laughter

You may try your technique of handling suit combinations, some of them are less well known and quite challenging: 1. K82 AJ1054 You are in 6NT, with plenty of entries to both hands. You need to play this one for 4 tricks to land your slam. 2. A5 Q10872 You cash your A and lead to dummy, all following small (no K, J or 9), Q or 10? (Oops, you need to play for 4 tricks here) 3. A52 K10876 Your play for 4 tricks with no entry restriction. 4. Q1076 K5 You are in a small slam, this is a side suit where LHO (the one over Q1076) has overcalled at 1 level. You have 10 tricks already and need to develop 2 tricks here. Plenty of entries and trumps are available. Sry, it is not a problem on endply. LHO has a safe exit that you can't eliminate. Hope you enjoy this one!

1NT-2C; 2 any-4NT is defined as natural quantatitive by most expert partnerships. Having found a trump fit, you first have to agree trump and then ask about keycards later. How to agree trumps and maintain the force? The easiest way is to play 3OM as artificial fit showing (of coz with slam interest) as you can't have a strong hand with 5+OM (start with Jacoby Transfer). This agreement is the basic tool to effective slam bidding. Regarding the actual hand, starting with Stayman to locate 4-4 fit, having found one, you can directly bid slam (no, you can't miss 2 aces, as an aceless 12 should be downgraded and not enough for opening). Just to play safe, you may try the approach mentioned above (set trump and ask later). If you only have 4S and slam values while opener replies in H, you may try the toy named 5NT pick-a-slam, showing a hand good enough for small slam and ask opener to pick the right one. Just for your information, 5NT in standard NT sequences traditionally suggest enough values for small slam and invites a grand. Thus: 1NT-5NT is NOT a stronger invitation than 4NT. Rather, it forces to 6NT and suggests 7 when opener is maximum. However, this usage is rare and the pick-a-slam meaning is much more important, imo. You have to agree with your partner what 5NT means, of coz. Happy bridging and may the force be with you!

Just want to start a series of post on Forcing NT. The first question is whether it should be forcing. The semi-forcing treatment seems to be gaining popularity as it becomes the default of BWS 2001. The merit of semi-F NT: 1. The partnership can stop in 1NT when opener is min, balanced and responder is also balanced (with or without extras). 2. Opener's rebid in minor is more likely to be 4 as he has the option of dropping 1NT. Responder, under pressure, may try to raise with only 4 trumps. However, there are quite a few drawbacks: 1. Responder can't safely use 1NT to escape to his long suit holding a weak one suiter. 2. Responder can't safely use 1NT to show different kind of major raises. Holding a distributional weak support hand like Kxx-x-xxxx-Jxxxx opposite 1S opening, he has to raise directly or risk playing 1NT when opener is min, bal. Also, the 1NT-then-jump- to-3M plan may not work with distributional 3 card limit raise. Playing semi-F 1NT, responder may have to improvise by upgrading a 11 distributional raises to FG, or making a heavy single raise. If he chooses to make a heavy single raise with some 11 while he may also raise with some 4 points (don't want to risk a 1NT bid), opener will have a headache. Danny Kleinman argues for playing 1NT as absolute F opposite 1S opener: 1. As responder has no opportunity to show weak distributional hands, 1NT response to 1S may be based just as easily on a weak distributional as a weak balanced hand, 1NT will seldom be the best contract. 2. Even when opener is balanced, the best contract is likely to be in responder's long suit, assuming 2/1 response has requirement of additional strengthes (not necessarily FG) 3. As opener usually has 5 spades, this provides some safety for responder can frequently make a preference bid on 2 when stuck. The case for 1NT-F opposite 1H opener is not as strong: 1. Responder can have length in 2 suits instead of 3, therefore more likely to have weak balanced hand. 1NT is moderately more likely to be the best contract (Note that opener can have 4S-5H and get stuck, while responder holds the minor) 2. However, the use of 1NT-F is still reasonable for those pairs that use beefed-up 2/1 responses. Just for the record, I like 1NT-F most as I can't stand those drawbacks of semi-F NT. Also, I dislike the ideas of including in 1NT-F a balanced FG hand like: AQx-Kx-Kxxx-Qxxx. As 1M-1NT; 2 any-3NT takes up all bidding room, I like it to be precisely defined as some kind of fit bids. However, I think the 1NT-then-jump-to-3NT approach works better than a 2/1 FG on such a weak suit as I strongly believe 2/1 should deliver reasonable suit. The real solution of balanced FG may be to play 2NT natural and trash the Jacoby 2NT. Any comments welcome!

