Double !

I am unclear why a double of 1 ♦, supposedly an artificialish bid, should not be takeout of clubs, the only natural (or seminatural) bid that has been made so far? Please, enlighten me. DHL

Please keep the answers coming. So far, there appear to be many sequences where the respondents somewhat agree, and many others where there appear to be significant differences. So far, none of the respondents appear to be playing 4-suit transfers with pre-acceptance, nor has anyone reported playing 1NT-2C-2Y-3m as a weak 4-6, a treatment that was quite common not that long ago when I actually played live bridge. I am starting to believe that some of my approaches are either obsolete, or have been scratched in favor of different ones. Tx DHL

OGUST is the response structure that I usually play, however I have found response structures that involve transfers to be interesting. There is also a response structure called "Feature-Ogust" where 2NT asks for feature (whatever constitutes a feature) and 3♣ asks for hand and suit quality. I guess I'm in the minority but, until I learn a better method, I strongly prefer coded 9s & 10's, even with J-denies. For me, the gain that the information that such leads and failure to make such leads give me have out-weighed any information that they have given declarer. I also find that, over time, it has helped reduce brain-drain, especially when I am in the process of falling asleep at the table (a frequent occurrence). However, when it all comes out in the wash, nothing is still more important than counting, paying attention to partner's cards, and keeping track of what cards have been played. DHL

What follows are a lot of questions regarding how you play your initial responses to Partner's 1NT opening, and how you play various rebids by responder. I learned the hard way that I can't put these questions in a poll format unless each question constitutes a separate poll. Your responses to many of the questions might be wtp? That's OK. This is not a contest to see which bids or methods are "better" than others. Rather, I am curious about how consistent some answers might be, and where there are differences. Please assume that you are playing some variation of Stayman and some variation of initial transfer responses. If you prefer some other structure such Keri, please answer as though you were playing stayman with transfers. If you play different structures with different partners, please give your preferred interpretation of the bids or bidding sequences. Please also preface your responses with an indication of the hcp range that you play for 1NT openers. For the purpose of this survey, please assume that the opps are passing throughout the bidding. Also: for each question, please first give your answer if the format is imps or imp teams, and your second answer assuming that you are playing Match Points (MP) or Board-a-Match (BAM). As always, i appreciate your taking the time to answer these "simple" questions. I apologize for the length of the survey. DHL FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS: Partner opens 1NT. The way you play, what do the following responses mean? 1) 2♣ - do you play Garbage Stayman? 2) 2♠ 3) 2NT 4) 3♣ 5) 3♦ 6) 3♥ 7) 3♠ 8) 4♣ 9) 4♠ 10) 4NT 11) 5NT For the time being, we'll omit sequences that start 1NT - 5 of any suit. SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS: For this set of questions, assume that the bidding has started 1NT- 2♣. I will provide opener's rebid and then ask you for the meaning of Responder's rebid. A) Opener rebids 2♦, what does responder's rebid of 2♥ mean? B ) Opener rebids 2♦: what does responder's rebid of 2♠ mean? C) Opener rebids 2♦: what does responder's rebid of 2NT mean? (so far I anticipate fairly consistent answers). D) Opener rebids 2♦: what does a 3♣ rebid by responder mean? E) Opener rebids 2♦: what does responder's rebid of 3♦ mean? F) Opener rebids 2♦: what does responder's rebid of 3♥ or 3♠ mean? (Anticipate a lot of Smolen answers here.) G) Opener rebids 2♥: what does responder's rebid of 2♠ mean? H) Opener rebids 2♥: what does responder's rebid of 2NT mean? I) Opener rebids 2 of a Major (2M): what does responder's rebid of 3♣ mean? J) Opener rebids 2M: what does responder's rebid of 3♦ mean? K) Opener rebids 2M: what does responder's rebid of 3 OM (other major) mean? L) Opener rebids 2M: what does responder's rebid of 4♣ mean? M) Opener rebids 2M: what does responder's rebid of 4♦ mean. (does it exist?) N) Opener rebids 2M: what does responder's rebid of 4 OM (other major) mean? (does it exist?) O) Opener rebids 2M: what does responder's rebid of 4NT mean? Thank You Very Much to any and all who responded to this survey, whether you answered all or just some of the questions. DHL

