slam. However, I now see that a different auction may have made the decision easier for her which is, to me, what a good partner should do. Your insights will be appreciated. :)

Hamman's Rule "When three notrump is one of the alternatives, choose it." I picked up this hand this afternoon: [hv=d=w&s=sq54haj92dcakqj83]133|100|Scoring: IMP 2♥-p-p- to you...[/hv] So, wadda ya think? Did I properly apply the rule? I dislike double or 3♣ but I'd like to hear your thoughts. 3NT made as it turned out but that doesn't make it the right call.

This is likely to be way off base, but tell me what you think of this: Regardless of how things actually turn out, in order to make 3NT, you will need some kind breaks somewhere. How about running the club 10? Granted, if it loses, a spade is coming back but such is life. Were it to win, you could then cross to dummy with the ♥ A, cash out clubs (if the Q drops, then great, but if not, oh well), then lead the ♥ J, overtaking with the Q if the K does not appear. Again, granted, this could be a total disaster, but it offers chances of taking bunches of tricks. Format was not mentioned, but at MP I'm fairly certain I would play it this way. It does appear to be an inferior line, but heh, that's bridge :-)

Forgive the (likely) dumb question, but I have never played support doubles. If double shows 3♠, what does an immediate 2♠ show? I gather the problem is it would not show the strength of this hand?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch..... Now, don't laugh (too much lol) but for some time now I have played something very simple - as the marketing line in the computer biz goes, "it just works." In direct seat, suit bids are transfers, natural in 4th seat, doubles, as back in the day, are penalty. Yeah, I know it's simplistic, and against half-way competent oppontents provides some extra bidding room, but it is easy and it works. I'm sure there are numerous reasons why this may be viewed as an inferior method, but I like it and seem to have good results with it. Just my 2 cents FWIW.

IMO Precision may be harder to remember, but provided you can, it is easier to play than SAYC. And frankly, I would sooner encounter a strong pair of opponents playing SAYC than Precision. It is true that precision gains mainly on uncontested auctions and depending on the level of play those may be more or less frequent (assuming on the given hand it is "your hand"), but with a good structure over intereferance, that can be dealt with fairly handily as well. In fact, I submit that SAYC suffers some serious disadvantages in contested auctions also due to the huge range of the opening 1-level bids. I believe it is often the case that knowing the limits of a precision opener's hand permits responder to more accurately gage the strength of the opponents' hands than after an opening bid which could range from 12 (give or take) to 20 or so depending on style. This should theoretically make close decisions like whether to bid, double or pass that much easier. Mind you, I am biased. When I was first taught to play, I learned Standard American first but as soon as I had a grasp of the fundamental concepts, I was taught precision and I loved it from the get-go. It suits me very well and the system itself immediately improved my results when playing duplicate. Many of the difficult judgement calls inherant in Standard were removed. I was able to focus more on the play of the hand. This did not prevent my bidding judgement from improving, however. It merely lessened the burden of that particular aspect of the game. Of course, your mileage may vary - this is strictly my opinion. It bears repeating, however, that over 1♥/1♠ the auction tends to be every bit as natural as SAYC if not more so. A clear understanding of this is important.

I love the idea. I ran out of time to participate in your last effort, but I am very interested. I'll be keeping an eye out for this :P

Thanks for posting this. I am currently modifying it to conform to my own system. This gives me a big head start over doing it from scatch. I appreciate it.

As it happens, in one partnership I play that a double here is card showing only, alerting partner to the fact I hold better than a normal opening hand, to be clarified later. In any event, it turns out the auction would go much the same as the given hand except that I would be extremely likely to bid over 3♥x. Nice post Kalvan, although I admit I would probably get too high like all the others. There is a non-zero chance that I would pass 3♥x with the given hand, but no one who knows me would count on it.

Um. Ditto.

Given the constraints of the original post -since I don't know the convention, alternative treatments are irrelevant to me- I would like to know what 2♠* and 3♠** are for. *natural, I presume? **it would be handy (pun intended lol) if it asked about openers holding in the suit. I am curious to see one thing. It has been said several times on the BBO forums that one should be in slam if a perfect minimum can be constructed for partner which would make slam a certainty opposite one's hand. I would like to see if this holds true for this hand. I'm not certain such a hand exists in this case but I will take a crack at it: x Kxxxx Axxx xxx. I'm neither sure this hand constitutes a minimum (I think it depends on style) nor am I sure 6♣ is making, but it looks good to me. If I had my way, I would do whatever the system dictates to get partner to bid clubs then blast to 6♣. This hopefully would protect against a diamond lead.

My view is that the weaker your suit is, the stronger your hand should be and the better your suit, the weaker your hand can (should) be.

I think it's a fantastic idea and somehow doubt I will be alone in my opinion :unsure:

I consider penalty doubles at the 1-level to be of sufficiently unusual character that they should be alerted. I believe they are alertable in ACBL land but I wouldn't swear to it. Of course, my belief that they should does not necessarily mean it is required by any SO.

For the record, I believe I would have bid a direct 2NT over the double on the given hand. It may not be right on this hand, but it could be. Incidentally, Robert, I appreciate that suggestion. However, that indicates only that I maybe wrong about the strength of partner's hand for 3♦, not the shape (I'd be somewhat happy even if I got only that much right lol). I neglected to take note of the form of scoring, where at MP's, I would expect partner to pass 2NT with a minimum 3-4-5-1 t/o dbl after 2♣-2♥-2NT.

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to test some suits first. So, let's say I win ♦K, play ♥A, ♠x to K, ♥K, 9. What does RHO play on the 9?

Well, in this unlikely slam, I will play for the unlikely 3-3 diamond break and win the diamond return in hand, cash the ♥ A and play a diamond to the Q. Of course, if they aren't 3-3 I'm stuck. But if they break, I can now ruff a heart and if they are 4-3, I get 4♦, 4♥, 3♠, and a ♣. It's a simplistic line, I know. It requires that both diamonds and hearts break evenly. I just don't have enough brain cells working at the moment to come up with something better so it's likely what I would do at the table were I playing right now :P

I might be totally wrong about this, but here goes: It seems that partner is something like 3-4-5-1 or 4-4-5-0 with a pretty decent holding in high cards. I am assuming the extra length lay in the diamond suit on the basis that 2♣ would be interpreted by partner as a major suit probe. Therefore, 3♦ over 2NT suggests that partner is denying interest in a NT game unless you have good clubs. I would try 4♦ now.

I'm just gonna pass. I'm worried about diamond shortness in RHO's hand and the missing kings and heart A being with LHO.

My brothers and I play a rather eccentric variant of precision, however, I believe that our meaning of 2♦ is similar enough to the given auction to make it worthwhile commenting here. I agree with mikeh in that my vote went to 3♦ although I would have some sympathy for pass. I believe that if I am going to bid NT, I will just take a shot at 3, and I don't have a good enough feeling about this hand for that. Of course, the usual "I may have no clue what I am talking about" disclaimer applies :-)

I would just like to mention that although I didn't have the opportunity to bid these with my partner, I think it's a great idea and reading about them on here was nevertheless very interesting and informative. Thanks very much. I sincerely hope there are future such opportunities. I would like very much to participate.

Hi. All you have to do to see hidden replies is to click and drag your mouse over the area to select text, as you would do if you wanted to copy text you could see there. To post a hidden reply, you may click the button HIDDEN in the post editing screen then click it again at the end. Alternatively, you can just type [h] and then your text, followed by [/h] .