Kalvan14

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=s2hkjt987dakq54c2]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] You're S, and bidding goes: 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣* *: FSF - game forcing Oppos are silent. What do you bid now?

2♣. This hand is too strong in controls and can make 4♠ against xxx in ♠ and a doubleton club. in any case my 2♣ includes this kind of hands, and, if pard is weak and in misfit, i can play 2♠ [2♣-2♠-P or 2♣-2♥-2♠-P]

never

1. clearly a distributional freak. I like 7C. maybe it will cost 200 more, but it can make, and might push oppos too high. 2. 2♠ for me, but the alternative is pass. This is a hand that 3rd hand I'd like to open 2♠ weak, so I'd be consistent. 3. at MP is a clear double, at Imp not so clear. If the match is going good, i would not rock the boat, and pass. if i need to fight for each and every Imp, I'd double, hoping not to play 2♠ in a 3-3 fit :D

1. there is something funny here: it looks like a deck without aces :D . RHO opened pre-emptive. Shall we say he might have 8 to 10 HCP?. I have 4, flat. LHO passed, so I doubt he has fast tricks (or, at least, enough fast tricks to help his pard to land a vuln game - at IMPs!!). as a consequence, pard should be quite rich :) While the first reaction would be to bid, i believe i will keep the double. 2. 6♥, playing MUD. there should not be too many ruffs to prevent in LHO hand; a trump lead would be certainly neutral, but i think i might see if i can lead through LHO hearts holding

1m-1♥-1♠ is mostly a matter of partnership agreement. In Sta♥ndard, it is not forcing, that for sure. funnily, though, playing with a pick-up partner i would not pass. :D The second sequence is more interesting. In my method, 1N forcing can include just 2 ♥ raises: a bad raise to 2♥, be it for strength range or flat distribution, and a limit raise with 3 trumps and a balanced hand. therefore, 1♥-1N-2m-2♥ is certainly a weak raise; but also 1♥-1♠-any-2♥ is a weak preference, because with a limit raise i would bid 3♥. I know that this means I may have to play marginal 3♥ contracts, but this treatment fits very well with my bidding structure, and i am ready to accept the lil drawback. Truth is that for me 1♥-2♥ is slightly more forward going than usual if i hold a balanced hand. I also think that kaplan inversion might be a good idea: not so much for clarifying the auction under consideration, but to sort out the possible ♠ fit, and to eliminate the theoretical monster of having to rebid 2♣ with 2 cards only and a 4-5-2-2

Quite true. i would add that it is not just a battle of principles, but also (and possibly mostly) a battle for market shares between book writers. Maybe it's not as big (or as heated) as the famous querelles of the 30s and 40s, but it is a reasonable imitation. I agree that the bidding stuctures with fit (Bergen vs. Lawrence, I mean) are completely incompatible, and obviously this affects the complete bidding structure. As you mentioned, the most striking differences are Bergen's urge to get to 3-level with 9 trumps, and Lawrence's insistence on strong jump shifts. I like the way Lawrence writes (FTL excepted :D ), and I believe he did a very good job with his books on hand evaluation, competitive bidding and balancing. I do not like his version of 2/1, OTOH, and my ideas in bidding are more in line with Bergen's (I play a different structure of fit bids, but the underlying principle is the same). This said, I also think that a beginner or an intermediate player will likely be more comfortable with Lawrence methods (except, once again, FTL: I do have the impression that this method not only is too complicated for the target slice of players, but is also too mechanical). IMO, the popularization of the Law was a very successful exercise, and Cohen earned a place among the great theoreticians of bridge with his books. The Law is not (and cannot be) an infallible oracle (or maybe it is that, :) : just like all oracles, it must be understood and interp[reted), but I believe that a majority of bridge players discovered a side of the game they had not even glimpsed before.

