pbleighton

"These do not promote the REAL strategy of bridge - CARD PLAY." Do you mean that bidding is not part of "real" bridge strategy? If so, I entirely disagree. I will take the liberty of commenting on Richard's "a 2D opening where 2D promises a weak hand with 4+ Diamonds, 4+ cards in either major" (though Richard is really the one to speak on this) This is a pretty well-defined bid, and I believe that it is more likely to make as a traditional weak two, and much more likely to make than an undisciplined weak two. It can be played with a narrower point count range than a traditional weak two, and still give you more opportunities to bid. Thus, it is both more constructive and more preemptive than a traditional weak two. The "either major" part of this, which I am inferring from your post is what you disagree with, actually increases the likelihood of the contract making. It also maximizes risk for the opponent's interfering in your auction until you find your fit, but what is wrong with that? To take your argument to its logical conclusion, why not ban all preemptive bids, since they interfere with "real bridge strategy"? Your point about some players loading up on conventions and "fancy bidding" as a substitute for getting better on play is true: speaking for myself, I should certainly spend more time on improving my poor defense and less time studying and analyzing bidding systems (but it's what interests me the most, and what the heck!). The point is true, but not relevant to whether certain bidding methods should be banned. I am not even sure that you believe 100% in what you wrote. Your excellent posts in this forum on bidding show that you have thought a lot about bidding, and see it as more than an adjunct to play. If I remember correctly, you yourself aren't exactly averse to some "fancy bidding" B) Regards, Peter

1) Do you classify 6332s as semibalanced or one-suited? Can they be either, depending on the distribution of honors? 2) I believe that you may be lumping together as two suiters 64 hands with a good 6 and 4 small with 54 hands where the 4 is stronger than the 5. If so, is this appropriate/useful? Generally, what is a "suit"? It seems to me that if it is not simply 4 cards, that the criteria would vary by strength ranges. 3) "Would a three suiter including their opened suit be considered a 2 suiter or a three suiter?" Good question - but applies equally well to two suiters. Also really applies to 4432 - much different I think if the 2 is in the opps suit than if a 4.

Assume 1 NT = 11-14, 2 NT= 20-21, cheapest NT rebid = 15-17, jump rebid = 18-19: 1) In Standard Amercan, I am used to a 1 NT bid being a catchall weak rebid, usually balanced but not always. But in ACOL, if you have a 2425 13 hcp hand, and the bidding goes 1C-P-1S-P-?, must you rebid a possibly weak club suit, or bid 2 diamonds, because you can't reverse and 1 NT would be a serious lie? 2) To avoid rebid problems with minimum openers, would you frequently/sometimes/never: a) With a minimum 54 where the 5 card suit was lower ranking and weaker, bid the 4 card suit. B) Open 5422s 1 NT where the 5 card suit was lower ranking, weakish, and a minor. 3) How likely are you to rebid NT with a 5422 shape, when you have 15-17 hcp and your suit rebid is unattractive?

"If you want to play Rule of 18, then I suggest a 14-16 1NT opening so that opener's 1NT rebid can show the 11-13 balanced hand, or play a mini NT and have a wide range 1NT rebid followed by a 2C relay." 1) How well does 10-12 NT play vulnerable? 2) Would you elaborate on the 2C relay? Thanks Peter

"It's easier to give a minimum... 1H-p-2C on xx-x-Kxxx-Axxxx Pass 2D/H; bid 2NT over 2S... generally suffer your punishment; good enough to give partner the opportunity of a rebid, before opps mention Spades!" Am I right that the minimum varies with the amount of trouble you are likely to cause your opponents, and that a 2/1 response can be at least partly preemptive? Your rebid, or maybe pass, (hopefully) clarifies your strength. If the auction went (opps silent) 1H-2C-2D, and you had 13+ hcp, would you tend to jump? If so, I like it, but it is sure a change from SAYC and 2/1!

"Partner is showing distribution & values. So, yes; a one-round force but doesn't guarantee 10+hcp." Could you give me an example or two of hands which are almost good enough to respond 2C to 1H, but not quite? I'm comfortable using "judgement" (i.e. winging it ;)), but I would like to have some idea of what I'm doing.

