rhm

I do not mind bidding 1♣-1♥-1♠, but if I could have bid game on the first round, why can't I not do it on the second round? East does not need a strong hand to make 4♠. The secondary club honors where all superfluous for game in spades. But I also agree that there is little merit in bidding 3♠ as non forcing, fighting a long suit with another one and stopping one trick below game. As far as a voluntary 3C bid is concerned, there may or may not be a conflict between strong hands and competitive hands, depending on what your other bids mean, including DBL and 2NT. But assume there is a conflict. What is more common? A competitive distributional hand or a hand with substantial extras? The very fact that opponents are in the bidding does not make it impossible for you to have substantial extras but it makes it definitely even less likely, since you can not hold the HCP your opponents have. I am very much in favor of showing my distribution as soon as possible when I am minimum, provided I have some. Surpressing long suits is not the way to win at Bridge. In bidding time is rarely on your side. Get in fast and get out quickly once you have described your hand, but do not pass forcing bids. Rainer Herrmann

I am aware that David Burn is not a Walrus, because he knows too much about the game, but he wants to protect any Walrus playing the game. If I play a 15-17 notrump and decide that Axx Axx Axxx Axx is a hand too strong to open 1NT, there would be no announcement and no alert when I open 1♦ instead. Have I violated full disclosure? If as explained above Mr. Klinger or Mr Jackson opens the same hand with 1♦ but for the different reason because for them the hand is not good enough for a 15-17 notrump, how do you disclose that? If I can construct a hand where I would upgrade by 2 points, say ATx ATx AJT9x xx to 1NT or downgrade by 2 points say QJx KQx KQx KQJx to 1NT, do I really write on my convention card 13(+)-19(-) and announce it as such, even though I am unlikely ever to get such a hand in my remaining lifetime? What if I claim to play this range (13-19) and decide not to open Axx Axx Axxx Axx with 1NT, would there not be some Walrus, who would call the director? Am I supposed to defend my motives then in front of an ethics commission? To me this borders on the absurd. That's why I have the impression that full disclosure is for some not an endeavor any more, but become an obsession. Rainer Herrmann

These are good examples why it matters whether you get information on the first or in later rounds of the bidding. The information content is not the same. Timing matters a lot Rainer Herrmann

Sorry to say that, but if I had to summarize the discussion on Bridgewinner (https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/opening-1-nt-point-range-on-convention-card/) to my surprise the most notorious Walruses for strict HCP ranges were not representatives from ACBL but 1) David Burn and 2) Ian Grant To remain fair to EBU land a voice, which in my mind made many sensible statements, was Richard Fleet. But he was heavily attacked by David. Rainer Herrmann

I made some comments in the Bridgewinner discussion. I recite Jeff Rubens (Bridgeworld August 2019, page 55), because it is well worth repeating: "People who write laws that tell others how to evaluate their hands deserve to reside in that circle of Hell in which all the decks have 51 cards." Full disclosure should be an ethical endeavor. My impression is it has become for many an obsession and anyone, who does not share their obsession, is considered by them a cheat. It reminds me of the role of Jakobinism in the French Revolution. We need to understand that Milton Work Count is not the holy grail of hand evaluation, it is the holy grail of communication about hand strength and as such is fuzzy. Since we have no common agreement how to evaluate a Bridge hand precisely we have also no good way of communicating this. If you doubt his look at all those discussions about hand evaluation solely on this forum. One of these discussions was just revived in the Expert_Class section and it alone goes over 19 pages so far. There was a Bridge book by Irish International David Jackson and Ron Klinger in 2010 called: "Better Balanced Bidding The Banzai Method" The book uses the so called Cochran Count where a ten is worth 1 point up to the ace, which is assigned 5 points Accordingly a deck has not 40 points but 60 points and when you communicate your strength you would need to roughly specify 2/3 of Cochran points to get to standard HCP. However, look a bit deeper and you will find that this method devalues aces and upgrades lower honors. A hand like Axxx Axx Axx Axx is not worth a strong notrump (15-17) but comes only to 13.7 and is considered by the proponents of this method a weak notrump A hand like KQx QJx QJx QJTx is worth a strong notrump (15-17) because it comes to 15.7 Mr. Jackson and Mr. Klinger show numerous deals taken from high level tournaments where the field missed 3NT and their method would have got there. Now I would consider the first hand too good for a 15-17 notrump and I would not even consider KQx QJx QJx KQxx worth opening a 15-17 notrump. Don't ask me why because that is not important. But who am I to tell Mr. Klinger or Mr Jackson how to evaluate a Bridge hand? If you restrict hand evaluation you are shaking at the very foundation, on which this game is based. Rainer Herrmann