What?!!! You mean bridge isn't real society? BTW: just a side thought. Has anyone else felt that there's a similarity between someone calling for the director and a child calling for its mother? "DIREKTOR!"............................"MOMMY!!!" I am very tired lol DHL

It's very interesting but not at all surprising how many of you are in the math/computer/technical fields (with the exception of the two fishy dentists). I am, and have been for more than 20 years, a school psychologist in a middle school in the South Bronx, NYC. I work with people with Autism, with Mental Retardation, with severe learning difficulties, and with severe social/ emotional/ behavioral problems, and with various combinations of the above. Add to these the socio-economic situations and other factors inherent in living in an inner city (such as gangs). I used to like the job. Not so anymore B) . DHL

I'd respond 2H in a heartbeat. There are just certain hands where you have to get your strength and decent suit off of your chest asap and then relax. This, IMO, is such a hand. Remember, a strong jump-shift is not slam forcing: it is game forcing and slam invitational depending on opener's rebid. If partner rebids 3 Clubs, then you have an easy 3NT. DHL

There is a very legitimate reason why the vugraphs can seem very slow or to move at an inconsistent speed. 1) Understand that the players are using screens and bidding trays. The vugraph operator, who is entering all bids and plays using a computer (IBM was the one I used) just the same way as if playing on BBO, is sitting above, behind, and between 2 of the 4 players, and can not see anything that occurs on the other side of the screen. Some time can elapse between the time the bidding tray goes to the other side of the table and the time it emerges again. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if there's been any alerts or what the alerts/ explanation were because it's all done silently. During play of the hand, there are times when the pace of play is fairly normal or steady, and the vugraph operator is able to keep up. There are also other times, especially later during the play of many hands, when they players start playing their cards very quickly, and it becomes virtually imposssible for the operator to keep up. Add to that the fact that the responsiveness of the keyboard or touchpad may not be what one is used to, and you might think that you entered a card as having been played when, in fact, the card didn't register. It now takes extra time to realize the error, to backtrack, correct the error, and then try to catch up. This might sometimes be the case when all of a sudden no more cards are played and then suddenly a result is posted (or the cards might have been played so quickly, or a claim was made.) So, have some patience with these vugraph presentations and with the vugraph operators. It is not easy to be sitting about 3 to 4 feet from and somewhat above the closest edge of the table (to say nothing of being further from the other side) and try to accurately see and enter everything perfectly. You have no idea how wonderful a job these guys and ladies vugraph operators are doing until you try to do it yourself (which I did last august). It is really not an easy job at all although I guess that one gets better with practice. I have incredible admiration for Jan Martel (JanM) and her ability to not only run around the game site and co-ordinate everything, but also for her ability to flawlessly function as a vugraph operator.....called talent. DHL

