lexlogan

1♣-1♥ 1♠-2♥ 3♣-pass

Partner could have Ax xxx AQJxx Axx or the like, but I don't have the tools to ask if he has a strong five card minor. Transfer-then-3NT for me. I play a direct jump to 3H as a one-suited slam try, but this hand isn't good enough IMO.

Incredible! I picked up another 8-card major monster today: AKx AQJ10xxx Kx -- . Although ten tricks are not certain opposite a random bust, they seem likely, so I once again opened 2C and rebid game in my major. Amusingly, I play 2H as a bust response with this partner so he played 4H in his void! Hard to believe I got two of these hands in three games this week.

I don't think the posted hand violates any law, or would require any special alert or disclosure in ACBL land, unless you mark your card "22+" with no other description. Personally I check the "Strong" box and give no further description, as it is impossible to summarize the various standards for a 2C opening; "Strong" just means "I'm afraid of missing game or slam if I open anything else." It's a strong hand that, in the opening bidder's judgement, is better described starting with 2C rather than 1H. That said, I would open the given hand 1H and plan to rebid 4H, or 5H if necessary. There is virtually no chance 1H will be passed out, and the game rebid describes this hand well IMO. Sunday I picked up AKQ107642 -- 10 AQ97, opened 2C, and rebid 4S. (I then went brain-dead and raised partner's 5D bid to 6; 6S makes on the club finesse, with other chances; only one pair bid and made slam.) I describe the 2C-then game sequence as "game in hand with good controls but fewer high cards than expected for 2C." In other words I require 10 tricks, or better than 9.5, and something like 4+ quick tricks. Note that my hand has all the key cards needed for slam. There is still relatively little danger of being passed out at the one-level, but I can think of no way to describe such a monster after opening 1S.

Sure, a fine major suit, 2.5 quick tricks, a sound Goren 13 count, no rebid problems.

It is easy to construct bidding methods under the assumption neither partner nor the opps do anything unexpected. I am convinced it's a bad idea to mix game-going hands in with 1NT forcing, even if you play 1NT 100% forcing. You must consider how you will portray your excellent hand when someone bids something unexepcted like 2NT or 3NT or three or four of a suit. It's tricky enough to untangle the game-invitational hands. Having everything from weak to game invitation to game forcing is a recipe for disaster --there are simply too many odd twists the bidding can take.

The old version of BBO (client?) won't run anymore on my Windows XP PC; it locks up at the news window. The web version does not allow any restrictions on viewing tables as far as I can tell; I am used to restricting tables to Western Hemisphere and English-speaking countries, mostly to try and limit things to a manageable number. The main bridge club is simply unusable IMO; you cannot view any information about a table before clicking to join, and even clicking fails because the screen updates before you can react fast enough to click. I don't find BBO useful for casual bridge games anymore; it's fine for Vugraph, partnership bidding practice, and arranged foursomes. I would appreciate fixing the BBO client or adding options to make the table list manageable in the Web version.

I don't care for the three losing spades, so I'll try double, planning to rebid 3♥. If LHO bids 4♠ and partner doesn't double I'll take a stab at 5♥.

I'll bite. 2S. Partner probably won't be on lead anyway, or perhaps I can switch to clubs in time. But the hand more likely belongs to us in spades, and any honors partner has are apt to be over LHO.

Just for drill, I estimated the chances of making 3D, 4D and 4H for the given hands. My calculations are probably flawed, I used a spreadsheet to crunch the numbers but had to examine each combination of enemy cards and probably got the analysis wrong here and there. Anyway, my estimates were 3D 87%, 4D 43%, 4H 34%, with a total point expectation of +91, -30, and +80. 3NT is hard to estimate; if there's a 25% chance overcaller will lead away from AK or refuse to lead the suit (hoping partner gets in to lead through declarer) then 3NT has a zero expectation. (We were vulnerable and I used -100 for 3D failing, -150 for 4D, and -200 for 4H and 3NT since those may be doubled or down extra tricks.) Can anyone think of a plausible way to get to 4H? But of course opener had a max in this case, and with most weaker hands all contracts other than 3D would have little play. I can't recall the last time I got to a slam after someone overcalled 1NT, so I may give my proposed method a try -- if nothing else, it's apt to be easier on partner's nerves. I'm thinking of calling the method "Parasol", something of a cross between lebensohl and a parachute (safe landing.)

