Wackojack

I am going to stick my neck out here and disagree with previous opinions. For me there are some close calls here. 1. After the 2♠ intervention, from North vantage point the hand appears to be improved and even game is not out of the question. So for me, pass is not an option. 3♦ help suit game try is optimistic and 3♥ competing (telling partner not to bid 4) is close IMO. 2. Say North does choose the more optimistic of the options and bids 3♦. South with what initially looked like lots to spare for the 2♥ bid, now sees the hand devalued by the overcall and the 2♥ bid looks like it was on-the-nose. So no need to get excited by the 3♦ trial bid, you provide no help here. So quietly bid 3♥. The fact that West's suicide bid has got lucky is irrelevant.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sa5hq532da632cq102]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Playing Acol club 2 days ago this hand opened 1NT (12-14). All passed. Contract making. Loss 2.33 imp. It looked like a perfectly nomal contract so I looked at the traveller. 8 out of the 12 times the hand was passed out. None of the players on the traveller from the Acol club. I wonder what system they could be playing. I assumed that nobody (not even the most timid lol) would pass this hand. Incidentally lossed 3.33imp on another hand soon after. This hand was passed in 4th position at game all by 4 out of the 12 players: A542, J72, 104, AK74. Different players, same timidity.

It seems to me that there is another line where the odds are something like 75% in succeeding, that would have made as the cards lie. I am happy to be shown to be wrong :blink:

Helene, this I think will interest you. It is the hand discussion (edited) during an on-line acol lesson aimed at beginners and intermediates. The auction was 1s-2d-3d-p. Opener had 15 points 4243 doubleton heart something like 10x and missing an easy 3nt. 12-14 NT of course is taught. Most at the lesson were from UK with a few from New Zealand s: 1!d always if playing 'bridge' :rolleyes: c: standard !!! english acol 1spade yuk!!! s: :):) wa: style 1!d or 1!s.... but having opened 1!s, then 2NT is the rebid after 2!d s: and one wonders why game is in disarray :) wi: isn't it one of those hands where acol does not show its best side d: knew I'd be wrong no matter what I do b: Another fun and style Q s: yes agree jack and 3NT cold b: the eternal 1!D or 1!S opener d: only opened spade as did not want to be left in 1 diamond wa: i gather from last weeks lesson that most here bid "up the line" b: the problem with not opening 1!D here is West is worried about the black suits b: and East !Hs b: but neither one can reassure the other in the auction!!! s: someone tell little me what the problem can ever be opening 1!d b: 1!D-1!H-1!S-2!C(4th suit) - 2NT - 3NT b: there isn't s I always advocate 4 card suits up the line and life is oh so simple :) b: as this hand demonstrates :) b: the ONLY advantage here is if South had a !H suit overcall... b: it might stop the overcall b: a small price to pay :) b: I'll step off my soapbox now lol c: why oh why do the EBU promote that abortion standard English? fwiiw I prefer opening 1M here because "up-the-line" bidding is disadvantaged by: 1. As stated wjo's..... similarly with 5 card major systems (but not so severe if I am pulled up on this) 2 1d-1s-? 15-16 points 4243.... nasty! Thats why I like strong nt.

Yes jtfan got it exactly. Why would GIB make such a play? It strikes me that GIB gave itself the extra chance that human south was leading from J10 doubleton. When that proved not to be the case then the squeeze on North would operate, provided that North also held the King of spades. Probably not a good enough reason for a human to do this. Interesting that had GIB played Vienna coup according to Fluffy's guess it would also have succeeded as North held 10xxx in diamonds and so would be squeezed in 3 suits.

[hv=d=e&v=n&w=sq1092hq2dakq96c86&e=sa7hk963d4cakqj92]266|100|Scoring: IMP E S W N 1♣ p 1♦ 1♥ 3♣ p 3♠ p 3nt p 6nt p p p [/hv] Human South led ♥10 covered by Q, Ace, 3. GIB North returned the ♥8. GIB East spurned the marked!! finesse taking with the King, South following with the 5. GIB proceeded to make the contract. Any guesses how and why? Would you play it this way?

