mw64ahw

Undoubtedly with a pick-up partner w. limited 5 card major knowledge, although not something I'd dare try with my regular partner.

Not enough for me to open 1♠ as North, but I do open an Ekren style 2♥ (64) if the long suit is weak. This leads to 2♥ - 2NT 4♦ 6♠4♥ w. ♠ honour - 4NT 2/4 keycards SI sets ♠ as trumps 6♣ ♣ control all key cards+Q♠ - 6♥ ♥ control, my real world choice which probably ends in 6♠ 6♣ ♣ control all key cards+Q♠ - 7♠ on a combined modified loosing trick count which is <=12 (the simulator choice)

Not invented, but plagiarised from one of these bridge forums. . and I changed my approach from natural as a result of one of these discussions. Yes this is a natural bidding forum, but there is player progression from natural bidding to a convention that addresses the challenge that was posted. The sequence to show ♦s was in my initial post 1♥-1♠ 1NT (balanced or 4♦)-2♣ asks which? 2♦ shows 4♦, 2♥ shows balanced In the initial post I would also want to know the modified loosing trick in addition to the 8-9 points to judge whether to show the 5♠ or not. I would tend to bid 1NT when weak or had an MLT <=8.5 (with 2 8-card fits this could be an upgraded value) . If opener showed ♠ support then I bid 3♥ to invite in either suit

Interesting comments all I am a club player with no competitive experience who happens to have spent lockdown studying and simulating various bidding scenarios to the extent that sometimes I have too many tools at my disposal. I then take this into a club environment trying to be as systematic as possible to provide empirical evidence in support of my decision making software. My challenge on this one was playing with a pick-up partner used to ACOL, but learning SAYC, but with many gaps. (i.e. the first Weak 2 we played got passed out after I bid 2NT!) After 2 passes for some reason I suspected that partner actually had a bid in them and I was prepared to bid to the 3 level if opener didn't have anything aggressive to say. I don't think the concept of balancing in 4th seat and associated strengths was present so not a concern. With my regular partner I play the Overcall Structure so would have bid 2NT showing 8+PT ♠ and another suit, but without this option I would naturally have bid ♠ first However, (and I accept that this may traditionally be poor bidding) I decided to bid 1♥ for several reasons: It would provide partner with 2 opportunities to cue-bid if opener showed little strength. (My choice would have been to initially cue-bid ♦ over 2♣ with West's hand)If I jumped to 3♥ I guessed partner would not necessarily expect 5♥If opener rebid ♠ I would happily defend absent support for ♥If no support for ♥ was shown then I could rebid ♠ at the 3-level if 2♠ wasn't passed out/raised. Yes it could be construed that I was 5-6, but I don't think partner would have advanced after their initial pass. After the 4♥ bid (I usually interpret this as 5+♥ pre-emptive) following on from 2♣s by opener (not much beyond minimum) ; I assume 2♣ rather than 1♠ because of suit quality, 4♠ was an unpassable punt knowing that we had a 10 card fit in ♥ which upgraded my hand further. Incidentally we were the only pair in game (+2) with 1♠ being passed out at 1 table and 2♥ passed out at another. So brave, unconventional or foolish - who cares which if I made the top score and can feel smug with validation of my judgement.

Nope - 44 ♠ fits are found as above via 1♥-1♠-2♦ which shows 4♠ or a strong hand with 6+♥. Responder chooses 2♥/2♠/3m or invites in ♠ with 2NT. In practice I use 2NT to show either the ♠ invite or 55 in the minors so opener bids 3m (3♠ then confirms the invite) when not strong or 3♥-Str 6+♥, 3♠-Str 4♠, 3NT-45(30), 4m-SI 453m0

My first thoughts would be to look to play in 6♦ although I suspect I end up in 3NT.

For me 1♥-2♦-2♠ shows 4♠ no extra values in 2/1 or SAYC. 1♠-2♥-3♣ shows extra value (points or distribution) in SAYC, but not in 2/1.

If you want to show the ♠s switch to playing Kaplan Inversion where 1NT shows 5+♠ and 1♠ is the forcing NT. If opener has support then it will often be better to play in responders suit if weak. I play 1♥- 1♠-1NT balanced or 4♦ 2♣ asks which? 1♠-2♣ 4+♣ 1♠-2♦ 4♠/various strong hands etc.

Thanks corrected

Looks ok to me. West initially passed and East bid 1♥ in the actual auction. South then bid 2♣ rather than 1♠. All a bit odd unless I've missed something.

