rhm

Of course. You are missing 3 aces, but your clubs are near solid, and the only ace West could possibly have for his double must be the ♥A. Rainer Herrmann

Still the trend is interesting When the debate started the ones who would open 1♣ and rebid 1NT were a distinct minority. Rainer Herrmann

Assuming no special considerations from the the rest of my combined holding applies the ten almost guarantees 2 tricks and 2 stoppers in the suit. This assumes opening leader would lead second best or the highest if he had no honor in the suit. But even if he does not the ten is high percentage for two tricks. Playing low from dummy is a serious error. Rainer Herrmann

That depends on your viewpoint. The advantage of limited openings compared to standard system is obvious. But it does not follow that a strong club opening compared to standard is a weakness. Given the problems you often have describing strong and super strong hands in standard and how difficult it can be to get cooperation from a weak hand I do not buy that opening 1♣ is a weak point of precision. There is a concept that the lower the bid the more room you have to describe different hands. This led to the observation that 1♣ may be underutilized if it requires too much strength. The problem with this concept is, if next hand preempts your room is gone. For example if next hand will bid 3♠ it will not matter for your room whether you opened 1♣ or 2♣ for example. What matters is how specific your opening was. If next hand preempts you would be in a more comfortable position you opened a "blue club" instead of a "precision club" since the lower limit for a "blue club" is higher. . Rainer Herrmann

Muddled thinking I dare say, though you are not alone. If a minor suit opener fetches a spade overcall it is very common that advancer will raise or jump raise overcaller when he has support. It escapes me how you ever want to land on your feet when a negative double can show almost any number of hearts over a spade overcall. I have found it disaster prone if a negative double (unless very strong) does not guarantee at least 4 cards in the remaining unbid major (unless you have a specific agreements that it denies 4 cards). Opener simply has to rely on this when considering a contract in the unbid major after a likely raise or jump raise by advancer. (I still prefer 4NT on the actual hand) If you can not stand a Pass, it must be much better with the hands you give to bid 2♣, forcing or not, making it unlikely that you hold 4 cards in the unbid major. But let's change to a worse scenario: With the hands you gave assume the minors were reversed and opener had opened 1♣ instead. Now a 2♦ response over 1♠ would be more problematic. The alternative is in deed to pass. You say you can not catch up then? A reopening double at a low level does commonly not promise any extra beyond an opening. So tell us with what strength responder can afford to raise the level voluntarily by jumping in a new suit or cue-bid after Pass if the reopening double does not promise more than a minimum opening? Responder simply must have a hand of invitational or near invitational strength not suited for immediate action. Accordingly I can not see why you can not catch up. Rainer Herrmann

Fair enough. One can have different views how to act over a preempt, which makes this discussion difficult. The only author I am aware of, who has written about this subject in some detail was Mike Lawrence. (e.g. Tips on Competitive Bidding) He recommended when acting over a preempt overcaller should assume to find 7 HCP in partners hand, because otherwise you will often get stolen blind. Accordingly advancer should not act unless holding more than 7HCP before considering further action. As with most of Lawrence advice this sounds sensible to me. The following is taken from one of the answers to http://www.michaelslawrence.com/Articles/005_frm.html "You have more than the seven points partner expects and you have good heart support. Raise to 4H. The key is that when you have seven points with support, you realize that this is about what your partner is expecting. The rule of seven says that when an opponent preempts, you may 'expect' your partner to have seven ordinary points. When you have more than seven, you bid. When you have seven, you pass. When you have less than seven, you go down." The hand used for this explanation was ♠Q8 ♥K73 ♦ A73 ♣109763 after (3♦)-3♥-(Pass)-???? Rainer Herrmann

Don't we all once we languish in a part-score? Admittedly all depends where partner's values are. If in clubs you may well be right, if in hearts you are certainly wrong and chances are almost equal where his values are. Give partner for example ♠Jx ♥AQxx ♦xx ♣JTxxx and he will pass 3♠ (even with more), mainly because partner can not see a good fit. . You miss the point. The question is not reaching 4♠ if LHO raises. The point is that you will be unlikely to be allowed to play there when you can make. Over an immediate 4♠ LHO opponent has to take an immediate decision whether to sacrifice or not. Over 3♠ you give them much more leeway. I am well aware that this is not the hand partner expects when you jump to 4♠. Unfortunately you do not always get the hand fitting your agreements. I am not saying 4♠ is right and 3♠ is wrong. What I claim is that the decision is very close and 4♠ can win in a number of ways. The discussion here is, as it usually is, lopsided. Rainer Herrmann

