david_c

[rant warning] Last term I had to teach Analysis to some first-year undergraduates. They often have difficulty distinguishing a statement from its converse. The same problem occurs in trying to teach bridge. Some examples: 1. Beginners are often taught that if they have 12 points they must open the bidding. This does NOT imply: An opening bid promises 12 points. 2. Playing Acol, people are taught that you should always support partner's major with 4 cards. This does NOT imply: A raise of partner's major promises 4-card support. Now we have a new example. 3. "the new-suit forcing principle" This does NOT imply: bids in old suits are not forcing. Indeed, if whoever wrote the quote from "site 2" intended to say that 1M:2m,2M is not 100% forcing, then they have put the word "usually" in the wrong place. [end of rant - thank you for listening]

From what I can remember of previous discussions, the sequence 1M:2m,2NT is forcing, but opener may have a dead minimum hand. Of course, this is absolutely nuts, but apparently that's the way things are in SAYC. If you change things slightly, so that 2NT promises a little extra strength and is forcing to game, then I think it becomes a perfectly playable system. (Am I the only person who prefers this to 2/1 GF?) But I don't think that this can be referred to as SAYC.

They didn't manage to find 3♦. So, maybe you will say, this is the cause of the bad result. And I would agree with you. :angry: Indeed, the doubler's partner showed excellent technique in the post-mortem, going on the offensive before anyone could ask why it was that they ended up in 2♠X on a 4-2 fit ... :ph34r:

♠ AJ83 ♥ Q ♦ JT94 ♣ AJ76 MP, favourable vul. The bidding starts with 1♦ on your right (this is a "short diamond" - either 4+ diamonds or 11-13 balanced). You pass, LHO bids 1♥, partner passes, and RHO raises to 2♥. The raise to 2♥ is frequently made on only three cards, even sometimes with a balanced hand. At the table, the player holding this hand doubled, and ended up with -800. Would you say that the double deserved this bad result, or not?

Are you sure? I have this book in front of me now, and I can't see what would make you say that.

I'd probably say that if you have methods available to show a "bad" 3♣ bid, then pass is not a LA. But, as it happens, 2NT would have been natural here. The player holding this hand said that he hadn't seen which card his partner had been fumbling with. Then, when it came to his turn, he said, "Well, it doesn't make any difference anyway," and bid 3♣. If this player was "advanced" then I would be fairly confident in disallowing the 3♣ bid. But let's assume that he is at the wrong end of "intermediate" - for this sort of player, is pass a LA? I'm not sure.

But it's not at all clear what the "correct play" is here, if you take the match situation into account. Perhaps declarer thought that the decision was very close. If after all his deliberations he was still unsure what the correct play was, he might well have been swayed by a silly thing like this. I don't see why this would be so incoceivable for a top player, seeing that the situation is much more complicated than a simple calculation of percentages.

I don't see why this can't have been serious. If you're contemplating making an anti-percentage play, and you're unsure whether it's the right thing to do, then why shouldn't you take into account how the diamonds have been breaking throughout the tournament? It's a bit like playing for the queen to lie over the jack in a two-way finesse situation. Mathematically, there's no basis for it at all, but if you're slightly superstitious then these sorts of things might genuinely affect your reasoning.

hehehe - we did the same thing! Did you get a spade lead too? :D

Funny you should say that - I played these hands as North at another table, and opened 1♠ on the first hand playing Acol weak NT. We didn't get to game ;) How do you think the auction should continue after 1♠ : (2♥) : 2♠ : (3♥) ?

If you do play a 2♠ or 2NT relay, then opener's responses will usually identify whether he has a singleton, so for example: 1♦:1♠,2♠:2NT - 3♣ = shows 4 clubs --> shortage in hearts 3♦ = shows 6 diamonds 3♥ = shows 4 hearts --> shortage in clubs others = 4-card spade support This is the natural version, and it doesn't cater for opener raising with 3 cards in a balanced hand. If you do raise with this type of hand, it's probably better to play a natural 2NT. (But I'd still want to have some sort of relay available, perhaps 3om as an artificial GF.)

No adjustment - North may have been temporarily misled by the lack of alert of the redouble, but he can't do anything other than pass at that point. Then, once East bid 2♣ and alerted, N/S knew exactly what was going on. When North bid 3♦, which caused the bad result, he had the correct information (or, at least, he would have done if he had asked about the alerted 2♣ bid).

Yes, I know you do. But I usually don't - hadn't you noticed? :D I think it ought to be, at least opposite a Precision 1♦; but it's far from clear, so I shouldn't have done it. But I was completely stuck for a bid (apart from blasting 6♥ or 7♥) because I didn't know how to set trumps. Hence my advice that you need to know which bids set the major as trumps ...