Your logic is ok 2♦ long ♦ no Major/♣ support 2♥ Pass/Correct

Playing with a pick-up partner basic SAYC how do you address the various challenges?[hv=pc=n&w=sqht9542daj843ct5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dpp1h2c?]133|200[/hv] How the bidding went Plan the play The full board

Dogmatic yes, but I upgrade MLT (non-simple) for the JTs and still too weak. I prefer systematic/consistent and use as a tiebreak after an invite with 16hcp or in this case to upgrade or not

I think I was trying to say there can be misfit hands whichever way you open if there is no GF response and that when responder isn't weak or opener has more than a minimum then there's not much difference between 2♠ & 3♣. (I play a 'Gazzilli type' 2♣) Yes if you open 1♣ there is an easy 2♣ rebid, but that may underscore 2♠ with a 5-2/3 fit. I think that when responder is weak its swings and roundabouts, but when responder is GF it shouldn't be an issue with either approach with good continuations.

Mildly positive in terms of 'Quacks', but Jx is a negative and I don't upgrade without an MLT<=6.5

Yep - if you switch from one approach to another it means a revamping of whatever partnership agreements you have which would be my issue if I moved to showing the ♣s first which incidentally was how I started playing even when 55. I now like having certainty on major suit lengths, but it would be interesting to consider whether a 7 card ♠ fit at the 2 level performs better or worse than say an 8/9 card fit in ♣ at the 2/3 level. The plus side in MAFIA is that when you have a longer minor suit the likelihood of a major 8 card fit increases. When opener is non-Minimum or responder has a limit+ hand I'm less likely to end up in the wrong contract.

Makes sense and gets you closer to the 63% DD probability I have.

1. West should absolutely pass at his second turn. He has no idea what his partner's shape is, and only knows that East has less than six HCP. The opponents will rescue you quite often on this sequence. Or, P happens to have three or four clubs and a singleton spade and your bidding only makes the situation worse. How about a XX to indicate a default club opening and force the issue?

Both 4♠ & 4♣ makes as does 3♦ for NS In retrospect I think the direct 4♠ is the correct bid although a reverse help/long suit game try will be fruitful with East having AQ9 I think if I was happy to bid 4♠ directly over the raise I would also be tempted with leaping Michaels (assuming partner understanding) based on distributional strength over a 2♥ opening I included the North hand as an explanation for my 1NT bid (which strangely ended up being a top as I made +1 against the odds) And MAFIA or not - still open for debate

In standardI use an MLT cut-off of 6 for a rebid at the 3-level. HCP wise this should be 16/17 with 6♦ or lower with extra length. With 2-2 in the Majors I consider a NT rebid favouring 2m with weaker honours With 3 in the major and an unbalanced hand I make the raise especially with an honour

Playing with a pick-up partner in a conservative group this hand occurred. Assuming the following MAFIA auction, given North doesn't overcall with a weak 5 card suit, do you make a game try and if so what sort? [hv=pc=n&w=saqj54htd2ck65432&n=sk92hkj7da8743cj7&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1sp2sp?]266|200[/hv] Outcomes at the various tables were N 1NT - This was me although I inadvertently reverted to a NT takeout rather than a standard takeout X after a 1♣ opening. I'm not sure why partner passed! N 4♦X W 3♠ If you have the tools and want to discuss further South could have opened with a Muiderberg 2♥

Seeing the NS hands it is definitely slam territory for me although I feel playing Kickbo provides more clarity in the bidding without having to guess on the double ♠ stoppers After 4♥ 4♠ (2 keycards) - 5NT (all keycards & K♠) 6♥ (not enough for the grand) Some you win some you loose when opponents distribution is unfavourable and the lead. is optimal

xxx Kxxx Kx Axxx and xxx Kxxx x Axxxx would put me in slam territory and perhaps warrant a 5♥ bid after the slam exploration. I wouldn't consider North having extras with 5 points in the 'quacks' so 6♥ would be the best I would manage.

A good analysis which identifies North as likely (barring 4 card overcalls & 3 card raises) to be unbalanced In my post above DK asked what 2NT should be? I suggested an invitational balanced hand with ♠, but this should only be over 1♠ in my UBD. Perhaps logically X should suggest equal length ♣&♦, 2NT should suggest longer ♣ and 3♣ longer ♦ with at least 33 for either option. I think this bidding makes reasonable sense with a singleton ♥ and 4♠

Sent you a PM, but understand there may be a problem with these?