For the paranoid everything is suspicious, if it is not out of the completely ordinary. Bridge is the ideal game for people with such tendencies Rainer Herrmann

Highly unlikely sounds to me like an overbid. Partner will often pass when you have ten tricks and if he raises you are in danger of making 12 tricks. The risk of getting too high after an immediate 4♠ is probably less. 4♠ also shuts out 4♦ by LHO. Rainer Herrmann

The whole thread discusses the wrong issues. It does not matter that much whether a jump rebid of opener#s major should be a point stronger or not. Point count is not a good yardstick for reaching good suit games and staying out of poor ones. If you rebid 2♥ on [hv=pc=n&s=sk4hakj984da85c73&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1np?]133|200[/hv] you will of course miss a lot of good games and if you bid 3♥ you will be in some poor ones. What is remarkable is that in standard it has been known for a long time that responders rebid of 2♠ after the bidding starts 1♥-1NT makes little sense in a natural sense. The same holds true when opener rebids 2♠ after the same start. The description is usually reversing values with 4 cards in spades. What responder is supposed to do with this information over this rebid remains mysterious. Suitable hands for a 2♠ rebid by opener are rare compared to 2NT and 3♥, even though it is the cheapest strong bid opener can make over 1NT. For example just exchanging the meaning of 3♥ and 2♠ after the bidding started 1♥-1NT could be very beneficial at little cost. (The major cost might be that opponents can double an artificial 2♠ rebid by opener) The major problem I have with the actual South hand is that it got a strong major suit and 6322 distribution. Since South has already shown 5 cards in the major rebidding the major stresses suit play too much while notrump may well be better. Respoinder has no clue whether opener is distributional or not. Give North a suitable minimum, e.g. [hv=pc=n&s=sk4hakj984da85c73&n=sa32hq2dt32cjt542&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1hp1n]266|200[/hv] and any heart rebid is unlikely to land you in 3NT. Having no special agreements I would rebid 2NT (a slight overbid) with the actual South hand. Rainer Herrmann

If as you claim LHO returns a diamond after the club ace and clubs are 4-4, declarer wins in dummy and gets 2 club tricks. 2 heart ruffs, 2 clubs, 2 red aces and 6 trumps add up to 12. Rainer Herrmann

Why does it not make if clubs are 4-4? Rainer Herrmann

deleted

I have never understood why Polish club kept with the original precision 2♣ opening. In Polish club removing 5C + 4cM from 2♣ is easy. You can even keep the unbalanced diamond if you like. Open 5♣-4M-2-2 (12-14) with 1♣ and rebid your major or 1NT depending on what responder bids. Open 5♣-4M-3-1 with 1♣ if your singleton is in diamonds (you do this with 4441♦ and 440♦5♣ anyway) and otherwise 1♦. The case where you have only 3 cards in diamonds when you open 1♦ is rare and has never created problems for me. You will have to raise with 5♣-1♦-4♥-3♠) a 1♠ response, but is this necessarily bad? Removing 5C + 4cM from 2♣ has much more stringent consequences in Precision. It forces you to play 1♦ as nebuluos with at most 2 cards. Rainer Herrmann

This is one area where Polish club and WJ05 separate. Polish club philosophy is Mafia (majors always first) but traditionally many did not play 1♣-2m as game forcing. I play a sort of compromise: 1♣-2♣ responder forces to game and does not deny a 4 card major 1♣-2♦ responder forces to game and does deny a 4 card major After 1♣-2♣ With 12-14: Opener bids a 4 card major. With no 4 card major opener chooses between 2NT (12-14) and 3♣ depending on club support and diamond stopper. (2♦ is reserved for stronger hands) With 18 HCP and up Opener bids and rebids a 5 card major With no 5 card major opener bids 2♦ (18+) unless he wants to splinter. Over 2♦ responder will show a 4 card major if he has one. Medium hands with great club support can choose between upgrading to 18+ hands (usually) or can raise clubs immediately After 1♣ - 2♦ Bidding follows natural lines: Since responder has denied a 4 card major, openers rebid in a major are initially stopper showing, denying a good holding in the other major (unless opener rebids the major showing 5+ and 18+ HCP). 2NT shows stopper in both majors Only if opener rebids the major does he show the strong hand with a 5 card or longer major. 3♣ shows at least 5 clubs but is ambiguous to strength. Opener can of course raise diamonds, which is also ambiguous. With the strong hand (18+) opener can either show a 5 card or longer major by bidding a major twice (bidding both majors shows at least 5-5), splinter or take control with 4♦ or bid the hand as if he were 12-14. But in the latter case opener is required to bypass or make another bid over 3NT, which is indicated anyway with 12+ opposite 18+ HCP. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