I have seen reference to a range ask over 1NT (2 spades?). How does this work?

Ron - two more questions (at least for now ;) - and Richard please jump in too if you like): 1) You open 1H on Kx-AQxxx-Kxx-xx, and partner responds 1S. Do you rebid 1NT or 2H? 2) What do you use for general criteria for a rebiddable suit, understanding that sometimes you have no good rebid?

Ron - thanks for the link. It's the best I've seen for my purposes. Three questions from it: 1) He recommends 12-14 NT. He says 1 of a suit, then rebid lowest NT shows 15-16. His suit ranges show 10-21. Where does this leave the 10-11 hcp balanced hands for rebids? On 1D-1H-?, would you rebid NT? Or don't you open 10-11 balanced hands? 2) He says to raise to two of a major holding 3 card support (sounds good to me). If you open a 4441 with 18 hcp 1 spade, and partner raises to 2 spades, what do you do? 3) He doesn't address 2/1 responses. Are they 10+ hcp, forcing one round?

To Richard (from Peter) "Here is the rebid structure that I use after 1M - 2M playing MOSCITO. My guess is that you could use this without many changes, though you might encounter some troubles. This structure is designed arround the philosophy that opener will not want to explore for game holding a 4 card major. This works well with the rest of the MOSCITO opening structure, but I'm not sure whether it will work in the context of a less disciplined opening structure." Thanks - but this is far too structured for this particular partner. However - if I understand your MOSCITO notes correctly, you raise 4 card majors regularly on 3 card support. How well do you find 4-3 fits play at the 2 level? To The_Hog: "If you have only been playing for a short time and want to muck around with 4CM, I'd actually suggest Acol. I think a "The Science" based style is too hard unless you have been playing a while. Another possibility might be Peter Buchen's "Honeymoon Moscito" - essentially natural openings in the Ms, strong C, and no relays but natural responses." 1) Thanks for the input on "The Science" - I'm intrigued, but I suspected it might be a serious undertaking. 2) With this partner, strong club is out of the question. 3) My questions came mostly from what I was able to pick up on ACOL. I was looking for opinions on various issues, since it seems that there are many flavors of it. Let me boil down my main subject of inquiry on it to one question - in your opinion how well will the Rule of 18 work with a natural system with 4 card majors (ACOL), playing the simplest response methods. You can probably tell that I would really like to play it, but I don't want to be too silly. Also, do you know of a website which presents a coherent, simple version of ACOL, including responses past the opener's first response. The only fairly comprehensive one I have found is http://www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/bridge/Aco...l/acol.sys.html which presents a more advanced version than my partner will tolerate (don't get me wrong - he's a decent player - he just doesn't want to invest much time learning bidding).

