david_c

I believe this is wrong: the laws do not allow you to adjust to Ave+/Ave- in situations like this. (12C1 doesn't apply, because a result was obtained.) Can anyone either confirm this, or explain to me what the position really is?

Surely not - East doesn't have any UI at all. He can do whatever he likes. (If this was a face-to-face game and West had not alerted 2♥, then there would be UI.)

East pitches ♠J, West pitches the same suit as South.

Go on then David, elaborate :D When I've finished writing up my system I'll let you know. :) But what I was referring to is that we're not allowed an artificial 2♣ bid which is not quite game-forcing, such as the one played by Ben.

:rolleyes: Dunno. Possibly because the only decent solutions to this problem aren't allowed in EBU competitions until next year. Actually, how about playing fit jumps over 1♥, weak jumps over 1♠?

I'd quite like to say, "DON'T play invitational jump shifts". The problem is that you're almost forced to play IJS if you're playing this style of 2/1, unless you want to leave some sorts of hands unbiddable. So what I really want to say is, "Don't play 2/1GF," except you won't want to hear that. Oh well. Why are IJS horrible? Because 1. They don't completely solve the problem of how to bid invitational hands - there are plenty of hands where you have a long suit but you're not sure you really want to play in it. 2. Opener often doesn't know what to do, and doesn't have enough space to find out. Having said that, when I play 2C as forcing to game, I play IJS. But they always seem to get us bad results.

hehehe ... well said Mike, I'd forgotten about that one. There are a few pairs playing this back at my home club in Hampshire; the first time they explained it I thought they must have misunderstood the idea, but no, apparently that's really what it is. I agree with Free btw - Meckwell vs. strong, multi-landy (or a sensible version of asptro) vs. weak.

Nice-looking hand, but I really don't see that any game is likely to make. In 3NT I'm expecting that the defence can take four hearts and a club most of the time. The other problem with 3NT is that it doesn't seem possible to arrange for partner to declare it. So I'm passing, although if this is IMPs I'm a bit unhappy. If 2♦ shows the majors, then I'm still not too confident about making game, but it seems that bidding 3♦ now is unlikely to hurt, and will get us to game whenever it's there. We'll probably end up with +130 anyway.

Great idea - this could add an entirely new dimension to the game ... "Partner followed with a discouraging 2+5i of hearts."

Dave McDouall (?sp). This was when I was filling in for you, who was due to be filling in for John Holland. I suppose the sight of me sitting across the table rather than John H would be enough to make anyone go for -1100 ...

You are completely wrong. How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd. Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert" Say for example if your LHO opens 2♠ and partner bids 3♠. Then even if you've not discussed the 3♠ bid and have no idea what partner indends, you know it must be alertable, so playing face-to-face bridge in the EBU you have to alert. Our regs say, "Alert any call of your partner which you believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning." And what else can you say but "no agreement"? Nothing absurd about it. Still, I'd be surprised if North was ruled against for not alerting on a hand like this, even in the EBU. I don't think that his failure to bid 5♣ is enough to show they have an understanding (yes he has six clubs, but he might decide he can wait for a round when his RHO bids 4♥). And the TD will probably think it's unlikely they have discussed this situation. But if they admit that they have an understanding, then they might be in trouble.

I think I would tell South he should have alerted 4♣. North said it was lead-directing; South clearly intended it as lead-directing; that's enough to convince me that they have an agreement. And this agreement is alertable IMO - of course, South doesn't have to tell the opponents he has a void, but he does need to say that 4♣ is lead-directing rather than promising length. Then you have to look to see if there was any damage. At first sight it doesn't seem like there was. But if E/W feel they have been damaged I will give them the opportunity to explain why.

Just wondering - if you do have a bid which shows a limit raise with 3 trumps, will you use it on both ♠QJx ♥QTxx ♦xx ♣AQxx and ♠QJx ♥x ♦AQxxxx ♣Jxx in response to a 1♠ opening? Or do you have some other way to bid the second hand?

That doesn't seem right - if the club finesse is right, then you're always making the contract unless there's a bad trump break (and even then you have good chances). But if the club finesse is wrong, then you'll always go down if you draw trumps first, whereas if you take the finesse immediately you might still make.

What actually happened on this hand was that both tables played in 1NT doubled. We went for 1100, whereas declarer at the other table managed to get out for 200, which goes to show that my choice of bid was not the only point of interest on the hand ... At the time, I was kicking myself for not trying Stayman. It does seem to be the most likely way to avoid a double. And, as it happens, it would have worked nicely on this hand (partner turned up with five diamonds). And, yes, nearly everyone here in the UK plays double of 1NT for penalties, even against a strong no-trump. Until recently the system regulations forced us to play double as penalties in most competitions. This was changed for 4th seat a few years ago, and was changed for 2nd seat last month, but most people either don't know or don't care.

Well, of course not: that would be an appalling waste of space. But what you might want to use the extra step for is (i) to be able to show the shape of opener's hand more precisely and/or (ii) to be able to distinguish minimum hands from hands in the 18-21 range, at a low level.

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=st953ht73d965c862]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Partner deals and opens 1NT (15-17). RHO passes. What do you do? If you choose to pass, will you run if LHO doubles? (And if so, how?) If you run immediately, how do you do it? If you bid 2♣ Stayman, what will you do if the auction goes 1NT : (p) : 2♣ : (p) , 2♦ : (p) : p : (X) , p : (p) ?

