Wackojack

Yes an ominous hand where I think this is a pure guess. Partner is bidding like he has 5 spades and 4 clubs with 10 or 11 points. Opps have not overcalled and partner did not try 2NT so likely has 3 small. So possibly: AKxxx, xxx, x, Kxxx and 3NT a likely make. OR KJxxx, xxx, x, AKxx OR KJxxx, Qxx, x, AJxx where there is not much hope for 3NT. Nevertheless, partner made a game try and I have a very good hand for my minimum rebid so I am going for 3NT.

Thinking aloud! Partner did not make a take-out double of 1♥ therefore does not have 4 spades. Partner did not rebid 1NT or 2♦and yet must be strong to double for penalties opposite a hand with 0-4 points. Possibilities: 1. Partner has 19+ points with a 3253 distribution with no stop in hearts, so could not rebid 1NT. 2. Partner has a 1444 distribution. This would mean that LHO has a void in hearts and something like 12 points and was trying to improve the contract. Why not bid 2NT after partner's 1♥ overcall then? Why did partner double? With a likely 18 or 19 we have to assume it is lead directing and discouraging a diamond lead. So I have to go for possibility 2. A lead of a spade or a club is out and we have to believe partner and not the oppenents so I lead 4♥. This could be spectacularly wrong.

I suspect not 1354. If partner was slamming with 1354 he would next cue 4♠, it also give opps a 9 card spade fit that has not been raised. So I suspect 3♥ was a manouvre to find out if I could bid 3NT. I would also have bid 4♥ without a spade stop, telling partner I am prepared to play in a 4-3 fit. So when I could not, bid 3NT, he settled for 5♦. So probably 2254 and I pass. Have I got it wrong twice also?

It is very unusual to play a double for penalty in this position. However, with this agreement clearly North is is nowhere strong enough to make that bid. So pass with this min opener and await developments. Partner will often have enough to make another bid. Much better to make a double in this position for take out or playing it as a "support double" The only occasion that North could double with a min hand is when you are playing support doubles showing 3 card spade support.

Thanks for all you comments. I have gone to this trouble because this is a partnership we are trying to establish. 1NT: 15-17 I get at least some blame from most posters for this bid. From now on I will make it a rule that with 2254, I will not open 1NT unless I have at least a top honour in the doubletons. That looks like a reasonable dividing line between the risk of missing 3NT and not finding a minor suit fit if opponents overcall in the majors. How about 2245 though? Unless the club suit is very good and the majors useless would I ever consider opening 1♣? Even then would I really want to rebid 2♣? And as for opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣, that is just not my style. How about 2452 and 2425? I don’t think I would ever consider opening this with a minor in the 15-17 range unless I upgrade a good 17 to 18. (2♣)- ? I am persuaded by the posters that a double over an artificial overcall should just show general values and with this agreement a double would have been the best bid. And it was this agreement that was mainly to blame for the bad outcome. We do play Lebensohl over intervention so 2NT would be a request to bid 3♣. But partner obviously did not have any of the types of hand for this bid 1NT-(2♣) - pass- (2♥)-? Quote gnasher “I'd have opened 1♦, though your point about what you'd do with a 2245 shape is valid. Having opened 1NT, I'd have had another go over 2♥. Presumably 2♠ and 2NT would both show the minors, distinguishing the lengths in some way that no one has discussed” I think that without agreement 2♠ would have to be natural and 2NT would be asking partner to bid the best minor Quote rogerclee “You absolutely cannot pass 2H with this, you had the easiest double ever assuming 2C was the majors. Even if you don't want to double, you have to bid 2N, even 3D is better than pass.” Yes I think now that I should have taken some actions over 2♥ after my off shape 1NT opening although there are significant risks. The obvious bid is double but if partner bids 2♠, I suppose I have to next bid 2NT. Partner, I hope would get the message to bid his best minor. 1NT-(2♣) - pass- (2♥) Pass-(3♥) - double Obviously we have no agreement here. You never get agreements this deep into the auction even with an established partnership until something like this happens. Opponents were an expert but pick-up partnership so 3♥ one can assume to be invitational. I cannot blame my partner now, he is on a hiding to nothing whatever he does.

