laughter

1) 3M = Competitive, LAW bid (extra trumps, no game interest) 2) 2NT = System on, forcing 3) No such animal as implied suit cue bid. Opponents may not have spades. 3) XX = Interested in penalizing, set up a force to 3M. 4) Pass & 3M = I don't know. undefined, maybe irregular tactical manuver (like walk the dog) 5) Pass & double = penalty. they landed in my second suit. 6) New suit = system on. GT (Help suit / 2nd suit / short suit, depends on specific partner's preference) I think redouble is quite useful, as responder is involved here, for he now knows we own the hand and may double the opponents effectively. Btw, one interesting possibility here is to pass and wait for one round before blasting game. Playing this way give you more information about opponents' hands with the drawback of giving them more room for locating a profitable save (maybe slight chance if they are vul). This funny gambit i first read about from Michael Rosenberg.

Hmm... At first, I thought the first round diamond finesse offers better chances, as DJxxx in LHO plus HK in RHO seems much more likely than DJx in RHO & HK in LHO (I have just ignored the bare DJ in RHO, or DJxxxx in LHO, for these chances are slim and quite insignificant) then I realize the squeeze would gain over the first round finesse also when diamonds are 3-3 with RHO holding DJ (a very significant 18% chance) So, I think rising with HA & trying for a diamond-heart squeeze later is best. But I am not very sure, quite willing to listen from others.

Personally, I would not bid 1S (avoid bidding 3 card suit when there are other sensible alternatives). But I appreciate this bid (Suit oriented values, ruffing potential, honor third in spade, may score better than NT or diamonds in MP). However, I don't like the 2H cue-bid-followed-by-3NT continuation. Advancer has a great hand for diamonds and he probably has not shown his fit yet. This sequence seems to me not particularly encouraging in exploring diamonds slam. I guess cue-bid is strength showing & seeking H stopper (default meaning of cue bid), & 3NT express doubt about the strain (contrast with direct 3NT leap). Though maybe played otherwise, I am sure mort random expert partnership would define the sequence this way. If the meaning of cue bid is fit-showing, then every bid seems reasonable(except the agreements, how does the pair explore 3NT if lacking a general-strength showing cue) I think if advancer splinter 4C over 2D, then the slam will be reached more effortlessly. Btw, if I were doubler, I would bid 2S over 2H, as I will not hide 3-card major support for long.

Vs. 3 level Preempts: Leaping (or Non-leap here) Michaels are pretty useful. I guess you may find this modification worthwhile: Over 3m, CAPP (4C=Strong, non-specific 1 suiter, 4D=Both Majors, 4M=M+om) Over 3M, Non-Leap Michaels (4m=m+OM, 4OM=Natural, 4M=Strong 5m, m unknown) This one was played by Kokish & Mittelman in 2000 Olympad. The merit of CAPP is you have one more way to indicate strong minor 1 suiter. And you should think about the meaning of 4NT overcall, which may differ according to whether the preempt is 3m or 3M. And the gadget mentioned below is pretty handy (though not recommended for casual partnership): (3C)-double-(pass)-? 3D=Puppet to 3H, weak with D / weak sign-off in M / 3NT with doubt 3M=Constructive, inv 4M 3NT=Stronger than delayed 3NT 4C or above=Same as standard You may want to work out the meanings of 3D-then-strong-bids by advancer Or Doubler's rebid over 3D if he has extras. These can be quite complicated matters. Vs Weak 2: I guess you should work out the follow up of a cue-bid overcall, if it is played as strong one suiter, stopper asking. Say (2M)-3M-(pass)-? 3NT=stopper & to play. 4OM=probably natural, long suit. 4C= no stopper, weak hand. 4D=artificial, stronger than 4C, but no control in M. 4NT=natural, too strong for 3NT. 4M=shortness control and good values. I am sure there are many playable ways, but the important point is to have a reasonable agreement with your partner and don't resort to guessworks. If you play Leb vs weak 2M, you may consider the better minor variation: (2M)-double-(pass)-? 2NT = please bid your better minor, the usual leb type-hands & follow up. advancers would not like to guess the minor to bid holding some 4-3-3-3. 3C = natural, wide range, advancer can't start with 2NT (fear a 3D response). Others = same as usual Best regards, Simon

Fit for a King, Brock & Rigal, 2000 Grade=B+ A good collection of hands nominated for BOLS Brilliancy in the 70s and early 80s, filled with some biographical details about the players and reporters. The bridge analysis is quite accurate and succinct, while the deals are mostly interesting. What I like best about the book is photos/stories of players. The authors tried to categorize the hands in 4 parts, the opening, middlegame, endgame and the whole caboodle, according to the challenging parts of the hand, matching a similar practice in chess. Imo, these category are quite artificial, as there are no common themes among the hands. But still it does no harm to the presentation.