Furthermore information theory as a mathematical theory to my knowledge deals with amount of information but has no concept that different information may have different value. Its application to Bridge is quite limited. For example knowledge about partners minor suit length is of different value than about his majors, subject of course that anyone holds 13 cards. If we are looking at slams this difference diminishes, but in general there is a reason why we prefer to respond in a major suit rather than in a longer minor to a takeout double for example. Almost any modern bidding system has at least one nebulous minor suit opening, where you could have three or less cards in this minor suit. There are not many modern bidding systems where say a 1♠ opening is nebulous. It matters whether you receive information on the first or later round of the bidding. For once there may be less bidding space left and any information after the first round is subject to disruption. Timing in the bidding is very relevant. Any bidding system and bidding method makes value judgements what information should be provided and in which order and how to consume bidding space. Thus the claim that two different methods are "equivalent" is a very dubious one (equivalent in what respect?) and I doubt "equivalent effectiveness" can be proven or falsified. The concept that bidding methods and systems evolve and establish their value in competition is a sensible one. I do not think that any bidding system of yore would have a good chance to survive in modern high-level tournaments. Rainer Herrmann

Fair enough. What also should be noted, at least from a historical point of view, is that 1NT forcing was invented by Roth-Stone as a necessity, because Roth-Stone incorporates constructive raises (10-12 points). This left responder with an impossible situation with weaker hands and support. The "solution" was 1NT forcing. Kaplan-Sheinwold, Eastern Scientific, Walsh also made the single raise constructive, usually with four trumps, while a preference after a 1NT response is weaker, often with three-card and occasionally with two-card support. (cited from the 5th edition of Official Encyclopedia of Bridge) Rainer Herrmann

I have clearly argued that Canape is not equivalent to 5 card majors . Forcing notrump response is an US convention. 5 card major systems existed long before the forcing notrump convention was even invented. European 5 card major systems never incorporated it. For example Polish club and it forerunners Vienna System, The French 5 card major systems as well as Italian players do not use forcing notrump repsonse. It is my impression that nowadays "semi-forcing" notrump response is on the rise in the US, particularly at the top level. That's why I think you have it backwards when you claim: That is surprising given that these books answer most of your questions For example Danny Kleinman has a chapter in "The Nortump Zone" on page 202: What's Wrong With The Forcing 1NT and you keep asking "why people swapped to 5-card majors but kept the non-forcing 1NT from Goren" Maybe you do not want to hear or understand what other people tell you, because you are so convinced about your own ideas? Rainer Herrmann

I think you have it backwards. The 1NT response used to be non-forcing. Then bidding theorists came along arguing the case for making it forcing. They had a point but they also oversold their case in my opinion. It is definitely not a black or white issue. Once you have no game in general 1NT is quite often a desirable contract at any form of scoring. Saying you can not play 1NT when you or your partner opens with one of a major create many problems, not least that opener has to respond with a balanced hand in a non-suit. 5M332 in a minimum hand is very frequent. 1NT may well be your last plus score. If you do not play it forcing openers rebids when he does not pass tend to be better defined. I suggest you look at Building A Bidding System from Roy Hughes (2005) (It does discuss bidding theory, but not specific systems like SEF or AMBRA) The Notrump Zone from Danny Kleinman (2004) (which also discusses the 1NT response to a major) Rainer Herrmann

