Kalvan14

Nice to find someone who shares my own concerns ;) :D

Pass is the normal action when partner opens 1M and you play precision or similar. 1N may be better, and may be worse. And you would not believe how often oppos cannot resist the lure of 1♠-(P)-P ;) I pass 2♣X, btw.

I think that Hannie got it. Except that I would pass 1♥, and double 2♦

3♦, but it is a close call. If I need a swing or a top, I'll double

I will not ask, and bid 5♣. I would expect that RHO has a good 3-suiter (or - just possibly - 3-4-5-1). I would not be happy to let them find their best fit at 4-level.

3N. It's a gamble, agreed. IMHO, it is a reasonable one ;)

#1 : 3N. Good intermediates, partner should have 11 or so #2: 3N, again. Let oppos decide if they want to lead spades or hearts. #3: if I can show a diamonds shortness I will just invite. Otherwise, I bid 4H #4 : 2D. Double fit ok, but my invitations are better than this one. #5: pass. If partner has 2 clubs he will double. If he has 1 (or none) we are better in 5H #6: 5S. You will get there, sooner or later. #7: I would try to get smart, and bid 4C

Yeah, it is quite clear cut. The responsibility for the bad result does not come from opening 1N. 9 HCP might be ok for 3N if you have a 5-card suit, and some intermediates. Not with the given hand ;)

Robert, there are 2 considerations to make: frequency: the aggegated frequency for Muiderberg bids (2H & 2S) is around 4.2%. However, I have given up 2H in favor of assumed fit (4/+, 4+ in the majors). This means that I can expect 2.1% frequency for the 2S and 2.6% for 2H. Overall, 4.7% which is not bad at all. Muiderberg bids are principally intended as pre-emption. Most of the time you pass 2M, or try to play 3m. the forward-going hands are pretty limited in number, and in most cases you end up playing 4M (be it as pre-empt or to make) Once you agree on these two points, it does not pay to build a very complex system to cater with these hands. The KISS principle applies ;) I've been playing Muiderberg for one year, and I have not had big accidents. 2♠ is a good pre-emptive bid, and your partner usually knows what raise to make (my bids always show 5 in M and 4/+ in m; it would be feasible to play it the other way around: 4/+ M and 5/+ m, which would increase the frequency. IMHO, you would loose the best pre-emption - 2M-4M - and this would not compensate the slight increase in frequency). The normal constrictions for a pre-empt should apply: losers according to vulnerability, preference for honor concentration in the suits the opener holds, no chicanes. Obviously, once your pard passes, these constrictions are much more relaxed. My system is as follows: - 2N is a 2-way bid, asking opener to bid the minor he does not hold. It is either weak in a minor, strong in a minor (3N or 4m afterwards), invitational in OM (3OM), forcing raise in M (3M). - 3♣ asks to pass or correct - 3♦ is a limited raise in M - 3M is pre-emptive - 3OM is forcing, with good suit - 3N, 4M, 4OM to play (4M & 4OM can be pre-emptive) - 4m, 5m ask to pass or correct. Paradox rules apply. Usually, these bids are pre-emptive; they can also be intended to trap oppos (I bid 4♣ over 2♠ with x KJTx KTxx AJxx, and it resulted in a juicy 1100, when they bid 4♥ in a 4-3 fit). - 4N is RKC in spades (never happened :D , but you never know) [2N and then 4N is RKC in opener's minor. ditto] If you play both Muiderberg, you have available 2♠ over 2♥. It should be weak, with no tolerance for hearts. Regards

The 2nd hand cannot be passed, after an invitational 3♣. I would find it difficult to pass even the 1st one (which is worth a raise to 4m: with the hand postulated for south Axxx xxx Qx KQxx - i.e. no wasted walue, double fit and an outside A - 5♣ is the normal contract). Obviously, you play a completely different approach (1-round FSF), and this may explain the different bids.

John, the only case where you can reasonably take an unilateral action over (1N) is when you hold a 7-card suit :o If you like Wrangler, you should play it, by all means. My comments were not meant to criticize your choice.

LOL, guys: this hand happened in a club MP event. Why should I go out of my way to invent a hand like this?