I have been working (for about 30 years off and on) on a home-grown system that is based on a 13 to 16 hcp 1NT opener with some good 16-counts omitted and handled differently. It is an antithesis to todays' trends toward lighter opening bid: to some degree, it is a sound opening system, at least as far as opening 1m. 1M can be opened lighter. 12 counts with good spots can be upgraded if they look more like 13 or 14: i.e. with two good 4 card suits and opened 1NT. 12- poor 13 hcp hands with a 5-card minor are opened 1m and rebid. A rebid of 1NT can also be made holding an off-shape 12-15/16 hcp hand that has some major flaw (usually a stiff in responder's major and no other convenient rebid at the 1-level). I know, this is strange and possibly less efficient having both an opening bid and a rebid of 1NT to show minimum to moderate balanced hands. (FWIW, the system plays neg X & Lebs if the opps compete over the 1NT opening.) But, with this approach, the partnership is opening 1NT on almost 2/3 of the hands that weak NTer's open and a little more than half of the hands that strong NTer's open. I've always felt that one should have a reason or purpose behind playing one bidding approach as opposed to another. There are two primary (hopeful) purposes for this approach. 1) to reduce competition by the opps, or to already know to a greater degree than in standard system more about opener's hand. Using this approach, the opps will often need to risk and start competitive bidding at the 2-level. 2). Using this approach, opening 1M or 1m usually shows a 5+ card suit or else extra values. This is an advantage in competitive situations: knowing that your partner actually has at least 4, likely 5+ when he/she has opened 1m. Makes it more comfortable to support/ raise. Admittedly, the good balanced-semibalanced 16 to 17 point hand is a relative weakness in the system, but can be addressed by opening a 4-card major and playing a Gazzilli-like rebid structure. Another aspect of this system is, in an attempt to reduce missing 4-4 major suit fits due to often opening 1NT, is to open 2 diamonds to show 12-15/16 with 4-4 in the majors (like a weak NT with 4-4 in the majors). As with any convention, there can be hands where you are playing in a 4-3, a poor 5-2, or in 2NT when the field is in 1NT. Interestingly, the number of times when this has occurred have been relatively few. And, again, if the opps interfere, against starting at the 2-level, responder has a reasonable idea of what to do. Interestingly, this convention works surprisingly well playing a 15-17 hcp 1NT system and weak NT (once consequence is that all 1D openings show either 4+ diamonds or extra values without having to play a short 2+ club). There are also a number of competitive situations, including when opps make a pre-emptive bid, when knowing that the 1m opener is not a minimum hand with 4-4-3-2 (-2-3) is a definite advantage. This is still a work in progress, handling some types of hands still need to be worked out, and it does have flaws. (What system doesn't?) It's just a general template: one can use any of their favorite toys or raise structures with it, you can play 2/1 or not, it's up to you, and it doesn't require inverted minors: it's almost better without them. Many people, when hearing the NT range, have flatly dismissed the system as being unplayable. But, FWIW, I had relative success (considering my overall bridge skills at the time) when I played this system with my one regular P at the club and tourney level when I played many years ago, and I actually got better results playing this method than when playing a 15-17 NT system. But, most importantly (to me), playing this approach is so much more fun than playing sayc (yeech) or 2/1. DHL I can't believe that I actually posted this, but the question of a wide range NT was like saying "shave and a haircut" to Roger Rabbit.

FWIW, I just lost a team match (not in itself a big deal) by 1 imp due to not having agreements on how to respond to rkc with a void. DHL

Thirty-five (plus or minus) years ago 2-way checkback was being played. It was called "Double-Barrelled Checkback Stayman". another piece of totally useless information. DHL

Bill: Thanx for that info. I have all of Kantar's chapter prior to publication of the book. What chapter covers void-showing response? Please and Thank you DHL

Do Bill's answers represent the general consensus (they are what I thought). Please, I would appreciate hearing from some more of you. Thanx DHL

Thank you for your response, but I'm not sure that I agree with you that there are no hands that a passed hand opener can have that could still make 4M yet wasn't opened such as Axxx, xxxx, x, Axxx. One possible use of 2NT might be to show such a hand. I can't bid a new suit because, like you said, it would be a lead-directing fit raise. (You couldn't believe how many people don't know this.) This type of could probably still make 3M opposite a 5-card rag, and more if P happens to have one of those 5-5s or good distro. Another possible use of 2NT is as a transfer to 3C (McCabe). It is conceivable that passed hand might have a reasonable 6 card minor but didn't pre-empt because a) the hand contained a 4-card major, or b ) the hand couldn't open 2 diamonds because the partnership plays 2 diamonds as something different from a weak 2-bid. As Ken suggested, a third meaning could be run like heck and bid your better minor, you are dead if you play in your suit. Allowing for 5-card suit wk 2-bids in the interest of pressure bidding does impact on the constructive quality of the bid, and creates the need for some scrambling. 2NT for minors seems risky to me because P might actually have a decent 6-card suit and 2-2 in the minors: 2NT for minors seems to presume that the weak 2 was made on a 5-bagger. This is why I asked if people play some form of bid that asks 3rd seat opener whether or not a 1M bid was up to strength or not (example Drury). If the answer is yes, than a 3rd seat 5-card weak 2-bid could really be a dog (with all due respect to any dogs reading this posting.) I look forward to more responses from forum members. DHL

