benlessard

You should just have tell her that the QD need to be played on the 4th round of the suit not on the 3rd round. Saying stuff like D are 22 or its "easy" or cold will just confused a player who made a mistake.

Do anyone remember a hand that had a lot of discussion. It was something like 1S-2Nt-3C-3D-??--4S J2nt, 3C was minimum with shortness, 3D was asking about where the shortness and opener showed H shortness responder had ♥AKQx and not that much extras so signed off. Opener had Axxxx --- Axxx Axxx My view was that hands with 3 aces are never minimum hands when you are in the slam zone.

As a rule both players cannot bypass spades. If north 2C could be done with 4S south 3C must deny 4S. (similar to 1D-2C-2Nt auction where a 4-4M fit should be impossible, if not I strongly suggest you to change your system) A spades fit should be impossible as this point. So if your style is to show than 3H show a H stop and 3S show a S stop adn deny half a stop in H. If you style is to ask than 3S ask for a S stopper and promise a H stopper. I give preference to half a stopper so i would wrongside 3NT here. 3H-3S-3NT 3H = something in H 3S = nothing in H, S stopper 3NT = I have a full H stop so by inference i was looking for a S stop.

Ive said it already but for me 2Y directly as single suiter and 1M-1Y-2M as the 2 suiter is just a lot better than the other way around. 2S as S+minor and values is imo just awful. Hand with 6S and values are more likely to be safe in 2S & 2S is likely to be best partscore anyway. With a 5S+4m 2S can be a dangerous spot and there is a lot of partscore possibility that can be better than 2S and 3m. For example we play that 1S-1NT-2S is 5S+4C 11-14. However its possible to play 1S-2H and 1S-2D as NF or some transfers so its still possible to stop in 2 red wich is often a lot better than 2S/3C. Of course there is other considerations if you play a relay system but for most system there is few reasonnable reasons to play 2M as contructive 5M+4 elsewhere.

Imo splinters should be only voids or only singleton, not one or the other. I prefer all my splinters in any auction are voids for a couple of years now and the results so far with this method are too good to be true. Hands with singleton tend to be better by going slow anyway (sometimes opps find a save however) and hands with voids we our long run result just humiliate the other tables. When its 1M--4m--4NT at both table and we have a void it tend to give us a bunch of imps on average. I guess a big part of the standard problem is that after a splinter the standard 14-30-2 is a lame method. It should be replaced by sometimes wich allow void showing. something like 1 may or may not have void (cheapest bid ask for void not the Q of trumps). 1+Q (may or may not have void) 0 rest is 2+

1H got to show 5 here. If you have only 4H you need a club tolerance & with 4H and a club tolerance its better to double anyway. Doubling is normal even with short spades if you have 4M+some clubs.

I lead my stiff against 5H.

I have played both way and dont know wich one is better. We use 3S=S because we use it after our weak NT (weird but we have a Romex staymam at 3C & we use 1NT-3D as just asking for 5M). Also we do have the agreement that 3C-3H-3S-3NT-4H = 53(14) If responder is 53(32) and opener is 34(24) we might miss a M fit (like anybody who play classic Romex) but ill never use 3C-3S or 2NT-3Nt to cover for a 5M+3M hand. 3S as 5clubs like you play or MSS is just way better imo.

Either 3NT is to play (like i dont want to know if you have 4S) and 3H is a real ask (showing 4or5S) or you bid 3NT to show something and 3H can be a fake ask. Fake ask are just slightly inferior because not only you leak info on hands where you just want to play 3NT but you give them lead directing X for free. 3C-3D-3H is the sequence you want to minimize the frequency. 3C-3H-3S is the 2nd worse. Also with my switch you can handle all 5M+3M/5M+4M via 3C IIRC so transfer to H followed by 3S is showing some shapes while Xfer to H and 3NT is a 5332 while with yours you have 5H+4S under the transfer.

Here in Montreal most players play regular stayman or Romex rather than puppet stayman, so it could be a local innovation but here nobody play Romex in its classic form of 3H is 4 or 5H and 3NT is 4S+4H. Canada play vs Mexico the 3rd spot in the WBF zone. So maybe its an import or came from a discussion with Rosenkraz. I know my friend who told me this improvement meet Rosenkraz several times. Ive had the chance to meed him once and hs french is excellent and i know that hes speak 6 or 7 languages. Also possible is that initially it was meant as a simplification not as an improvement. 3H show 4,3S show 4 and the exception are in 3D/3NT look simpler to teach than 3S show 5 3H is 4 or 5. Also since opener is more likely to have a 4M than a 5M there is less re-transfer considerations especially after 3C-3NT.

yes its one where 4S+4H is in 3H and 5H is in 3NT rather that the other way around. There is 3 advantages. 1- after 3C-3NT you only have H to worry about rather than H+S 2- after 3C-3H-3S asking for 5H you get more lead directing double since opener cannot have 4S. 3- You can use 3S as showing 4S (instead of showing 3H) so opener can respond with keycards up to 4S *avoiding lead directing X) or you can use 3S= relay to 3NT or other stuff and 3NT ask for 4S not forcing. This give you more overall sequence than the cases where 3H maybe be 4or5H. Anyway its irrelevant because even better are system where opener can bid over 3NT after 3C-3D-3H-?? If your system is able to do this it will be slightly more precise than other schemes.

In romex i know 3M=4M 3D=5S or no M 3NT=5H however after 3C-3D-?? 3H= ask for 5S/to play 3NT or 5S+5H 3S = 4H+5S 3NT = 5S+4H is inferior because over the responder rebid of 3H opener cannot bypass 3NT. Its just better if 3H is a S ask (implying some M+M hands or 4S+5m hands) so that opener can use all the responses from 3S to 4S. 3S = 3S 3NT = 2S 4c+ = 4S+ or 5S+ depending on the meaning of 3C-3S I play a strong club so i dont rememeber all the ramification but its kind of clear that after 3C-3D-3H if opener cannot bypass 3NT your system can be improved.