I think the major reason is the popularity of 5 card majors, which are not very compatible with Canape system. But it is not only popularity. 4 card major systems are more difficult to play than 5 card major systems requiring better judgement. There are sound technical advantages as well. 5 card majors make major suit openings rarer and minor suit openings more common compared to 4 card majors. If the objective is to exchange as much information as possible in constructive sequences, this is the way it should be done. (Information about majors tends to be much more important than anything else) There is a reason why Precision was developed even though strong club systems and 5 card majors do not provide such a good fit. Expensive bids in constructive sequences should be specific while inexpensive bids less so, since there is room left to sort things out. Before the advancement of negative (sputnik) doubles, 4 card majors had one big advantage over 5 card majors: You rarely missed a 4-4 major suit fit. This all changed with the advancement of negative doubles. The advantage (not missing 4-4 major suit fits) did not disappear completely but was very significantly reduced. All these discussions about the law of total tricks and making the right decision in competitive situations are much easier to apply when you play 5 card majors. Of course there are also some advantages of 4 card major systems. They tend to be more obstructive and require more judgement to play against. The fact that very few play 4 card majors and canape systems at the highest level is indicative that this is not only a fad. These systems are probably not competitive any more in the modern world even if you try to soup them up with modern gadgets. Rainer Herrmann

♦ Inverted minor suit raises are not limited in the first place, so accepting or declining a limit raise is not as straightforward over a minor than a major. I do this indirectly, but I do not see why opener needs to do this on his first rebid. Postponing the decision may give you more information before you decide what your hand is worth. After 1♦-2♦ the only partial we can stop in is 3♦. Anyone of the partnership, who bids 3♦, suggests this as a resting place and by inference shows a minimum hand or a hand having got worse given the auction so far. If you bid something else, the auction either becomes game forcing or if below 3♦ remains forcing, suggesting game (or more). 1♦-2♦-3♦ shows total balanced crap by opener, so 1♦-2♦-2♥ (balanced or semi-balanced) could be a minimum hand but not total crap. Opener is likely to be 12-14 or 18-19. Generally after a fit is found I consider showing distribution and whether we have duplication of values or not more important than anything else. Rainer Herrmann

Why are these hands a problem? I would want to be in 7♦ on any day of the week. The spade loser disappears on the heart ace. There are at least 5 side suit top tricks plus 8 trump tricks. Rainer Herrmann

[hv=pc=n&s=sa4hkqdaj963cajt4&n=sk762haj4dkq852c3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp2dp2sp4dp5cp7dppp]266|200[/hv] 2♦ : inverted 2♠ : singleton club (over inverted we play step 1 (balanced or semi-balancd) next three steps show shortage from low side suit to high side suit 4♦ : Minorwood 5♣ : 2 keycards plus queen of diamonds Simple and effective. (North is likely to hold 5 or more diamonds unless precisely 4-4-4-1) Rainer Herrmann

I agree to some extent and have changed my previous comment slightly. Problem is you put all your eggs in one basket. That partner is not minimum and that 3NT is your objective. 5♦ is a pipe dream once you bid 2NT Rainer Herrmann

I admit I may miss some 3NT opposite some non fitting 15-16, but this is also true opposite a 1NT rebid. I would not bid 4th suit whether invitational or not, because it does not matter how you reach 3♦. It will be in great jeopardy opposite a non fitting minimum unbalanced hand and given the auction such hands are much more likely. That is why same suit rebid must be wide ranging and opener must raise when he got unexpected support. The first objective must be to safeguard your plus score while showing your long suit and raising with support is one of the safest actions, no matter how weak responder is. 2♦ will often be your best partial and sometimes your last plus position. All these suggestions leading to a high level minor suit contract after responder rebids in notrump usually work only in the post mortem. In my experience they rarely work at the table. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