Robert, 2NT over 2M Muiderberg is a 2-way bid: either you hold a weak minor (and you want to play that minor at 3-level) or you hold a positive hand, and are interested to know which minor the opener holds. The former case is obviously the most common. Using paradox bids (i.e., inverting the minors) you get exactly that. If both hold clubs, 4♣ will have more pre-emptive power than 3♣. 2NT is not just a way to play a minor at 3-level, or to show a strong minor. It caters for the following hands too: invitational hand with a good suit in OM (2M-2N-3m-3OM) - a direct 3OM would be forcing; forcing raise in opener's major (2M-2N-3m-3M) - a direct raise is pre-emptive. The minimum-maximum is really a red herring, in my view. It would be much more interesting to understand where opener's honors are located. I am not going to sacrifice this structure in order to learn if opener is max or min :o Vul openings: it is a matter of losers, rather than HCP, obviously. A vul vs non-vul would require good intermediates, and good distribution, with a concentration of honors in the suits (a minimum might be something like xx KJTxx xx KT9x). I would never open vul a hand like the one posted here

I see what you mean. You don't give up on squeeze when RHO has 4♦. Sounds good. It will go down inmediately if ♠3-3 and ♥5-2. But still an improement over playing 4 rounds of trumps. True. But the problem is deciding if either hearts or spades are breaking. At least, I win if the ♥J is doubleton or tripleton; and I keep all the chances of a squeeze if it is Jxxx. Jxxxx vs. xx is a very low chance; however, if Jxxxx is with 4 diamonds, there is an automatic squeeze in the black suits.

Exactly my thinking on this hand and the way I would use each bid - using 4th suit force as invitational creates its own set of problems. I kind of like the old Blue Team idea (they uses it with 4N but could apply to minor RKC) in that if the bid comes within the first two rounds or if it is a jump then it is ace-asking; any other time it is not. Winston Actually the idea of 4N being ace asking within the first 2 rounds of bidding was already in the Neapolitan club. The Blue Team got it from there. Another very actual idea which was already in the Neapolitan club was the self-reverse (1x-2y-any-3y: forcing and settles trumps).

Robert, I do believe you are a barracks lawyer :o . The poll rules were quite clear, IMHO. 3♠ was defined as "Western Q", so that was the meaning. By the same token, 3♦ was defined as "invitational" so could not be used as a forcing bid. Other was referred to any bid not identified among the options (so you can answer 2♠). My aim was to see which would have been bid by the majority: it was 5♦, which, incidentally, was also my choice at the table. OTOH, what looked like the most effective bid did not result in a good contract. My own analysis (post-mortem ;) ) was that bypassing 3N was not the best choice. How to eplore the feasibility of playing 3N? IMO, 3♠ (asking for a stopper) was (and is) the best way (with the caveat that partner is not guaranteed to hold ♦A - which means that even a sure stopper in spades might not be enough). Quote: Did you really expect me to bid 3S* Western cuebid 'after' the poll showed a clear winner in percentage vote for a 5D bid? Unquote Do you really bid according to the poll results? That's quite surprising for me. Quote: If the conditions of contest stated that the second highest percentage 'vote' would be deemed to be the subject for discussion, I would have posted my reply based on that statement.Unquote I will not even try to unravel this statement. Why the 2nd highest vote (or the nth, by all means) has to be the subject for discussion?

I do not see a need to modify completely the bidding structure. I keep Lebensohl even when both suits are known (and they are always majors, if the action is at 2-level). 3 in an unbid suit is forcing (weak passing through 2N) double is a balanced hand, 8/+ (proposing to penalise) any suit at 2-level is weak to play (even if it is one shown by RHO) 3N is a two suiter in the unbid suits, without stoppers 2N, then 3N promises both stoppers 2N, then one of their suits: stopper, lacking the other one