I am finding some differences in opinions regarding how people respond to Roman Keycard Blackwood when their hand contains a void. (Not referring to Exclusion RKC). In the interest of relative simplicity, assume that the agreed-upon suit is a major when answering the following questions. 1) How do you respond to RKC when holding one key card and a void in a suit that is lower-ranking than the agreed trump suit? 2) How do you respond to RKC when holding one key card and a void in a suit that is higher-ranking than the agreed-upon trump suit? 3) How do you respond to RKC when holding two key cards and a void in a suit that is lower-ranking than the agreed-upon trump suit? 4) How do you respond to RKC holding two key cards and a void in a suit that is higher-ranking than the agreed-upon trump suit? (Granted, the previous bidding might have already made where the void is relatively clear prior to RKC.) 5) How do you ask for kings, if necessary, after partner's void-showing response to RKC? 6) How do you ask for the trump queen after partner's void-showing response to RKC? This is all standard and elementary, and will yield fairly consistent answers by forum members you say? Let's see. As always, thank you in advance. DHL

In my previous poll, (Part 1) I attempted to survey the minimum number of cards in the bid suit partner is entitled to expect when one opens a weak 2 bid in 3rd seat given different vulnerability situations and scoring formats (matchpoint vs, imps: one could probably add B.A.M. to the results for responses to the matchpoint questions.) In this posting, I am curious to know how people play New Suit and 2NT responses by passed hand partner to a 3rd seat weak 2 bid in particular (i.e. what do these bids mean?), and am also interested in any other bids and response structures that anyone might care to share. (Examples: Opps pass throughout/ Pass- 2H-2S?, or Pass-2H-3D, or Pass- 2S-2NT). Your contributions to these polls is greatly appreciated. DHL

The purpose of this poll is to survey people's styles regarding use of weak 2-bids in third seat as a baseline for surveying how your styles impact on your partner: what and when (with what types of hands) partner may bid or respond, and, possibly, the meaning of bids that passed hand partner might make. Another hope is to obtain information regarding whether or not you all shade your opening 1-bids in 3rd seat as well as open 5-card weak 2 bids, especially in the majors, what controls for light 3rd seat openers you use (such as some form of Drury), and how this impacts on the type of 3rd seat weak 2-bids you use. (Note: I omitted 3rd seat, favorable (white vs. red) because the program required me to cut back on the number of poll options i had written, and because most people play "anything goes 3rd seat, favorable", that passed hand partner is lucky if the 3rd seat bidder has 13 cards. My first bridge book was the Kaplan-Sheinwold system book back in the mid to late 60s. In their book, Mr K & Mr S recommended keeping all 1-level bids up to strength, and shading the weak 2-bids (a 5-card instead of a 6-card suit). For many years way back when, my partners and I would have the agreement that partner of the 3rd seat opener, being a passed hand, was only permitted to take a bid with good trump support, usually 4-cards, and some distribution. Unfortunately, in retrospect in my opinion, we did not play any form of Drury. (Heck, I had trouble counting to 13 much less remembering what cards had been played). I have come to the point where I am questioning whether or not this is a winning strategy in the long-run. I have also noticed so many times when passed-hand partner has competed with 3-card support and occasionally on a doubleton (using the law, expecting the 3rd seat wk 2 bidder to still have a 6-card suit) and after 3rd seat has opened a weak 2 (often with 5-bagger) and the opps competed. Ugly results often ensued. I am not surveying suit quality in this poll (Years ago I knew one player whose wk 2 and 3-bids would've made Marty Bergen uncomfortable.) Instead, I am trying to focus on what passed-hand partner can expect from the 3rd seat wk-2, and what accommodations, if any, that passed hand partner might need to make. As always, Thanks in Advance. DHL

