Wackojack

A partner of mine argues the case for an alternative to the support doubles. He says that double is best used to show 4 cards in the unbid suit. Thus 1♣ no 1♠ 2♦ dbl shows 4 hearts 1♦ no 1♥ 2♣ dble shows 4 spades In some cases precise distribution is shown e.g. 1♣ no 1♥ 1♠ dble shows 1445 distribution Partner's major can be raised with 3 e.g. 1♣ no 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ could be on 3 particularly with a shortage in spades. Also in other sequences where support doubles were not intended to apply: e.g 1♠ no 2♣ 2♦ dble shows 4 hearts ??? (would you not bid 4 hearts here to show 4?) The general rule would be that a double after a 3rd suit intervention shows 4 cards in the 4th suit when it is not a penalty double. I am not sure one can make an easy rule as to when the double would be for penalties. Obvious considerations are the level of intervention, if the double is under or over the overcaller and who if any has found a fit. Is this approach flawed?

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skxxhkxxxdajxxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] In a recent county mixed pairs event RHO opened 1♠. I doubled , passed round to partner who jumped to 6♣. Partner was justifiably very unhappy seeing dummy and went 1 off after not being able to pick up the ♣K. OK my bid was bad and although not an excuse (I had been holding a long series of passing hands) it raises some questions about the principles of equal level conversion doubles. Beef up the hand to say ♠Kxx ♥KQxx♦ AJ10xx ♣x, is this the type of hand to make a take out double if you have agreed ELC? If so how should partner respond holding a powerful 1-suited hand? It seems to me that you need some clearly defined agreements using ELC to avoid getting into trouble. Suppose the bidding goes 1♠-x-3♠-?. Now what does partner do with ♠x, ♥Axx, ♦Kx, ♣ AQJxxxx? (This was not partner's actual hand, I have lost the computer print-outs) What are the views on ELC's? If you use them, do you have agreements on what qualifies apart from the equal level criterion? Do you have agreements on limits to jump responses?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sa9hkj1063dak654ck]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♦ pass pass ? HB tournament yesterday. At my table I was sitting South and bid 1♥. I was very surprised to see that at the 4 other tables all the South hands re-opened with a double. To me that bid has got nothing going for it. Views please?

This discussion seems to have developed into guessing partner's shape. So FWIIW I can say that we had a general agreement that we bid up the line. So I would normally expect her to open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors, not to bypass a 4-card spade suit, and to perhaps to raise the 1♥ response to 2♥ with 3 holding a poor doubleton spade. OTOH playing 2/1 with another partner, I would expect 1♦ open with 4-4 in the minors, and playing Walsh style a 1NT rebid could have 4 spades. However, I am not sure if 1 style or another should change the valuation of the hand. If one could evaluate by converting to a normalised HCP evaluation. Then I reckon AK + A would increase the value by about half a point and the lack of shape of 10's and 9's would decrease the value by about the same amount (perhaps a bit more) and a vulnerable IMP game needs 24 when the 2 hands are almost equal. It is this rule of thumb approach that I would like to have confirmed.

I would recommend support doubles playing a strong no trump,5 card major system- it give you more options. Also amen to everything Ben said in his post.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=saq976hadjcaq7542]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♣- P -1♥-1♠ ? [hv=d=s&v=b&s=saq976hadjcaq7542]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] p-1♣-4♦-? (Opening 1♣ could be as short as 2 with 4432 distribution) Your bid as South on each hand

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa43hak82d872c843]133|100|Scoring: IMP Bidding: 1♣ p 1♥ p 1NT p ? The 1NT rebid shows 12-14 points For me the lure of a vulnerable game was too much of a temptation, so I tried 2NT, partner 3♥ with a balanced 13, and we ended the auction in 3NT. This went one down. [/hv] This was a local club team match in which one of my team members is a Welsh international. He said he would pass 1NT. I can construct 14 point hands and 13 point hands with a 5-card club suit where 3NT is a good contract, but I am willing to believe that there are at least twice as many hands with equal strength where 3NT has very little hope of making. My question is: How do you value a 4333 hand with AK +A and nothing else? How many 10's and 9's would I need before this balanced 11 was good for 3NT opposite 14 or a good 13? Have any simulations been done? Have any experts got a ready formula for this evaluation? Thanks

I was partnering Wayne on this hand. Below is the chat after. Looks like a good hand to illustrate avoidance play. sceptic: sp sceptic: should have took my !S hand 2 ->sceptic: the way you play the clubs is crucial possible to sceptic: A!C then 10? ->sceptic: endplay west sceptic: y ->sceptic: it is not obvious ->sceptic: if you play west for ace diamonds you should then go to dummy with a spade and duck into west ->sceptic: with the club sceptic: y ->sceptic: the ace then drops the king and you then can finesse the club against west ->sceptic: then you make ->sceptic: interesting excercise there sceptic (Lobby): I will post that hand see how they would handle it ->sceptic: i bet they get it right at least the experts will Pity in a way that all 4 hands were posted. Certainly for me seeing the winning line was easy when I could see all the cards. Perhaps not so easy when you can't.

