coyot

Playing MPs, the only easy way of scoring more than 7 tricks is to guess clubs correctly. If I play small heart, I end up in hand - and I don't want to play ANY suit from hand. So I play the king of hearts and run the club nine. If it drives out the ace, I will then win a heart and exit in another heart, hoping for the opps to give me an extra trick in spades or diamonds. Anyway I have 2H, 2 aces and 4 clubs for +1. Playing low, overtaking the queen with ace has little merit, because I have no good suit to return. Everything played from hand costs a trick.

I see no benefit in having 1x-1y-2NT rebid exactly 17HCP. It goes against the rules of using bidding space for NT ranges reasonably. If I were to narrow any NT range to one point, it certainly would NOT be as low as 17, it would be some straight NT opener... I'm quite happy with 15-17NT, 12-14 NT with rebid (because this gives most room to explore game possibilities). I can still open light if the hands are good (=shapely, not balanced :)). But we're getting far from the original topic, which was 18-19 balanced opened 1c and passed out - and I will again say that this is perfectly OK with me - and I will not sacrifice messing natural 1NT and 1♦ bids to prevent an occasional disaster :-).

I'm not against conventions, mind you. I play SA based system with 2♦ multi and 2M destructive openers. I am only trying to say that you should NOT introduce unnatural gadgets into your system BECAUSE the system sometimes brings a disaster, at the cost of natural bidding. I recall from the beginning of this thread the suggestion that 1♦ and 1NT responses over 1♣ in SAYC would be completely changed to talk about points. This attacks the system philosophy, changes it's natural "basis". When I say "keep it simple and natural", I don't care what your 2♦ opener promises, but I want 1♣-1♦ to show diamonds and I want 1♣-1NT to show a limited balanced hand with no interest in majors. There might be slight variations about what those bids exactly promise/deny, but basically the bidding will be still natural. IMHO it is not a good idea to merge "strong club and negative diamond" structure into a "natural" (does NOT equal convetion-less) system, that's the whole point of my post. Having 2♦ as 18-19 balanced will mean that 2NT rebids are 20-21? What does it solve? You'll open 1♣ with 20-21 balanced against nothing and will MAYBE end one trick better off than with 18-19. If your LHO has trapping pass in clubs and your RHO sees it and passes wisely, you're still toasted. True, 20-21 is less likely than 18-19, but, then, the 2♦ may get you higher than where you belong if partner is broke, so I am not sure if it helps more often than it hurts ;).

I was a victim of 1♣ down 2 vulnerable last week :-), but I still don't think that this happens often enough to come up with some special negative response. 1♦ openers will remain just as bad when this happens. EIther make it simple and natural, or switch to a completely artificial system where opps will know absolutely nothing when you end up in 1NT. Both approaches have their merits, but I would not want to mix any sort of "negative diamond" into SA-based system. 1♦ natural response is quite helpful, especially for bidding 4M-5♦ shapes with values :-).

Does 2♣ promise GF? if not, then the bid is too weak. If yes, 4♥ is the best spot. Of course, you will go down one in this particular case, but that is just bad luck and there is no way to find out how many spade ruffs do the opps have. I would certainly want to rebid 3♥ if 2♣ is NF, 3♣ if 2♣ is F. (Finding a diamond stopper would be welcome for 3NT). I would want to double 1♠ (negative) and then bid 3♣ over the expected ♦ rebid, thus showing one-suited hand that was too good for NF 2♣ bid, but this depends on agreements.

3NT is a nice bid... no shortness... Perhaps it would be better to have one more diamond and one less club (1♣-2♥-3♥-3♣ would be a forcing bid, no doubt about that...), but it certainly gets the message across - we might be in a better spot with one less trick to make, partner, especially if you raised with 3card.

Partner did not have to bid. He ought to have a good spade stopper. I have a nice maximum of 1NT - support for his first suit, decent points in diamonds and nice "empty" hearts that should fill the role of lead-detergent :-). I will not run into 2♥ unless doubled.

