Impact

What has been described is an accurate summation of current standard expert practice. Actually, I believe that the current expert practice of responding to a 2♣ opening with a semi-automatic 2♦ waiting bid is a retrograde step compared wtih the control responses of a decade ago (which usually provided the opener with an indication of likely level to be reached. In fact, given the ability to open 4441 with 1m, the worst hand for the superstrong opening is long ♦ with a second suit (whetehr partner makes a waiting bid or a control response the bidding will start at an uncomfortable level...and if control responses, he will be robbed of his 2nd negative - usually cheaper minor). Of course, you can cheat by calling 5422 balanced (which frequently understates slam potential) or 5431 with singleton Honour that engages additional risks but then attempting to convince partner that his Hxx in an unbid suit was what you needed for slam might be a touch obscure :P There are 3 relatively obvious "fixes":- a) jumps to 3M over a waiting or negative 2♦ can be specified as 4M with longer ♦; OR :D utilise an opening 2♦ (frequently a make-weight or toy in standard) for the puropose - which may fruitfully be combined as a multi with various options including say a weak 2♥ or Flannery if that suits your style; c) arguably more interesting is to play 2♥ as the strong ♦ 2-suiter with an alternative meaning of weak in H/Flannery. I will leave those interested to work out the continuations to suit themselves in either :P or c), but the principle should always involve that responder assumes the weak option, and if opener rebids he describes as far as possible his strong option. THe other advantage is that it can allow you some chance of describing long ♦ with secondary ♣ in a huge hand below 3NT (a hand traditionally just behind the good 6 card suit with 3 card support for partner as MSC/CTC nightmare). Oh yes - there is a valuable by-product/dividend of adopting one of htese fixes if it excludes primary ♦ from your 2♣ opening: as opener's rebid of 3♦ over responder's first bid can be used to show primary ♣ with secondary ♦ : the other hand which always faces a guess at whatever level you set your minimum criteria for opening with your strong bid with this shape!!! regards, fred

I have used 1-step relay, and other transfers for about 2-3years. The theoretical gains are greater than the practical gains- matching your expectation Richard, but the rare hand where you want to use the 2-step (2suiter in the expected range 7/8-11)- and the way I play it the only really strong hand which transfers is a bare single-suited slam-try with a shortage somewhere: transfer into suit and jump in suit below shortage (typically a hand which cannot aford to go past game but will make slam opposite a fitting minimum - so cannot afford relays). The other advantage is showing say a 6 card suit and Honour doubleton (over a 5card 1S opening or 3 card holding over 4 card H-showing opening) in opener's Major by transfer and rebid of opener's major .... I am sure other people can come up with styles that suit their openings but my preference and creation works well as it gives you an additional chance:- Over 1S (10-15, 5+S but ,5H): 1NT= relay 2C= transfer to D 2D= transfer to H 2H= transfer to C All higher bids are S raises of various varieties - mainly 2NT= some singleton limit to min bare GF 3C/D= fit-showing (3C= C or H) 3H= limit 3S= pre-emptive 3NT= min GF fit bal 4C/D/H= void in next suit up Opposite 1D showing 4+H with any suit potentially longer (but not exactly 4H with 5+S):- 1H= Relay 1S= either a natural NT bid OR long C 1NT= long S (nf) 2C= transfer to D 2D= 8-10 exactly 5S & 3H other follow equivalent scheme USP regards , fred