My link http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=pn|roma112,ria MM,wackojack,carrott|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S256KHTJD679TC34A%2CS38H4678D45C2568T%2CS79H3AD28JQKC7JQK%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%205%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C15-17%7Cmb%7C2C%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%7Cmb%7Cd%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cmc%7C9%7C First of all sorry, I do not know how to enlarge the media inserted. Here are my thoughts on this disaster. Comments please. 1NT: 15-17 I had a similar hand in the London swiss pairs a few days earlier except that all the high cards were in the minors, so I opened 1♦ and we finished in a part score in diamonds fo a good result. This time I thought that opening 1NT was better. I didn't want to languish in 2♦ if partner had a 9 or 10 count with good cards in the majors. Obviously as the cards lie opening 1♦ would have worked better. (2♣)- pass We had agreed that double of an artificial bid over 1NT showed values and some strength in that suit. So it seems right to pass and await developments. (2♥)-pass-(3♥)- double We have 23-25 HCP between us, so what else can partner do? 3NT looks like the only poor alternative. pass Should I leave the double in or bid 4♦? Have I been fixed by my failure to open 1♦. Aside comment: Reverse my clubs and diamond suits, then surely it is a no brainer to open 1NT.

I assume you superaccept with step 2, (Qxx or better?). Could you give chapter and verse on why this is better than superaccept with step 1?

I think everything that should have been said has already been said, but in a haphazard sort of way. So here I try to put it all together neatly. Trump suit only considered 3-3 break 35.5% 4-2 break = 48.5%. This will be Jx either side 1/3 of the time = 16.2% Playing for the drop = 51.7% Finesse = 0.5 of 3-3 +4-2 breaks = 42% So play for the drop gives you about 10% more chance of success than finesse. Play for the drop additional chance When RHO has (3♥ or ♥Jx) and ♠Jxxx, then you get discard of 2 diamonds. The exact chance of this is incalculable as you have to assume the opps distribution in ♣cs. This is subjective and conditioned by the opps ability and temperament. My rough estimation would be about 7%. So overall chance of success about 59%. Trump finesse additional chance You take the finesse and lose but RHO does not return a diamond. Tiny chance I think. So the odds clearly favour playing for the drop in spades. I hope this has covered all angles.

Interesting that you should say this. The original devised by my partner was 2♥ = 5+ ♥ & 5+ another; and 2♠=5+♠& 5+minor or 6 ♠+5 ♥ and max/min with precise shape after 2N enquiry. Then he changed it to the way it is now with slightly easier to remember system of responses. This was not prompted by me. The 9-14 range is about as large as practical for reasonable accuracy. So 15+ you open 1♣ and 0-8 you pass. It also means that 1M-2y-2z and z has to be a 4 card suit and is never 5.

Thanks for all your contributions. My post was to give you my experience in comparing a standard system to a strong club system in general. The strong club system that I play has the following opening bids: Pass Usually 0-9 1♣ 17+ points, any shape, forcing 1♦ 10-13 balanced 1♥ 10-16, 5+ ♥ or 13-16, 4441 1♠ 10-16, 5+ ♠ or 13-16, 4144 (1♥) 1N 14-16 balanced 2♣♦ 11-16, 6+ cards or 5m431/440 2♥ 9-14, 5-5+ ♥ & a minor (or 6 ♥ and 5 ♠, 8-13) 2♠ 9-14, 5-5+ ♠ & another 2N 9-14, 5-5+ minors . Open lighter if more playing strength. My partner who is a "system nut" devised this system wanting to open as light and as often as feasible. Its evolution has been a continuous iteration with partner suggesting alternatives following my objections. I have learned to live with the 1♦ opening bid (the most common)and now quite like it. The 2♣ and 2♦ opening bids make me feel insecure, but I think their destructive effect on the opponents just about compensates for the possibility of missing major suit fits when there is no intervention. Opening 1M with a 4441 distribution is playable when the rebids define this. Intervention over 1♣ has been worked out in detail, but is an extra memory load. At present partner has suggested certain changes that increase the right-siding chances, following my grumbling about wrong siding. There is some stuff to look at on this in the "non natural system forum" and I was thinking that I might make a post there soon.

I have learned and play with one partner a strong club system (precisionish). So far these are my feelings about its comparison with a standard naturalish system. Advantages: Can open lighter and thus more easily compete. So for part score hands I like it. More bidding room and thus greater possibility for precision for slam bidding in uncontested auctions. Disadvantages: You need to work out very carefully what to do when 1club is overcalled. I found it needed a few pages of agreements specific to the strong club system. Even after doing this opening a strong club is an open invitation for the opponents to pre-empt, sometimes the first opportunity to show a suit is at the 4 level. Unless you add a layer of complexity, wrong siding of contracts is more likely. You have to learn complex bidding tools specific to a strong club system to take advantage of the possibility for greater precision with big hands. Will I discover more advantages/ disadvantages as I continue? At present I feel much more comfortable with a standard system.

Bid 4♥. You could call it Bergen plus where 3♦ is either invitational or a marginal raise to 4 and lose nothing. Then J2N becomes a comfortable game force which would encourage partner with slam interest.

