rhm

Frankly I admit I do not know Meckwell light, but I do not understand the issue. I do know major suit fits can not be ignored at this game. As far as I understand Meckwell light 1♣-1♥ denies a 5 card spade suit. Then assuming 1♣-1♥-2♦ does not deny a four card spade suit by opener, there should be a way for responder to show a four card spade suit. If 1♣-1♥-2♦-3♦ does not deny a four card spade suit by responder, then opener must have a way of showing one. This is not a problem auction this is a matter of having agreements. As usual having any agreement is better than having no agreements. Make up your mind. At times bridge is a simple game. However, I suspect something else was going on: Responders dianond raise more or less denied a 4 card spade suit, and responder choose to ignore his spade suit, because responder had to consider what might happen if you did have a 4-4 fit in spades, in which case spades might make a terrible strain for slam purposes. Well I have some sympathy with this view, but in this case there was no way finding this spade fit. If the ranges of your openings get wider and your minimum requirements for 1♣ lower, you run into this type of costs. Rainer Herrmann

deleted

If ♦J wins, ruff a third club, before playing dummies last trump. If this passes of and both opponents follow to a second round of trumps, you have made the first 5 tricks and the defense has no more than 3 trump tricks. The defense is unlikely to get another 3 tricks out of the remaining 8 tricks, as you are in control of all the side suits and the defense will have to broach hearts eventually. It might be slightly better to take the diamond finesse first and then the spade finesse. Rainer Herrmann

Hi, 1♦ - 1♥ 2♠(1) - 2NT 3♥ - 3NT (2) Pass(3) - ... (1) you need to decide, if you want to force to game, most likely yes. If you do not force to game here, when will you? This is a great hand after the 1♥ response. The force helps finding the diamond slam, for example when responders honors in clubs and hearts would be the other way round. (In that case responder would not insist on notrumps but support diamonds) (2) max club stopper, does not deny a 5th heart, also value duplication in clubs takes precedence over support for openers minor when holding no values in openers suits. (3) you have shown your values and given a good description of your hand and partners club values is not really what you were looking for. With kind regards Rainer Herrmann

If you have to hope that the ♠A is with East, isn't it better to ruff trick one and play a spade from dummy? You have to restrict the number of tricks the defense gets in trumps to three if you want to have a decent chance. This means you can afford spades 4-2 if the spade ace is onside and spades 3-3 if not. Not drawing at least 2 rounds of trumps if the trump ace is onside and otherwise 3 rounds is unlikely to work against best defense. Rainer

Many play a 2NT rebid in 2/1 as a split range either 12-14 or 18-19. Opener will not pass 3NT with the higher range. This would then show 18-19 HCP with a reasonable 4 card club suit. Something like ♠ATxxx ♥AQ ♦Kx ♣AJTx If partner has 4 cards in clubs 6♣ could be a better contract than 6NT Rainer Herrmann

I would never pass. Assuming partner shows a weak notrump but would not bid 2NT if he is sub-minimum I raise. Yes we do not have 25 HCP combined, but I like my chances. Without the red tens I would feel much less comfortable. It is unlikely we can make exactly 8 tricks. If we go down I have chucked away 3 additional IMPs. But we may well make 9 tricks on the "wrong" opening lead or there could be no defense. For example partner might have ♠QJ87x ♥Kx ♦KQx ♣Kxx Meckwell make a fortune out of such deals. Rainer Herrmann

I do not see a good reason why 4NT should be anything else but a desire to play there. What else is opener supposed to bid with good diamonds and a strong notrump hand? Assume your partner has a minimum hand for his 4♣ bid, do you think 11 tricks in clubs has better chances from his side on a diamond lead than 4NT from yours? Rainer Herrmann

Do you agree with partners 5♣ bid? I think it is dubious at best. Rainer Herrmann

Would partner bid 5♣ with three first round controls and the spade king? I think he would bid 4♦ followed by a club raise. No I am not worried about hearts I would bid 6NT. This might well be safer. Otherwise a diamond ruff might loom. Rainer Herrmann