Nice selection Frances:- 1. If you play this way, opener's double would have been penalties, so he does not have a S stack (confirmed by his conversion to 4♥. Not clear how to proceed but odds are in my favour to move (but ♣T would improve matters). Can I bid 4S as a cue or is it Kickback/void...as teh key opposite a 3-4-5-1 is no wastage in S (or similarly opposite a 3-4-4-2 with extras). My ♦T suggests working hook and the only negative is that suits may not be breaking (albeit these days opponents holding 9♠ get there almost regardless!! 2. This is MUCH better than 8HCP but how much better depends on the frequency with which partner raises with 3 cards (presumably some ruffing value so not all bad) and ♥wastage. ♣ pips fantastic - so I make a move - the most descriptive of which is a short suit try...... 3. I'm willing to move, I'm wanting to move but where to move??? If partner has already denied 6 fair ♥ by failure to open weak two (?), that is unlikely; I want him to play NT assuming a stopper....given the absence of weak two or NT bid I am assuming a partial ♣ fit ....with my C running and 5 loser hand I must do something...so 3♦ risking bailing out in 4♣ seems forced... 4. With respect hate the methods: when partner bids 2♥ I want to announce a prime fit and slam try below game (jumping in new suit in my methods...) Anyway, with the informatin given since I have not shown the nature of my hand yet, I feel compelled to make a try with 4♥ - emerging from the bushes, though how partner knows just what is needed is beyond me....still any extra length or working Honours should be given weight... 5. It feels wrong not to bid 4♥, which could win in all sorts of ways, but is a big loser if he holds 12/13 with ♠ Honours 6. Pass, Take the money - as they will findit cheaper in 5♣ regards, fred

Rightly or wrongly I would play the double as "I have surprise defence by way of ruffing ie void" - but I know people who play it as "I would like to bid one more as I have extra length!!!" - so obviously you should have clarified as a matter of partnership agreement. On my assumption you have almost no choice but to continue with SWITCH to C for the ruff!! if you believe partner, despite the argument that such will probably only hold the contract to 5 even if it works - and gives South 6C to go with his 5S & 1H ..... This contract is a make unless partner has something like SJTxx to go with his D - and that is a really bad double...If he holds the trumps it probably won't matter - or singleton H and void C so how many D & S exactly????

Hand 1: 1♣ 3♦ 3♥ 3♠ 3NT 4♦ 4♥ 4♠ 4NT 5♥ 5♠ 5NT 6♣ 6♥ 7NT 16+HCP 8-19HCP, 3-1-5-4, 2+ Blue Club Controls Relay 12+HCP Relay 4 Blue Club Controls (counting singK because 12+ shown) Relay All or no D Relay C cont, S cont no 2nd D Hon Relay no CQ or 2nd Hon hence HK Relay SQ but no DJ conclusion hoping DJxxx is not offside..... Hand 2: 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ 4♦ 5♣ 6♦ Very unusual sequences.... 10-15HCP, 5+S Transfer to D, usually weak to Invit no good fit!! Slam-try in D with self-sufficient suit and S shortage cue as 10HCP outside S, denies DK S Conclusion as already denied fit Impact uses transfers and jump later where natural bidding would suggest minimum jump shifts: self-sufficient suits but not enough to force to slam, and a hand which would not be comfortable with relays and DCB.... To my knowledge this structure is relatively unique and could be modified for more standard systems....

Compliments are gratefully accepted. Part of the problem is that some (particularly older) "experts" have an edge that depends upon familiarity - rather than logic. They do not wish to have to think things through from unfamiliar premises. By contrast many younger people for whom bridge offers an attraction, find the charm in original (or they think it is original) thought. Oddly enough there is always a hardcore few who believe that there is a better way of doing things - if only it could be found. To eliminate these thinkers is to detract from the charm of the game. Funnily enough, it is not the really poor player who is flummoxed (as opposed to inconvenienced) by new methods: they lack the imagination to believe anything except the 13 cards they hold in their own hand (!), and rarely see more than one path be it in bidding or play; but the player with pretensions is most at risk as the "rules" he has absorbed and relies upon my not be available - and perhaps the true expert too, in the sense that he is more susceptible to a bluff than anyone. For this reason - among others - I like 2 way systems which have strong and weak options in at least some bids: at a low level it means htat opponents no longer have the security of purely destructive methods or the "bluff pre-empt" which is really intermediate plus strength and catches partenr witha balanced (or slightly misfitting) minimum opener....so they miss game or slam because they were determined to obfuscate your auction! I realise that in ACBL land psyches of strong openings are banned - and I truly believe that that is against the best interests of the game: the glorious mixture of chess-like skills, language/logic construction in bidding and poker strategies is exactly what makes the game endlessly fascinating.

