Double !

Doesn't Meckwell vary the NT ranges depending on seat and vulnerability?

To all of you bridge rules legal eagles out there. I am not advocating the following. Just looking for a "simple answer". (Is that an oxymoron?) Is the Gardener 1NT overcall (either a natural strong NT hand or a weakish, 1-suited hand: responder bids 2C to find out) defined as being a controlled psychic bid. Is it legal in acbl play. I asked 4 TDs at the summer NABCs in NYC in 2004, and never received a clear answer. Two were not familiar with the convention. (Nico, forgive them.) It would also be interesting to know whether or not the convention is permitted in the UK, and in any other locations or federations such as WBF. It's not something that was just recently developed. As always, thanx in advance. DHL

I chose 2♣ but, to some degree, I think the decision can be influenced by the range the partnership is playing to open 1NT. If playing weak NT, then you may assume that opener has something extra in hand either via hcp and/or distribution. Knowing that you have support for clubs will be helpful when opener has to decide on his/her next bid. And you can always show something in reserve by taking some further action later in the auction. Playing strong NT, my prinicple is to base initial lower-level competitive decisions on the premise that opener has a minimum balanced hand (aka a weak NT) until the bidding tells me otherwise. The transfer response structure, especially the 1S option, has a lot of merit (which means I like it but don't know.play it). However, how many people online or in f2f are currently playing this? How many people are playing transfer responses when opps make t/o dbl? (Hopefully the numbers will increase. Personally, I don't like the negX to show cards without a 4-card major because opener might be stuck for a bid and the partnership won't have any 8-card fit.

Sounds to me like a diplomatic compromise. BTW: I really appreciate these responses. As you can determine by reading these various posts, there are significant differences that vary from region to region, especially, according to Hannie, the eastern part of the USA where all the rubber bridge players refuse to signal (lolololol). (Maybe it has to do with the economy.) Would it be possible to hear from some players from eastern as well as western Asia? Thank you in advance, as usual. DHL

rofl

Not sure how this would've helped. The issue wasn't distribution. It was location of honors or, as Rubens terms it, "in and out evaluation". Perhaps the whole situation and meanings of bid would be different had the major involved been hearts instead of spades. But, since your style was to not open the west hand, IMO, east really should pass 1S to let you know that his/her overall strength likely could not make game opposite a passed hand, and then support spades after the opps balance. IMO, this is a situation where posession of the master suit affects how you handle the hand. You will know that P has 3-card support when he/she passes 1S, so you'll know whether or not it's right to compete further should the opps balance. (Without 3S, P should have a good reason for opening 3rd seat with a 1-bid IMO).

Thanx for the support, but I own this one, not my partner. I had been incorrectly taught or had incorrectly interpreted what I had read about responder's rebids after reverses, and had this agreement with my regular face-to-face P at the time. I was at least intermediate level at the time: I just had it wrong. And we were relying too much on 4th suit forcing. I suspect that my expert P just assumed after having known me that I knew how to bid. Not! Part of the learning process. Not ashamed to admit it.

Why 5C? BTW, good job re viewgraph. Bid 4♣ / 3NT. P has some cards over there. I'd like to find out more about them.

As I once did when playing with a topflight partner in a regional eons ago when I was learning, interpreting a preference back to my first suit by responder after my reverse as just that, a simple preference without enough to make game. WRONG!!!!!

I concur 4♥ seems to be a little pushy in direct seat (5 1/2 to 6 losers) but reasonable in the balancing seat.

Question: when you say 2/4 vs. NT: I understand the 4 to mean 4th best, but I am not clear about the 2 (does that mean high from a doubleton, low from a doubleton, or something else)? Thanx

Thank you very much Gonzalo. I appreciate your response.

Is it definite that responder should pass 3NT (vs. possibly bidding 4D)? Just an observation, not advocating anything but: here's another hand where the stronger J-S might have made life easier provided that brakes were then applied. And, is 6D (or even 6H or 6NT) such a poor slam?

Both? you decide thanx for responding.

In the U.S. but elsewhere?

An opinion that I share and value. That is one reason why I am trying to determine how many of the advocates of lighter initial action are playing limited openings, what impact widening even further the range for a 1-level bid is having if not playing limited openings (if any), and what adjustments and/or specialized bids people who are playing lighter initial action without limited 1-level opening bids might be employing to address this expansion (or if they feel that none are needed)?

If this response was directed toward me, then, well, you stated the obvious. (I believe that I have a reasonably good sense of my personal bridge-related strengths and weaknesses.) If it was intended to imply that card play, and partnership-related issues are more important in general than what bidding system or style one adopts, well I strongly agree with you up to a point. However, this post was not intended to address any of the many personal bridge-related strengths or weaknesses that I have or that any other forum member might or might not have. It purpose is an attempt to try and clarify several issues to the degree that they might be clarified, and to survey what styles people have adopted, why they have adopted them, the degree to which these have or have not led to success, and why or why not. I recall a brief discussion in the original Kaplan-Sheinwold book ("How to Play Winning Bridge") about the distinction between two approaches to the game: 1) trying to stay with or slightly above the field in terms of bidding and winning via superior play, decision-making, and defense, and 2) trying to win in terms of staying with or a little above the field in terms of play and defense, and trying to win via superior bidding (and, consequentially, competitive decision-making). So, there are different views on that topic, and I feel that I am reading a variety of views on this forum about issues of style, approach, evaluation, and systems to name a few. Another currently-running thread has resulted in a number of opinions in terms of whether or not either of two hands should be opened, and various opinions on the merits of lighter initial action than the style that I am used to. I am looking for the reasoning behind adopting or not adopting a lighter initial action style, the ramifications that such an approach might have on the structure of any system that one utilizes, on how this impacts on what inferences one might take based upon action that partner has or hasn't taken (negative inferences), and the level of success that people have experienced using their' preferred styles and approaches. I or anyone else reading this thread might or might not adopt lighter initial action styles; those are individual and partnership decisions to be made. Pressure bidding seems to be in vogue these days. However, we all will likely have to play against them at some point, and understanding will be helpful in many areas, especially in competitive auctions. DHL

