pbleighton

1S. Anything else is "too clever by half", IMHO. Peter

Ron writes: "If he is playing the structure I sent him, 1M 2N is limit or better." Yes, this is what we are playing. Free writes: "A question about your system: is the 1M-opening limited in HCP?" 1M is 10-21 hcp. When we get comfortable with it, we may well go to a strong club version. Ron suggested this to me in a thread on EHAA (we were experimenting with EHAA twos - though 4-10 rather than 6-12 because of out fairly light openers), as a way for a couple of intermediates to get their overaggressive ya-yas out at the one level, rather than opening opening every five card suit at the two level :) So far we have played it half a dozen times, and like it - thanks Ron! Our 2H/2D bids are now 7(6)-9 hcp (2D is 8(7)-10, as we open 11-21 1m), and frequently have 5 cards when NV. The narrower range has cut down on frequency, but has reduced our self-preempting and made inviting to game safer. NV, our 3s are usually very weak, may have 6, and aren't raised by responder, except with 4 card support or half the deck. In the honored tradition of expanding thread content, what do people think of this 1M structure in a strong club context. To elaborate a little: 1M-1NT is semi-forcing - 6-12 hcp (revalued). Denies 4+ trump support if 11(10)-12. Denies 3+ trump support if 6-10(9). In response, opener must bid with 14+ hcp, or with 10-13 if either a 6 card suit (rebid suit) or non-reverse change of suit available with a 4 card suit. 1M-1NT-2NT = 17-19 hcp, balanced. The 1Nt response is announceable as "semi-forcing", and any opener response to 1M-1NT is alertable as guaranteeing 5 cards. We raise to 2 on 3+ cards. 2/1 responses require 13 hcp and are GF. This is a modification/simplification of the structure ("The Science") of what Ron sent me. It is GCC legal, which unfortunately is a requirement for us. It also allows us to guarantee 5 cards with any rebid after 1M-1NT. 4 card majors are thus easier to deal with for us 5 card major types, as the 2/1 auctions have room to clarify. I am thinking of putting this in a Precision-type structure: 1C- 16+ 1D- 11-15, 1+ D 1M - 10-15, if 10-13 4+, may have longer minor, 14-15 5+ 1NT - 14-16 2C - 11-16, 6+ clubs 2D - 10-15, 4414 or 4405 This would essentially be a common flavor of Precision, which I have played a bit, with a LOT of the 1D openers and a few of the 2C openers moved to 1M. Compared to the current system, it's somewhat less aggressive and more vulnerable to interference, but I believe it would be more accurate, even taking interference into account. 10-21 is a big range. It would also make the 1M-3M (and 1m-3m - we play inverted minors) preempts a bit safer. A some may have guessed, the thread was prompted by a bad result - I opened with a very good 16, and my partner shut me out with a preemptive raise ;) I know this is very sketchy, but what do you think? Peter

I have recently started playing a system where 4 card majors are bid with 10-13 hcp, including with much longer minors. We only open with 4 with a biddable suit, i.e. with the Q10, K9, or A. With 14+ hcp, majors always show 5. 1NT is 14-16. Majors are 5+ cards about 70% of the time. We play 1M-3M as preemptive. Given the above: 1) When, if ever, would you raise to 3M with 4 card support? For now, we are doing so only when NV and with a stiff or void. 2) What is the strongest hand you would preempt with? I have read 6 or 7 points. Is this dummy points? Would you give an example of 2 hands, one of which is just weak enough and one of which is just a little too strong to go to 3M with? Peter

2) Pass. You have described your hand already, and you don't have 5 diamonds or a max. 3) 3NT. 2NT doesn't seem significantly more likely to make than 3NT, and I can't pass. Peter

"Did I give the impression that I would splinter wit ONLY a 5/3 fit??? NO WAY" Right. The reasons that you should splinter with a 4-4 fit and not a 5-3 fit are: 1) Playing 5 card majors, you want to see if there is something better than the 5-3, maybe a 4-4 in the other major, occasionally NT plays better. Playing 4 card majors, when the responder has 4 card support, the search for the trump suit is almost always over. 2) 4 trumps with a singleton or void is potentially much more useful than 3 trumps. It may be an extra trick. Peter