Coming from the land of almost anything goes (except of course encrypted signals which are perfectly logical and rely on knowledge from your own hand but which the regulators bizarrely banned), we have learnt to adapt to almost anything fairly quickly. Part of bridge for manyof us is actually problems -solving in the bidding and constructing logic/language systems to do the job. In itself that is a significant fascination of the game. The issue of non-disclosure is at least as much a problem dealing with so-called "standard" players where inferences and partnership style will rarely be disclosed (and answers to questions are like drawing teeth) whereas most who favour exotic systems will or shouldfeel a desire to espouse the wonders (and inferences) of their toys. The subsidiary issue of time is relevant: even in selection events in Oz, matchopints or imps with only a few boards against given opponents it simply does not make sense to play HUMs as the delay in the movement (and the automatic time penalties incurred when opponents spend an age each round discussing/inventing defences) militates against it. Such a view may be reconciled with a purist view in terms of the tme limitations. By contrast in any 14+ Board match (and it is permitted in most 8+ Board matches) HUMs of all sorts are legal, although again we incline to only play them in 14+ Board matches (eg n/v 2C=0-4HCP any shape! and strong Pass which may alternatively be 0-4 HCP!!!) However bear in mind that every form of multi two you can conceive of is regarded as semi normal from Myxamatosis, Twerb, Tartan, Muiderberg, 2C majors (at least 43 at favourable!!) and requiring minimal discussion by anyone!! That is not to say that most have optimised their defences to such, just that they are comfortable. As to defences I agree that the inventors are least likely to wish to perfect a defence against their own pet toys- but if you play relays you may want to optimise a defence to a fert which maximises your relay options (and incidentally allows penalties) but such a defence is not relevant to someone unfamiliar with relays...these sorts of dilemmas are familiar to us. We do have a "workable defence" typed and available (2 copies) for opponents, but htat does not mean that it is the specific appraoch we would choose ourselves - given the proclivities of our style and system. As an aside the whole basis of alerting has been rendered bizarre in any game other than with screens (or disclosure to oppponents to which partner is not privy) by the strange laws foisted on differing "local/national" bodies eg the rule that doubles, cue bids of shown suits and redoubles are "self-alerting", when in many seqquences we use transfer doubles etc In that sense, although I do not play on line (various firewalls) I would have thought that on-line explanations that exclude partner are ideal.

The key is context rather than rules (albeit you may formulate your own rules). Hence it makes sense to use multicues once you have described distribution (eg generally whether there is a sidesuit, shortage etc) but also with some discretion. eg a sensible base is that you skip a distributional control in partner's known suit on the first scan. Cue-bidding should be a delicate art to reach slam and much of the time the issue is whether the values are present (which is what cuebidding is all about). By contrast Bw/RKCB etc is a check that you are not missing cards off the top (in different suits) but does nothing to assist in judging the strength necessary to reach (and make) slam. Most of the Italian methods involved some description (you may recall even the use of bidding starting with 2m and 4om over Major bids to show like/ascending controls or different/descending controls) with 4NT in the midst of a cue bidding sequence as Declaratory Interrogative which meant interest in teh circumstances and could mean depending upon the prior bidding anything from very good trumps to all the side carsds but poor trumps or bid more if you have the missing suit under control....or even bid slam if your shown controls are first as opposed to 2nd round...! First round cues are primarily useful where you establish the fit early and think the perfect hand could be on, but the covercards could easily be K instead of A rendering slam hopeless (typically after double fits are found with limited hands but there is uncertainty whether K or A in side suits are held). I hypothesised to Rubens a couple of decades ago that cuebidding should vary depending upon the nature of the information disclosed (and often in line with potential play). eg when you raise a 5+card major you define your hand frequently within narrow limits of tricktaking expectation: in most of your varied form of raises typically retaining at most only one bid for the huge hand which wishes to retain controls. Now if opener thinks you are in slam range it is the quality of the controls that counts. By contrast most dialogue bidding allows more subtle inferences of strength to be provided - and now the issue of multicueing allows both additional strengthh and sidecontrols to be shown. Note that you have clues in putative play as the 4-4 fit is less suited to covercard analysis, but provides alternatives with long sidesuits and increased likelihood of dummy reversals.....now side features of Honours in a 2nd suit are likely to be crucial - but misfitting shortage critical to assessments as to slam viability. Multicues get a bad name from the occasional slam bid missing 2 cashing A ("any beginner would avoid that") but the option of delicate slam investigation by conveying additional strength with a first cue bid (and partner responding up to game level but only proceeding past game with additional strength of his own) is all too often ignored. This allows you to find slams - and sometimes even make them when you ARE missing 2 A!! Impact seeks to incorporate all these ideas and more - but unfortunately its mortal practitioners are compelled to work for a living and the results have not always justified the degree of detail required and understanding which goes beyond Q &A !! regards, fred

