Impact

The absolute worst hands for a 2C opening are those that have a main suit in D (and any second suit just becomes worse). The most obvious solution, as Ken has noted, is to utilise 2D opening to show main hands D (possibly Flannery multi also or weak in H many variations depending on remainder of system as GF with D is too rare of itself to justify the sole use of the bid), which frees not only the jumps but also opener's 3D rebid (typically most such solutions tend to focus on such bids as main suit C with second suits shown economically). I have maintained for years that so-called Standard which focuses on an almost automatic 2D is criminal in that neither partner really gets to show his values.....the old-fashioned control responses is superior as at least opener has some idea of whether the necessary extra values are present for higher investigation (admittedly at the cost of starting suit investigation higher but gaining SOMETHING). regards

Oz where they are deciding to copy ACBL structures - but more slowly... Which part of the continuations do you want as the continuations to the non-transfer bids are lengthy as are my notes and principles on transfers? if you are interested in the lot PM to me... regards

Coming late to this thread but having played relays over 1M for 20+ years both in practice and philosophically a) minimum hands with prime fits should be removed from the relay (because they are the hands on which opponents are most likely to interfere and sorting out relative strength/penalty intentions will be more difficult AND because you wish to put maximum pressure on opponents with a prime fit by going as high and fast as possible - hence descriptively as well) B) hands which require a minimal degree of fit but no wastage opposite a shortage (typically with long minor/s) for slam are bad for relays as useful/key information comes too late c) hands with game possibility and long suits or best competition are best shown early d) long suits in relatively weak hands should be shown early. Best of most worlds can be obtained by utilising transfers and fit-showing jumps, but you have to rid yourself of 2/1 mentality. My current scheme:- hence over 1S (5+S 10-15):- 1NT= relay (not 3+S unless 5+cover cards/16+HCP) 2C= transfer to D construct part OR Inv OR slam-try with short 2D= transfer to H see above 2H= 6+C see above 2S= nat const 2NT= limit or min GF with outside sing 3C= fit-showing with either C or H (limit or min GF) 3D= fit-showing but see above 3H= bal limit raise 3S= pre-emptive 3NT= bal (flat) min GF raise 4C= void D 4D= void H 4H= void C 4S= trad To buy into the other argument about bidding over 1H opening: I originally used a 1NT relay to protect lead mainly but the loss of space and given the fact that I also pack more hands into my 1H opener (4+H may be canape in any suit but if longer S promises at least 5H) ensures that I use 1S as the relay but rebid NT to promise S - lessening the likelihood of playing there... regards

Justin, Micky The 2nd one is the easier since 3H presumably is correctable, the double should be takeout (as that is the hand which is passable by overcaller) in logic. Logically the first auction advancer will virtually never hold a penalty double (unless overcaller/responder is/are on drugs) - whereas he is likely to hold a takeout hand...so the utility is to make advancer's double (2S) 2NT (3S) X= takeout Of course I can think of at least a couple of opponents for whom I would make a different agreement!!! regards

Ming, 1) On the first hand responder holds a fit for C and hears that opener holds not merely 6+C but also a fit for H - and the opponents bid and raise S. Frankly, I think he has a 6C bid of his own in a contested auction (rather than the 5C he bid unless by agreement that was forcing to allow him to get to slam in one of the suits and lessen the risk of the sacrifice). I am not rapt in opener's double of 5S with the singleton S but that depends to some extent on the inferences and agreements from the previous bidding as to whether it was intended to suggest the limit of the hand with 5C or that there was a double fit and forcing. If the 5C bid was forcing (and hence the pass over 5S was forcing) opener can scarcely do less than bid 6! 2) The second hand is one of those classics along the lines of "I'm not going to tell opener about the double fit as opponents will realise it too" combined with "if they were happy to pass it out in 4 they can't make 6". Both suggestions have inherent problems and combined produced the disaster. regards