Some good points, Zelandakh. Thank you for posting specific criticisms. I've not played Rubensohl, I can see the advantage of showing a 4-5 major/minor hand by way of transfer-then-bid the major. That option is obviously missing from lebensohl, so in my method or lebensohl responder cue-bids, and if we can't play 3NT we're groping at the four level. For Stayman-plus-stopper, responder could start with 2NT in my method but would generally have to pass opener's 3NT, missing the 4-4 fit. However, there would be a stopper in both hands, so 3NT is probably a good contract and will sometimes make when the 4-4 fit would not. For IMP scoring this may be a break even case. Your example of xx AKx xxx AKQxx I would not consider too strong for 14-16 unless you added a couple of tens. But I think in any method when you stop at a part-score declining a game invitation you will miss some making games. The advantage of stopping two tricks below game is, I think, worth missing a few magic fits. With either leb or Rub you would presumably land in 5D, perhaps failing on a bad trump split, which is more likely than usual given the overcall. 5C makes barring a void somewhere, but I don't see an obvious way to bid it.

I can't imagine being "happy" with -100 holding 27 hcp. Partner had a max, diamonds split well and yet 4D is very odds-against. So yes, I'm highly prejudiced against a system that forces us to 4C or 4D just because we hold "x" hcp.

I've never really liked the 3NT bid of "fast denies" lebensohl in an auction like 1NT-(2S)-3NT; a recent push board, -300 both ways, got me thinking about alternatives. What I don't like about lebensohl/reverse lebensohl/rubensohl is that with 25-27 hcp, responder having no major, you're going to play 3NT or 4,5 or 6 of a minor. 4C or 4D are silly contracts of course, risky with no upside, while 5 and 6 are unlikely if responder has a fairly balanced hand. My first humorous thought was to play 3C or 3D over the interference as "bid 3NT with a stopper, otherwise pass." Of course that leaves responder no good way to handle shapely hands where 5 or 6 might make. Then I googled reverse lebensohl, but responder's 2NT still forces us to 3NT or higher (unless he passes opener's forced 3C, but that style just means the direct 3C is still forcing.) So here's my idea: after 1NT-(2S), most bids are natural/normal: game bids including 3NT are to play, same for slams, jump bids in a suit are forcing, cue-bid is Stayman, non-jump suit bids are merely competitive. That leaves 2NT as a general force. 2NT promises at least the values for 3NT, presumably with no major suit, but suggests some concern about 3NT (no stopper, or slam interest.) Opener bids 3NT with a stopper; otherwise, 3C = no stopper, 3D = good club support, 3H = five card suit, 3S = good support for both minors. "Good support" should be 4+ cards and a hand with reasonable prospects of game. This scheme allows responder to pass 3C, 3D or 3H when he judges game to be unlikely, or of course raise as appropriate. Going plus on such hands seems to be quite valuable, possibly worth the ambiguity when responder instead has a shspely hand with slam interest. If you're having trouble understanding how 25-27 hcp might want to stop in a part-score, here are the approximate hands that got me thinking: ♠Qx......xx ♥AKxx....Jxx ♦xxx.....AKQxx ♣AKxx....Jxx -300 at both tables after 1NT-(2S)-3NT when opener guessed to leave it in (overcaller had AJxxxxx, low to partner's King, defense ran first 7 tricks); 4D is ugly, 4H has a prayer but seems to take some guesswork to get there. We play 14-16 notrumps so note that opener has a max, 27 hcp between us and no obvious game. I'd be happy stopping at 3D on such hands, and note that opening could have xx in spades or KQxx in either hearts or clubs. Comments?

I won't double with a singleton (let alone void) in an unbid major, so I overcall 1S. Later I can try to show power with a jump or cue-bid depending on how the auction develops. A possible solution to this sort of problem is to agree that the cue-bid only promises the highest unbid suit and another suit; of course that makes it harder for partner to compete aggressively in hearts, but it is odd that popular methods leave the spade-minor two-suiter out in the cold over a minor suit opening.

OK, he got me, hook, line and sinker :)

Counting winners rather than losers, that makes for a 1.5-1.0-0.5 count, equivalent to the well-known Four Aces 3-2-1 count. LTC is a good way to get started thinking about tricks rather than points, a way to begin to visualize. But the number of adjustments needed to apply LTC sensibly makes it just as complex and no more accurate than standard point count methods.