That why the other version is better.

Maybe one day BBO will implement a few of the most basic feature expected of any game server. Until that day we all have to suffer.

after 3C-3D-3H as a spades ask that is imo better is 3S= 3S 3NT= 2S 3H by inference if you dont open 2NT with 22(45) 4C+= 4S or 3S= 3S 3NT= 2S 3H by inference if you dont open 2NT with 22(45) 4C+= 5S Also better is to use 3NT as 5H rather than 4-4 in the majors.

I tend to open more soundly than most experts and I wouldnt GF with this. IMO bidding 2D gf is a misevaluation of the hand because too often you wont be able to run your diamonds. Its the perfect hand to bid 1H-3D inv (if you play 1NT semi forcing) or to bid 1NT forcing followed by the impossible 2S to show a good 3m bid. If you play 2/1 GF except if suit is repeated (what i prefer) its a clear 1H-2D-2H-3D non forcing hand. Also depending if 3S can be an advance cuebid or not 4D could be corrected to 4H to show a singleton H and so-so diamonds. I know many play that a return to 4M in partner suit is never forcing (I dont) and this would be a good hand for this method. Also note that this hand is cherry picked with QJx of spades you would likely bid 3NT with Qx(x) or better in clubs 5D would be ok. Even the J of D make 5D a pretty solid contract (less than 4H but not by a lot). AKQxxxx,AKQJxx or better is just a much more likely scenario than this near specific hand. Everytime responder got less than Qxx in spades 6D rate to be a great contract.

So this weight more than the fact that partner is more likely to have lenght in clubs than lenght in hearts ?

Yes the 2nd auctions are very different and its one of the reason why I put the two auctions in the first place as a trap. I didnt mention that my comments was about the first auction because i tought it was obvious that its the lack of spades values facing a simgleton that allow you to visualize slam. I knew about the 4-1 behind but slam is still decent. The stiff can be in front of declarer or declarer could have an ♦8. If the stiff in behind he will probably lead it vs wich you should probably ruff the 2nd round high and hope D break. 5D is quite safe with this hand in fact 5D is a better contract than 4H. Maybe i exagerated a little bid with "very likely to have solid diamonds" but its at least likely. Its quite clear for me that the risk of missing slam by bidding 4H is at least double of the risk that 4D backfire. If you bid 4H partner looking at Qxx or worse in spades will never keep bidding.

I expected D to be best and S to be worst (IRL too) however I had no clue if clubs was going to be better than heart. Anyone got an idea why H do better than clubs ? Is it the same if the suit is 843 ?

Its with a little smile that I can tell you you are off mark here :) The hand come from the BW forum its was played in the open trials RR. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/cut-the-losses/ I guess ill ask Kit wich board it was and vs wich opponent so that i can track what happen at the other tables.

You got this part wrong. The goal of 2NT or of any bids is to improve our equity. Your equity is partially based on all the possible outcome of your actions so you have to take into account all the possible consequence of your bids when your inviting. EX inviting by raising from 2S to 3S will cost when 2S is the limit and 3S is minus one. But inviting via XYZ 1D-1S-1NT-2C-2D-2S INV with long spades vs just repeating 2S not invitationnal do not bear the same cost. Sometimes getting from 2Y to 2Nt is costly since 2Y might be a much better contract but sometimes 2NT will be an equivalent or even a better contract than 2Y so the downsides of bidding 2NT is greatly diminished. Sometimes bidding 2NT will stop them from finding 3M that could make or go down. You have 9000+ post here and probably 20+ years of bridge and you feel you need to write this ? I dont know if i should feel insulted or just laugh.

I just dont understand pass. Not only 2NT might be a better contract than 2D after a S lead but passing aim for a narrow target. The target is 2D by us will make but 2M by them or 2NT by us will fail. If partner raise 2NT to 3NT we have no reasons to be ashamed of our hand; we have 2 stoppers and 2 cards in partner suits we may even have a secret weapon with our Q9873 of clubs (if partner got extra values but so-so diamonds). I guess 2NT may cost undertricks but im not willing to miss a vul game for that. Its a 1S in 3rd seat and partner overcall 2D vul knowing im a passed hand. I dont mind agressive overcalls so im ok in giving him some leeway but he may easily have 15-17 pts and we could make 3nt+2. The fact that east wasnt able to make a negative double and im short in hearts increase the odds that partner overcall is sound. In general Inv that stay at the same level and that may even improve the contract do not need to be rock solid.

I forgot to put that 2D was GF. I dont exactly know whats the best continuation but I know 4H is just wrong. Maybe 3S was an advance cue (like the ♠A + xx/Q in H) but its most likely hes got Qxx or worse in spades and a stiff heart. Since we have AK of clubs partner is very likely to have solid diamonds. Even AKQJxx with H 4-1 and D 4-2 is good enough for 6D. But I really think he often going to have 7D here. If you bid 4H the auction will often die there because partner will be afraid of 2 quick S losers and probably a trumps elsewhere. I like raising to 4D (even if its RKC) 5D will rarely go down and ill be well placed to find 6D. Yes I would prefer to have a stiff ♦Q/J but here the rich control is more than adequate compensation. If 4D is just natural than partner can still return to 4H with a stiff H and not so great D but its not really possible that his D are not great especially if the bidding is 1H-2D-2H-3D.

No but i would pass 2S.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj75hk4d62cq9873&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp1s2dp]133|200[/hv] Imps, your partnership style is to open the majority of 11 count. I do not know if EW are agressive bidders but its from the open trials.