Yes I see now. You can always fall back on heart finesse if west does not have doubleton ace of spades. Good problem, but agreed very tough for this forum.

Yes, but if you are playing West for Ax in spades for 2 heart discards, you must play low to the 2nd spade. If west has a few spades to the ace you have lost 3 tricks before you have the chance to take the heart finesse. Its either or.

Is this really a beginner's question? Looks like the heart finesse won't be right because of west's double, thinking 3 certain tricks- 2 aces and king of hearts. To make with the finesse wrong, it looks like you must play for west to have doubleton ace in spades. Then you must discard a heart from hand, ruff a club and lead a low spade towards the jack. West ducks, then try 2 rounds of trumps and lead another spade, west taking with the ace. Hopefully west doesn't have a trump left and has to lead a club for ruff/discard or a heart for the contract. It doesn't look that likely to work but then the heart finesse doesn't either. I must be missing something. :)

Yes the 2M opening bids are permitted by the EBU (actually level 2 according to the Orange Book) What i wanted to do was devise a system which improved on the Polish Club. The opening 2M was not devised as destructive weapon but to fit in with with the other bits. The general aim was to get all opening hands described within tight limits at least by the first rebid allowing responder to take control. These are the opening bids: 1c Strong 17+, or 11-13 with a 4 card major (balanced or any 4441) 1d 11-16 with no 4-card major (or 6d + 5M) 1h/s 11-16 at least 5cards 1NT 14-16 balanced 2c 11-16, 6 cards with no 4 card major 2d 5-9, 6 card major or minor suit near game hand 2h/s 11-16, 4 major + 5 or 6 cards in minor 2NT 20-21 balanced The 11-16 range for the 2h/s opening is uncomfortably large, but in practice is 11-15 since 16 point hands with a 6 card minor and many with a 5 card minor could be uprated to to 17+ for a 1c opening. My initial thought on responses were more or less as given Ulven, hrothgar and Gerben (thanks). But now i think it better to step the responses to distinguish between 5 and 6 card minor thus: 3c = min 5m 3d = min 6m 3h = max 5m 3s = max 6m next step which minor then step 1= clubs, step 2 = diamonds, except after 3s where you just cue and find out

Anybody out there who can suggest a system of responses and follow-up bids for an opening bid in 2 of a major with a 4 card suit and 5 or 6 card minor say 11-16HCP? How common is this opening and does it have a name?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s874hk32d952cj532]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥ 2♣ 4♥ Your lead[/hv] I was watching a regular poster and partner on occasions select the ♠4 as his opening lead. The contract made comfortably and the lead was immaterial on this occasion. As I have always regarded leading low with no honour a major crime, I was puzzled by his choice of card. His reply afterwards was that his mentor insists that he leads low from 3. With no honour and 3 or more: 1. Is leading low normal in some parts of the world? 2. What are its advantages over top of nothing (or low sequence) or 2nd highest from 3 or more?

Thanks for the interesting discussion. fwiiw we were playing Acol and all the old Acol text books treat 123 as a barrage bid i.e. pre-emptive. If you are playing 2/1 with constructive 2-level raises, I (just about) see the logic in making 123 as invitational, but otherwise no. ........Just fished out Zia's "Bridge for beginners" Lo and behold 1s-2s-3s invitational.... You live and learn.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s1096hk74dj10986ca4]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding:1♥-p-2♥-p-3♥-p-? You are playing with a pick-up partner on line. What would you bid? Would it make any difference if your partner was intermediate, advanced or expert? Related question: How mainstream or otherwise is this sequence a command to pass?

Haven't transfers, negative doubles and weak 2's all evolved in Darwinian fashion? There are also Darwinian cul-de-sacs, where island species flourish until they have to compete with neighbouring better equipped mainland species. Is Acol (popular in island Britain) but slowly being abandoned an example of that? Culbertson is extict.