Obvious Shift is the suit that the defender wants to attack once third hand discourages the opening lead. The definition of Obvious Shift varies with different partnership. Normally, it is the weakest suit in dummy, or it is the defender's suit. Usually the trump and side suit void (singleton) in dummy is excluded from consideration, also excluded is the 'super-strong' holding like AKQ/KQJ. Declarer's 2nd suit may not be considered as Obvious Shift if there is another plausible alternative. Having a firm understanding of which suit is Obvious Shift, the discouraging signal at trick one would have an undertone of encouraging shift to the Obvious Shift. If you are weak in the Obvious Shift and fear that a trick may be lost if partner shift to it, then perhaps you get to encourage at trick one (I don't like a shift) For more, try this link: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...viousShift.html

3S promising hearts stopper while asking for spades stop is a very nice inferencial bid. Still, I consider a rebid of 3NT be routine when opener holds a good hand with heart stopper. The danger of spade is quite remote here. In competitive bidding, the main stopper concern should be placed to opponent's suit. Therefore, opener, sure that we can work out he fails to bid 3NT because of a lack of stopper, can try to pinpoint his side suit strength with 3S. I guess 3S is consistent with something like: AQxx-xx-Ax-Axxxx Anyway, a firm agreement is MUCH better than an educated guess. It seems to be worth the while to discuss the meaning of various three level bids below 3NT in competition with your regular partner.

It seems that you guys don't like the idea, coz its frequency is not high. However, the Granovetters claims that frequency is one of the plusses of this style as you can open a normal decent weak two with this style, plus some weird hands that you hate to pass but fear that an opening of one bid may mislead partner about high card strength. In other words, you can open more than the standard weak two players. Btw, Mike, i think you are right that a three bid should be very light (probably deny any defence), may be made on some mininum weak two without a defensive trick.

I recently subscribed to Bridge Today and heard a great deal about this style of weak 2. The Granovetters just love this style: 2D/2M shows 6+ suit, good hand, not enough HCPs for one level opening (which means 13+). It promises at least 1 defensive trick, and opener may bid freely in competition. I think they can open this toy with something like: AKxxxxx-Kxx-xx-x KJxxxx-x-AQxx-xx Many light one level opening will be opened 2 playing this style. Anyone has tried this style? It seems to me quite the opposite of the super light free-style preempts that are prevailing nowadays.

4C. I can't think of another sensible alternative here. 3NT is impossible without heart stopper. I don't want to suggest spade contract when partner may be forced early in hearts. Having bid 3C, I have already shown a hand that strong, and I am now taking a regressive bid.

Switch may be good when you hold hearts (though the unlimited nature of 2C can still hurt). But you will hate the method when you hold good hand with C and have to bid 2H: AQ972-AQ83-965-3 You open 1S, facing a response of 2H (good hand C), forced to rebid 2S. Responder now forces with 3H, and you try a raise to 4H. 1S-2H; 2S-3H; 4H Responder may have good hand and get stuck, having to rebid his strength at 3 levels. In other word, his 3H may not be genuine and you are at 4 level and unsure of the trump fit. The partneship will have a hard time to find their fit in heart or diamond. If you play standard method, 1S-2C; 2D/2H Opener can show his suit easily at 2 level and responder also has lots of options to investigate strains and levels. When you have heart, you may not need too much bidding room as you can go beyond 3NT safely with heart fit. When you have club, you need more bidding room (below 3NT) to investigate 3NT and other strains. Imo, the switch may not perform as well as standard given the inefficiency of 2H responses, and the not-well-defined nature of 2C. However, it can definitely lead to good game in 4H missed by standard bidders.

I guess opener's 1S bid present difficult problem for a responder holding hearts. Transfer response enables responder to show his suit more easily and stop at two level. But the light requirement of 2D may backfire: AKJxx-x-xx-AKxxx 1S-2D; ? If responder shows hearts (quite wide ranging) with 2D bid, you may not be able to show your club (3C should be FG). A forcing NT enables opener to bid his hand more easily here. Also, you lose out the advantage of 2/1FG as 1S-2D; 2H/2S-? Responder may have to rebid 2NT to show 11-12 inv, and have to cramp the bidding with a jump to 3NT holding 13-15 balanced 5H. While 2D transfer definitely has advantages, I don't think using it on all sort of hand containing hearts is good idea; after all, if opener can't fit hearts, the partnership can easily get overboard.

