pbleighton

1) North should have overcalled 2D with a passed pd, but 1D is OK. 2) Given a 1D overcall, North should have rebid 2D, but 1S is OK. 3) Given 1S by North, South should have preferred to diamonds. Pass is not OK. 80% of the blame to South, who made a bad call, but if North had bid better (2 chances), South wouldn't have had to make the decision. Peter

Playing with my regular pd with our "Light Standard American", aka "Unsound", I open all 3 (we do take light openings into account in our responses). Playing 2/1 or Standard American, I open all but 1. 2 and 3 are close, but I open. Peter

Bidding 3 card minor suits is common in 5 card major systems, opening, responding, and rebidding. This was a rebid of convenience, what the bidder thought was the least damaging lie. If the bidder had rebid 2S (my choice) on a 5 card suit, would this have been alertable, as the expected length is 6? This bid is definitely not alertable, and people who make complaints like this are time-wasting poor sports. Peter

"your arguments are based on the experiences of you and your partner, not on an appeal to another independent authority... in effect, you are arguing your position based on your own authority... this raises the question, which others have to answer to their own satisfaction, as to whether or not the authorities offered by ron are, in some small way, superior to those offered by you" Well, here's an independent "authority", a cc description of the 2D opening in the first two seats: "1st and 2nd seat 2D opening: weak 2H or 2S opening, 3-10 HCP, 5-7 card suit, vul dependent." From Meckwell's Bermuda Bowl cc. Interesting! Peter

whereeagles writes: "It is not. I've been playing 5 or 6 card weak twos for a long time and that style of opening has yielded more points than anything else." I have been playing this way too, for ~18 months. We started with an EHAA style (though with an upper limit of 9 hcp), and have tightened up, opening with 5 only when NV, and with a decent fraction of the hcp in the suit in 1 and 2. Our ranges are 3-9 in 1 and 3, and 6-9 (and no 4cM) in 2. The 9 point top end and the tighter seat 2 requirement helps cut down on the self preemption. Our results have been very good, especially at matchpoints. Teams are still good, but dicier. In an rgb thread on overcalling at the 1 level with 4 cards, one poster described it as unsound, but effective. I feel the same way so far about 5 card weak 2s. I wonder, however, how this style will hold up as we move up in grade, and start playing in strong fields, especially in teams. Most bridge players (including Life Masters) have erratic bidding judgement when you stick a preemptive bid (including weak NT ;) ) under their nose, and we may just be feasting on opponent's bad bidding. We do play some strong players (who've had a lot of success in "A" tournaments), and it seems to be OK, though noticeably less effective, but we won't really know until we start to play regularly in the "A"s. After the last Bermuda Bowl, I looked at a bunch of the ccs. The weak 2 style Ron describes (2D as 6+ H or S, 2H/S as two suiter of some type) was absolutely dominant, except among pairs who used 2D as a non-preemptive bid. Of course, for me, playing in the ACBL, this isn't GCC legal :lol: There were a few pairs who used 5 card weak 2s. Peter

Ron - 1) Hiding 11-14 5M332s in the 1C bid is going to be a loser, IMO. Are you doing this to accomodate the relays? 2) While 1C will not be as inviting to interference as a 15+ strong club, it seems to me that it will be more vulnerable to actual instances of interference than a pure strong club. What are your schemes for handling 1C-2H and 1C-P-(your negative response)-2H, for example? 3) I suggest a name - "Polish Moscito" :lol: Peter

Whereagles writes: "To decide whether to bid 2NT or a straight 4S, you usually look at the "ODR" of the hand, meaning 'offense-to-defense ratio'. The higher the ODR the more you want to bid a direct 4. AKQxx x xxxx xxx This hand makes 0-1 tricks defending, and 4-5 on attack. The ODR is around +4, so it's a direct 4 bid." Agree with your general point, but disagree with your example, which is WAY too strong IMO for a jump to 4. Peter

Chamaco writes: "Big hands will go via 2C artificial rebid, which wil be 2-way showing either: - minimum with clubs or - 16+ Responder bids 2D with any 8+ hand, bypasses 2D making a weak bid (prefernce to pener or suit rebid) when holding less than 8 hcp." Don't you need to revise the point count here to something like the strong option being 20+ and the conditionally GF 2D responder bid being 5+? Peter

Gerben - Will you be putting your version of F-N on your website :) Peter

Chamaco - If you play 1H-1S as unlimited, when the auction goes 1H-1S-3C, what does 3C promise? How about 1H-1S-2NT? Gerben - what does these auctions promise when 1H-1S is limited to 9 hcp? Peter

