Kalvan14

In Hardy, a 2/1 is 99% GF (you might stop in 4m, if there is no chance of playing 3N; it is more theoretical than practical, and I cancelled this caveat, since I find more useful to have 4m forcing and RKC). Lawrence accepts that you can stop in 2N or 3 suit.

I like the 5♠ bid; not only conveys the right message (good hand, strength in ♠, no 5-card suit), but still leaves the door open to plat slam in a minor (5♠-6♣-6♦). Justin, for me your 5♦ looks like a 5 bagger

Same here. A take-out double, without much shape (you have in any case 4-3 in majors), but with more than decent strength. And it is now or possibly never.

N would have been stretching with a t/o double (replace 2 small with JT in ♠ , and he might act). I stated that I would take the bird in hand, and I am not a results merchant. Pard had the possibly only hand to justify a pass, and at the same time to make it possible to play 4♠ [which would still go down on a 0-4 spade break]. OK, you got a good story to tell

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqj93hq75da984cq3]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] The bidding is quite simple and straightforward. N E S W P (5♣) P P X All P You decide to lead the A♦, to have a look at dummy. Pard plays the ♦K, and declarer a small one. What do you play at trick 2, and why? [hv=d=n&v=n&w=sak765hkj842d76cj&s=sqj93hq75da984cq3]266|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Same here. You made your bid, pard made his own bids too. Double is pretty conclusive.

Barely one month into my 2/1 learning curve, the theory you have given has been very useful and very relavent to some things I would like confirmed. Playing 1nt=15-17, and all 4 card raises of 1M either raise immediately, splinter or bid 2nt. Then after: 1s-2c-2d or 1s-2c-2h or 1s-2d-2h 2nt = stop in 4th suit 13-14 or 18-19 2s = any doubleton support with no stops in 4th suit 3s= strong 3-card raise 4s = min 3-card raise and generally: 4th suit bid is 4 or more genuine suit. raise of 2nd suit promises 4. Is this consistent with style (i)? It seems that most contributors do not subscribe to this method. Is bidding 2s with Hx more normal? Is it not normal to show a 4-card raise on the 1st response? I hope I am on the right track In the Hardy version of 2/1, 2♠ is fixing trumps; 4♠ is fast arrival (i.e., denies any 1st or 2nd round control in unbidden suits). 3♠ is an RKC. I could not go for a 2♠ which might be just 2 small cards (and even a doubleton honor would be stretching). One of the best points of 2/1 is the capacity of imposing trumps at low level, leaving space for cue-bidding. If you give away the 2-level, it must be for a benefit. Finding a theoretical 4-4 fit in the 4th suit is not good enough for me. Suppose you hold xx, AQx, KQJxx, Qxx or even xx, AQx, KJxxx, Axx. What are you going to bid after 1♠-2♦-2♥? As far as the other question, you should certainly immediately show a 4-card fit, unless you have a significant side suit (eg, Kxxx, Ax, AQJxx, xx: I would never hide ♦ when pard opens 1♠).

I confess not having read Bergen (while I read both Hardy and Lawrence). As far as I gathered, the main differences are the bergen raises and the 2♣ forcing check-backs. Bergen raises are quite interesting (I play a different set of raises, but Bergen ones are quite well thought and organised). The 2♣ forcing check-back is not very attractive to me. I did not read Thurston book, either. Had a peek on internet, but there was just the 1st chapter, and it was quite boring.

I did not misunderstan Flame's question. I just feel that the pre-emptive value of Walsh should not be discarded even for invitational hands. This said, it is not a sin to bid up the line, nor going the other way around and anticipate 1M with a GF hand (MAFIA). It's a matter of partnership style.

A beginner should certainly read Bergen's books on the Law. I would suggest him/her to wait a bit before reading I Fought the Law, before he/she gets confused. An intermediate player should have already read the Law books, and it would do no harm to read Lawrence's book too (although, having to choose, other Lawrence books are much more useful). Advanced players (not to mention real top players) reason in a different way, and very seldom rely on formulas. My feeling is that the Law books were a good attempt at bridge didactics. Overall they were successful, and improved the average player (there are a substantial number of Law fundamentalists, that take the Law dictates to the bitter end, but i suppose it cannot be avoided ;) ). Don't read I Fought the Law without having read (and digested) the Law books.

First one is easy: 4♠ 3rd one is also easy: pass. I do prefer 3N - the advantages of playing in spades are countermanded by the chance of a diamond ruff. The closest one is #2: I think I would bid 4♥ (in doubt bid, but it is close)

Yeah, I was thinking about the same lines. A weak player will never have the J. A strong, ethical player might be nodding, tu pull out a card before declarer plays, but I would expect it is the J. Strange to say, but I would play the drop against a strong unethical player too. I would assume the early card is a double blind.