2. Now- Caught. logically the only excuse for bidding at the 4 level when unable to bid at the 1/2/3 level at the previous opportunity should/must be a fit for partner's overcall. Hence, I do not bid 4C and feel I must take my lumps with a pass...(it is all to easy to compose hands for overcaller where game or slam in C is cold - but of course if you bid those are NOT the hands he holds - and neither do they figure to be). This is one moment for discipline. 1. As to the first pass:- As to the idea of bidding in 2nd seat at all vull with:- void QTxx xx KQTxxxx in an undisciplined partnership it is fine - but always appreciate that partner looking at his Hx or Hxx is going to believe the opponents have a lock on that suit ... Frankly, when you hold the lowest ranking suit if you are going to pre-empt you have to do so at the first opportunity. The suit is fine for a vul pre-empt and the general strength of the hand is right (everyone would pre-empt if the QTxx was in D). In MSC land people talk about passing and then bidding C so that partner will "work out" that you have the 4 decent H, but this sort of scenario happens. Put me in the : "you dealt me a pre-empt" which is suitable even for 2nd seat vul, so I'll do it. Otherwise when vul it really is just too prescriptive ...but if you put me at adverse vul I guess I would pass the hand in 2nd seat as the stricture of specific holdings is more applicable - unless playing a system which forced me to bid. regards

A lot depends on what you expect for a two-level overcall, but assuming WJO the 2D bid should be pretty decent and since you hold the DA, it tends to restrict the options for good suit (and block the suit in the play!). Nonetheless, whether it works or not, these values are commensurate with a "game-going" hand ie at least invitational and even if tit does not make I will force with such a hand: transfer to C and then bid 3NT. That also has advantages as a plan in case opener has an extreme hand: if overcaller has C support he will have some clue what to do... regards

I am comfortable using canape with 1S (& hence other simple rebids by opener deny 4+S), while other bids are specialised:- 1C - 1D (negative, or 8-9 flat OR 8+ denying 2 controls 2-1 OR 20+) ? 1H= good 19+ suitable for further relay 1S= 16-19, 4+S may have longer sidesuit 1NT= 16-18/19 2C= 16-19, 5+C (unless 1-4-4-4 with small sing) denies 4+S 2D= 16-19, 5+D , <4S 2H= 16-18/19 5+H, <4S 2S= Zeta asking bid in S 2NT= Zeta asking bid in H 3C= 16-18 9 tricks in C with 6+ solid C 3D= 16-18 9 tricks in D with 6+solid D 3H= 16-18 9 tricks in H with 6+solid H 3S= 16-18 9 tricks in S with 6+ solid S 3NT= T unless you have 10+HCP Purpose is to allow responder to show a stopper or convert to 3NT opposite 9 trick type hand both for pairs scoring and 3NT making versus 4M failing.... 1C - 1D 1H - 1S (0-4 or 5flat OR 20+) ? 1NT=19/20-21 2C= GFR and only way to force uneqivocally (except for Zeta asks) 2D= 20+ nat 2H= 20+ nat 2S= 20+ nat 2NT= Zeta in C 3C= COLOUR 5+5+ usually 20+ but not suitable for GF 3D= RANK 5+5+ 3H= 5+H & 5+C nf but highly encouraging 3S= 5+ S & 5+D nf but hightly encouraging 3NT= T 4m= similar to 3M but 6+minor and needs little for 5m ie emphasis but not solid 4M= T Frankly in terms of utility, the specialised bids have a very rare occurrence (albeit the Zeta asking bids have come up about a dozen times in real life over 18+ years) but the others are really for CTC types..... regards

I have to confess that I regard as bizarre the style which AS A PASSED HAND forces responder to bid a non-forcing NT when he may be able to adequately describe middling values and his longest suit by a natural bid. Perhaps that is my ACOL tendencies coming to the fore. However, if there is any purpose to such a style, surely it must be right to bid what we are likely able to make: 3NT with stoppers in both unbid suits and the knowledge that partner does not hold 3S (and is unlikely to hold doubleton Honour) ...it is bizarre to expect that he can envisage stoppers in both outside suits if you bid 3D, and surely you would bid 2NT (nf) with slightly less... With due respect to Roland, whereas 3D MAY well be GF opposite an unpassed hand but to stipulate that it is forcing opposite a passed hand again seems a push...does this mean that the choice is between passing 2D or committing to game with every hand??? As for anyone who really believes that 2NT is forcing opposite a passed hand, this whole sequence is being built on such a tiny probability base that I find it remarkable that anyone could predicate such... regards