Although i use relay methods, I prefer to use 4Nt opening for extreme minor 2 suiters with 3 or fewer losers.... so 4NT 5H (at least 2 covers naming the Major A and 1 cover guranteed working) 7C 7D ...not hard but could have been wrong eg opener has doubleton S small and now we are committed to 6minor opposite same hand with blueprint for defence....win some (or is that winsome?) lose some...

Pass (16+) 1♠ (10-19 flat, 2+ Blue Club controls ) 1NT (relay) 2♣ (4M333 or 44odd) 2♦ (relay) 3♦ (3-4-2-4, 10-12 ) 3♥ (relay) 3NT (3 controls) 4♣ (relay) 4♦ (no ♥ A/K or AKQ) 4♥ (relay) 4♠ (no ♣ A/K or AKQ) 4NT (relay) 5♣ (no ♠ A/K or AKQ) 5♦ (relay) 5♥ (no ♦ A/K/Q) 5♠ (relay) 6♦ (no ♠Q/♥J or ♣J) Pass very likely to hold the ♦J to make up his HCP.....

1♦ - 1♥ 2NT - 4♠ Explanation: utility opening 10-15HCP, minor three suiter with <5♠ or minor 2 suiter or 4♠ with longer minor Relay 2NT= at least 5+5+ minors with short ♥ Conclusion. Interestingly if the other hand opens, I would have a very different auction: this hand type is too good to open with a limited bid but begs the question if you open with a strong bid. Accordingly we would open it 2♥ to show either Acol in ♥ or weak two in ♠ or weak in both minors. Over a strong enquiry the hand which has the Acol two type and is 65 specifically shows it in the Majors - thereby taking a lot of pressure off the limited Major openings when you have well-textured 65s

Ron, See you at GNOT later this week. I realise it will be hot but should we bring some decent wine??

if partner tends to double light with shortage, a bid of 1NT (8/9-11) with stops is sensible - and then if as more than half expected LHO bids some number of H your bid of D will show 4 cards with a suit type stopper eg A...and top of range.... Over RHO's 2/3H an old-fashioned responsive double tells the tale. Part of the decision depends on doubler's tendencies both as to strength and degre of off-shape. When I started playing I would bid 3D here as a WTP type, given relatively little wastage notwithstanding the 4 card suit, and holding the extra values. Note that with preferred partners I use bids from the cue-bid up as transfers.... Today - 1NT with a plan.....but opposite old-fahsioned players I still would be more inclined to bid 3D.

I use the cue bid following the simple response to deny primary support (4 cards) in a GF hand, so partner will show any additional distributional feature.... I HATE making a takeout double with 5+5+ (albeit 5530 with void in their suit and minimum for the level is a potential exception). With the hand in question you can underbid by making a 4H call, or make a 4D bid which risks overboard......I would risk the 4D bid albeit having sympathy for 4H. BTW all jumps following this start I would play as slamtries agreeing S..... Whether the judgment call is sound or not it simplifies most auctions...

Mike, The point is that after a negative to a strong bid and then rebid in NT, the "usual methods" adopted by most people which are suited to their opening 1NT are actually NOT suited to the auction for the simple reason that they give greater weight to GF auctions - but while you may not have denied a GF the vast majority of negative hands will be at most invitational, and you wish to maximise those hands. Hence the appropriate auction and methods is unsurprisingly different from standard. regards, fred

2S as puppet to 2NT and then 3S= invitational at least 5+5+ in blacks....WTP? sure it could be wrong but I have given a fair description and will respect partner's bid (note that if my blacks were reversed I would just Texas into 4S and hope for the best at imps certainly)...