Yes, when you guess right it's an easy game. Rainer Herrmann

I think is is not so easy to play a system where responder needs significant more than half of the partnership resources before he should consider forcing to game. The trend in modern constructive bidding system is to force to game early. This makes it easier to find the best strain for game or to judge whether all the ingredients for slam are present or not. For example in 2/1 you have to decide early whether you have sufficient resources. The same holds true when you employ XYZ or similar conventions. Once responder needs significantly more than a minimum opening bid himself he will often not be able to force to game and the above advantage gets lost. Meanwhile if champions have difficulty to adjust why are you not beating all those if it is so easy for you? There may be many tactical advantages for light and super-light openings but do not tell us it is easy to adjust and there are no costs involved. Rainer Herrmann

Where is the fiasco? 3NT is the best contract for North South. With regard to reverse bidding I agree with your philosophy. There are different ways you can play reverses (strong hand, but how strong a hand) and continuations after a reverse I like that responder has some means of stopping low. This reduces the (exaggerated) strength requirement for a reverse. Many play that a reverse is very strong, almost a game force, and if responder rebids his major at the two-level it is forcing. Though popular, I believe this is not best. Opener will rarely have the requirements for such a super-strong reverse. Problems tend to arise when opener is one or two HCP below such a super-strong reverse hand. Ingbergman / Lebensol is fine, except that I like to be able to stop in responder's major at the two level if there is no fit and opener is minimum for his reverse. Assuming you do not play weak jumps in repsonse to a minor suit opening responder will often respond with a sub minimum and a long major. Accordingly I like a rebid by responder's major to be limited and non forcing though opener will continue with a fit. Assuming you do not play weak jumps in response to a minor suit opening responder will often respond with a sub minimum and a major suit. The corollary is that if responder uses Ingbergman / Lebensol and then rebids his major at the 3-level it is forcing to game. Whether the actual spade suit is good enough for an immediate jump to 3♠ (good hand strong suit) can be argued. Rainer Herrmann

I am a strong believer that you should resolve such close distributional decisions in favor of overbidding. There is much more to loose by going low than high. Going high allows for better information exchange regarding strain and level. Partner could have a minimum hand with diamond support and a void in cubs, say ♠QJxxxx ♥QJxx ♦Axx ♣- Bid 2♦ and if that is forcing to game so be it. This one is not even close Believe me, even if game has no chance, you will rarely get doubled when your bidding is unlimited. Rainer Herrmann

Subtract a point for any singleton honor except the singleton ace Subtract a point for any doubleton consisting of 2 honors lacking the ace, e.g. QJ, KQ or KJ. Of course QJ is better than Q2 and KJ is better than K2, but you have to draw the line somewhere if you want simple rules. When considering an opening bid subtract a point holding no aces. Conversely add one point for any combination of 4 aces and tens With these simple rules you will do better than many here on BBO, calling themselves "advanced" or better. Rainer Herrmann

May I ask what criteria you have for "good" ? Good is in the eye of the beholder. Many of the bidding ideas, which are now commonplace, were originally frowned upon. For example negative doubles, 2/1 as game forcing and corresponding wide ranging notrump responses etc. Today, even in the expert community some consider conventions like Flannery a waste of a valuable bid others consider it brilliant. The same holds true for Bergen raises. The list is almost endless. Of course not all ideas, which are new, will stand the test of time. But what are good reasons is in the eye of the beholder and it is almost impossible to predict what will stand the test of time. Rainer Herrmann

This is a common fallacy. It is of course true but trivial that the quacks you have can not be held by any other hand. What matters is whether you have preponderance of lower honors and a lack of aces of first round controls or vice versa in both hands combined. When do you think these scenarios, say a preponderance of quacks will happen in both hands? When you are staring yourself in a preponderance of quacks or when you are staring at a preponderance of aces? Nothing balances out unless you hold all 40 HCP in both hands together. The only way to get this right is if both sides value their hand properly. Rainer Herrmann

How light is light. Even if you open "light" most will agree you need a floor, below which you will only go in exceptional circumstances (e.g psyche etc). Quote: How light is too light for a 1-bid in (a) Precision (b) Standard? Answer Openings need to be sounder in Standard because it just gets too wide range. Opening the bidding a built in advantage, all your bidding tools now working for you. In Precision, nothing special 10 counts is too light. You need Shape or nice cards to open the 10's. This answer was given yesterday by Meckstroth see http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/in-the-well-jeff-meckstroth/ Further down the same link: Quote What do minimum strength Meckwell Precision 1D openers look like third seat white on red? Answer I have to say whatever we feel like doing at the time. Not going to go far down this path. I will say we pass a lot more now when we have crap. Rainer Herrmann