Agree with the general advice about passing but the main reason you are concerned here is that your bid of 3C to show your side value has not cast any light on your prima facie solid 7 card D suit! You can take it that I am not a fan of the 3C bid! Whether your best bet would have been a 3H cue bid (assuming it is not agreeing S) depends on your agreements, but I far prefer that to the Caspar Milquetoast 3C... regards

Regardless of your agreements (unless X=GF) the minimum values for competition over a 2C overcall (over 1PC) are lower than the values for competition over a 2S overcall for the simple reason that one is competing at the 2 -level while the other forces to at least the 3-level (absent penalty pass). I prefer to use completely artificial structures (including transfers & Rubensohlian methods tweaked of course) to allow responder to show long suit with limited values immediately as the risk of additional competition is the tricky part .... regards

Since the Proprieties were made part of the Laws of Bridge (as opposed to merely an adjunct), I believe that any hairsplitting defence of the sort of conduct which Mikeh relates as occurring, becomes all but defunct. As for the conduct/advice allegedly espoused in the book, that does not merely offend my sensibilities but offends against the proprieties and hence the Laws of the game as well. I do not know whether the protagonist in Mikeh's account is a professional, but for anyone else the inherent joy and charm of the game should be sufficient that "use any means to win" is simply neither an option nor considered. Pity there is not the equivalent regard to the proprieties as there is to the Rules of Golf in that game where the concept of calling penalties on yourself is ensconced (and golf professionals play for far greater stakes than any bridge professionals)! regards

Since the Proprieties were made part of the Laws of Bridge (as opposed to merely an adjunct), I believe that any hairsplitting defence of the sort of conduct which Mikeh relates as occurring, becomes all but defunct. As for the conduct/advice allegedly espoused in the book, that does not merely offend my sensibilities but offends against the proprieties and hence the Laws of the game as well. I do not know whether the protagonist in Mikeh's account is a professional, but for anyone else the inherent joy and charm of the game should be sufficient that "use any means to win" is simply neither an option nor considered. Pity there is not the equivalent regard to the proprieties as there is to the Rules of Golf in that game where the concept of calling penalties on yourself is ensconced (and golf professionals play for far greater stakes than any bridge professionals)! regards edit: placed in wrong thread

In a longterm partnership :PPP the Punish Partner Principle: partner is assumed to know the system and his bids MUST have a logical basis so you must work it out - no matter how improbable the result!! OTOH this is a partnership killer short term! You have to like the other guy for it to work long term (Oh yeah results help) but if you are g=both working in busy professions it is hard to play consistently well against top opposition during the working week, so you have to acknowledge the mix of priorities...also non-playing spouses. regards

1D opening is always 2 or 3 -suited and denies a flat hand suitable (by whatever criteria the partnership adopts) for NT bidding Accordingly - depending on competition rules - 2m opening is either 6+m content to treat as single-suited or MYXOMATOSIS in enlightened jurisdictions (10-15 6+m in suit opened OR weak in next suit up OR weak 2-suiter in remaining 2 suits) non-forcing in either event! I prefer to relay with 1H over 1D but do NOT have a flat option, and the relay bid is the default option not only with strong 13+HCP hands but hands unsuitable for constructive or pre-emptive action:- 1S=all hands with 4S (then 1NT=Relay) 1NT= short S in perfect 3 suiter (2S=Relay including for 0-5-4-4) 2C= 4D & 5+C (2H=R) 2D= 4C & 5+D (2H=R) 2H= 5+D & 5+C with short S (2S=R) 2S= 5+D & 5+C with equal M (2NT=R) 2NT= 5+D & 5+C with short H (3H=R) As you can see the same Hi Mid Lo applies to shortage and also in "natural" auctions per below. Over 1D- 1S which is constructive but non-forcing and also denies a good 6+S suit:- Pass= S tolerance with no interest 1NT= 3suited (this time including 1-3 45) shortS 2m= 6+m (occasionally 2C could be 1-2-5-5) 2H= max 0-5-4-4 2S= minimum raise, minimum dist eg flat min 4S & 5m (4-2 5m2om) or really bad 4--1-4-4 or average minus 3 card raise unsuitable for 2NT on strength 2NT= a) max 6+m headed by AKT+ & implies 4om :D max 3-1 54 (responder continues a la paradox) 3m= 6+m max with <AKT & implies 4om 3H= 4S & 5C 3S= 4S & 5D 3NT= 4S & void H with 54minors 4C= 4S & 6+C with short H 4D= 4S & 6+D with short H 4H= 4S & 6+C with short D 4S= 4S & 6+D with short C regards