Why make things complicated? 1c followed by three passes happens sometimes... so what? Compare the frequency 18-19 and 0-5 hands to 12-14 and 0-5 hands. See how many times you will get stupidly doubled and punished in cases where the 4th seat would simply reopen 1♣ with any natural bid. Adding the cost of losing 1♦ as a natural forcing bid, what will you do with 10 HCP with 4 diamonds? Jump to 2NT? With 5diamonds? Jump to 2♦? I think that it is easier to play a simple system and occasionally get a bad result, especially since most other pairs will get the same result :blink:

I guess wdp is a common courtesy phrase. I always say typ when the dummy appears, no matter what I think about my partner's bidding. I always say wdp when partner finishes a contract succesfully, I always say ntp when he goes down. If he feels he played bad and points out his own mistake, I will agree then. The same goes for defense - if they screw up, I'm not gonna tell partner "you were lucky to play against such horrible defense" - I'll say wdp. So, wdp is not rude under any circumstances to me. If partner plays extraordinarily well, I will compliment with a longer phrase, not abbreviation. Wdp is generally thanking for holding the cards, taking the gifts the defense offers and delivering the promised amount of tricks or more :-)

Several issues in the bidding: 1) Do we want to play a slam on 27HCP with no shortness? No, thanks 2) Why bid 1NT with no spade stopper? 2♦ non-forcing is much better bid :) 3) Opener - 2NT. We have tools to find major 5card in this hand.

Some items are not "switched" when changing language. I noticed this for "Create tournament" - the list of possible player filters is not refilled with translated values until next application restart. Also, I'm not sure whether the bbo_update.exe does protect existing user settings, but I am sure that the full version does not. Are you planning to address this issue?

low club is most promising. There are a lot of working combinations - some for 5 immediate tricks, some for developing of clubs. (The 3NT bidder might have QJxx-KQJ-Kxx-Axx or the like...)

With due respect, what is the most likely shape of your partner from the statistical point of view? 0-1 hearts, 3-4 against your 3card and 44 to 55 against your singletons. Your shape and your values are next to useless - and if not, you'll have the tools to bid them... Against NT, you're safe with transfers, against minor opener, you're safe with weak jumpshift... and against 1♠ you have a nice pass with hearts for any reopen auctions. BTW, unless your agreements are that 3♥ red vs. white would go down 3 against gargabe, partner raising hearts at any level CAN pretty much be bad.

How much does a negative double promise? 6? 8?. How light do the opps open? With this ugly shape, unless opps' bids leave the possibility of 24-25 HCP on our side, I will be quite happy to underbid 2♠. What does LOTT say about this? We're likely in 8card fit and opps are likely to have one too, TOPS. So it looks like 16 tricks... If we're lucky when it comes to honor placement, we might score 9 and opps 7. Assuming RHO has some heart values, the unbid suit king is probably dead :). I really don't worry about missing a game here. If we happen to have an agreement that distinguishes strong hands (cuebid), solid 2♠ (some other bid, maybe xx) and preempt (2♠), I will follow the principle that any direct raise in non-forcing and shows the trump suit length only :)

K10986 is a good suit, considering the strain we're under. With any significantly worse spades, I pass. I don't like the double at all. If partner with a weak hand picks hearts (possibly even on 3card), we can go down a lot when opps can make 3-4♦ but not 3[NT]. Yes, partner with a bad shape might not reopen 3♦ - I will then shrug my shoulders and say "ok, the preempt worked this time... such is life. IMHO it is better to shrug a few times when they make 3♦ or go down a few when we have 3♦ than to go down a little more often (and sometimes doubled) with the excuse "oh, I had 14 HCP, I had to bid so that we don't miss a game". If LHO raises diamonds, I have a nice reopen double... if partner is long in diamonds, we get a reasonable plus score, if he is short, we find a game. Try to have another look at the problem: How often, after your preempts, opponents pass and miss a good game? How often, after similar preempts, opponents bid hurriedly and end up in a bad contract? Into which of the groups you want to belong?

I don't think E/W were not damaged. I'm not sure what would I do at the table, but hearing the bid explained as hearts with a minor, the 3♦ as gameforcing on diamonds is perfectly natural (and gives the partner the message that opps' minor is most likely clubs... (And 3NT from opener would then definitely promise stoppers in both suits.). I would have bid 3♦ even over natural hearts, definitely not 3NT like this, though... The double on 4♥ was right, assuming that opener believed responder has a stopper :) - but I don't think this was a two-way shot. You can do twoway shots when you know before the play commences that opps failed to alert something - you try to get a good result and if it fails, you call the TD and complain. Here it is the typical case of the overcaller's responder KNOWING that he has a good hand - either two superfits or a void in partner's second suit and a ton of small trumps to ruff with. (Again, it is somewhat likely that most ppl would bid 4♥ with this hand no matter what the 2♥ promises, if it includes 4 hearts :-)) So, I think that although E/W bid poorly, an alert of 2♥ with proper explanation might quite well push them to bid more correctly. If the responder answers honestly that he would bid 3♦ over 2♥ if he knew this promises two suits, then the damage is obvious.