I have got tired doing simulations for others because whatever I do my assumptions for the other hands will get criticized. Assume the junk hand to be South. What assumptions do you want for East, North and West? My personal favorite would be to assume 12 balanced HCP in North and see how often 3NT makes double dummy or assuming a balanced North with 4 cards in haerts and 12 HCP and see how often game in hearts makes opposite hand 2 and 3. I am pretty sure 4 hearts will be a disaster more often than not. But you mileage may vary Rainer Herrmann

I agree with everything you say. Unfortunately it is the way the rules are applied. The rules are not wrong the application of them is. I have never seen anyone getting a corrected score, because he passed after hesitation. I have never seen anybody accused of unethical behavior because he hesitated with a weak hand in context before passing. For stupid reasons passing after hesitation is considered the height of ethics. If you pass after hesitation and you receive a good score you keep it. If you bid after hesitation and you would get a good score you tend to loose it. That#s why people pass. Passing after hesitation should be treated as one of logical alternatives just like any other bid and be subject to score correction. Rainer Herrmann

I have nothing against point count. It is simple, and given its simplicity it is also reasonably effective on most hands. It is also quite accurate for notrump partials. But point count has its limitations. Many experienced player never progress beyond point count, rely almost entirely on it for their hand evaluation and use point count for silly comments like, we never downgrade etc. As K&R shows the above hands are closer to a 9 count if you end up in a suit contract. If you claim you open all balanced 9 counts then go ahead and open these hands. But do not tell the world these hands should be evaluated as 13 counts. Rainer Herrmann

But you claimed there would be if one would pass. The opposite is true. Opening on junk risks getting too high. Not you will have a problem, your partner will when he responds to your "opening bids". Not on paper or in forums of course, but at the table. I know everyone claims "my partner will not expect more". But even if true simple logic tells anybody, who has an open mind, that increasing the range of your opening bids can not be cost free, whatever your partner does. Rainer Herrmann

This is because you overvalue these hands. Playing strong notrumps if partner opens in third or fourth position I would simply bid 1NT because I believe 3NT will often be a very poor contract opposite a 12-14 balanced hand and often partner will have less in 3rd of 4th position. Likewise I will simply bid notrump if partner overcalls. You are unlikely to have game when RHO opens the bidding anyway and a 2NT response to a two level overcall invites 3NT and shows a amximm pass. If partner opens 1♥ Drury is ideal with B and C to stop low if partner has a minimum. If you are playing weak notrumps and partner does not open 1NT I would risk 2NT to show a maximum pass. I am still likely ahead of those who open these hands, who will often reach 3NT with little play where I will stop at least in 2NT. . Rainer Herrmann

You should have a little bit more respect for the hand evaluation skills of Rubens and Kaplan. I am pretty sure their hand evaluation was and is much superior to yours and you are very unlikely ever coming close to theirs. Having said this the Kaplan and Ruben's hand evaluator is quite precise with respect to suit contracts and that is what these hands will be worth on average at a suit contract. Notrump evaluation, particularly at low level notrump contracts, is a bit different. Here the hands are worth a bit more, around 11 points. For opening the bidding I would certainly prefer Axxx, Axxx, Kxx xx to any of the hands suggested here. Those, who call the above hands 13 counts, should look for another game. Apparently they are unlikely to ever progress beyond the beginner stage. Rainer Herrmann

No. Presumably you suggest to force the hand in diamonds twice to get 2 trump tricks? This does not work. Declarer simply uses hearts as a surrogate for trumps. Even though after 2 diamond ruffs in hand East will have more trumps than declarer he will not come to 2 trump tricks. The end position is something like [hv=pc=n&s=sjthdcj5&w=shjd5ct7&n=sk6h74dc&e=sq97hdc9]399|300[/hv] The lead is with North and declarer has lost 2 club tricks. Now declarer ruffs a heart in dummy and ruffs a club with the spade king and feeds East a fifth heart. So East gets only one trump trick whatever he does Rainer Herrmann