Decent is the exaggeration of the year. A tiny number of expert partnerships might have this very special agreement. Surely they will also be able to construct a few hands with a solid suit and a singleton in partners suit, where this agreement would come in handy. Meanwhile 99% of all tournament players do not care about such silly agreements, which come up every second leap year at best, and live happily without them. Rainer Herrmann

If you open this hand 1♣ you should not claim that your 1♣ opening is 16+ Rainer Herrmann

3♦. I want to be in game. Anyway a slight overbid is almost always the right choice when it gives us more leeway to find the best strain. 3NT can be very profitable at matchpoints and I want to be there if partner bids it over 3♦. And if partner rebids his spades over 3♦ I am pretty sure we belong in spades, not in hearts. Having forced to game I also need not worry missing slam. Rainer Herrmann

Tough decision, mainly because it is matchpoints. At IMPs against a reasonably strong East player cashing the ♣A looks right, loosing only if the remaining three clubs are all with West, while ducking the club king is almost automatic for a good East player. At matchpoints the decision is tougher and depends to what extent you believe 3NT to be a normal contract. On a different lead against 3NT declarer would probably always repeat the club finesse Assume you go to the diamond ace and the second club finesse loses. It is still much against the odds that the defense can now manage to cash 4 further tricks single dummy. So repeating the finesse looks right at matchpoints and it is more a matter of overtricks than safeguarding the contract. Rainer Herrmann

Why? I feel very differently. Shape before strength. Playing such a system I would be happy to bid a descriptive 1♠. I also do not really understand why responder should strive to find a second bid any more than in a standard system when I have given a more precise description of my hand. I also do not understand why I should loose the heart fit. I will almost always follow up with bidding hearts next. I am not worried about a weak moysian fit when responder knows my distribution and can correct to almost any other strain. Playing XYZ 2♣ I recommend to break the transfer with 3 cards in responders major over 1♣-1♦-1♠-2♣. Anyway the danger losing a spade fit by bidding hearts seems more likely to me. Rainer Herrmann

One reason I prefer 2/1 as unconditional game forcing is that I know what will be forcing thereafter. Not playing such a system you deem it not necessary to tell us what continuations you consider forcing and more important what might be not. There is not much common agreement here. To mention just two agreements I know of and have played in the past are 1) Bidding is forced up to 2NT or 2) responder will bid again if the bidding is below game. From your comment it seems that you consider a minor suit raise not forcing on responder. Sounds to me like stone-age ACOL with 5 card majors. Without any special further agreements I would bid 2♥ followed by a diamond raise, not ideal but hinting at club shortage The worst what might happen is that partner will raise hearts, in which case I would follow up with 4♦. It is unlikely that we belong in 3NT once partner raises hearts and if partner insists on hearts we might belong there. You example hand is a good illustration why lowering the requirements for 2/1 and as a consequence lots of non forcing continuations is a much more difficult system to play. Rainer Herrmann

Really? Am I the only one, who often can only discard from a specific suit, whether I like the suit or not, because any other suit discard might give declarer additional tricks? Sometimes you need to keep parity with dummy or declarer. Sometimes you should not discard from a suit to avoid giving declarer a blueprint about the layout of the deal. Reese famous "idle fifth" comes to mind. An intermediate player often has many more choices, but then such a player often takes less tricks on defense. Simple rules for simple players. This is supposed to be the "expert forum", Rainer Herrmann

deleted

And what was 3♥ by a passed hand? A forcing raise? Don't we all get such momentary lapse of nonsense, but why publish it instead of putting it into the dustbin where it belongs? Rainer Herrmann