1. Opener's hand 1a. Would you raise partner with 4-3-3-3 ? No. But some people do. 1b. When would you raise partner with 5-3-3-2 or 4-4-3-2 ? How would you rate these trump holdings for doing so : xxx, Hxx and HHx ? I might consider it with 5-3-3-2 and a poor doubleton. But I would usually prefer to rebid 1NT. I don't feel that the trump holding makes much difference to the decision. 1c. When would you raise partner with 6-3-3-1 or 5-4-3-1 ? Again, which trump holding do you prefer between xxx, Hxx, HHx ? I'd nearly always raise with 5-4-3-1 (unless the hand is strong enough to bid the 4-card suit and support later). With a 6-3-3-1 it mainly depends how good the 6-card suit is. However, with a hand which is only slightly too weak for a jump rebid, I'd sometimes prefer to raise rather than rebid my 6-card suit because the raise sounds more encouraging. 2. General direction after the raise. 2a. Do you think it's important to keep the NT strain in the picture, or on the contrary that the moysean fit is fine since opener will have a hand suited for it ? There is so much space available after the raise that it's silly to restrict your attention to major-suit contracts. 2b. Who's "job" is it to cater for, or at least warn about, the moysean fit ? For example, responder could bid as if he was certain of a 4-4 fit, and so it would be opener's task to warn about his support. Or the responsibility could be shared by both, etc. Depends on system. 3. Systems. What systems do you like or think handle the situation nicely ? I think it's important that responder should have some sort of forcing relay available, and to agree which bids set the major as trumps and which don't. Otherwise slam bidding is very difficult (I found this out to my cost a while ago, when partner passed my exclusion-KCB). Apart from that, it doesn't matter much.

How do you interpret the 2NT bid in the sequence 1♥ : (1NT) : 2NT ?

Just to clarify Mark's question: The bidding is (2♥) : dbl : (p) : 2NT , (p) : 3♦. Mark interpreted this as showing a good hand for clubs (Paradox), but I actually turned up with a strongish 4=2=6=1 hand.

No :) Is there a solution?

My first guess is: 1a. cash ace then lead towards QJ. 1b. the same as in a, but with less chance of success. 2a. again, cash the ace then lead towards QJ. 2b. start by leading the Q.

... and besides, even if 2♣ is supposed to be 100% game forcing, that doesn't mean that opener knows for sure that game is going to make ...

Balancing really would be a bad idea IMO. If this is a part-score hand then the opps have probably won the board already by choosing to pass 2♣; whereas if the 2♣ opener really did have game in hand you're giving up a HUGE score.

You beat me to it ... Playing with someone who might pass 2♣ once or twice in a lifetime, this hand is still a 2♣ opening bid. Of course, we bid this knowing that if partner has the worst possible hand (in this case, one on which he will pass), then we will get a bad score - but is that anything new?

Agree with Mike - It would obviously be very frustrating for partner if we passed 2♣ and game would have made. Which is why I'd never be able to bring myself to do it. But still, there's no reason why it can't be the right thing to do in theory. I think people are prejudiced by the fact that the probability of the 2♣ opener genuinely having game in hand is quite high. This makes it very unlikely that a pass is right on any given hand. But there are other similar situations where pass has more to be said for it: for example after (1♦):2♦ played as weak-or-strong Michaels. I suspect that there are a few people who would consider passing this on a misfit with long diamonds, even if they would never pass a strong 2♣ opening. And yet it's still possible that the Michaels bidder has a genuine game force. This is the same situation as the strong 2♣ opening, only the probabilities are different.

"Thanks, Your vote has been added" :) True, but it will become legal on 1st Jan 2006, and the chances of me being able to find a partner for this system in the next six months are fairly slim ...

My feeling is that this probably is the best solution if 1♦ includes a balanced range (so that it is already nebulous). Then adding 4=1=3=5 and 1=4=3=5 to it makes a lot of sense, and a Precision-2♦ can take care of the rest (or you can open 1♦ with those as well). However, in the system I referred to earlier, 1♦ currently promises a 4-card suit, and so adding these hand types would make it considerably less effective. I'll restate my question because no-one has tried answering it yet :) I have three options for what to do with 5♣-4M-3-1 hands: 1. Always open 2♣. [Advantage: keeps the 1NT opener clean.] 2. Always open 1NT. [Advantage: 2♣ now promises a 6-card suit.] 3. Allow opener to choose between 1NT and 2♣ depending on suit quality etc. [Advantage: flexibility.] My current position is basically "1", with very occasional 1NT openers allowed (usually with singleton honours). This works well enough. But I'm wondering whether changing to "2" might be better.

Playing SAYC or 2/1, I've seen some people opening 1NT with hands such as ♠ x ♥ AKTx ♦ KQx ♣ Kxxxx in order to avoid possible rebid problems after opening 1♣. Hands of this shape (but perhaps a little lighter in HCP) are also a problem in Precision, because a 5-card 2♣ opening is so difficult to handle. So I'm wondering whether it might be advisable to open a weak no-trump on these sorts of hands. More specifically - I like to play a system where 1NT is 12-14HCP, and all stronger balanced hands are opened 1♣. (Hence, a 1♦ opening will not be balanced.) Hands with a club suit are currently treated in much the same way as in the Fantoni/Nunes system: 2♣ shows about 10-14HCP with 5+ clubs; stronger hands open 1♣. The 1NT opening already includes 4=4=1=4 hands (because I don't want to bother with a precision 2♦), as well as most 2=4=2=5 and 4=2=2=5 hands. So this leaves the following shapes with 5 clubs in the 2♣ opening bid: 1=4=3=5 4=1=3=5 3=4=1=5 4=3=1=5 4=4=0=5 The method I'm considering is to open all of these except the last one with 1NT. The 4=4=0=5's never come up. This would mean that 2♣ promises a 6-card suit. So, is this a good idea or not? Some statistics: if you open 1NT on all these hands, then 1.2% of 1NT opening bids will contain a singleton spade, another 1.2% contain a singleton heart, and 4.1% contain a singleton diamond. Note: I'm only asking about the relative merits of opening 1NT vs. 2♣ on these hands. Anyone who says, "This is what happens if you try and play 5-card majors with a strong club" will be shot. B)