If I try to ruff in hand, I have to ruff twice to bring the total to 13 (5 trumps, 2 heart ruffs, 4 diamonds, 2 hearts). I also need to return to table after ruff and play out my high trumps (assuming 3-1 breaks in trump). Therefore, I need 3 table entries, 1 is HA, the other 2 must be diamonds. The risks of being ruffed in diamonds (4-1 breaks, or the one with short H can pitch D and ruff later) is quite high. How about ruffing in table? I need 3 ruff in table, one is given by the lead. I just have to cross to HK, take another ruff, DA and the third ruff. Then draw trumps, play DK, if LHO starts with 4D, I can still ruff H to enter hand to take the D finesse. Seems to me a very reasonable line. The only worry is the double by RHO. Is he void in D?

I learnt that some expert partnerships play: 1S-1NT; 2C = Usually 3+, but maybe 5=3=3=2. 2D = Promise at least 4. Usually they also play some sort of Bart where 2D rebid over 2C is artificial. While this style allows responder to use Bart more frequently, but what if he has BOTH minors, like 1=3=5=4? He can't pass 2C confidently (opener can have only 2), and 2D is not a choice as it is artificial. My question is whether 2C rebid promises only 2+ a really playable style? And what do you think of the plus and minus of an artificial rebid of Bart?

Takeout Double is not the solution to every strong hand. Say you have: Ax-xx-KJx-AQxxxx Do you want to double and hear advancer bid heart? I think double to show stronger hand while overcall is limited to weak hand is a style that was long gone....

I think Paul is right in his analysis of the danger of C duck. A spade through is much more dangerous than a club return, as you have only 8 tricks in form of 2 spades, 1 heart and 5 clubs, while they are already establishing their fifth. The self squeeze defence is not going to work as declarer can painlessly pitch diamonds (and 2 idle hearts) from hand while the opponents cannot safely attack the diamonds without establishing the ninth trick there. I think heart play at trick 2 is clear. Btw, can someone explain why a play of H9 is better than HQ? I think it is quite likely for RHO to hold the HK and the lead of HQ can't lose.

Psych overcall is a dubious practice as it misleads partner more than misleading opponents. Overcaller may be light Fav in MP, but it is not particularly indicated. As the 2C overcall consumes no bidding space, it is unlikely to be a tactical nuisance bid. Overcaller should have his bid. Btw, if you 'protect' by passing here, how can the partnership bid constructively as your LHO may have opened light and overcaller is unlimited?

I can't agree to the argument for 2D/2H being Fit Non Jump. Surely it depends on partnership style that a passed hand can or cannot have a suit worthy of bidding freely at two level. Suppose it is normal for one to pass in first seat with xxx-AQJxx-xxxx-x (Weak 2 promises 6) Can't he back in with a 2H (NF, real suit) after the 2C overcall? An important guiding principle for bidding should be: 'If a bid can be logically interpreted as natural, then it is natural.' You can usually survive without a FSNJ. Like here you can show club fit with a raise or cuebid, and later shows your values should overcaller be interested in game. I also object to 3C. Being a maximum passed hand, 3C is quite an underbid, frequently leading to missed game. Even in MP, you should bid game when you have decent values and fits 2NT may NOT lead to a correction to club when overcaller is distributional: xx-AKx-x-AQxxxxx Overcaller would just raise to 3NT, trusting that you will provide the spade stop and he will provide the tricks. Would Opener lead other suits with AKQxx in spades? He may trust his eyesight more than his opponent's bidding. All in all, a cue bid showing fit and values seems better than its alternatives.

Good points. I have not yet thought about the possibilities of giving opener's side extra sequences. But I don't know whether it is really that technically poor. Opponents usually just play system on over artificial 2C or double. Very few partnership would be so thoughtful to assign specific meaning to pass and bid. Pass and balance later is not without risk either. As advancer is armed with the knowledge of overcaller's minor, he may preemptively raise to 3m, forcing responder to guess at 3 level. Anyway, I guess you are right that competitive bidding vs NT should focus more on major, and I also like Lionel (or as I call it, Grano-Astro). I just try to introduce a variation of Meckwell that is less well known but probably better.

A NT defense that I learnt from Garner-Weinstein, which is very similiar to Meckwell, yet I consider it superior: (1NT)- Dbl = C + M 2C = D + M 2D = Both Ms 2M = Natural Comparing with Meckwell, which use Dbl to show both Ms or either m, 2m to show m + M, this method has two advantages: 1) Using double and 2C to show the above minor and unspecified major creates additional sequences for the overcaller. If it is played forcing, then overcaller can describe a strong major minor 2 suiter easily, without fear of being dropped in 2m. 2) Directly mentioning both majors can help competitive bidding, preventing your side from being 'stolen blind'. Try bidding this hand using Meckwell: N/Nil, IMPs N E S W 1NT* Dbl 3C** ? *Weak, 12-14 **Natural You holds: AQ8-97632-8-K732 If partner holds both Ms, it is obviously right for you to compete, but what if pard holds D? The ambuguity can hurt at times. The drawback is you can't intervene with minor one suiter at two level, but it is arguable that overcalling at two level with lower ranking minor is counter-productive as opponents can outbid you with majors or double you for penalty. Maybe it is better to force them guess at 3 level with a jump overcall of 3m. Comments welcome!