Correction: A good West would not discard a club with 3 cards left.

I don't think that is correct. In 7NT, the singleton KH only means that only a 3-suit squeeze works. If East guards 3 suits the club finesse works anyway. West is theoretically squeezed if (s)he guards 3 suits. However with the 3-card ending shown by Ben, an expert East will have already come down to SJ, HQ,D-,CK so baring the KC without showing any signs of discomfort. On the play of the AD, declarer will discard JH and East will discard QH. Now declarer still has to decide how to play the clubs. I believe this was what Ben was implying. Interestingly (correct me if I am wrong anybody) with an expert East and the apparently risky lead the evidence points to playing the CA to drop the king because if East was not being squeezed (s)he might have discarded a club on the last diamond instead of the heart. If you knew that East was not that good and showed thoughtfulness but no signs of real discomfort, then the club finesse looks like the best bet.

Acol 12-14NT 1♦-1♥ 1♠-2♣ 4sf 2♦-4NT 5♦-7♦ North's 2♦ bid denies a club stop and would normally have 6 diamonds. Give North A♦ and 2 major kings for the opening bid and you can count 13 tricks. Even if north made a horrible worst possible opening ♠Kxxx♥Kx♦AJxxx♣xx, 7♦ still has fair prospects.

I hate it when partners skip their 4 card major and bid 1NT. It says "I dont trust you to play the hand" Inevitetably the bidding gets messy and it becomes a matter of luck if you land in the right spot.

1. 3♥ in this position. To dangerous to open 4 in case partner has goes to slam with good hand expecting pictures in hearts 2. 4♥ Since partner has passed, I believe you must bid as high as you can now. Make west have the last guess. North's double of 5♦ looks fine to me. Risk minimal, reward high. West guessed wrong by bidding 5♦. Time to swish the axe.

1♠ OK 3♥ What is this? Not strong or weak JS. Presumably meant as a splinter. Even so, a splinter is not suitable as it should be supporting a 4-card raise. 3♠ Assuming you took 3♥ as a splinter this is the correct bid since a singleton heart devalues your hand. 4♦ Partner has discouraged and not cue bid 4♣ or 4♦ which either means min opening or no control in the minors. So you should be signing off in 4♠. 4NT You should assume that partner is interested in slam and could have ♠AKxx ♥x ♦ AKx(xx) ♣ xxx(x). You can find out about the ♠AK and ♦A by bidding 4NT, but can you be confident that partner has the ♦K? Alternatively you could be thinking that partner has the singleton ♥A also. Then keeping your diamond losers to 1 is a fair bet. So 4NT although pushy is OK. 5♦ 3 5♥ Why would you want to know if partner has the ♠Q when you have it yourself? I am beginning to think that you took 3♥ as a strong jump shift, and the subsequent 4♦ to show a red 2 suiter. So quite frankly you have lost me. 6♠ I don't even begin to understand. So all-in-all a comedy of errors. How should the bidding go? If you have no specific system agreements 1♠-2♦-2♠-4♠ looks fine to me. In 2/1 (as you know I am new to 2/1) I believe 1♠-1NT-2♠-4♠ to be correct.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sq10xxxxxxhaxxdakc]133|100|Scoring: IMP You are in 2nd position. 1. What is your opening bid? Does it make any difference if you are playing Texas transfers? 2. Now take away the ♥A and replace with a small heart, what is you opening bid? 3. Now also take away the ♦A and repace with a small diamond, what is your opening bid [/hv] Views please

This comment means what exactly? A weak NT of course goes very well with a 2+♣ 1♣ opening bid. Being closest to a natural system is not a goal in itself. OK it is not a goal in itself, but a natural system has its attractions. My experience with 12-14 no trump is with the natural club opening. Having said that, ofcourse you are right.

It looks like I am on the losing side on: 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♠ With xxxxx xxxx x xxx opposite 1NT I would like to be able to bid this as "please pass partner" However, on to Smolen. With 5-4 or more in the majors you can show every shape with room using what I thought were standard red suit transfers: 1. 1NT-2♥-2♠-2NT = Invite 5 spades semi-balanced 2. 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥ = At least 5spades 4hearts GF 3. 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥-3any-4♥ = 5-5 majors 4. 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥-3NT- 4♠ = 6 spades 4 hearts Similar sequences 1NT-2♦-2♥ with 5+ hearts and 4+ spades Smolen duplicates sequence 2. and reverses declarer if 4-4 fit in hearts. Smolen duplicates sequence 4. So we have a convention that duplicates transfer sequences as far as I can see, but more importantly does not plug any gap. Also if I play Smolen and partner responds 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥, I just have to remember 5-5. And if I don't play Smolen, I have to remember 5-4 at least. That feels like a disadvantage.

Everything that has been said, plus no phoney 1 club openings. So it comes closest to a natural system.