I am playing 2/1 with one partner, and learning Precision with another. In my neverending search for distractions which serve to prevent me from actually getting good at any bidding system, a third partner and I are planning to experiment with 4 card majors, and light or very light opening bids. Unlike myself, my partner is a relatively normal person who doesn't have the time or inclination for learning any complicated bidding methods ;D Note: this is purely for fun, with no masterpoints attached, so we are quite willing to experiment and take our lumps. We are therefore looking for a simple approach, and would appreciate suggestions. We currently play bare bones Standard American, and are looking to keep the bidding framework as close to that as possible. From the bit of online research I've done, I have come up with the following issues on which I can use some help: 1) Opening range. I know a lot of ACOLers play Rule of 19. We are strongly considering Rule of 18, either just for the majors or for minors and majors. Is this too aggressive in a natural system where a) the 1 level opening bids can be up to 21 hcp, and ;) we won't play transfer positives, relays, or any other method which might sort out hands better than 2/1 forcing for 1 round, and 1NT weak and not forcing? 2) I looked at "The Science", courtesy of The_Hog's reference in another thread, and was attracted by the opeing structure - minors Rule of 20, majors Rule of 18, with 4 card majors opened with longer minors in hands with less than 14 hcp. What do you think of this (particularly the minor canapes)? They use transfer responses which we won't be using. I don't know if using basic response methods will make the canapes too difficult to handle. 3) "The Science" uses a 14-16(17) NT. If we use Rule of 18, I am inclined to use it too, so that 1H-1S-1NT, for example, would almost always show a balanced 10-13 hcp. What do you think of this approach? Are we better off with a 12-14 NT? I am worried that with 12-14 and Rule of 18 openings, the opener's 1NT response will either be too limited, or a split range which might be difficult to handle. 4) A couple of responses to a previous post of mine on LOBs indicated that invitational and weak response hcp criteria should be left unchanged from the 6-10 and 10+ used with Rule of 20 openings(i.e. we would use 6+ for 1/1 responses, 6-12 for 1 Suit-1NT, and 10+ for 2/1 responses). Do you agree, and would you agree when using Rule of 18? I am particularly concerned with 2/1 responses. My gut tells me that leaving them at 10+ is a good idea, or we throw too many responses into 1NT. We will, of course, get too high some of the time, and "invitational" becomes a relatively big and sloppy range. What is you experience on this? 5) ACOLers seem to agree on opening 55 hands with the higher suit, as in SA. There seems to be a difference of opinion on suits with 2 or 3 4 card suits. Bidding them up the line seems to be popular, and reasonable, though it will lead to rebid problems occasionally. Your suggestions on a relatively simple rule for this? 6) Under what circumstances (if any) would you open a 4 card suit when you have another 5 card suit, apart from possibly taking "The Science" approach above? 7) How do you feel about responding 1M-2M with 3 card support, and if you would do it, what criteria would you use? 8) When rebidding your major, how strict are you on suit quality/length? Would you insist on a suit which has some play opposite 3 small? 9) Should 1S/2H show 5 cards?

As an addition to my post, 4D after 3S asks which suit - 4NT shows diamonds, others natural.

My partner at a local club (we play 2/1) introduced me to a simple convention. If your partner opens 1NT or 2NT, and the opponent overcalls, then a double shows that the opp bid what you were going to bid. By chance, this proved immediately useful. My partner didn't know what this double was called. Does anyone know?

In Precision Today, which my partner and I use (though we have already diverged quite a bit based on Forum and Bridgetalk.com input ;)), 3C shows a black singleton, 4441, less than 4 controls (A=2, K=1). 3S is used to show a 7+ suit, which always has the AKQ. After this, the opener bids 3NT to inquire. The responses are: 4D No Outside controls (0 controls) 4H An outside King (1 control) 4S An outside Ace or 2 kings (2 controls) 4NT An Ace & 2 Kings or 2 kings (3+ controls)

1) Bid 3NT. You only have 2 clubs (though very nice), and a minimum balanced 2C opener. 3NT describes you hand well. South can speak if he wants to. 2) Not sure I understand the question - it would depend on South's hand. With the hand shown, I would pass. 3) If North bid 4C I would assume good 3 card support. At IMPs I would bid 6C, at matchpoints 6NT.

I especially appreciate this Forum and the Partnership Bidding room.

"One other thing of interest to you may be the 2 bids that are used. Many of the Europeans use Ekrens or Vilkosh or some 2 suited openings. Versace-Lauria use 2H to show a weak 2 in H or S, Groetheim uses 2H as a weak 2 or an assorted 5-6 poit hand. US players are far more conventional in their choice of 2 level openings." Yes - one more reason to love the ACBL. I have looked into weak twos at http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/weak.two Any other good sites? I like Ekrens (never played it), and am intrigued by Frelling, though unknown suits make me a little nervous (they make the opponents nervous too, I suppose B)). What is youe experience with two suited weak twos? One poster (at another forum) said that when he used openings which showed an unknown suit(s), that his partners would guess wrong "with depressing frequency"

Since the thread has veered to what top pairs play, I will try a scaled-down version of a question I asked in another thread, apparently in a far too detailed/ambititious manner. I gather from the replies that the large majority of top pairs in the world play 5 card majors, though the exact percentage is in dispute. So: 1) Of those who play 5 card majors, are a) natural or B) some sort of forcing club/forcing diamond systems more common, and how much more common? 2) Of those who play 4 card majors, what are the most common systems, apart from Blue Team Club? 3) Terminology question - if a system uses 5 card majors, and has a forcing club which is strong only, is it considered to be a Precision varaiant?