Apart from the problems you mention, the Benji 2♣ (or reverse-Benji 2♦) is very susceptible to interference. The opponents will try to bid as high as possible, and if you're sitting there with a strong single-suited hand you may feel morally obliged to bid your suit. So the opponents very rarely get caught, but meanwhile they've managed to disrupt your auction. If you open 2♣ when you have an Acol Two in a major, then it becomes more difficult to bid game-forcing hands with a major. If partner responds 2♦ you'll probably be OK, but remember partner will not know how strong your hand is when you rebid 2♥ or 2♠. However, if partner responds 2♥ or 2♠, you may need to bid at the 3-level to show a game-forcing hand with a major suit; that's a significant loss. Panic!

I'm not convinced that you would use the same mechanism to show the balanced hand in competition. For example, if you have 15-17 balanced, and the auction begins 1♣ : (1♠) : dbl : (2♠), then you will probably show your hand by passing. But if you have 18-20 balanced, and the auction begins 1♦ : (1♠) : dbl : (2♠), are you still going to pass? Or are you going to show your extra values? I do think that if you're playing a forcing 1♦ opener, it makes life difficult if you can't use the 1NT rebid to help sort out the unbalanced hands. You might think that there is an equivalent problem after 1♣ if you put balanced 18-20 in there, but in fact it doesn't seem as bad at all, because of the extra step available before you reach 1NT.

Personally I agree with this. If I make a bid that I expect my partner to understand, then I will explain this to my opponents in whatever way is appropriate, whether or not we have an agreement. In my opinion, people should be required to do this. Furthermore, I don't believe that people make conventional bids unless they expect their partner to understand them. But it seems that there are not many Law-experts who share this view.

This seems a bit odd to me - of the hand types above, you'd not want to double with 15-17 balanced or 14-17 without take-out shape, which leaves: - 18-20 balanced - minimum with take-out shape - better than minimum, with take-out shape - hands too strong for any other bid But if you're playing 1♦ as 18-20 balanced or 14+ with diamonds, then after a 1♦ opening you'll presumably be doubling in competition with - 18-20 balanced - minimum with take-out shape - better than minimum, with take-out shape - hands too strong for any other bid So how is it better to put 18-20 in 1♦, rather than 1♣?

David, could you elaborate with some detail this ? I would be interested in analyzing potential pitfalls. Well, I've never played it at the table, so perhaps I'm missing something, but this is what worries me: The difficulties in responding to a Precision 2♣ are well-known. F-N's 2♣ bid is slightly better in some respects, because it's more limited than the Precision 2♣. But it covers a wider variety of shapes. Their 2♦ bid has all the same problems as 2♣, but in addition you've lost the 2♣:2♦ sequence. That seems to make constructive bidding much harder. As far as I can tell, they also open 2♦ with a 4441. I don't understand this at all - what's wrong with 1NT?

Time to plug my own system I suppose, which is fairly similar: 1♣ = 15+ clubs/balanced [or a near-GF hand] ... 1♦ = any 0-5(6) without 5+ spades, or 6+ with at least 4 hearts ... ... 1♥ = [nearly] any 18+ ... ... ... 1♠ = 0-5(6) without 5-card major, or any 4-4 in the majors ... ... ... 1NT = 0-5 with 5+ hearts ... ... ... 2♣+ = 6+ with 4+ hearts, GF relay system ... ... 1♠ = 15-17 balanced with 4 hearts, or unbalanced with 3+ hearts ... ... 1NT = 15-17 balanced without 4 hearts ... ... 2♣ = 15-17 with 5+ clubs, not 3 hearts ... ... 2♦+ = various strong hands ... 1♥ = 0-5 with 5+ spades, or 6+ with 4+ spades ... ... 1♠ = 18+ ... ... ... 1NT+ = same relay system as 1♣:1♦,1♥:1NT+ ... ... 1NT = 15-17 without 4 spades ... ... 2♣ = 15-17 with 5+ clubs, not 3 spades ... ... 2♦ = unbalanced with 3-card spade support ... 1♠ = 6+ with no 4-card major ... ... 1NT = 15-17, could be 4414 ... ... 2♣ = clubs, forcing ... ... 2♦ = 18+ balanced ... 1NT = GF unbalanced with diamonds ... 2♣ = GF unbalanced with clubs ... 2♦ = invitational, 6+ diamonds ... 2M = weak ... 2NT = invitational, 5-5 minors ... 3♣ = invitational, 6+ clubs This doesn't always find 4-4 major fits when responder is weak. The other problem is that you respond 1♦ about half the time. Apart from that ... well, I like it anyway. As for the original question about the 1♦ opening - I don't think this opening bid is very nice, but the suggested responses seem about as good as you can get. [Aside: If someone wanted me to play the F-N system, I'd try and persuade them to play 1♦ and 2♦ the normal way round (with 2♦ being a multi). The F-N 2♦ is a horrible thing to respond to, and 1♦ is less useful as a forcing bid than the other one-level openers.]

Heh - that's not light, that's ultra-light ... change my vote from "other" to (2) :) I describe my own methods as light openings, but they're still sound enough that I'd force to game with 13.

When I try this, something does happen - I get a window with an error message telling me that "Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested". I've tried it a few times now, over the last few days. Any idea what's going on? The "news" in the lobby is also an I.E. thing but that works fine.