Pass. I am willing to preempt one level above or below my expected length. This hand has 7 losers for sure, with some bad luck 8. Red vs. white, I'm supposed to bid for down 2, so even 3♥ is too high. And I will NEVER bid 2♥ with 8card. That is going to create more bad than good. If opps have 4♠, they will quite likely bid it over 4♥ (unless they decide to double me). I mean, come on! If everyone around the table has the average hand, cca 12 HCP, 4 spades and 1-2 hearts, it is almost sure that they will bid somehow... Unless partner has 5 spades - and then I don't want to preempt at all.

What works best for me: 1) Always 4card. If you employ xyNT (CBS), support doubles and 1M on 4card after overcall (no change compared to free bidding), this fits together well. (Note that weak 1NT rebid after 1m-(1x)-1M-(p) does not promise a stopper, just shape and strength. 2) No extra values... since 2/1 is GF, no need to reverse, just bid your shape. (Mainly because you don't want to have to LIE about your cards when you couldn't afford the reverse). Raising responder's minor with 4card, hearts with 3card (if they guarantee 5card). I would generally raise without jump, unless I am 100% sure that we're not going to play NT. 1♥-2♦-4♣ is a splinter with diamond support, so I don't think that 1♥-2♦-4♦ would ever have any meaning. With a strong 2542 hand I will just bid 3♦ and see what partner says. 3) System major raises decide this. (See other recent thread). Generally I believe this should show good diamonds and full support, opener should bid pattern. (Responder is unlikely to have superstrong hand as he would use 2NT major raise...) 4) If opener bids 2 suits, it is very unlikely that there will be a fit in the 4th suit. In fact, it is next to impossible, if you strictly use 2NT rebid to 2/1 to show balanced hands. 1♦-2♣-2♥-2♠ would be the only possibility (with responder having 4432 shape), but I would always bid NT over 2♣ with this. So, use fourth suit as asking for stopper. Other issues (not necessarily 2/1 related): - the 2NT rebid over 2/1... I use 12-14 OR 18/19 (and 3NT with 15/17) - major raises scheme. - Usage of serious 3NT - 2/1 including 9-11 with a good suit. (Immediate rebid shows this variant and therefore is not gameforcing, but an attempt at 3NT with a trick source). - inverted minors - ON/OFF after overcalls? 1m-2NT as garbage preempt and 1m-3m as constructive preempt? - responder bidding majors after overcall? (I prefer 4cards with negative double showing all remaining majors. (1♣-1♦-x promises BOTH while 1M denies the other one, AND the expection of 1m-1♥-x DENYING spades.) - opener bidding 1NT even with biddable major below it? (implies 1x-1y-1M promising unbalanced hand) - 3NT, 4m, 4M bids (gambling + natura + natural vs. minor preempt + good long major + major preempt). - structured reverse (Lebensohl in offensive bidding). - Weak jump shifts or strong? - Is 1♣-1♥-2♠ a splinter or a natural GF? (Yes, I am a freak that likes the first variant, playing 1♠ as forcing :)) My variant of SA 2/1 covers most of these topics. I believe many will find the system flawed but I still like it :)

Clear 4♥ for me, we play red vs. white for 2 down. red vs. red and white vs. white can be also 4♥ (after all, I have 5 and half losers :-)), white vs. red either 1♥ with immediate jump to 4♥, or open 5♥ directly :) This hand is likely to score 0-1 tricks on defense, therefore I would prefer to open preempt.

My agreements are: Use a system raise with GF values and full support if possible. 2/1 is one of such system raises, promising 12-15 HCP with non-balanced hand. (16+ via 2NT, 12-15 balanced via 3NT). When playing simpler raises, I recommend having 2NT as 12+ with 3card or at least limit raise with 4card. This will give you 2/1 as a bid that either denies support (In that case, over a new suit, continue bidding your shape) or promises support and VERY good side suit. Imagine a hand like Kxx-x-AKJ10xx-xxx. You can see 11 tricks in 2 suits - and the best you can do is tell partner by 2/1 and then showing full support that you really HAVE a good source of tricks. With a doubleton spade honor, the bidding after 1♠-2♦-2♥ should be: 2NT with no extra shape, showing stopper. (3NT same and stronger? or weaker?) 3♣ with no extra shape, asking for stopper 3♦ 6card 3♥ 4card

Given the good spade spots, I would most likely vote for 3♠, but it requires agreements with partner about what is the minimum strength for such bid... If 14 balanced HCP is not enough, I will happily pass (but that means that partner has to reopen 3♦ with almost any 10 HCP...