Just disagree with Frame. You can always survive by directly supporting partner without a Fit Showing Bids, while you are genuinely stuck if you can't show your suit naturally. Negative doubles with good one suiter won't work as: 1. opener may pass it at high level. 2. opponent may preempt. 3. you lose one round of bidding when you can't directly show your suit. To support my view, I quote from an interview of Eric Rodwell: BridgeMatters: What about weak jump shifts in competition compared to fit showing jump shifts? Eric Rodwell: Fit showing jump shifts are very popular in the Washington area. Again, it sort of seems to come from the ‘the only hands that matters are those that have a fit for partner’ type of thinking, which I don’t think I buy into, really. Say it goes 1D, 1S, certainly it is nice if I have seven hearts to the KJT to bid a preemptive three hearts but I don’t think it is critical. After 1D, 1S, bidding 3H is a little unwieldy anyway because I am forcing the bidding to 4D. I think probably the best situations to be using fit showing jumps are passed hand jumps. Like Pass, Pass, 1S, 2C, 3D, showing diamonds and spades. The need for a natural 3D is very minimal by a passed hand. When partner overcalls, I think they are a little more useful then when partner opens. But just the same, if I have a long suit, I have no way to express that.

1. 4H 2. The hesistation shows doubt about the final bid and may transmit unauthorized information, as he would not trance when he has long spades or a lot of slow values plus no heart fit. So my answer is yes. However, the bid of 4H may or may not be the result of the trance. As opener can have a freak and very unsuitable for 3NT, he should not be banned to bid 4H (the obvious bid). I guess the ruling should be based on the answer to the question that whether the bid is consequent (directly resulting from) or subsequent (occur after irregularity, but not a consequence) to the unauthorized information. When in doubt, the benefit should go to the non-offending side.

A standard strength showing cue of 3D worths more consideration. As doubler may have some other plans in mind, and your hand is highly suitable for club, a jump to 4S may be premature. Facing the actual doubling hand, the bidding may go: 3D-pass-3S-pass; ? As you quite like your hand facing 4 spades, you can try for slam by choosing one of the following bids: 1.4D - agreeing spades, showing slam interest, and leaving the rest to partner. 2.4C - forcing, first suggests real suit and no spades fit, can catch up by jumping to 5S later. 3. 5D - EKB or void-showing splinter, partnership should have some agreement on how to continue. I guess 2. will lead to a small slam as doubler has the right holding in black suits.

Ben, your method is not so uncommon. It is called Vasilevsky, described in Miles' book on Competitive Bidding. Btw, he recommends NOT to play this toy when you are passed hand, since you don't need two bids to define your hand. Also, holding OM and m, it is important to show your major first when you are contesting spades, as you can't produce the transfer-to-minor-then-show-major if opener rebid 2S. I don't like this method, for a number of reasons: 1. It may propel the partnership to three level when agressor overcalls a takeout bid and advancer holds minors. 2. It doesn't right side your contract. You want to declare when you overcall in the fourth seat, placing opener on lead. 3. The transfer method provides a lot of additional sequences for opener's side. Just as this toy can give additional sequences for your side, it also works for the opener. He can cue-bid at two levels, double, pass-then-double. It is much more likely for opener to need the additional sequences than the defensive bidding side. Imho, fancy toys are not quite necessary for intervening a 1M-1NT sequence: 1. Two suiters are not quite as common as one suiter, therefore, an artificial 2C/2D would not come up nearly as often as natural 2C/2D. 2. The number of hand type that you want to intervene is smaller. You don't want to play in opener's five card major. Therefore, you have to deal with one 3 suiter, three 2 suiter and three one suiter. Note the differerence when you consider contesting an 1NT opening. Many artificial toys are quite useless now. (e.g. how can you want to overcall a Capp 2D (both Ms) vs. 1S-1NT?) 3. The 3 suiter type becomes much more common as opener promises 5+ length. The most effective way to deal with this type is to play a takeout double. I guess the artificial gadget would be more useful when opp bid 1m-1NT (more possible hand types).

Hi Fil! I quite like the ideas of Klinger and it is a pity that I haven't got the chances of reading his work on this Power System. Some questions arise after reading your brief descriptions: 1. I wonder what other 2 level opening bids means? 2. If opening 1D/1M is limited to 18, then how does the system handle 19+? is it included in 1C opening? 3. If opening 1NT shows intermediate values, then is a weak NT opened 1C? 4. How does the system handle 4-4-4-1 as opening 2C/2D promises 5? If my assumption in question 2 and 3 is true, then the system base is quite similar to Polish Club, and the nebulous 1C opening may be a weakness.

Ooops, one serious drawback of Granville that I reckon lately: The 4-4 spades fit can be buried easily in competition. 1H-1S-(3C);?? Holding AQxx-KJ10xx-Kx-xx, opener can't investigate the possibility of spade fit as he is only minimum, and he is forced to pass. You can't be sure whether there is a good fit in spades or not. If responder has started with a standard 1S, then you can give a raise here. Maybe opener should play takeout double when the opponent sandwiches. It can help somehow, but you would probably perform less well than the standard bidders when there is a 4-4 spade fit and competition.