1S 1NT R 2D= 4+C 2H R 2S= 5+5+ 2NT R 3H= 5-2-1-5 3S R 4C= 4controls 4D R 4H= no SA/K 4S R 5S= 2 top3C, HK, SQ 7S but in real life surely my opponents bid a few D - unless they are 5-5 .... regards

I like this start. What if he'd shown only four controls? Would you be able to distinguish between these hands: Jx KJx AJxx KQxx (cold grand slam) KQ KJx AJxx Qxxx (grand slam on a finesse) KQ Jxx AJxx KQxx (poor grand slam) KQ xxx AJxx KQxx (hopeless grand slam) Yes, pretty easily in most cases based on spiral denial cues (by length) :- 4C= 4 controls 4D= relay a) 5C top D, C, H no top Sincl Q 5D=R 5H no DQ 5S= R 6D CQ, no HQ so xx Kxx Axxx KQxx have to punt on working J :D 4S top D< no CA/K ie 11 controls Kx Kxx Axxx ?? know that grand cannot be better than finesse eg CQ or much worse than 2 C hooks for 6 - but here might as well bid 6NT c) 4NT top D & C no HK effectively just jump to slam and hope either HJ or good pips or favourable lie as you know you will have a H loser (unless KJ underneath AQ and pips... or J falls singleton and pips allow pick up etc ), but lacking the perfect pips cash HA and then lead towards HQ.. d) same auction as above simply jump to 6H once missing HK and not bother to find out just how good slam is... regards

1NT 12-15 2C Stayman 2D 2S Relay 3H 2-3-4-4 3S R 4D 5 cont now you know Kx Kxx Axxx Kxxx but need DJ & HJ max for a really good grand but you can find out about CQ albeit you know that if he has the CQ he cannot have the HJ.... regards

As you know my preference is for relays (for which this is easy), and I DID read the OP but very old-fashioned ROmex would also do the job:- 2C strong 2H (2 controls - hence must be HA) 2S natural 3S (no shortage, something extra to show) 4D ask similar to Epsilon 4S (3rd rd control) 5C similar ask 5H (3rd rd control) 7S and before you ask whether this could be 3-6-2-2 with too much work to do, a suit so good is excluded (it must be headed by A at least in this instance) Asking bids are well-suited to strong two type auctions, or alternatively multicueing after controls are known so that you force responder to cue 3rd round controls.... Obviously in both cases it is a much easier auction because the agreed suit is S, providing room while if the trumps suit was say D, the auction would be far more tenuous for all except relay systems. Hence it has long been my contention that relay systems gain enormously for minor suit slams and grandslams which are rarely hinted at in other methods or just "unbiddable other than by punt" for those others... regards

from one ageing counsel to another, it is nice to be remembered - and we don't bother to count the numbers.... regards

Surely it depends on the parameters of the 1D response beyond natural (eg denying 4M unless at least invitational, strength of 1NT response to 1C, fit-jumps etc, meaning of 2NT response to 1C etc). Assuming it shows D and tends to deny a 4M unless at least Invitational, I would rather bid 4D direct than wrongside by bidding 2NT and then making a guess over 3NT. there is some attraction to the 3S splinter (except that partner bids 3NT and then they lead a H through A and then S through his holding but maybe 9 tricks anyway)... On a simple level just bid 4D descriptively (he virtually needs specific wrong cards with 5D332 for 3NT to make and 5D to be going down) as slam prospects are enhanced by at least one of us making descriptive bids - and the way most play a 1D response I envisage greater slam prospects in D than I do anything else so it would be foolish with the surfeit of values to fool partner.... regards