I almost always lead 4th highest /longest and strongest against a NT contract. Exceptions are: 1) If my suit isn't strong, and partner has bid. 2) I have a huge suit - AKQJx - just run it. 3) If my suit isn't strong, and the opps have bid it. Is the above correct? What other circumstances would you not lead 4th highest - AQJ10x, AJ109x, etc.? Peter

Spades and a minor, either very strong or weak, always 5+ in both suits. I'm not confident enough in my declaring ability to want to play 4-3 fits at the 3 level. Peter P.S. Last week at my club a pair playing against us gave us a top by using michaels with 13 points, then stopping in part score when they had a game.

I get to reply first. "Fools venture in.." "(1D) 1S (1N) P (2D) X Tx Axxxx xxx Kxx 1) Would you pass over 1N 2) Do you now bid "only" 2H 3) Assuming you bid 2H, this gets passed to you and the 1N bidder now bids 3D. Do you pass, X or bid 3H?" I assume 1N bidder passed after partner's double. 1) Yes, I pass. 2) Yes, 2H, my DK is badly placed. 3) Double. Peter

What about defense at matchpoints. I tend to play more passively at MPs, figuring if most of the field is letting the opps make 4H there is no sense trying for a low percentage heroic play to beat the contract, which will usually wind up handing the opps an overtrick. Is this right? Warning - be careful of encouraging my overly passive tendencies on defense ;D Peter

John - Thanks for your reply, but I would like to clarify - Can/should you use slow/fast arrival in a strain other than the major suits? If not, how do you indicate slam interest, other than barging into Blackwood? My understanding is that Serious 3NT is only for the majors. Peter

Playing 2/1, opps silent, would you interpret any of these auctions as slow arrival, with extra values and slam interest: 1) 1S-2C-2NT 2) 1S-2C-2D-2NT 3) 1S-2C-3C 4) 1S-2C-4C 5) 1S-2C-2D-3D 6) 1S-2C-2D-4D If not, are they just searching for the right contract? Peter

You vul, they are not hold S-AKxx H-9xx D-x C-J987x Bidding P – (1H) - 2D – (P) P – (2H) – DBL – (P) ? Partner probably has 4 spades to double. I would bid 2S. If my singleton weren't in partner's suit, I would bid 3S. Not vul versus not vul S-AKJ98 H-ATx D-Qxx C-xx Bidding P – (P) – 1S – (P) 1NT – (P) - ? 2D. Even if you play 1NT as semi-forcing by a passed hand, this hand is just a little too strong to pass. A poster in another thread said he played 2D as guaranteeing 4 cards, however, I believe this isn't a standard treatment. Vul versus not vul S-AKQx H-KTx D-AT9 C-Axx 3D – (P) - ? I am sure there is a clever way to approach this auction, but I don't know it :) RKC. If he has both key cards, go to 6D, otherwise settle in 5. 6 could go down with the wrong distribution, but will probably make. The lack of the DQ wouldn't stop me, as we will have 10 trumps and the AK. Vul versus Vul S-ATx H-x D-QJxxx C-AQxx 1D – (1H) – 1S – P 2S – (P) - 3C - P 4C – (P) – 5N – (P) ? I assume 5N is GSF with clubs as trumps. 7C. Peter

Ben writes: "3S should be out, because that all but forcing, and as The_Hog said, this hand is no where near strong enough for that bid." I chose 3S over 2S, barely. However, I don't play 3S as "all but forcing" - it's just an invitation, albeit with at least an OK 6 card suit. My book (25 Steps to Learning 2/1, by Paul Thurston) says 3S requires 15-18 hcp, and should be passed by a responder with less than 9 hcp, and accepted with 9 or more. Is this what you mean by "all but forcing", or do you treat 3S differently? Peter

Luis writes: "Why will 2s in a 6-1 fit be better than 2c or 3c in a 5-3 or 6-3 fit? If you play that 2d shows 4+cards and 2c can be a doubleton when your pd passes 2c he has 5/6 clubs and a weak hand and you are playing a contract far better than 2s. " I play 2C shows 3+. If he passes with 4 (most likely), a 4-3 fit is worse than a 6-1 fit. Additionally, if you can make 2 at both contracts (not a bad chance, given the hand), +110 loses to +90. Generally, Luis, I will take a major suit over minor suit part score contract at matchpoints, if the odds of making are even close. Regardless of the merits of this particular deal, is this a bad approach? Peter