"Basically that would mean avoiding the F-N relays altogether and: - respnding naturally a la K-S over the 1-lvel forcing opening, - responding natually to the "intermediate 2" with a scheme analogous to the weak 2 openings." Not sure which relays you are talking about 1) 1 level - do you mean that 1x-1y would no longer be 0-9, as in F-N (where 1x-2y is GF), but 1x-1y is unlimited and forcing? Their cc doesn't mention relays after 1 bids. What do you have in mind? F-N has some artificial responses, especially after 1C, but I assume bidding is natural after the response. Do you just mean using better minor instead of 1C having all of the balanced hands with no 5cM? I think that would be fine. If you keep 1x-1y as 0-9, then if all reponses are natural, does 1D-2S promise only 4? This would be a problem for reponding with 6 card suits. How about: if 2 level responses show 5, then 2NT would be 4333 or 4432 or trump support, and with 4441s you bid the singleton at the 3 level. Or you can use F-N, where 1S-2C is clubs or balanced or supporting spades. I do think you are going to have a little structure in the responses, but bidding can be natural after that. 2) They do have relays after 2x, but I think Gerben's scheme of a "relay" bid, i.e. 2S-2NT, which just asks opener to rebid naturally, and is GF, is fine for those of us below World Class level :) A new suit, i.e. 2S-3D, would be natural and GF. Peter

"Is it possible to play a Fantunes-like system by simply playing a version of Kaplan-Sheinwold (weak NT, sound minor opening, 5cM) which uses F-N intermediate 2 openings ?" My thinking exactly, except of course that major openings would be sound, too, which I think you meant. Perhaps bring the 1 bids down a point, to 13 (11) unbalanced, and keep 2C as strong, and have 2D/2H/2S as intermediate bids. Pass a lot of unbalanced natural 12 count club openers, open the better ones, upgrading a little more freely than you would with 12 counts in the other suits. 1x would then be strong but non forcing (you might respond with 4), and the intermediate bids would be 10(9)-12, a little tighter. This way I would get to keep my 10-13 NT NV :) Peter

Gerben - When you played the system - 1) Did you use an artificial relay system after 2x, or did you just use 2NT as GF, "bid again, partner"? 2) The 10-13 range for 2x - what did you pass and what did you open? Would you open all 13 counts regardless of primary suit quality and vulnerability? What did you open at 10 hcp? 3) How did you handle opening 4441s 2m - apart from hoping it didn't come up :) Peter

I found a nice hand generator on the Firesides site: http://www.firesides.net/dealhand.htm It will email you up to 48 hands of your description. Peter

I find their system (at least the outlines, which I guess is all that is publicly available) to be fascinating. I prefer light one bids, but they have got me thinking - it is in a way a very disciplined system - very sound one bids coupled with aggressive but narrowly defined (in terms of hand strength) two bids. To look at it another way, what should be good slam bidding (because of the low requirement for game forcing bids), plus aggressive, in-your-face part score aggression (the two bids and weak NT). All this validated by excellent results at the top level. I hope more top pairs start playing this style, so we can learn more about it. As an aside, I wonder how their results compare when they are NV versus vulnerable? Peter

"Am I confused, but if you aren't allowed relay-systems, why are you allowed a 2♦ relay after 1♣-2♣? " You can use a relay system after 1 of a suit if it starts with the opener's rebid, but not if it starts with the responder's first bid. Don't ask why. Peter

"I like to bid... I really like to bid... and pass looks right to me Lots of side suit defense Ugly broken that makes it much easier for the opponent to hit you when its right" All true, it is butt-ugly, but you have a 6 card suit with an ace, and favorable vulnerability. I would open 2D. Both white, I would pass, sorrowfully. Peter

I think that you should have opened something in diamonds (1, 2, or 3 depending on your system and preferences). However, having passed once, pass again. Peter

Pass.

"I'm not really a law fan but this hand says bid 4H now really really loudly." I agree with 4H, but the fourth spade reduces the volume considerably :( Peter

Vul at IMPs, I bid 4H and hold my nose. Otherwise, I would bid 3H. Peter

"A single raise shows three pieces A jump raise to 3M shows 4 pieces" Richard - 1) Do you play that the single raise is only 3, and ~6-10, and the jump raise is 4, ~6-10, or is the single raise 3+, ~6-10, and the double 4 and very weak? 2) How aggressive are you? RHO deals and opens 1D. Would you overcall 1S with KJ7x-xx-Kxxx-Kxx? Peter

X was terrible, IMO, but some people like off-shape doubles. 4S depends on what you can expect from pd in spades after a double. If he will only double with 2 spades here with a big hand (which you know from the bidding he doesn't have), then 4S is arguable given the vulnerability and scoring, though I would have settled for 3S. If your pd likes off-shape doubles, 1S is the bid. Peter

Hadn't thought of it as Texas, but 3S is a transfer to 4C, and 4C is a transfer to 4D. We use this only for weak hands - slam interest we transfer with 2S or 3C, then bid 3NT. We play weak/mini NT in the first 3 seats, so we haven't felt the lack of Gerber yet :) I don't know if this would make sense with a strong NT, but we've had some success playing it with 10-13/12-14. Peter

"I support fast arrival of 3NT after 2/1, 'cause of no good fit." Agree - the small extra values cancelled by misfit. 1S-2D-2H-3NT. Peter