This is nonsense. It is a hand which ranges from a minimum response to a hand just short of an invititational jump rebid. Same suit rebid shows a six card in the range between 5-10 HCP If 4th suit is forcing to game there is often no other way to show such hands. Same suit rebid by responder is not encouraging, but this is not the same as drop dead. Drop dead bids tend to occur only if opener has strictly limited his hand like after a notrump bid. On the actual layout opener can see that 5♦ might have play opposite KTxxxxx in diamonds and little else. But opener can only evaluate his hand properly if you rebid your six card suit. 2NT will not do and the suit is not good enough for a jump rebid in diamonds. If there is no fit you want to stop in 2♦. Rainer Herrmann

1♣--1♦ 1♠--2♦ 3♥--5♦ Simple and easy. Opener has extra and is distributional and he knows from opponents silence that responder is unlikely to be broke. If 3♥ is not a splinter I would bid 4♦ with openers hand. Rainer Herrmann

2♦ for me, particularly at MP. If opener is minimum he is unbalanced, very likely short in diamonds. At best opener will have a doubleton in both red suits If opener has more and support for diamonds (Hx is sufficient) he should raise, since a 2♦ rebid is wide ranging. If opener passes 2♦ how likely is it that 3NT is a good contract? Playing weak notrumps with Q10xx, Qx, QJ, Axxxx the only opening I can stomach is a weak notrump, even if you do have the agreement that 5422 is generally not considered balanced. Rainer Herrmann

While I agree with your general remarks I would nit-pick with the details. The way you posed the problem making the diamond your first discard could be costly if declarer got KJ doubleton in clubs. In this case the contract is always down if you discard a spade first and keep your diamonds. Otherwise when to discard a diamond depends on the level of play. If declarer is an expert he will wonder whether you as a defender would discard the way you recommend from three small diamonds and AQxx. At the top level I would expect many to get it right and bang down the king of diamonds, expecting an expert to discard the way you did when holding the queen of diamonds. At that level discarding like an intermediate player, 3 spades first and then a diamond might be more successful. At the top level its a game of bluff and double bluff. Rainer Herrmann

This is a common view and standard bidding approaches do not cater well for such hands. Fact remains: slam in club looks very reasonable while game in spades does not. Rainer Herrmann

A strange comment. First of all my line works against the given layout by you, diamond switch or not. Of course if a diamond switch would have been forthcoming at trick 2, I would not have pursued this line any more since dummies entry is gone and there is no point in taking the spade finesse then, whether that finesse works or not. While it is always a good idea to think about the options good defenders have available to them and what you can deduce about the one they have chosen, I very much doubt that even expert defenders can so easily reconstruct at trick 2 the actual layout of the hidden cards and even if they could that they would be able to predict my suggested line of declarer play. Expert defenders are not almighty. If expert defenders would always find the right defense against the actual layout at the table, I would have given up this game long ago. In fact part of the pleasure is to induce errors by the defense and vice versa. Of course never assume your opponents to be stupid. But the most successful declarers are not the ones who pretend their opponents to be infallible, rather the art of taking advantage of their errors. Even good defenders make plenty of them. Rainer Herrmann

I do not see much of a problem after the heart lead. Win the second heart with the king and run the spade ten If the spade ten holds or gets covered, cash the spade queen and force an entry in diamonds. If the spade ten looses, you can overtake the spade queen later. That way I expect to make 4 or more spade tricks, at least one heart, and two tricks in each minor. If the spade ten looses and East switches to clubs I may have to decide in the end between the diamond finesse or whether to end-play West with a heart for a diamond return. Rainer Herrmann

In general I agree, but I would not let the club ride. Take the queen, cash the ace and try to throw North back in again. If South has the jack and North unblocks, nothing is lost, unless North has four clubs, which seems unlikely. Rainer Herrmann

True, but I find the reasoning hollow. IMPs is also quite different to Total Points. Does this mean we should all be fans of Total Points and reject IMPs? The strategy of MP is as intriguing as that of IMPs and I see no good reason why one should be preferred over the other. Maybe, but if West holds all missing queens what do you gain by taking the diamond finesse? If the diamond finesse is better on the lead, the chance that the club queen finesse is working has diminished by the same argument. Rainer Herrmann