Ben - When you give your reasons for 2C, would you say if you would bid 2C at matchpoints as well? From a quick and dirty calculation I made, it seems that there is about a 25%+ chance of 2C being passed by pd, which will likely be a bottom in MPs. Peter

I chose 3S, but barely, over 2S. Another day, I would have chosen 2S. I will be interested to read rationales for other bids. To me, 2S and 3S are the only reasonable choices (but then, I'm wrong all the time) :D Peter

DrTodd writes: "...Punishing the innocent for the discrimination of their fathers is unjust..." It certainly would be, if that was what is being proposed. However, that is NOT the case. The issue at hand is whether BBO should permit tournaments to discriminate on a basis which has NOTHING to do with any legitimate bridge purpose. Race, gender, and nationality (though not language proficiency) clearly fall into that category. "Ostracism worked well as a behavior adjustor for many years." Only at the margins. I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out where it failed, and IS FAILING, completely. The world won't end if Fred allows discriminatory tournaments. However, the world changes for the better (and worse) based largely on small decisions, which have a huge cumulative impact. Peter

Free writes: "...I don't live in the old days.." Claus' point is, I believe, that "the old days" are still with us. If you don't care about discrimination, that's your prerogative. But please don't imagine that the chronological transition to the 21st century has somehow wiped clean the social evils of the 20th century. Read the papers! Peter Leighton

Ben writes: "Welcome to the BBO. This is exactly the attitude that needs to be fostered. Fun bridge, challenging bridge whenever possible, but nice is important. BBO nicest place on the web. :-)" I will second that. On the matter of this Forum, for example, there are occasional unfortunately worded posts, but it is usually quite civilized. I have just started participating in rec.games.bridge. Lots of interesting threads, but way too much nastiness. Peter

Thanks Ben and Fred. Along the same lines: 1S-2D-2S-3D-? If I understand, a maximal double wouldn't apply here, and a double would be for penalty. In that case, is 3H a specific heart-related game try, or is it general - any distribution, invitational stength. If it is specific, and hearts aren't appropriate, do you just bid 3S (or 4S, if you feel lucky)? Peter

I play 3S in the above sequence as either "just competing", with 6+ spades (LOTT), or it may have invitational strength with 5+ spades. This leaves partner no way to know if I am inviting or not, and we play that we are not. Usually this is right. Is this method correct? Is there a better way? Peter

Ron writes: "Exactly! How would you know that someone is male/female etc? I have always suspected that Ben is an 18 yo curvaceous female." Ron, is this "aggressive bidding"? :) Peter

I have a couple of books which deal with this topic - Bill Root and Frank Stewart stuff, but I am looking for an online resource which will provide quizzes, preferably though not necessarily with explanations of the answers. Peter

Thanks guys. But what criteria do you use in determining whether to make a 2/1 response. Does it land you in bad 3NT contracts often? Peter

In another thread, regarding the following10 hcp hand, Richard wrote: A10xxx AQ10x xx xx "If you want to open these hands (and I think that its clear that you should) then the rest of your system needs to be designed to complement this style." And Ben responded: "This is an interesting statement. I open this hand 1S, I play 2/1 Game force, and, yes, my 2/1 GF has been what you would probably say is redesigned. This might be a topic for a seperate thread." Ben then gave these two additional examples of minimum openers in his 2/1 style: KJTxx xx AJ98x x and AKQxxx J9xx x xx My question for Ben (and anyone else) is: What is your criteria for a 2/1 response? Does it differ from what you would use if you opened 90% of 12s/15% of 11s, which seems to be more typical of 2/1 players? Do you: 1) Take your cost for the lighter openings in the form of missing 2/1 reponses that the field is bidding (and bidding 1NT instead), or 2) Overbidding by keeping the 2/1 responses the same, or 3) Do you split the difference, or 4) Blaze to glory with spectacular declarer play B) Peter