Thanks Justin, I am almost convinced that a take-out double is better than penalty. Although if say, most leading players told me the opposite, would my opinion sway the other way? I am not sure. You seem to be saying that you should excercise caution when thinking of making a take-out double and I suppose that is self evident. However, the more perfect the shape (and strength)you have to have in the either position before you double for take-out, the less opportunities you get for penalties when your partner does have a penalty double type hand or a part score when your partner has a less than perfect take-out hand. So it all comes down to judging how good your odds of success are. I hope my judgement is up to it.

I know that most experts play a double of an overcall of 1NT by partner is for take-out. At present I play it for penalties with all of my partners but now 2 of them have asked me to think about playing it for take-out. (We do play Lebensohl) I know this has been discussed some years ago in the forum but I cannot find it. We play 15-17 and 14-16 no-trump respectively but I am not sure that the 1NT opening level is a factor. Thinking aloud: After 1NT-(2♠)- p-p-? It would seem to me that there is virtually no upside to making a take-out double here. At worst it could be like this: ♠ K5 ♥ QJ82 ♦ AK87 ♣ J109 ♠ Q432 ♥ 765 ♦ 654 ♣ 876 1NT-(2♠) –pass-pass Dbl -pass-? 2♠ doubled is almost certainly going to make easily and you are a sitting duck if you try to scramble at the 3 level. OTOH after 1NT-(2♣)–p-p where 2♣ is natural, whether or not with another suit, a take-out double in this position with a doubleton club does seem to have some merit. After 1NT-(2♠)-? Things could still go wrong even if the hand looks good for a take out double. ♠ QJ82 ♥ K5 ♦ J109 ♣ AK87 ♠ 32 ♥ A765 ♦ Q542 ♣ 876 1NT-(2♠) –p-p Dbl – p-3♣ OK 2♠ doubled might well go one off but it still looks risky and 3♣ is likely 2 off. OTOH if the overcall is 2♣ where 2♣ is natural there seems to be little downside in making double for take-out and the upside is obvious. So my questions are: 1. What does forum do in each position? 2. To what level? 3. What constraints in shape? 4. And most importantly opinions on the upside and downside of doing it?

Our system without intervention was limit raise to 3 and Jacoby 2NT game force and jump fits. We had not discussed fully how this changes when there is an overcall except that lowest cue = 3 card support and 2NT = 4 card support. I assume from this that a raise to 2M would likely be a 3 card suit and a raise to 3 would be a mixed raise. If so the south hand qualifies for a raise to 3♥. Does this strengthen the case for pulling the double? Yes I think so, but I could still construct hands where neither 4♠ or 5♥can make. Had the opps route to 4♠ been bid and support, then the it would have been much clearer, but when 1 opp does it in 2 bites with the other saying nothing, it is not so clear to me.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=pn|roma112,friiziNew,Wackojack,ace37|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S267H456JD29C8JKA%2CS4JH39TD46JKC37TQ%2CS9H278QKAD378TQC5%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%2020%7Csv%7Cb%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1H%7Cmb%7C1S%7Cmb%7C2H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4H%7Cmb%7C4S%7Cmb%7Cd%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cmc%7C10%7C "I find these competitive situations at the 5 level very difficult especially when the opps have bid rather peculiarly. Maybe I should pull the double, but I am not totally convinced that T should. As the cards lie we go 1 off in 5H and because of hearts void in the east hand they make 4S. However suppose hearts were split 2-1 instead of 3-0 which is not unreasonable. Then 4S x goes off, and 5H becomes a phantom sacrifice. On 2nd thoughts suppose you swap your clubs and diamonds, then 5H would be a make and 4S would almost ceratainly make also. So yes I think I was wrong not to pull the double" This was my email to my partner the next day. Do my comments make sense or not?

A friend of mine as a young man invented a variable forcing pass system and then gave up playing for about 20 years because he could not legally play his brainchild. A couple of years ago we agreed to try out his system on BBO. I managed to persuade a few known opponents to play against us ranging from half decent to expert. I recorded our results on XL including a par comparison. We played 376 hands and the results are a below The forcing pass record to 30 March 2010 Hands played 376 Imps per hand from start Total 0.33 As Declarer 0.41 As Defenders 0.23 Contested auctions we played 32% Contested auctions opponents played 32% Uncontested auctions we played 22% Uncontested auctions opponents played 14% Par comparison 0.44 A chart showed that our imps average and par comparison after 100 hands were both exactly zero. After that time the average of both increased progressively except that the par comparison had a greater variance than the actual imp average. My initial thought was that the par comparison variance is higher because of the nature of the imp scoring so that would explain par comparison being about 25% higher. But I have yet to think that through in detail. Lets take a theoretical situation where both we and our opponents will in an uncontested auction bid to par (more or less). Also let us say that the field over the long run will be equally below par in both directions. Then any difference between the par and actual imps would be in the effectiveness or otherwise of the destructive bidding of each partnership. Thus if the imp average of the partnership was significantly higher than the par average, it could indicate that their destructice bidding was outbidding par. I could get evidence of this (or otherwise)from the results if motivated.

