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!

OK, I can also live with occasional system fix. As opener cannot rebid 1NT freely here, sometimes he can't pick the right strain as other systems permit (I read that 1C-1S*; 1NT may be min 4=3=1=5, or similar). Imo, this drawback is more than compensated by the fact that opener has always guranteed his suit as real or he has extra high cards. This fact can encourage responder to better judge the competitive auctions as he knows that opener can't have the dreaded weak NT and bad C. Giving up the inverted raise to play 1C-2C NF also seems to be a good idea as it allows responder to describe his minor suit length with more accuracy holding min strength. But maybe a 1NT response to show the same kind of hand is even better. (allowing opener to drop it holding str NT and weak C) Anyway, it is better for responder to show something about his minor than just denying his major, as opener can't freely retreat to 1NT and be forced to pick 2m. Maybe transfer responses are optimal for a strong NT system where opener can freely rebid 1NT with minimum hand.

I guess a pass is right opposite an aggressive preemptor. But even the most agressive one would just open 4H with: xx-KQJ10xxx-xx-xx And of course he will not consider Namyats with this hand. So the Namyats argument doesn't hold much water. If your style is to deliver reasonable trumps (suit quality of 10) for game bid, then a slam try (I prefer 5H) is quite justified. Still, I think his hearts may be scary (this preempt is not for faint hearted), and I would pass and pray (hope not to make two overtricks). Btw, if he plays 4H-1, it is time for him to go more conservative in the future.

Thanks all for help! It seems that 1S response as a transfer into NT is quite popular. But there may be a hidden trap for my system. My style is to play weak NT, and use the 1C opening to handle strong NT. 1NT rebid here should promise extras. So opener can't accept the transfer into NT and is forced to rebid minor at two level. When responder's exact minor suit length is unknown, opener has to guess the best fit in dark. He may be sure of a fit as responder probably has at least 7 minor cards but it is quite hard for him to find it. How do you find your minor fit when playing transfer methods?

I partly agree with Paul here. To derive full benefit from this concept requires very hard work and detailed partnership discussion. It is probably beyond the scope of a beginner/intermediate. However, the core essence of this carding is to think about the whole hand before giving attitude on single suit. This kind of thinking definitely helps your defence, no matter your stage of experience.

Helene makes very good points for the drawbacks of making a 1NT responses on weak one suiter. If you dislike responding 1NT, possibly wrong siding future game in 3NT, perhaps WJS is for you. Pre-modern experts like to show their suit at two levels, even without any extras. A Culbertson 2H response to 1S is: 62-KQJ52-K75-632 (The Gold Book) The arguments for light two over one is you may lose your suit if you don't show it now, however, the partnership can easily get overboard when responder is unlimited. Imo, light two over one works best in conjunction with weak NT. Here, you can rebid 2NT after 2/1 to show 15+, establishing a FG. If opener has the tendency of passing 1NT response, maybe a standard approach where 2/1 promises some extras but does't force to game should be played. As responder hates to bid 1NT with 6+H, while a 2H (or transfer) consumes bidding space, making game and slam bidding more difficult later, a jump to 3H shows long hearts and fair hand may be the best way out.

Recently engaged in designing transfer responses to 1C opening: 1C*-? *Genuine suit (5+ or 4-4-4-1) OR 16-18 balanced (can be 5D-2C) 1D = Transfer, 4+H, same as a Walsh 1H (may have longer D) 1H = Transfer, 4+S, ditto. 1S = ?? 2 options here: 1. Catchall: Enough strength to respond, denies 4M, non-specific m lengths. 2. Transfer to D: 4+D, if less than FG, denying 4M. May have 4M with FG hand?? 1NT =?? If 1S is played as 2, then it is a non-forcing transfer to C, 4+C, 5-8. If 1S is played as 1, then it is an idle bid, perhaps a weak Ms 2 suiters. 2C = Inverted minor raises, 4+C with enough for game opp strong NT. 2D higher = ?? Thinking about 2 way jump shift: Either a SJS in suit bid or weak in one higher (Zia and Rosenberg play this toy) Just want to hear your opinions on the meaning of 1S and jump-shifts. Thanks in advance!

Some of the arguments for Trent (adopted from Granovetters): 1. When you show a fair hand with at least 6 card suit, responder can easily compete for the part score with some 2 card support and high cards. 2. Responder may be able to penalise the opponents effectively, counting on opener to have some defence. 3. You are not likely to go for a numbers playing this style. 4. While you may hate to pass with extra offense and weird distribution, your hand may not be suitable for opening one (less than 10 Hcps, subminimum defense), or suitable for 3 level preempts (you have side values and your suit is thin) a two level opening and free bid later would be the perfect description. 5. Opening light one bid at two level has the advantages of immediately showing your long suit and limited values, forcing opponents to guess at higher level. You will not feel uneasy when partner later produces a penalty double. In spite of the above arguments, I don't think this style will ever be popular as we all like to open on tram tickets and get into the auctions as frequently as possible.

To suppliment Free's point of encouraging signal at trick one: 1. A high spot usually suggests continuation of the suit or dislike of obvious switch. 2. An encouraging signal DOES NOT encourage the shift to third suit. 3. To encourage an unusual shift, you need to play a high honor (unusual ask for unusual) or play your cards in unusual sequences (first high encourage, then a higher to cancel the previous encouraging meaning)

Perhaps you are too young, helene. As the title suggests, this hand comes from the distant past when the forcing raise is prevailing. Though I doubt whether those players of past generation would force with only 11 Hcps, unless their style of opening is sound.

A nice point of hand evaluation. The hand is flawed in 2 ways: 1. The flat shape (which is bad for NT and even worse for suit play) 2. Lack of aces. However, you have nice fitting honors and trump fits, and all your kings are working (kings are better than quacks in side suit). A good tips for hand evaluation: Consider how much worse can you have for your planned bid: You may raise to 2C just holding: xx-xxx-xxx-KQxxx Since you have 2 extra kings here, a 3C bid seems justified. Though if 3C is forcing, the partneship can easily get overboard unless the opening style is sound.