Ah, another person who favours Blue Club style balancing methods (much stronger 1NT up to 13-16 depending upon suit opened) as the hand with length in their suit should be stronger to compensate for the risk, the likelihood of opponents being in the wrong suit (particularly given how direct takeout doubles could be much lighter than in years gone by) and the offshape nature of the hand.

Although it is not completely clear to me it appears that South initially marginally overstressed his playing strength by bidding 3NT (which could have been based on a long running or semisolid minor) and North was paranoid about such a possibility - to the extent that he distorted his relative lengths in the majors to avoid going to the 5-level. I assume that 4D was a transfer (and that 4C over 3NT would have been some form of Stayman). You have not specified methods in use. I also note that the 4NT bid was consistent with a hand based on the long running (or semisolid) minor assuming that was within partnership style - whatever it may have meant. In any event I would not have been unhappy to risk the 5-level opposite a jump to 3NT with the North hand - albeit my C support (for partner's putative running minor is less than it might be!). For that reason alone assuming that a transfer to S and then bidding H was available this hand is clearly worth such a bid (albeit query what a direct bid of 5D over 3NT meant systemically: it should be pick a Major with equal length, so that the inference from transferring and bidding a new suit at the higher level is length disparity; the extent of teh length disparity also depends on the meaning ascribed to a direct 4S over 3NT which should still be for minors, and a delayed 4S after Stayman- assuming non-Puppet- which should be 5S & 4H IMHO). Hence, merely having the agreements of transfers to Majors and Stayman would have allowed North to bid the hand better. It is not clear to me that South appreciated the dual nature ofhis 3NT bid - and the regressive nature of 4NT (which for all I know he meant as 6ABw or some such - although it should be regressive). THe greatest problem is that North misdescribed his hand twice fearing a particular South hand (which on his cards we could all understand), but I would have had more sympathy with some distortion to keep the bidding level lower had he been an A weaker!! Sometimes you just have to bid out your hand and if you catch partner with the marginal worst hand possible andyou go off -so be it. It is as bad at imps to bid as if partner always holds the marginally worst hand for his bidding (opposite your hand) as to always assume he has perfect cards for his bidding - opposite your hand. The blame may be ascribed:- system (since unstated) 10+% as we don't know what the agreements were and hence precisely what inferences could be drawn from the particualr sequence utilised (as opposed to others putatively available) North 70+% for showing neither his pattern nor his strength and infact distorting his pattern which could have been even worse South 20% for the 4NT bid which is bad under almost any circumstances (2 quick D stoppers and TRICKS with no losers on the auction) 3 card support for the long major shown (H) and good cards KTx for the second suit. So long as the specified sequence was a potential slam try the 4NT bid was awful on this sequence when it might have been ,made on Qxx A Kx AKQJxxx or weaker hands eg xxx x Kx AKQJxxx would be reasonable from my perspective or even more HCP but less suitability eg DKQX or KJx etc

The key the hand is for the 2-5-3-3 hand to be making the decisions as that is the hand which knows hte H are solid and will provide a parking space for the C - assuming that you can find out that it is the CK, as opposed to CA which is missing. Opening a strong club with relays it is easy; paradoxically if I opened a strong NT my methods over NT would allow opener to take control if the responding hand was weaker (ie not good enough to insist upon slam) but with the actual responding hand I would be reduced to relaying out opener's hand, and just have room to find the HJ which makes 7NT good. For those interested: if vul 1C 2S (5+C 5+D) 2NT ® 3C (short S) 3D ® 3H (1-2-5-5) 3S ® 4NT (7 controls) 5C ® 5H (no CA/K or CAKQ!) 7NT counting 13 tricks n/v Pass (16+/0-4) 2H 2S 2NT 3C 3D 3H 4S 4NT 5D 7NT same meanings If forced to use a 1NT opening bid: 1NT 2C (Stayman) 2H 2S ® 3C (5332) 3D® 3H (2-5-3-3) 3S ® 4C (4cont) 4D ® 4S (no DA/K or AKQ) 4NT ® 5NT (CA,SK,HQ,DQ no CQ) 6C (R for HJ at this stage!!) 6S (HJ, DJ) 7NT naming each Honour card except the 2xT!! note with about a responding hand distribution for any slam invitational minor 2-suiter, I use descriptive methods by responder which allow opener to signoff in NT or M if fragment, relay (if responder shows 5+5+), engage in dialogue with different degrees of strength and fit. eg 1NT -3H/S = minor 2-suiter ostensibly 54 with fragment in bid M but GF only slam invitational at best 1NT Stayman and then 3rd cheapest non NT bd shows 5+5+ minors with GF/slam invit When slam is "certain" proceed by relays. this structure is influenced by playing weak NT but a truism is that balanced opener needs information to decide on whether slam is good opposite a distributional hand which is invitational, but the degree of information usually needed to determine grandslam almost always works better on Q & A rather than dialogue in such auctions (eg here the solid suit and missing K in side suit which can be discarded...)