The only reason to want to compete with a 5-4 is a lot of strength (19?); your pard has never shown a sign of life. I would re-open with a double, in such a case. With 5♣ and 4♦ i would open 1♦ with all hand weaker than reverse. 3♦ should be 6 strong diamonds. With 7 diamonds i would not have re-bid 2♣

What about bidding 5♠ over 5♥? I assume that the ♥ fit is well known. If pard counter-cues 5N (which is certainly the ♠A) I would bid 6♣

[hv=d=s&v=n&w=sxhkqjxxxdxctxxxx&e=sjtxxxhaxxdxxxcax]266|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] It's quite funny, but I had a very similar hand last night. I opened 1♣-(2♥)-X-(3♥)-P-(P)-3♠-(4♥)-X Two down, for a 300 which was a shared top. Hearts were divided, and we were not playing anything better than a partial score with our 25 HCP. W lost 3♣, and the two outside aces: he might have been unlucky (there was no guarantee that my ♣ would be 5-card) but if you play the same game over 1♥ opening, which is sure to be 5-card, the result cannot be different. Remember that he found a fit, and 2 (!) aces in dummy.

That's twice now I've seen Marty Bergen instead of Larry Cohen, the author of the LOTT books. These two used to be partners but Marty doesn't really have any involvement in this discussion. It's a great discussion, by the way; things like this help players at all levels to understand where the other folks are at in terms of hand evaluation techniques, and opinions of the different approaches. The evaluation techniques expressed in I Fought The LAW are quite valid, if you have the mental acumen and capacity to do this at the table during the auction; apparently Lawrence and Wirgen feel there are a sufficient percentage of players capable of this to warrant the publication of the book. Until the ACBL permits players to keep a computer running, as an aide during the auction, I'm afraid these techniques are beyond my level :) Cheers, Carl Ritner ACBL Library Used Bridge Book and Magazines My bad: as in a lot of great partnership, I tend to mix up the guys, like in this case, Bergen instead of Cohen. But my point stands. Going back to the second part of your post, I think you support my position. The method suggested by Lawrence is too complicated for the advancing players who might benefit from it. And expert players have their own rules, and card/table sense.

well, depends a lot on the quality of my spades :P I like giving self-preferences :o so I will not be shy. There is also another hand which woul warrant a 2♥ 5-2-4-2, where the "4" is xxxx

1♠, without a lot of worry. Pretty normal call. Double would be terrible; pass risks being cut out of the bid

2N is certainly 6♦ and 4♣. I disagree with the other example, though: (1S)-2m-(2S)-P-(P)-? Now, X is m+H; 2N is m+om. when m is significantly better than om, this sequence applies even when m=♦. 3♣ would mean 5-4 or 5-5; 2N again 6-4

Robert post is quite comprehensive. I would add that, having to stretch on shape, I prefer to do it with more points rather than less. In your case I would be happier opening 2♦ with a 5-4-2-2 rather tha 1NT. I've no problem opening either with a 6-card minor or a 5-card major

I assume you talk of #2, since on #1 we agree. I'm sorry, but I keep my position: even in standard there is no reason to go fishing without a reason. Now, do I have hand which is limited (say 10-11 HCP?), which is the only reason to bid 1♠ instead of raising ♥, or, alternatively, do I have a weak hand with 6 spades and a Hx in ♥ (which is the reason for giving a preference to ♥, rather than playing 1N? If I have the 1st hand, I will rebid 2N; you might say that you prefer to pass after 1N, and you might be right. OTOH, to waste completely a sequence to cater for a very rare hand it is a bit wasteful. After all, if the bid goes 1M-1OM-2m-2M I do not think anyone will regard this other than a weak preference.

Case 1 is a bit funny. I play DONT, and it is quite unusual to dislike both ♣ and ♦ :P (intervention might as well be a ♣/♦ 2-suiter). The only reasonable explanation for 2♥ would be a 6-card suit. And this makes even funnier the idea that his pard bids 2♠. Well, roulette bridge. I doubt that these guys are in the top quarter of the results very often. Case 2 is more run-of-the-mill. 10 cards in the majors are a powerful incentive to bid over 1NT, even with just 4 points. To come to your questions, it is not always easy to guess right in these situations. My rule is that in doubt I go for the penalty. Who knows? the distribution might be a funny one, and 3NT not be there. And if they bid at my table, there might be a lot of interventions in the room. People are becoming cheekier and cheekier in jumping in after 1N. The "captain" is the responder. Opener more or less has quantified his hand, and indicated a shape. So, it's pard who must decide to go for blood or pull. I would not be too crossed about the poor explanation. The bid was a bit strange :o