I'm not sure about how often the wrong-siding causes problems, but I am sure of something else - these hands happen so little that it is a wasted bid. (I played gambling 3NT for about 4 years - or, better said, TRIED to play :)... but it occured only a few times... (definitely less than once a year)). I abandoned it for minor preempts. Currently: 3NT shows a hand that would "naturally" open 4 of a minor, given the current red/white state. 4♣ and 4♦ are Namyats, showing 4-4.5 LTC on a long major (clubs for hearts, diamonds for spades), while denying defensive potential. 4♥ and 4♠ are classic preempts. I.e., the minor bids are used for hands that have offensive strength of almost game and defensive strength of a bad opener or below. Typically the hand could look like KQJxxxxx-x-KQJ-x or a little weaker... There is no need to open this hand 1♠ because you know that you want to play 4♠ anyway, it is too good to open 4♠... This happens significantly more often than gambling 3NT, becase while it requires similarly long suit, it does not need a particular honor concentration. Another alternative is to use 3NT as "broken minor", which then promises a long minor with 2 from AKQ (and not AK). It is used similarly to gambling, offering the possibility to "steal" 3NT on 20 HCP... and you can decide whether to add Namyats to it or play 4th level naturally... (If you add Namyats to Broken Minor, you will simply have to decide between 3m and 5m with any long garbage hand :))

If you want to address the LOTT issue correctly, you will surely remember that it works under the condition that both sides have similar strength! If partner has something between 13-16 HCP, LOTT works without adjustment. If he has 17-18, I there will half-trick adjustment to our side If he has 19-20, we're likely to score one or more extra trick in every contract. There are other problems: If we happen to have 9card fit without the ace, 3NT may be a no-go because we will score 2 tricks in clubs :)) (against Axx on either side). Also, 2♠ opening may be 5card when it comes to that :), not very often, but not to be ignored... Even if things are as expected... if partner has 13-16, I'm bidding 3NT on 19-22HCP, hoping that we have 5 club tricks and (if the defense is any good) 4 tricks in red suits :) (See above my explanation why the Q10xx in spades might be useless). Summary: I would close my eyes and bid 3NT red vs. white, maybe... In all other cases I happily pass and hope to collect a nice plus. Why hang partner just because he doubled 2♠ with 544 or 553 shape and 13-16 HCP?. The argument about having club entries to play red finesses is pretty useless since both red suits will likely break badly, with the longer hand behind partner... Usefullness of spade 10 is about the same in 3NT and in 3♠ doubled. If the long hand contains AJ9xxx and the shorter Kxx, I will never score 2 spade tricks - and if RHO has a side entry, I might score none ;) 3NT is a gamble - and IMHO losing bridge in long-term...

I was looking for a line under the assumption that RHO has at least AQx in trumps (I can't find any other holding where he would consider doubling - Ace of hearts and Qxx or Qxxx in diamonds is a long shot...) Therefore my line does not involve any protection against RHO with 2 spades at all.

But there's a third question, which is more important as far as this forum is concerned. Suppose you're a TD, and you get called to a table where the bidding has gone 1♠:3♠ etc., and their opponents complain that the 3♠ bidder's hand is too strong - they want an adjustment because they think 3♠ should be alerted if it is game forcing. Now you have to decide, how do you rule? You have precisely two choices (usually): 1. "I don't think you can expect your opponents to alert 3♠ here." [and to the 3♠ bidder: "I'm not going to adjust the score, but please alert 3♠ in future because most people play it as showing a weaker hand."] 2. "Your 3♠ bid is very unusual - you really need to alert it if you've agreed that it is forcing. I will look at the hand, and if it seems that the result might have been different if 3♠ had been explained properly then I will adjust the score." Both sides here are probably "innocent" in that they aren't trying to gain any unfair advantage. But you have to rule one way or the other. I doubt this one would actually come up; but still, it's important to discuss this sort of thing. It's a clear number 2 this time - this bid is alertable as "unexpectedly forcing or non-forcing" - just as 1♣-2♣ is alertable when it is forcing. I'm not sure whether 3♠ is alertable when it is a preempt (as opposed to limit-raise), because in both cases it promises a spade fit and is not forcing (therefore could be considered natural... I alert weak variant, though... but I am sure that if any natural raise of any natural bid is forcing, it should be alerted.