The debate so far begs important questions. I see the need to open 1NT with a 5-card major, not because I don't care about 5-3 (or even 5-4) major suit fits. It is because in my system, (Acol, SAYC, 2/1 if I open 1 major and rebid 2 major, I need it to show a 6-card suit, or at least a very good 5. What I have lost by this approach is the possibility of missing a 5-4 or 5-3 fit opposite a weak hand or a 5-3 fit opposite a stronger hand. The questions are: 1. Is this loss greater than the gain of knowing a major suit rebid shows a 6-card suit. 2. It it worth retrieving some of that loss by the use of a 5-card major asking bid? 3. Whatever that particular bid is, what is its price in terms of losses, against the perceived gain of finding a possible 5-3 fit? 4. Can my system rebid no trumps after opening 1 major in all cases, thus obviating the need to open 1NT with a 5-card major. 4. Is there a "cake and eat it" solution where there is no loss? Perhaps out of all this there is no immediate answer and the best solution(s) will eventually emerge Darwinianly (if I can say that)

1 Good question. 2. 5422 hands can be treated as balanced. However, as the system is envisaged at present you have to open 2d with 5 diamonds and a singleton 11-16 To Helene: What is M.A.F?

Idling in my thinking after playing against a number of artificial club and diamond systems, I thought I would try and construct one myself. I have gone some wayinto this, but since there is nothing new under the sun, I thought I should find out if this is similar to any known sytem. Could anyone tell me if this is a close relative of any known system? These are the opening bids: 1club Strong 17+, or 11-13 with a 4 card major (balanced or any 11-13 4441) 1diamond 11-13 with no 4-card major 1heart/spade 11-16 >= 5cards 1NT 14-16 balanced 2clubs/diamonds 11-16 >=5 cards 2hearts/spades Weak 2NT 20-21 balanced Normal response to 1c is 1d ask this covers all balanced hands and 7-10 single suited hands with one exception which is 13-15 balanced with no 4 card major.

[hv=d=n&v=b&w=sak10h96532daqj10c3&s=s765hk74d642ca1042]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Playing in a team of 4 match, the bidding goes: 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 3♣ 3♠ 3NT You lead 2♣ to partner's King and declarer's 5. Partner returns the 9♣, covered by declarer's Queen. What is your plan? When: (a) You have complete confidence that your partner has done the best thing consistent with the information she has available. (:) You do not have complete confidence etc.

Ditto

Have you considered Paradox responses? 2d = worth a trick for either major or better 2h = Trash or trick for spades 2s = Worth a trick for hearts but not spades Worth a trick would be 3 or doubleton high honour 2nt = tricks in minors, no tricks in majors 3cd = good suit source of tricks opposite Ax Can be used as near game force (if you like) with major or minor suit hand e.g 2c 2h 2s 3c(2nd neg) 3s can be passed. These responses allow many good inferences for slam exploration particularly after a 2d response. Possible disadvantage is wrong siding and room consuming 2c 2h 3h.

Couldn't he bid 2♥ instead of jumping to 3♥ with this hand with spade support? Without the diamond response, I would take 3♥ as a Rosler cue bid and 2♥ as normally a limit raise or better with 3-card spade support. I don't think the 2♦ response to opener affects the meaning of advancer's bid. If you do not have this understanding, then you have to guess what it means.

3♥ 4 card spade limit raise or better- 5♣ Difficult to believe but I suppose in theory a slam try showing Ace clubs, denying ability to cue spades, and denying an initial ability to splinter

Noting the reference to Rosencranz redoubles in the recent post I am trying to find out as much as possible about defensive doubles and Rosencranz redoubles. So far: http://www.firesides.net/kaleido3.htm I like the Rosencrantz redouble idea, but have reservations about defensive doubles, especially the completely different bids by advancer at red. Any further info or links on defensive doubles and I would be most grateful

Presumably you mean that you were accused of deceptive bidding. There is nothing illegal or indeed ethically wrong with deceptive bidding (or play in defence) so long as this is not an undisclosed agreement with partner. I agree with your assumption btw that partner was bidding hearts because he was seeking a spade stop from you. It would therefore have been better to bid 3♠ showing a stop so that partner could bid 3NT because right siding might be vital. Of course partner should have bid 3NT over 3♦ but that is another story. I hope you got 800 out of their indiscretions.