pbleighton

This is a somewhat unusual example of an area where the ACBL is actually more liberal than some European jurisdictions. You can open any 8 count - Q32-Q32-Q32-Q432 is fine. OTOH, you can't open AK109876-1098765 at the one level. Psyches are fine, but if you play a system which opens 8 counts routinely, and regularly "psyche" good 6 and 7 counts in the first two seats, you might get in trouble. I suspect this may be the case in other jursdictions, as well. Peter

3H is pretty clear. Peter

Interesting thread. Some points, some not directly on topic: 1. "Unbalanced hands should describe their shape first; Balanced hands should describe their strength first." I agree completely. 2. Light openings. I would modify this to be "high frequency of opening bids" - including undisciplined 2 bids and preempts and weak/mini NT. 3. "Mean opening" - an evaluation of systems based on a combination of frequency of opening bids and their level - 0 for pass, 1 for 1C, 2 for 1D, etc. The higher you open, the less chance the opps have for showing their shape. Dan Neill's site has a very interesting document by Jan-Eric Larssen, which describes a LOT of systems and evaluates their mean opening. The link is: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...-collection.txt 4. 4 card majors. 5 card majors hide shape (though they are what I play). 5. My nomination for the ultimate "Shape First" system - EHAA. 4 card majors, 10-12 NT, and 2 bids in all suits where you open any hand with a 5 card suit down to 6 hcp. EHAA is "Shape, first, last and always", and goes a bit too far (or maybe way too far, depending on your point of view). IMO Fantoni-Nunes is EHAA, drastically altered to fit the needs of world-class teams play. Since I have no such needs, I play a mildy altered form - Chicken EHAA (5cM, 10-13 NT, 9(8)-12 2 bids, a little chicken with 2 bids on 9 and 10 counts when vulnerable). Such fun! Peter

"Agreed. I used "hyped up SAYC" to appease the sensitives some people get when you mention "2/1 not being game force?!" :-) " Dwayne: I explain the responses to 1 bids in my "Chicken EHAA" system as "Modern Standard American".... that clears up everything nicely ;) Peter

I agree that you need a system fix to distinguish min and max. In this auction I pass. Peter

Thanks! I counted 26 pairs, all playing some kind of "non-natural" system. How many pairs are playing in total, and do you know generally what the rest are playing, in general - is it mostly 5 card majors and strong NT? Peter

I'm not going to attempt to pass judgment on this system as a whole, but I agree with Richard about the 1NT opening. I can see that a good response scheme could bid games pretty accurately (I play a 10-13 NT so I'm not so concerned about the wider range), but I see two problems with part score contracts: With unbalanced hands 1NT will often be a quite inferior contract. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of the 1NT opening versus 1 of a suit is that you will actually play your opening bid a lot. If the response scheme usually takes you past 1NT with a weak responder, then you have big problems with the balanced hands which form the majority of the 1NT openers. Bailing into 2M with a weak hand is also much dicier. Peter

"woah, a ZAR smackdown. it's like WWF (I guess it's WWE now)...ok sorry showing my age." For the very first time! :unsure: Peter

The bidding is fine to this point. In my non-Precision partnerships, the bidding would continue: 3H (a self sufficient suit and extras) 4H (OK, if you insist) I'm sure someone will post a better auction, perhaps a reverse fit showing non jump with a half twist of lemon :unsure: Peter

1) Pass. 2) Don't play 4th suit as GF. Peter

2C, reluctantly. You are just too strong to pass. Pd will never believe you have this hand if you pass and come in later. Peter

Much better just to respond light, particularly if you are short in pd's major, if you are worried about being passed out. Peter

3H. At any other vulnerability, 4H. Peter

2D was fine - I would bid this every time. 3D or 3C are equally unattractive - 3D hides a suit and 3C tends to promise more. Don't worry too much about hands like this. If you open light and respond light with lots of shape, you are going to get too high sometimes. If you don't, you'll miss games and slams. I know which I prefer. Next hand! Peter

4H every single time. Peter

"I think from reading the ACBL regulatons it has to be at aleast 15HCP" This is only true if you want to be able to use any and all responses and rebids (#6 in Responses and Rebids of the GCC). The artificial 1C bid can guarantee as little as 10 hcp and still be GCC legal (#1 in Opening Bids), which is why the Polish 1C is legal. Richard, I disagree that opening this hand 1C is a psyche. I agree that is a mistake in judgment to do so. However, if you do so, the alerted meaning should convey this possibility to the opps, one way or another. This is perhaps a minor quibble, but what you see as pysche I see as inadequate alerting. Peter

Michael: I think I agree with you, but to be sure: 1) Legally, the 1C artificial bid can have as little as 10 hcp, so opening this hand 1C is fine. I wouldn't call it a psyche, rather a very aggressive upgrade. 2) You can deviate from an announced minimum by 1, or EXCEPTIONALLY, more points with extra playing strength, and not need to alert that. It's "just bridge". 3) I wouldn't open the posted hand 1C. For me, 14 counts need to be really excellent to upgrade to 1C, let alone 12 counts - this hand is a very good 12 count but I'd want another queen to open 1C - though I realize much better players than I would upgrade it. However, if someone ROUTINELY open hands like the one posted 1C then their card and announcement should be something like "16 hcp or x playing tricks" or "16 hcp, may be as low as y with extra distribution". Do I understand you? Peter

"If you think of it, the only EXTRA asset for defeating 5C was the Qxx of trumps: doubling gave this info away and an extra chance to opps to make. By doubling, we are basically giving away our extra asset." Not sure what you mean by "extra asset". The DA looks pretty good to me :) Seriously, the opps have at most 23 hcp (in fact that is what they had). Doubling 5 at matchpoints looks pretty good to me. *maybe* this gives away a trick, more often than not, it doesn't. Peter

Agree with whereeagles, except that you partner should have bid the first time around - 1S or 2S - I would have bid 2S. Peter

Whether the pass is forcing is up to you (I think it should be). I agree with coyot that the double was right, given that it is matchpoints. Peter

NF 6-7, I think. With 8 opposite 17+ you shouldn't invite. Peter

"in general the weaker you are the more problems that are created for partner with good hands. I sort of compare it to people who open weak two bids on any honor and five other cards, it seems partner is at more of a disadvantage than the opps." Ah, but how about any five cards? Peter

"Doesn't Meckwell vary the NT ranges depending on seat and vulnerability?" They play 9-12 inNV 1-3, 14-16 else. Peter

I play 10-13 in 1-3 and 14-17 in 4th. Our weak 2s (including 2C) are 9(8)-12 and very undisciplined, so pd rarely has 10. Peter

I would bid 2NT - I have the values, shape, and stopper. Peter