If I play fit-jumps (and I do) , the reversion by responder to opener's first suit is usually constructive values (close to Adam's 2nd hand) with doubleton S. We play overcaller's new suit as constructive and very 2-suited (almost certainly 10+ cards in 2 suits) after the advance. Accordingly we play jumps by overcaller in new suit following the advance as fragments ie strong support for advancer's suit and implied 4th suit shortage. Accordingly the cue by overcaller is either just strong hand with no clear direction, or potentially the fragment which might take you beyond 3NT in certain auctions (so advancer tends to treat the cue as a DAB initially). NOTE: IN RELATION TO ANOTHER THREAD ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SYSTEM, THIS IS THE SORT OF MATERIAL WHERE GENERAL PRINCIPLES ARE APPLICABLE RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL RULES FOR PARTICULAR SEQUENCES (I gave up absolutism when I realised that no one else I knew was interested in the "perfect sequence" with variations for individual auctions even if they could be reverse engineered at the table, as opposed to genreal prescriptive rules and principles). Hence the style is about locating fits, bidding NT when you have stoppers and retaining a general cue which says you have extras without an affordable direction... regards,

If you take out the concept of revenge - the reason for imprisoning people is protection of society from actions which that society has determined to be antithetical to the society. Imprisonment comes at a very considerable economic cost in a humane society. In a real sense the "strongest" argument for capital punishment is economic: if it costs more per prisoner than social welfare is it justifiable? Of course, the next step takes you into moral territory: how much is any life worth? Put simply, there is a myriad of arguments against capital punishment, including inter alia,:- 1. certainty in terms of the conviction of the offender (if you got it wrong there is no coming back unless you are either a believer in reincarnation or a messiah and the latter have been a trifle rare and non-recurring); 2. lack of evidence that it leads to deterrence (most studies I have seen suggest the reverse or at least a coincidental relationship between crime and capital punishment but of course if you want to be cynical you can reflect on the nature of the authors of such learned works and the likelihood that they proceeded with their research from a predetermined position); 3. reluctance in our Western societies to take life other than by way of self-defence (note this does not extend to all societies and suggests alternative mindsets which offer alternative solutions based on the nature of the society or its prevailing mores, so Western answers are not universal); 4. aligned with each of the above the importance of the individual and his (generic) unique quality - which gives rise to individual rights and the importance of the individual - again something which is not shared by all societies. I am amused to reflect that those who frequently support capital punishment are also theoretically in favour of individual rights, while many of those who oppose capital punishment base their arguments on a "social basis". In my view it is all about the extent to which freedom of an individual is sacrificed to the requirements of the society. My pact with society is for it to offer me protection but to make minimal invasive moves to restrict my personal freedoms. Where any individual draws his line or what is to be regarded as antithetical to any society will always occasion great debate as it is rare for many to draw the line in the same place. While a society can afford to maintain a utopian view it should...but is or should even a simple majority be sufficient to change the position? If not, where do you draw the line? If the society "cannot afford" to maintain the position do they reduce the conditions of the imprisoned to reduce the economic burden or resort to capital punishment? If the former, is it for all those imprisoned (the harsher conditions)? Of such things is philosophy composed.... mid-script: mikeh has composed a number of similar arguments above since I commenced this note (but was so rudely interrupted by work, a 4 letter word)

2D for many of the reasons given including it shows the long suit and because I play 1D artificial here in line with principles from the Blue Team of cheaper minor as intermediate (say 12-15 guideline) takeout in the balancing seat... For 3NT I show what I have - and the issue for any other game is either Moyse (as partner declined to overcall in M at 1-level) and requires very good intermediates/lesser honours. If I double I will not get to D, but if I bid D I might get to M when it is right.... regards

For me it must agree H, with the only issue being whether it is a splinter or a cue (and that depends on strength of 2-over-1, style of 4SF etc). Since 3D is forcing (in fact 4sf), a jump should agree partner's last bid suit (and if you hold the massive 2-suiter in minors with slam ambition/force you just have to bid 4sf and then rebid 4D: at least 5-6 with slam interest...) regards