[hv=pc=n&w=sat852haj87d2cakt&e=sq7hqt9643d743c52&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1spp2dd3dppp]266|200[/hv] Should East have found a bid over 3♦? Should West have found a second take out double?

Consider: Will the 2NT psyche on a balanced 6 at green gain or lose in the long run? Say partner has a balanced hand also. Then these are the possibilities in decreasing liklihood: HCP HCP We Opps Imps We Opps Imps Most likely 17 23 -4 not dbled Less likely 18 22 -3 or -10 16 24 -3 Less likely 19 21 -4 or -16 15 25 +9 assuming undoubled Looks like most of the time you are on to a small loss if you are lucky and a big loss if you luck runs out. If you happen to find your partner with a far less than likely 6-9HCP and your opponents dont find a double then you can crow. PS Sorry the table inserted does not arrange as pasted. Hope readers can decifer.

I would be interested to know what your view is then. Elaborating: The EBU Standard English Acol which was designed as a "bridge for all" basic system says: INT-2♣-2♦-3♥/3♠ = 5 card suit, 4 in other major game forcing. However "Standard English" has many aspects that most Acol players have dropped,or never taken to, notably strong 2's. Instead Benjaminised Acol with weak 2's in the majors or 3 weak 2's have largely been adopted. The YC club in London has adopted Acol 3 weak 2's for its standard convention card. It plays 3 weak 2's 12-14 no trump with 4 suit transfers. It does not go into what to do with 5-4. Away from Acol-land, BBO basic plays the same as Standard English for game forcing major 5-4s, and 1NT-♥-2♠-3♥ shows 5-5. BBO Adv reverses the 5-4 with the Smolem convention. The problem with playing 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥ as not excluding 5-4 is that with 5-5 you are not able to show slam interest when partner bids 3NT. Possibly another is if 1NT is opened with 2245 distribution opposite a 55 major hand. Of course the odds of this type of problem coming up is very remote.

Yes, the OP wanted to know what was common and what was "special" I tried to answer what was common. The "special" treatments are endless.

The unanswered question so far is what to do with 5-4 majors and strong hand. I don't think your teacher's way is common. 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♥ is more common to show 5-5. Bidding 2♣and then over 2♦ you jump in the 5 card major is more common. However, use of a convention called Smolem where you jump in the 4 card major is common particularly outside Acol land. This has the advantage of placing the balanced hand as declarer thus incresing the chance of the contract being right sided.

I had the South hand and the "impossible" auction 2 took place. I think I was wrong taking out 3NT, and partner also wrong in passing 4♣. I now think I also like 5 and 4+4♠. As the cards lay 8 tricks could be made in 3N, 9 tricks with clubs or diamonds as trunps and 10 tricks in 4♠. However, double dummy 4♠ makes only with a correct club guess and a trump reduction by ruffing diamond winners thus stripping west to lead back to the table. 3NT OTOH only makes on a heart lead. This was a club duplicate. The traveller showed 6 pairs in 3NT, 3 of them making; and 4 pairs in 4♠ with 3 of them making. 1 pair was in 5♦ going off and another stopping in 3♦.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj9872hdakct9642&n=sthaq76dqjt652ckj]133|200[/hv] Playing standard 5CM or Acol, no opponents intervention, vote for the most appropriate auction. If none of these, provide your own auction but please use standard methods. 1. 1♠-2♦-2♠-3NT-pass 2. 1♠-2♦-2♠-3NT-4♣-pass 3. 1♠-2♦-2♠-3NT-4♣-4♠-pass 4. 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♥-3♠-3NT-pass 5. 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♥-3NT-pass 6. 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♥-4♣-pass 7. 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♥-4♣-4♦-4♠-pass 8. 1♠-2♦-2♠-3♥-4♣-4♦-5♦-pass

I did ask for standard methods. However, in the spirit of the "Alice in Wonderland" world above where a likely moysian 2♥ contract is preferred to a likely 8 card and even possible 10 card fit in 2♦. And responder's twice bid suit shows a shortage in that suit and length in an unbid suit, I will make a try. 1♦-1♠ 2♣- 2♠ 3♣-3NT Where 1♠ = relay 2♣ = relay 2♠= shortage and length in ♣and ♥ 3♣ = shortage 3NT = That should do it Thanks Hog I like the brevity. Though this does repeat the 2nd post by semeai.