Your style is more or less mine. I would be 3♣ here, invitational. 3♣ is much more descriptive than 2♥ (which would also be a slight overbid). In my way of playing, 2♥ would deny a 4-card fit in clubs as well as a good fit in diamonds, and hint to 5 spades, and/or a strong interest in 3N. To complete the picture: 3OM: splinter, with fit in clubs 4m: slam try in the minor (RKC) a GF hand without OM shortness (and not strong enough for a 4m bid) would go through FSF, and then raise a minor or bid 3N, depending on strength. 3D would obviously be invitational in diamonds (pls. note that I cannot have 5M and 4/+m in an invitational hand: in such a case I would bid 1m-2M)

Must have been a misboard :o with this hand you'd play an icy 5♦, I would play 3N or 4HX (try leading trump from N hand). As far as the idea that N might double with 3 trumps only, I told you: it is a no-no :P I'm not trying to promote the Church of the Holy Penalty Double, mind. The problem is this: if you do not like Real World, you have the option of changing channel; if you don't like real world, you have not. ;)

The first target against a 2♥ Ekren style is to penalize the contract. The assumed fit theory gives to the 2♥ opener 2 chances out of 3 to find a fit. This also means that 1 times out of 3 he has no fit, and is ready for the carving. I play 2♥ 4/+ in both majors and weak (5-9), btw. My defense against it is: double: balanced hand, 14/18 HCP. Aimed to penalty, and this means that you have a good holding in the majors if you are minimum. 2S: natural, 6 cards, good suit. NF. 2NT: take-out of both majors, or a very strong hand. Forcing. 3m: natural, forward going (not forcing) 3M: stopper where bid, aimed to 3N 3N, 4M: to play 4m: minor 2-suiter, 3.5-4 losers (4C=hearts shortness, 4D=spades shortness) Whatever you do, KISS principle applies. And a penalty double is the juicier option.

The problem is that 3♣, while non-forcing, is certainly invitational and forward going. This makes S willing to show hearts (as a step toward 3N). A possible hand for N, to justify his bidding: QJxx, xx, KJxx, Axx. Here you can have a shoot at 3N. There are obviously a lot of other hands (unbalanced too) which might aim to a game contract. Again, N is showing something like 10 to 12 HCP, and a fit in clubs. Both features are quite in contrast with what he is really holding. There is quite a widespread habit to raise pard with Hx, as a default bid. For my taste, such a raise would be a truly last resort, and I would do a lot to avoid it. Here N does not even have Hx in clubs :o

3NT is not a bad bid, it is a practical one, and shooting for a possible game. I am afraid that N's 2♥ opening (dealer and vul vs not) is well below what I was expecting. It is true that 2M is 5-10 HCP, but there is also a consideration to be made on losers and vulnerability. N's hand can end up in a veritable bloodbath: just imagine that S holds 12 HCP in a balanced hand with 2 hearts :o My suggestion is to pay more attention to vulnerability and losers. And also to look for a better arrangement for follow up bids. This said, Muiderberg bids can be annoying for opponents, and are very often quite effective.

No problem with weak jumps, even when vul.. However, this particular hand has too many losers (8 to 9) for even a weak jump. Partner knows that he can raise just as pre-emption, or in rare and special occasion. But again, I would not jump with this hand. Bid 1♠, it is already a lot :)

I play Muiderberg too, but with a completely different set of answers. Partner should be close to maximum, since N-S are vul. vs. non-vul. I am always reluctant to play for the perfect hand; and with your method you will know the points, but not where they are. I would bid 5♣, to play. At IMP there is not even the lure of 3N. With my method, I would bid 2N (Lebensohl style: opener bids 3♣ with diamonds as 2nd suit, and 3♦ with clubs. Over the expected 3♣, I would bid 4♣ (forcing - imposes trump suit and asks for Q bids). Btw, 3♦ is usually a limit raise in hearts, 3♥ is the pre-emptive raise and 3♥ (after 2N) is the forcing raise.

S should not run from 4♠X. I agree will all his other bids, including 3♥. The bad guy is N: 3♣ is completely misleading (and ultimately will cause S to run from 4♠X). A more reasonable bidding might be: 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♠-P (or possibly S will bid 3♠ -very pushy- and N will bid 4♠). 4♠ is quite likely to fail (there are too many diamonds losers in N hand), but it is not a completely absurd contract. Just quite :)