Wouldn't changing the QJ of diamonds to Kx change the quality of the hand overall, like to 26 Zars and 7-losers? I suspect that many more players might not pass such a hand. Whatcha think? DHL

There has been considerable discussion lately on a myriad of threads about what constitutes an opening bid at the 1-level (not even including different hand assessment methods such as hcp, zar, or LTC), a possible trend toward/ the need for lighter opening bids, and how lighter initial action might make decision in various competitive situations. I can understand how adjusting the range downward for an opening bid could be done without much discomfort and system adjustment playing a system with limited opening 1-bids such as strong club or diamond systems. However, it seems to me that playing that an opening bid shows 10 to 21 pts (however you define points) could be very difficult to manage without some significant adjustments. So, excluding systems that utilize limited opening 1-bids (and/or natural 2C or 2D as minimum openings) and a strong, artificial and forcing bid (15,16,17,18+) at the 1-level, what, if any, adjustments are people incorporating into their systems to accommodate lighter initial action? As always, Thanx in advance. DHL

I have seen many people from France who have S E F written on their profiles but I have not been able to find a good descriptions of the system (I assume this is the standard bidding system in France). I have found "Majeur Cinquieme" online, but I could only find it written en Francais, pas en Anglais. Without having to use a babblefish or some other strange aquatic creature to translate this (I'm not very skilled when it comes to using many aspects of a computer), does anyone know of a site where I can find a reasonable description of S E F in English so I might be able to play with people who only play this system? I speak and understand some French, but I have also forgotten a lot and don't have the knowledge to translate this by myself. ( I can barely speak English coherently!) Thanks a lot in advance. DHL

I have played with people from different parts of the world and have felt that what might the standard card to lead, the meanings of signals, and the standard meanings of discards might vary from place to place. For example, while many players in the states play udca (upside-down count and attitude) signals, the very fact that they are referred to as being "upside-down" implies that they differ from a standard. In the states, low-hi to show an odd number of cards, low to discourage/ hi to encourage, higher of touching honors, etc. has constituted "standard carding" (whatever that means anymore) for as long as I am aware. So, I am curious to know, not what you or your partnership plays, but what forms of lead, signals, and discarding are considered to be "standard" where you live and/or have lived in the past. IMO, this is a very important issue to know playing online. I have witnessed so many carding misunderstandings between people from different locations who had little time other than to say "hi" or "hi P" before being thrust into action with the next deal and then later having someone become upset due to a defensive blunder based on different styles. As usual, Thanx in advance for your responses. DHL

There is so much to this problem that I have not yet seen addressed in depth on the forum. Included, IMO Helene_t makes a compelling connection between this hand and a case for light openings. Shift this problem back to partner of the 3♥ bidder. (i.e.: the bidding has theoretically gone p-3C-3H-p-?) How good of a hand, or what type of a hand would partner need to take a bid? Would there be any hands when P (a passed hand) could justify bidding 3NT? If P has the values to take action, does the sample hand provide the values and provide sufficient tricks to support P's action? To word the question in another way, if P has sufficient values that we can make 3♥, will we be able to stop at 3♥? The following is both a theoretical and a partnership question, but IMO it's an important one. When you bid 3♥ over 3♣, how many values, if any, are you already playing partner for when you take action in direct seat? For example, some ascribe to the agreement that you assume that P has about 7 to 8 pts when deciding whether or not to take action in direct seat, and that P disregard his/her first 7-8 pts when deciding whether or not to take further action. In balancing seat or re-opening position one would base action on the assumption that P has about 9-10 pts, and that P would need to disregard his/her first 9-10 pts when deciding whether or not to bid because the balancer already bid those presumed values. I would really appreciate some feedback on the issues raised above, especially regarding basing one's action on an assumption that P has certain values and already bidding those assumed values when choosing whether or not to bid? In addition, change this whole problem to matchpoints. Playing matchpoints, what would you all bid over 3C with the sample hand? Thanx in advance. DHL

Hmmm 3 controls, + 7 hcp, + 10 for 2 longest suits, + 6 for difference between longest and shortest suit = 26 ZARS I have an opening bid. :D I would bid 2S, can rebid the 7-bagger if Ihave to, plus my Kxx is in P's suit.

absolutely nothing eroneous about description of level of players. agree that level of bidding of BOTS is debatable.

editorial correction. Have been informed by my sources that the BOTs only went - 1000. Apologize for any misrepresentation and false impressions that my previous post might have created. DHL