1. what is the maximum opener holding in a sequence like 1m-1♥-1♠? I would accept it might stretch to 15-16 HCP, no more than that. Which means that it is not forcing, although I will try to keep the bid open, if reasonable. This is pretty similar to the auction P-1any-1other: theoretically should be forcing, practically it is not so. However, I agree that many expert (or assumed experts :P ) play that this sequence is forcing. 2. Nowadays, a direct raise 1M-2M has more constructive features than otherwise. Accordingly, a slow approach 1M-1OM-1N-2M (or even 1M-1N-2m-2M) is a weaker preference. Frankly, I do not remember having seen the slow approach considered as stronger than the immediate raise.

I was not trying to defend I fought the Law. Actually, when I read the book, i found it more than a bit annoying. It was truly a kind of war of religion, which made me think there was something personal between Bergen and Lawrence. This said, the idea of finding a kind of unified field theory for bridge is quite funny :) I would anticipate that this is not possible. Luckily so: were it possible, I would stop playing bridge.

I have been thinking along the same lines. Matter of fact, there are a lot of situations at 2 level where being able to discriminate between "good" and "bad" more than compensates the loss of 2Nt as natural bid

2♥, without any doubt. Two reasons: - I will never hide a suit like my hearts, which will be the likely key to a slam. - splinter in a void is never a good idea. Howver, the dominant reason is the first one. Splintes show more balanced (3-suited hands), which do not provide slow winners. Overall, this hand is too strong for a splinter (which would be more attractive if you change a small heart into a small club.

I still prefer 3 diamonds, more interdictive. However, pard can well have 4 or 5 spades. I doubt he would get in with QTxxx

[hv=n=sxxhatxxxdkqjxcxx&e=stxhdxxxcakt98xxx]266|200|[/hv] Well, it was not a top competition, my partner thought that it was protecting me, and frankly the lady who opened 5♣ was not a top performer either. OTOH, there is no right return this time. Even if you return a spade the lil lady wins in dummy, play the K♥, and ruffs your partner ace. Then plays diamond. You have to play back clubs, otherwise a ruff in dummy is the 11th trick, but on the run of the clubs you are squeezed between spades and Q♥. So I played a diamond, giving count, and pard played back clubs. The lady wnt to dummy in spades, but now the count of the hand is clear enough, and when she played a small heart pard did not put on the ace. A lucky escape.

It looks like there is a kind of consensus: LOTT is a somehow blunt, but helpful tool for beginners and advancing players. I am not the guy for sampling and statistical analysis, but I have the feeling that LOTT is at its best evaluating semi-balanced hands. It has a negative bias when evaluating high-level, very unbalanced hands. It makes sense. Lawrence's book does not reveal a new Gospel. It suggests adjustments to the Law, and formulas for correcting. Fine and good, but possibly not very helpful: this book is again for a mass market, beginners and advancers. Otoh, while the LOTT was marketed in an easy, practical way, the SS adjustments require more work. If this becomes popular (doubt it :lol: ), it will take 10 minutes to bid any hand :( In my view, it's like the MWP and Goren's adjustments for shortness were not much different, or off the mark. Whatever. Expert player make their own adjustments, based on experience, card sense or table presence; and they listen to other people bidding. Very often, with hands that look very similar to the beginner, their bidding is quite different. And most of the hands are bid and played on automatic pilot, or thereso.

Pass is not under consideration. You can construct a lot of 15 HCP hands with a play for 4♥. 1♠-1N-2♥ can reach up to 17 HCP, so there is a lot of space. 3♥ is the right bid, considering the dubious value of the ♠ singleton. To bid 4♥ I would really like to have a prime 11-12 HCP (and probably it would be a balanced hand with 3 spades and 4 hearts :lol: )