Agree with each of the S bids, and the 3C bid is very reasonable after 2S ahs been doubled but:- 3D is stark staring nuts and got its just desserts by W est having to play the contract; however, simpliciter, surely East should have reverted to 3S (West did not bid 2D over the doubled 1NT so this is a fairly normal way of bidding 6-4 in the absence of the doubles and had the sequence been forcing-) albeit West has no excuse for removing the 3C bid given the anaemic quality of his S and the necrophiliac tendency of his D!!) - still East should have given preference unless he determined that partner was operating (and there is a reasonable assumption that that is the only explanation for West's removal of 3C following this sequence ie a psyche of the S bid and now removing to a long strong D suit which he always held...but not on this wavelength!). In one sense only an expert East could/should have envisaged such a possibility - but somehow I doubt that this was the case!

1D- (1H) X (2H) ? I thought 5H is obvious and leaves partner in absolutely no doubt about what is going on..... The actual auction is deserving of any poor result it received - and classic sign of alleged expert flexibility and hubris: instead of making a description which is easy opener determines to control events by manufacturing bids in the hope that a la Micawber something good will turn up. THe essence of dialogue bidding (as opposed to relays: Q & A) is recognition of the need to change roles and surrender control when you can make a descriptive bid. Once you have opened 1D and they bid H, when partner shows at least S tolerance (it does imply that doesn't it?) you are in great shape (pun intentional).

No, it is the USA lagging behind the evolution of the English language. "I have gotten" is correct American English, though few people outside a classroom would find "I have got" objectionable. "I have got" is correct British English, and most schools in non English speaking countries teach English using the British model. Actually it is not English at all. "I have " is sufficient in the sense "I possess" or hold as opposed to past tense. Similarly "got" is already the past tense of "get" so there is no need to find a past participle for it. It is apparently an archaic Americanism which is back in vogue in certain parts of the uneducated world :D

Moscito uses 4 card Majors (or one-under with canape) in 1st & 2nd seats in order a) to maximise use of the lower bids on a frequency basis ;) to enable relayer(responder) to explore shape and c) for pre-emptive value. In 3rd/4th seat (where Pass was not a strong option in 1st or 2nd) no relay is sustainable or useful. Accordingly, certainty and competition for the partscore takes prevalence. I could give you the long version but that is the short answer...

You cannot bid less than 5C as partner's xxxx xxx x Kxxxx gives a very adequate play for game. Presumably partner will hold at least 5C and short D for his balance.... There is a reasonable argument that you should bid 4H to look for slam but he is going to be subminimal anyway and will be reluctant to show any control. If he has 2D he should have compensating values. Of course, step 2 of this operation is what to do over the 5D bid.....presumably just double and hope that his hand is not as bad as my example! It is unlikely that opener would have introduced a J high suit in this auction and have the values to take the auction to the 4 level potentially so you are likely looking at losing 2 red A. With these cards behind the opener just bid 5C. I am not a huge fan of bidding on poor 5 card suits at the 2 level - although it seems to work well for the lucky oppos, so I would not have bid first time round and your Honours are in short suits: if partner couldn't balance where were you going (other than to do some damage to 2D).

Nick, Bob & i have been playing transfer responses over intervention for 2+ years....send me an e-mail, but my scheme is specifically designed for limited openers and there are quitre different parameters for loss of negative double oposite the wide-ranging opener...