Hmmm I was looking at some of the hands from the RR. I believe that this was board #3. That 1 club bid was rather light, I think you can beat 3NT. Basically if you bid 4H for a make, you are playing P to have a heart (or 2 or stiff honor, or for hearts to break 2-2) and either Spade ace or QJ. But, if P doesn't have this, then 3NT likely makes, and the question is whether or not you can hold 4H to down 1 vul. This seems like one of those "are you feeling lucky?" type of hands. DHL

PASS is not a dirty word. DHL

fwiw, IMO, the 6-4 invitational hand is an inherent problem playing invitational jump-shifts and 2/1 GF. One alternative is to play 2/1 GF except for responder's rebid of his suit. Another that I have seen played on 1 or 2 occasions is an artificial 2C response to show various hands including the invitational J-S type of hand. IMO, the advent of 2/1GF just because the partnership plays 1M-1NT forcing one round, creates a problem for this type of hand as well as for limit raise hands with 3-card trump support (1M-1NT-2 bananas-3M). IMO, the latter is a poor sequence that can get the partnership too high, especially if playing lighter opening bids, yet seems to be commonly accepted as the way to bid such hands. DHL

This is an interesting question. For the sake of discussion, i shall assume that the partnership is not playing reverse flannery responses to 1m. When I did my little vugraph operator stint last August at the usbf Team Trials, I was sitting behind Dan Morse (Bobby Wolff was on the other side of the screen). Dan held a similar hand and, assuming my memory isn't completely shot, by-passed the spade suit and rebid 2 diamonds (his suit might have been clubs- can't remember). Perhaps the reasoning was that game in spades (or NT) would require Wolff to hold a good hand that would be bidding over 2 diamonds, and that the bidding might be better served by rebidding the 6-bagger and limiting somewhat his hand. Perhaps he had decided that he was going to pull to 2D had he rebid 1S and responder then bid 1NT. By not bidding the spades, if he was going to be playing in 2D, at least he hadn't given a blueprint of his distribution away. I didn't have a chance to ask him about the hand, but his 2D rebid sort of surprised me as suppressing a 4-card major is not exactly what the books tell you to do. Perhaps the rebid might have been different playing matchpoints, but I found the decision to not yet show the spades to be interesting. DHL

PASS There is no bid that describes this hand at this level, and pass is not a dirty word. Partner will always be there with an opportunity to re-open. (What can you make with this hand opposite a flat 10 count? Not too much.) DHL

1NT for me, although IMO, the hand is almost too good for 1NT The advantage of 1NT can be that it makes it easier for partner to know what to do, including should P happily have 5 hearts. It just seems to 1NT is the more partner-friendly value bid. DHL

Many of you might recall that, in the original book re the Precision Club system by CC Wei, after the sequence 1 club and a bid by opp, a 1NT response by responder was used as an artificial game force. (Neg Xs and Neg Free Bids were also used.) The meaning of the 1NT bid in competition was soon changed. I believe that there was at least one other bidding sequence that was included in the initial version published in the US but that was soon also changed or deleted. The sequence that I am referring to is 2 clubs, 2 diamonds, 2NT by opener (opps passing throughout). I believe that, in the original version, this sequence showed 11-13 hcp with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs but then was changed in an early system revision. I lost my book with the original Wei system eons ago, and have not been able to find any info to confirm or refute my memory regarding this sequence. Do any of you happen to know whether or not the original meaning of the 2NT rebid showed the minimum 4-5 or not? I am not asking for discussion about the merits or liabilities of such a sequence. I would really like to know if my memory on this one is accurate or if it's faulty as all h____? As always, TIA DHL

FWIW: I played 2M as showing 11-15 with 4M and 6+clubs as part of a precision partnership for matchpoints (to avoid losing the 4-4 major suit fix when responder/advancer didn't have sufficient values to respond 2D/2C)a really long time ago. We really didn't develop much in the way of follow-ups and, fortunately, didn't lose much by not having weak 2M available. We lost much more due to limited bridge skills. (This predated the publication of Matchpoint Precision: I am old--lololol). Nobody objected, the TD didn't say anything. But, I am impressed and mused to learn that the treatment is called "Velociraptor".....just confirms what I've said for a while, that "I'm a bidding dinosaur!".lolololol. DHL