I agree with Helen. The choice of opening depends partly on your system of responses. As the bidding sequences available after 1C opening is the double of 1D opening, the scope of conventional responses is much larger. If you play some sort of transfer responses to 1C, you will get a higher incentive to play option 4, opening 1C whenever possible. But the obvious cost of ambuguity usually hurts only in contested auction. In uncontested auctions, the short club bidder should try to rebid 1NT to describe balanced nature, even bypassing 4 card major. Thus, when he rebids a suit after opening 1C, he shows genuine C.

I was browsing through those 'what the best conventions' and 'what the best NT defences'. Many posters just posted their favorite methods and made some obvious comments like this bid can describe such and such. Obviously a good way of boosting. Hardly illuminating though. While one may have great success playing his favorite, perhaps some more analysis of the methods' advantages over others and these methods' costs can be added to enrich our understanding of bidding. Sorry for just posting a message without clarifying my intent. I want to ask how you guys evaluate your conventions and come out with the conclusion that this is the best.

Playing Kokish, maybe you should consider the popular version 2H rebid shows balanced FG and unlimited. If you play this style (unlimited rebid, opener plan to make strong bids to show extras) the bidding can be: 2C 2D 2H 2S 2NT 3S(1) 4D(2) 4H(3) 5C(4) 5H(5) 5NT(6) 7NT(7) Pass Slam bidding requires some good partnership agreements: (1) System on: 3S shows both minors. (2) Agree D. A sensible agreement to have is when Super Strong hand make a forcing agreement, it is also an RKB ask. (3) 1430. It shows 1 Keycard (both minor K should be counted) (4) A Specific Suit Ask in C. Opener is interested in grand. (5) You may play a raise to show QJ as you have denied the CK. Lacking such agreement, you can try 5H (the first step), promising third round C control. (6) Obviously an invitation to grand. (7) Holding an extra C plus the CJ, 7NT should have decent play.

Let start with a quote of Michael Rosenberg: 'What is the purpose of bidding? To arrive at the best contract, yes. But what is the best contract? The one that will produce the best result on average - in practice. When the bidding is over, you should then be sorry about every piece of accurate information you have provided - only the opponents can benefit now... Even a convention such as Stayman, which most players view as essential, seems to me to be of doubtful value on balanced hands. Most of the time you will not uncover a fit (especially when you only have one major), and when you do your result may not be superior. When you don't (you give away information of the concealed hand)(and allows the opponent to come in)' It teaches me that you can't just evaluate a convention based on its performance in handling the problem hands. With added efficiency to the convention, there are added costs like unnecessary information provided to opponents (since you get to explore), memory burden, damaged structures (as you have to use the originally available sequences for artificial purpose). An antedote that is very funny (yet revealing): 'The expert relayed for many rounds, discovering the exact distribution and high card content of partner's hand, and discovered the best spot: 3NT. Alas, he can't bid it as the bidding is now at 4S.' Therefore, when we are discussing 'what is the best convention', maybe it is fair to state your own evaluation criteria. If you value highly concealment and bidding economy, maybe the best to you is different from Meckwell.

