david_c

Ah, this hand makes a good (fictional) story. At most tables the bidding went 1♥:2♥,4♥. North has ♥Qxx so this makes exactly. One unfortunate pair got to 6♠ on these cards. West decided his hand was only worth a game try of 2♠ over 2♥, and East (who had been reading too much about how 4-4 fits can be better than 5-4) decided to raise naturally to 3♠. This got West really excited, and he bid 4NT (RKCB for spades) and followed up with 6♠ on finding partner with the ♠AQ. Down two. <_<

Interesting - don't you think the hand is a little too strong for that? (Sorry to add to the "beyond the scope of this thread" theme. Playing SAYC, I like the suggestion of bidding 2♠.)

For some reason it's sorted by "topic starter". You can change this at the bottom, but this setting isn't saved.

Indeed you do. I don't think this hand is worth worrying about, on grounds of frequency. Though perhaps 1♠:3♣ should be a weak jump shift (see next paragraph). Serious partnerships might wish to treat a 1♠ opening differently to 1♥. Having lots of immediate raises available is very useful over 1♥. Raises are still useful over 1♠, but less so because you're guaranteed to be outranking the opponents' suits. Meanwhile, constructive bidding is harder over 1♠ than 1♥, so using jumps to show non-fit hands makes a lot of sense. Yes, you should use 2♠ as good-bad after a 1♥ opening. My suggestion of 3♣ only applies after 1♠. I don't agree about 1♠:1NT,2♦. Sure, 2♥ is the most efficient puppet available, but it's also the most efficient way to show hearts!

Meanwhile, I would strongly advocate playing 1♠:2♣ as not quite game forcing, which has many advantages, one of which is that you can use 1♠:1NT,2x:3♣ as good-bad.

(Post deleted in protest at treatment of 17-counts.) ;)

August 2006, apparently. I've actually spent a lot of time trying to think of a decent alerting regulation for doubles, and have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing. The EBU is moving from one flawed scheme to another equally flawed scheme. Given how difficult it is to change people's habits, I think this is a really bad idea.

Robert, I think you are now realising why my first comment on this system was, "I suppose the weak point is likely to be the 1♠ opening. Having lots of forcing opening bids decreases the total amount of space available in the system, and probably 1♠ is where you will feel this most acutely." For what it's worth, I think Adam's way of responding to 1♠ is the best available, but it still has big problems. You'll be playing a lot of 2♦ contracts on 5-1 fits. And the range for 1♠:2♣,2♦ and 1♠:2♣,2♠ is very wide so you're probably going to be missing a lot of games (or, if you prefer, stretching to silly ones). If you try to make the range narrower then you have a corresponding problem with wide-ranging reverses. And after all that you still have to sort out responder's rebid problem, at the two-level with a range of "0+" to deal with.

Well, you also have to consider balanced rubbish like ♠ xxx ♥ xxx ♦ xxxx ♣ xxx I was assuming those would go into 1♠. In which case, what do you do over 1♠ with a balanced 17-18? You can lump those in with your "minimum" 1♣ openers, but then that reduces the number of hands you can respond 1♠ on. Alternatively you can decide to play 1♣:1NT as the default negative, but then you have similar problems there. No, 2♣ shows 4+ spades, 0+ HCP (see awm's original post).

(Back to awm's system.) I like the transfers over 2♣. I fact I like the 2♣ bid anyway. I'd be more interested in how you cope with the problem auctions 1♣ : 1♠ , ... and 1♠ : 2♣ , ... and 1♠ : 2♦ , ...

That's a cute idea Adam. I suppose the weak point is likely to be the 1♠ opening. Having lots of forcing opening bids decreases the total amount of space available in the system, and probably 1♠ is where you will feel this most acutely. I might be tempted to give up the 2♦ pre-empt. 1♣ is also not great of course. But it could be worse. All in all, probably a good system against opponents who like to interfere a lot. :rolleyes:

In my experience, the EBU is quite reasonable about sanctioning new conventions. Indeed - and while Mark is correct that MisIry is currently not allowed, this is going to change when the new regulations come out. The L&E minutes suggest it was applied for by some guy called "M. Haag" (so, a big thank you to him).

Fair enough. I can't remember why I said that :)

That's not what I said. Let me try again. Opening 1♦ on strong hands has two benefits: (It has drawbacks too, but these are the benefits) (i) You get to start with 1♦ on hands in the 16-18HCP range. (ii) You can play an artificial meaning for 1♣:1♦,2♦ My point is that (i) is important, and is the big reason we play this way, whereas (ii) is not important at all.