Your partner "invited" with that hand? I'd be inviting or more likely bidding slam, which would be a heavy favorite opposite an opening bid. I assume you alerted your opponents to your extremely light opening bid style. Any rational application of LTC would rate your hand as at least 8 losers, and partner's hand as 5+ cover cards. The preempt happened to catch the two hands with some borderline decisions; such is bridge. You will suffer far more in competition opening hands with no defensive strength, unless perhaps you illegally conceal your methods from your opponents and gain from their confusion.

Agree completely. You could apply LTC using a point count method as follows: Count each Ace, King and Queen as worth 3 points, except singleton Kings and doubleton Queens count zero. Count each card over three in any suit as 3 points. Bid game in a major with 30 points, in a minor with 33 points, bid slam with 36 points (3 points per trick.) Oh, wait, Aces are worth more than Kings, and Queens are worth less. Let's make it 4 for an Ace, 2 for a Queen. And the fourth card in a suit isn't always a trick, count it as only 1 point. Your hand gets better with a fit, and Jacks are worth something...any of this sound familiar? LTC is a crude tool; the only advantage is that it gets you thinking in terms of tricks. I certainly use the idea of losers/cover cards, which I picked up from George Rosenkranz; I use my knowledge of partner's hcp to estimate how many of my losers he can cover.

Close to a), though I'm not totally strict. If their suit outranks ours, c) would apply.

I don't like Aceless hands and so I like the original pass. I don't like this hand much on this auction, I'll just bid 2S. Partner opened in 3rd seat and I still have no Aces. Yeah, might miss a slam...

I used to hover. Then a man twice my size waited until everyone left the club to begin berating me for the practice. After listening to his harangue I asked that he leave the premises. He became more agitated but finally walked out the door -- only to stick his foot back in to prevent me from closing it. The board listened to his complaints and mine, and decided nothing. I haven't directed since, much to the chagrin of the Monday night players who enjoyed my five-minute tips before the game and knowing the game would finish no later than 10:15.

Some cases I hope aren't controversial (ACBL, if that matters): (1) Dummy won the last trick. Declarer detaches a card from his hand but has not yet put it in a "played" position. Dummy can say "In your hand"; the card was not yet played; dummy prevented the irregularity. (2) As above, but the card is held in the "played" position; the card is played, it is too late for dummy to prevent the irregularity, either defender may accept the play or require declarer to lead from dummy. (3) Declarer won the last trick. Declarer names a card in dummy: "Ace of Clubs." The card is played, it is too late to prevent the irregularity, either defender may accept the play or require declarer to lead from hand. Trickier cases: (4) Declarer won the last trick and starts to call for a card "Ace.."; dummy interrupts "In your hand." There are two Aces in dummy; no card is yet played; dummy has prevented the irregularity, declarer leads from his hand. Agree or disagree? (5) As in #4, but there is only one Ace in dummy. I do not believe a card has yet been played, and the ruling is the same as #4. It is true that if declarer paused after saying "Ace", he has made an incomplete designation, and the sole Ace must be played, but I don't think that changes anything here, the designation was not yet complete, no card was yet played. Agree or disagree? (I might rule the card played if the statement were something like "Play the Ace" unless declarer routinely used the formulation "Play the Ace of Clubs".) What actually happened: As West, playing a slam with no entry to my hand to take a crucial finesse, the defense slipped and gave me an entry. I called for the Ace of Clubs, and partner said "In your hand". I paused, neither defender said anything, so I proceeded to take the finesse and land the slam. Should I have called the director? North, a life master, should have accepted with the finessable King. I feel no obligation to protect such players from ignorance of the rules; I'm sure 90% or more of players at our club would not realize it was too late for dummy to say anything. But is it illegal to continue play after giving the defenders time to speak up?

Yes, double-then-notrump shows a hand too strong to overcall notrump immediately; I would suggest 19-22, with double-then-jump-in-notrump 23-24, but 19-21 and 22-24 is probably the default understanding.

Who doesn't? I thought cue-bid with a hand too strong for a single jump was normal in Acol as well as American styles, but I don't have a book handy. Anyway, 3♠ is certainly not appropriate in SAYC or 2/1 bidding.

2♠. Nice shape, good controls, and the Q♥ is protected from the opening lead, but it's still a poorly placed card for suit play.