I am working my way through the conventions in BBO Advanced and now looking at Smolen. Given in the FD file: 1nt-2c-2d-3h = 4h+5S GF (Where 2c is Stayman) 1nt-2c-2d-3s = 4s+5h GF Then there is transfer bidding in the FD files: 1nt-2h-2s-3h = 5s+4h (or more) GF So what is the difference? Is the smolen route 5422 and the transfer route 54(13)? 1nt-2d-2h-2s = 5h (or more)+ 4s invit 1nt-2c-2d-2s = weak 4h+ 5(+) spades So with 5h+4s opposite 1nt Sign-off = 2c-2d-2h Invit= 2d-2h-2s GF = 2c-2d-3s So why isn't there the same distinction with 4h+5s where: Sign-off = 2c-2d-2s Invit = 2h-2s-3h GF = 2c-2d-3h Also FD file says 2h-2s-2nt = usually exactly 5s invit. Would this not always be 5(332) shape and deny a secondary 4-card suit? Is this because 2h-2s-3c is always a game force? If Smolen is being used to get 3 levels of strength, the could not this sequence (2h-2s-3c) be made invitational? Then the gap bids can be used to make it into a game force. Otherwise Smolen only fills one gap with 5h+4s and appears to duplicate game force transfers with 4h+5s. Does anybody really feel the need for Smolen?

In isolation the odds of slam making are fractionally better than 50%. The heart overcall fractionally increases the likelihood of a singleton spade, thus reducing the odds to 50% as near as makes no difference. If you know your opponents, and if you are leading near the end of a match, do what you think they would do and if you are behind do the opposite of what you think they would do.

I have been studying conv card FD version of 2/1 GF, because I would like to play this system on-line. Here are some basic questions: 1. 1c opening: I have read somewhere to open 1c with 4432 not 1d. FD says 1c promises at least 3. Is this the concensus? What are the relative advantages? 2. FD says respond 1nt with 8-10 in all positions. How do you respond with 5-7 and 3334? The answer can't be 2c because FD shows inverted minor suit raises. It can't be 1d because FD says this must be a 4-card suit. The same question applies to a response of 1nt to 1d only more so. If you have 6-7 with 3334 what do you do? Shouldn't the range be 6-10? 3. FD says 1h 1s open in 3rd and 4th could be a 4 carder. This is interesting and going back to Acol type openings although nowdays because 12-14 1nt is so popular with Acol players most would open 1nt with a balanced 12-14 even at red. Now I see why 1nt response here is not forcing and the need for the 2c limit raise and the 2d rev Drury. So I have no questions here. 4. Capelletti has been universally slated by your posters. Is Capelletti then going to be removed from BBO Advanced?

I recognise this hand because I was playing North. Some points to make: 1. I play the initial double as showing exactly 4 spades. With 5 spades I would bid them. I know that some play differently but I believe this method is favoured by the majority. 2. I play support doubles. I'm not sure if this is appropriate with the South hand and would normally expect a more balanced shape with a support double. 3. Partner makes a free bid of 2♠ so I am expecting 4. That is not to say that I believe bidding 2♠ on a 3-card suit is always wrong. Example given by joshs with 3145 shape looks like an exception. 4. After hearing 4♥ bid on my right I have 2 choices, pass or double. Could partner be balanced? Probably not, otherwise opps have grossly overbid with their 8-card fit. Since we are at green partner might be tempted to go for a cheap sacrifice if I pass. It looks like I have 2 possibly 3 defensive tricks so I need to tell partner not to bid 4 spades unless he has a very black hand. In any case I don't like being pushed around by opps and they could be overbidding so 11 imps in is possible. Perhaps this is faulty logic as partner with a shortage in the red suits and min should pre-empt to 4♠ after the 2♥. But then with a more balanced hand 4♥ looks like it is going off. So a close decision but I still think the double was justified.

Having recently been tempted to play on-line, I put on my profile that I will play 2/1 GF, SAYC or Acol. I have played Acol for many years in f2f competition, and recently converted to 5-card major systems. I confess that I do not know what is standard in these systems and try and play to the published BBO standard. I would like to know if there is available a tabulated comparison of standard 5-card major systems. e.g Where sayc basic, sayc full, SEF etc differ. As an aside Walsh structure, check back, xyz is currently being debated for on this forum for adoption by BBO Advanced 2/1.

I have recently stated playing 2/1 and decided to get as close as possble to BBO advanced. So I play 2-way check-back 2c puppet to 2d. Also play 1c-1M-1nt-2nt as relay to 3c showing weak clubs or 3 suited. Thus 1c-1M-1nt-2nt-3c-? : pass = weak clubs 3d = 4-4-1-4 3h = single heart if M= spades, = 4540 if M = hearts 3s = single spade if M= hearts, = 5440 if M= spades 3nt = 4441 I am not sure it it worth the memory overhead though. btw I am not convinced about Drury, reverse or otherwise, or the Wolff sign-off after 2nt rebid