1) I think a good pard should not make a non-systemic bid like this one. If he has, then it must be logical with common meanings: a. He doesn't like to play 3NT, yet he tries to sign off after 2H (assuming the cue bid doen't promise rebid). b. Following a; his hand should be limited in strength (therefore a sign off), and highly distributional (therefore pulling 3NT). c. Following b; Then he is trying to pinpoint some important features of his hand. d. Is it a heart void? A good argument against it has been posted by Ben (void may not be useful opposite advancer's heart values) . Yet I don't think pard can be short in black suit. If he is in the mood of trying somethings ingenius, can't he bid his short suit at 4 levels? I would not take 4S as natural (having bypassed 2S after cuebid), 4C natural also makes little sense (same reason, his 3D rebid is space consuming and should not have 2nd suit). I would interpret 4H as a cue bid showing H control, (I can't be much wrong here). I guess it is void (Ben's argument is sensible, but we all know that those scientific bidders like to bid out their shape even to their disadvantage) 2) Just depends on the meaning of 2S. If it is fit non jump, then I object to the bidding (pard will bury you in D). If it is F and Nat, the bidding is very sensible. Pulling 3NT with a useful HK (as stop) and solid values for game needs sound justification. I would redouble here, assuring pard that 3NT is a good spot. As for the side question, I have no regular partnership, therefore I can just give my own view: 1) Fit Non Jump is useful only when you don't need the bid natural. Imo, if a bid can be natural, then it should be interpreted as natural. Here, playing FNJ will make describing your hand much more difficult. So my view is NO! Definitely NOT a FNJ! 2) Cue bidding in opponent suit is a way to show offensive values with no clear bid. Since you can force with new suit, it shows either a hand that have great diamond support (Cuebidding first, supporting D next to create a force) OR an attempt to get to 3NT. 3) Most experts play that when the opponents double your contract for penalty, a pass in direct seat shows doubt, allowing a runout, and redouble shows assurance. In passout seat (partner has passed to show some doubt), of course you can't play pass showing doubt as it is final, therefore redouble shows doubt and pass is to play. To sum up, redouble is to play in direct seat, semi-SOS in passout seat. *Imo, this 'pass-redouble' manuver is a way to win in post-moderm, you'd better run if you really hate to land in the doubled contract. Sorry I can't use the "Quote" function properly. Otherwise, the message will be more readable.

1) How do you handle the GF opening? Playing all two level openings weak, you have to play a. Swedish/Polish 1C (i.e. C / some kind of bal / strong, art) b. Wide range 1 level opening (opening 1S is forcing, can be made on FG hand) b. is played by Nunes and Fatoni. All these treatments have their own drawback (The Nebulous 1C attracts competition; the wide range opening made responses and continuations difficult). 2) 2C opening (3 suited C, weak) can be quite useful as a preempt when it comes up. But it must be a rare occurance (Weak + 3 suiter, a 2-legged parlay). 3) A word about the presumed fit preempt (2C/2D): a. It may get punished severely when partner doesn't have the presumed fit. b. When opponents buy the contract, they have free information about distribution and can play the hand better. 4) About the NT bidding: a. Playing 10-13 means that you have to open 1m with all 14+, you have to open short minors much more frequently than weak or strong notrumpers. Opening short minor is not desirable as responder may not be able to judge the hand in competition. b. You don't need to play 2-point range at 1 levels. There are enough bidding room to clarify. A 3 point range may be more efficient as it releases more bidding sequences. 5) About 2NT opening: Oops. I now see that it is the systemic strong bid. Well, you just cannot handle the strong bid when you have the weak possibility and get to clarify at 3 level. Eric Kokish has expressed his doubt about the systemic efficiency of the Dutch system where 2C is either strong or weak with D (and some God Know What hands). He said that as pass can't be played as forcing opposite the 2C opening, the strong hand would be difficult to sort out in high level competition. If 2C (a much lower bid than 2NT) is not very playable as Strong or Weak, the 2NT opening is definitely unplayable (Sorry to be that frank)

A rough calculation comparing 2 lines (lead low to 8 or lead low to 10): Assuming 3-3 breaks (20 combinations, 35.5% chances): Lead low and cover RHO works in the following cases: a) Hxx (left) HJ9 (right) (2 combinations) :) AKx (left) J9x (right) (2 combinatins) Lead low to 10 works in a) but fails in b. It also works when: c) H9x (left) HJx (right) (4 combinations) Ah! I almost forget to include d) 9xx (left) AKJ (right). Of coz, anyone can pick this up. Leading low to 10 works for 2 more 3-3 combinations. Assuming 4-2 breaks (30 combinations, 48 % chances): Lead low and cover RHO works when: a) Hx (left) HJ9x (right) (4 combinations) Oops! You have only 2 entries and can not lead toward your hand thrice. The entry restriction makes you unable to pick this one up. You can just pick up: :) xx (left) AKJ9(right) (1 combination) Not very good. Lead low to 10 works in b plus: c) H9 (left) HJxx (right) (2 combinations) Oops! wrong again. RHO holds HJ76 and you need to lead from dummy a third time to neutralize the power of his spot. You can't pick this one up. Two lines works equally when the suit is 4-2. I guess it is now clear that leading low to 10 works better (just ignore those 5-1/6-0 as you probably can't pick them up with only 2 entries). What does all these analysis prove? It prove that: a) I am poor at counting combinations and permutations. B) due to entry restriction, you can't deal with 4-2 break effectively. Since you can't deal with 4-2 breaks, you must concentrate on 3-3 and leading low to 10 stands out a mile when you a) want to take 2 tricks OR B) want to maximize your tricks.