I guess you play kind of weak NT in your Precision, therefore 1D can be used to show genuine D and unbalanced hand. I don't like the inv+ 2C asking bid and its follow up: 1. As opener shows his strength by rebidding 2S/2NT, probably the continuation is FG, however it may cause difficulty for responder to clarify his intention (game try, FG and wants to explore, slam try) as the level is quite high, while the trump is not set and his strength is still unlimited. Btw, locating heart fit may be tricky (both 4-4 fits and 5-3 fits possible) 2. The continuation after 3C rebid can be a mess, as responder may want to sign off holding invitational values, while sometimes he wants to force at 3 level holding good hand. Can you try a two way checkback structure? 2C puppet to 2D, a possible sign off, or inv values. 2D constitute FG, asking for description. I guess it is easy to play, and maybe an improvement.

Pass seems clear. Opener has already shown a good hand with 4-5 majors and he has nothing special here. If slam is good, then responder maybe underbidding this one, as 4H is non-encouraging. Responder may feels under pressure with good supporting hand for hearts, being forced to rebid 2S and has no room to agree hearts below game. Imo, Kokish needs some works on responder's rebid and the continuation. Playing 2S meaningless puppet would make responder start to describe his hand at 3 level or higher, and it is a difficult task. A reasonable scheme (not recommended for casual partnership, or one that prefers simplicity at all costs): 2C-2D; 2H (hearts or big NT)-? 2S = default, usually balanced, may have long diamonds. 2NT = spades, (avoid wrong siding spades contract), denies 3H. 3C = clubs *Opener, holding hearts, can make his planned rebid (unless he plans to rebid 3C, then he can go for slam hunt here). If he is big balanced, then he can agree clubs or rebid NT. 3D = diamonds, with heart support (a hand with long diamond will not directly bid it, as it may rob opener of his 3C rebid) 3H = hearts support, together with spades. The exact requirements of strength is not listed here, and it is up to each partnership. I am not sure whether Kokish worths it trouble, however, I am quite sure that some additional works to expound this agreement would help as the toy is so space consuming.

I quite like this toy, though it is not without drawbacks. The main benefit over a standard forcing NT (or semi-forcing) is that responder can safely bid 1S (equivalent to 1NT forcing) with any weak 4S and would not get into a terrible 4-3 spades fit. Playing standard, opener may stretch to raise a standard 1S response on 3 trumps (a winning style, imo, it is much better than raise promising 4 trumps). The 4-4 spade fit can be uncovered efficiently as opener would rebid 1NT to show spades (a bit clarification here, i think 1NT shows less than a reverse, which is 11+-17-, as if medium 16-17 reverse 2S may get overboard easily). 1NT response promising 5S is also good, as it enables opener to raise with 3 trumps, even with 6 hearts. The drawbacks: 1. You lose the natural sequence of 1H-1S; 1NT. Opener can't show a balanced hand cheaply after the artificial 1NT response (he has to stall with 2C). 2. When responder is uninterested in spades, and only wants to know opener's minor length, he may not be pleased to hear a 1NT rebid over 1S: Holding x-xx-KJ10xx-Kxxxx, playing forcing NT, you may try 1NT response to 1H to force a preference of 2m by opener. No matter his distributions is 4=5=1=3 or 4=5=3=1, you can get to the best fit. Playing Granville, you would not like the 1NT rebid as you can't determine which minor to play. 3. Opponents may get in more easily over the 1S response (like doubling to show spade overcalls). All in all, it is a fine convention to play when you are unpassed hand. If you are passed hand, reverting to standard method may be better (you can stop in 1S with spade fit and min, and you need not rebid over 1NT with 4=5=2=2). A good question to ask is whether this toy is in play when responder is a passed hand.

I have played Cole for a while in my strong NT system. The rebids are more or less the same as outlined in the above post, a bit simplified to make it playable. The advantages are mainly that partnership can easily uncover their 5-3 majors fit when one exists, and escapes into 3m when there is only 4-3 fit. I think it is quite tricky to install this toy into a weak NT base system. Playing weak NT, opener can only rebid 1NT with extras, and he can't safely use a 1NT rebid as catch-all to handle those hands that he originally plans to rebid 2C, but he can no longer do so due to the adoptation of this toy. E.g. x-KJx-KJx-Axxxxx, has you opened 1C and hear a 1S response, you can't rebid natural 2C, nor can you try rebidding 1NT (extras), and you are stuck. You either have to rebid 2C then 3C, committing to 3 levels with weak C, or try opening an ugly weak NT as first bid. I guess you may encounter a system fix more frequently than a strong notrumper. Anyway, this toy is fun, and you may get a better grasp of it by reading Kit Woolsey or Steve Robinson, both of them are the leading US players who have tried this toy. Good luck!