Pass. The hand can be tricky, and if pard has 4 spades, he is weak. He does not have the strength/shape to bid a minor. at a guess, might have 3 spades, 1-2 hearts, and 8-9 cards in the minors. Get your plus, and a good story to tell.

5♠, w/o a lot of confidence. It's quite likely that RHO fixed me.

4♦ on both hands. With the 2nd one, I will rebid.

I play Walsh, w/o checkback. Obviously, I open 1♦ everytime I have 4/+ cards (including 4♣-4♦ and 5♣-4 ♦). The advantage are pre-emption (the classic 1♣-1♠), and making balancing more difficult after 1♣-1♦-1N. Frankly, I do not remember unduly suffering caused by the loss of the ♦suit

Unfortunately partner can't bid 3N over that. True. He can bid 4N (to play), if he has been trying to find a slam (4N should be safe; otherwise, look for a new partner) with real ♣.

Nice, why don't you play it in all seats? I would be very cautious in playing this system in 4th seat only: the overburden of conventions [not to speak of the different systemic approach] makes it a bit dangerous [and likely there is no "value for trouble"]. I doubt you would be allowed to play this system at MP, in any case.

I play Hardy [not completely - in particular, I have modified the auction after 1N, and the 2-level openings]. OTOH, I play integrally the 2/1, IMR, NMF and FSF. Hardy's is certainly the most integralistic approach to the system, but I like it. Lawrence's version is not so bad, and certainly is targetted toward a wider audience. I find it a bit vanilla. The best advice is finding a partner (or partners) willing to work on the system, and to set it accordingly to your needs and wishes. There is nothing written on the wall. Eventually, a system must become as comfortable as a pair of good old shoes. Just one last thing: you may wish to have a look at the way Bergen shaped 2/1.

I'm mostly in agreement with frances' analysis, and I play method ii, btw. As usual, it is a matter of style, but also of numbers: there are many more hands where it is interesting to find a stopper in the 4th suit to play a confident 3NT (or maybe to go for a 5 of a minor, if there is no stopper there) that hands in which you need to find a fit in the 4th suit. Btw, in sequences where you can raise the 4th suit below 3NT: - 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ - 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♠ - 1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥ pard is required to support with 4 cards (which means that 2/3 NT does not include 4 cards in 4th suit). A possibly awkward sequence is: - 1♠-2♥-3♣-3♦ . OK, here you cannot raise, and I am just looking for a stopper (or maybe half a stopper, there is space for that). I never had big trouble here. An auction like: - 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣ is certainly not looking for a fit in ♣. Please note that: - 1♣ [or ♦] - 1♠ - 2♦ [or ♣]- 2♥ : 2♥ is FSF [needed as a force]. OTOH, pard supports with 4 cards. As a related topic, I play NMF. Therefore, 1m-1♠-1N [or 2m]-2♥ is not forcing The force [with 4 hearts] goes through NMF. Everything is fine and good, if the auction is not exactly 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣. My partnership agreement is that priorities are: fit in ♠; stopper in ♥ [3N] or 4 cards in ♥ [3♥]- 3♦as default

Ducking spades into E hand is quite a normal play, nothing fancy, allowing to keep control in trumps. It just does not look like to be the best choice: the problem is that I don't think S can prevail if he is constantly forced in ♦; E/W have 3 possibilities of getting the lead (A♣, A♥, ♠). If you duck the 1st ♠, E will return ♦. Next you need to get rid of A♣, and another ♦ comes back. Where are you going to park the 3rd♥? Try another way, like Rubin did: A♠, and ♣. Now you can ruff the 3rd ♥, forcing the Q♠. I am not sure I have analysed all the permutations, but it looks to me a superior line

2♠ would be game forcing, that's sure. My preference would be for a t/o X, with 2♥ a close second. Pard should not be too eager to transform the X into penalty: he had already a chance to double for penalty, and passed it. Pls. note that I'll go for t/o X if we do not play Flannery. Otherwise, no doubt: 2♥

2♠ should be ambiguous, not necessarily a real suit, but certainly values. I vote for 3♦, forcing and more representative of my hand. Actually, on this particular sequence, it should indicate real values in ♦

Yeah, a bid is called for. Everything considered, 2♥ looks better and better

Was that the article posing that Turner might have been killed because he was obsessed with Grosvenor coups, and was always playing to set up them?