Exactly. Wasn't there a thread a little while ago about how to continue after 1♣:1♦,2♦ in standard Precision? It's very difficult. This, together with problems after interference over 1♣, is why we prefer to open 1♦ on such hands. It does have a small positive effect on the other hands we open 1♣ on, but that's very much a secondary issue. Anyway, to those who are not sold on the idea of opening 1♦, how about this compromise: With 5+ diamonds and a 4-card major, open 1♦ even if strong. Two-suiters are easier to bid if you start with a natural opening. And you are guaranteed an easy natural rebid. With 5+ diamonds and no 4-card major, open 1♣. Then 1♣:1♦,2♦ denies a 4-card major (without having to resort to canape rebids).

Mainly because of EBU system regulations. I'd rather be playing Polish Club, Millennium Club, or even MOSCITO, but that would limit our opportunities to play in face-to-face games. There's a lot to like about having 1♦ show diamonds. But actually I play it as 2+ when playing Precision, and would agree with you that this is better if 1♣ shows 16+ HCPs any shape.

If we were talking about hands too weak to bid 1NT, I would completely agree with Gerben. But for hands which are too strong for 1NT I would tend to open 1♣, making it as easy as possible for partner to find a response. (Though perhaps I'm influenced by playing too much Polish Club.)

Yes, so it's like a Standard 1♦ opening in that respect. If the opponents do pre-empt, I'm much happier having opened 1♦ than 1♣, even if partner will initially play me for a weaker hand. Of course, there's no way I can prove that expanding the range of 1♦ is superior, but I do have a particular fondness for this method. There's a previous thread discussing it here. Smells Polish.

How about playing 3♦ shows nothing in particular, 3♠ shows 5 diamonds ... (With apologies to all the natural bidders out there. Sorry, I couldn't resist it.)

Yup, I do this playing with mr1303. In fact, we do this even though we have a balanced range in 1♦. I think that if 1♦ is natural then it makes even more sense to widen the range. We use 1♣:1♦,2♦ to show a 4-4-4-1 hand.

OK then, I'll own up - I'm the lone voter for 2♥. It seems to me that partner most likely has a minimum balanced hand, so bidding 3♦ is likely to get us too high. He could have doubled 2♦ for penalties (if our agreement is that doubles are take-out then there's no problem of course), so there's a decent chance that he has a takeout sort of hand. And so I'm going to guess a major suit to bid. Hearts seems better, if only because it leaves open the option of running to spades later. Of course, there's no guarantee that 2♥ will not violate Burn's Law, but I don't like any of the alternatives at all.

I've been experimenting with a relay system over 1M. Finding opener's shape is the easy part: what I'm not happy with is what happens after this is complete. So I have a few questions for the dedicated relayers amongst you ... :huh: A common problem seems to be where relayer wants to try for slam, but has a holding like xxx or QJx in a suit where partner has shown two or three cards. Unfortunately, the bids which ask about this particular suit would usually take you past the 4-level. So you can end up playing in 5 of a major with a side suit of Qxx opposite xxx. Is it playable to have methods which specifically ask opener to sign off unless he has a control in a particular suit? Or, is there a better way of dealing with this problem? B) I'm using specific bids to set suits as trumps, e.g. 4♣ might show a slam try in hearts. How should these be played? Should opener be required to give key-card responses immediately, or should he have a way of indicating whether his hand is generally suitable for slam? (Note: relayer would already know at this point whether opener is minimum or maximum, but nothing more precise about the strength.) B) After a suit is set as trumps, we can ask about opener's holding in other suits. Should these asking bids confirm that all the key-cards are present? If not, is the ace one of the cards which we are asking about here? :blink: Opener usually shows 6M-3-2-2 shape by bidding 3♠. Assume for the moment that by choosing a relay sequence, responder is promising at least a doubleton in partner's major. Given this, what should responder's 3NT bid mean? (i) Absolutely to play. (ii) Choice of games. (How does opener decide?) (iii) Some sort of slam try. :)

The vugraph commentators didn't have anything to say about the play of this hand, but I was wondering what the safest line was: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=skt4hq92d73ca6532&s=saqj73hat873dckj8]133|200|Scoring: IMP W N E S - - P 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠ 4♥ P 4♠ AP[/hv] West leads the ♦A. How do you play 4♠?

That would make it come up more often, but you can deal with these hands easily anyway by making minimum forcing bids until you get to game. It's the hands with extra strength that are difficult to bid, so a balanced range of 15-17 or 16-18 seems more sensible to me.

Sorry Gerben, we're not allowed to play that either (at EBU L3): 1♥ and 1♠ have to be non-forcing.