"5 card majors has become the dominant basis for bidding system designs throughout most of the world. Today, the vast majority of top pairs have switched to playing 5 card major based methods. There are certainly some holdouts [Hamman and Soloway, Helgemo, Auken - Von Arnim, the Hacketts, an assorted but of Swedes, Brits, and Aussies], however, most people seem to have gravitated to some 5 card major variant. Personally, I believe that this has relatively little to do with whether 4 card majors or 5 card majors are superior in theory. However, there is an enomous correlation with playing 5 card majors and (a) Finding partners to play with (B) Finding clients to partner with Standards ratify what is popular. It is naive to argue that standards select the best approach. Please consider VHS versus Betamax or any one of a variety of other examples of standard formation from business literature." You've made it clear in many (interesting) posts that you consider MOSCITO to be an excellent, if not the best system. MOSCITO is, as I understand it, a relay system. Do you feel that 4 card majors are viable without either a relay system approach, or at least a highly structured approach which mixes relays with detailed partnership agreements about various natural bids.

"How would good players bid this hand?" No idea. I would jump to 6 clubs after a 2NT opener, and get a bottom score.

"I want to ask how to handle invitational unbalanced hands after the sequence 1H-1S-2H? For example you hold : S AKxxx H x D KJxxx C xx In my opinion, 3 level new suits should be a game forcing sequence and also and I think 2S doesn't help as it should be 6+card." 1) I agree that a 3 level new suit by the responder is game forcing. 2) 3D is the best bid in this situation. 3) IMO, there are situations it is best to rebid a 5 card suit with a 2 suiter. For example, with S AKJxx H x D xxxx C AJx I would rebid 2S.

"The one thing that most organizations try to do, and should do, is not to fall for the "Not Invented Here Syndrome". You don't develop a system like this from scratch - the risks are too high and the timeframe too large. You go out and throw some obscene amount of money at a Fred Gittelman and buy his system as a starting point." That is absolutely right - in theory. I made the assumption in my initial post that (from the little I knew about the ACBL) they would never go for something so relatively easy. All interested parties would have a say, in order to get their buy-in, and the result would be something that would probably be no better or worse than what they could get from an outside vendor, at considerable more time and expense. However, if this process were followed, it would have a better chance of being accepted by the U.S. bridge community, included but not limited to the ACBL. I am sure that you and Richard have seen instances of companies which bought expensive software packages, only to see them languish on the shelf exactly because of the "not invented here" syndrome. But I run on. Pardon my cynicism, but the whole issue of institutional resistance to change is (obviously) a hot button for me. :)

Rado writes: "if we hade agree to trap-pass after our strong C is overcalled - if so then strong hand must reopen always. " Playing forcing pass over LHO's overcall - 1) how high up would you recommend playing something like this - it seems risky to do this with a 2 level or higher overcall, which could push opener to the 3 level. It seems that most of the time the responder would have a weak hand. 2) if playing this, is the best response structure: a) pass 0-4 or trap -good cards in opp's suit, dbl = 5-7, other = 8+ :( pass 0-7 or trap -good cards in opp's suit, dbl for takeout showing 8+, other = 8+ c) pass 0-4 or trap -good cards in opp's suit, dbl = 8+ any shape, other 5-7(8), invitational. d) pass 0-5 or trap -good cards in opp's suit, dbl = for takeout showing 6+, other = 6+ e) any other suggestion

"my risk, ace heart and then two heart I think partner have a single in heart" I think this is what I would do. However, from the tenor of the post, I doubt this is it. So in the spirit of seeking an unusual solution... You need 5 tricks. Assume you get the A of H and the AQ of C. If partner has the A of D, you are home. If not, your K of D is done for if dummy has an entry. Play the 10 on the first trick, playing for West to have the Kx, or for partner to have the K. If West has the Kx, he must cover, eliminating his entry to dummy and not costing you a trick, since your A will still score.

I understand that the forcing pass is a popular way to deal with interference after a strong club opening. Is it used by the responder at his first bid, or just by the opener or responder's rebids? If it is used by the responder at his first bid, then what do you recommend for the other responses? Specifically, how do you show a very weak (0-4 hcp) hand? If used later - i.e. 1C-P-1S-3C-P(forcing), what do you recommend for the other responses?