joshs

In no particular order: When I submitted a defense to Kaplan Inversion it took over 3 months for the approval to occur, and later the defense to KI disappeared from the defense database. Maybe the process is better now, but maybe it isn't. The frequency of Mid-chart events depends on where you live. When I lived in DC, the unit game, all the flight A sectional events, etc were all mid-chart. Here in southern california most sectional events and regional events are GCC. The flight A NAOPs were advertised as GCC (but a few players ignored the regulations in the actual event). I do have to say its a pain to have to play 2 (sometimes radically) different systems because of the CC rules. If you can't play a method often enough, its really not worth it to play it at all. Imagine the advantage a pair who gets to play multi and against multi all the time has at nationals when facing a pair that only sees those conventions at nationals. There are situations where the more experienced player has a significant advantage. In order for methods to truly be propogated in a fair manner, they need to be allowed in enough events that players become familiar with them. This is not a chicken and egg problem. You have to allow methods before players become familiar with them. Wehn we started allowing midchart conventions in albuquerque sectionals and unit games, all of a sudden 1/4 of the field started experimenting with them. I think that is good. Basically the current mapping is: Superchart: Spingold, Vandy, Team Trials, Washington DC's round robin league :) Midchart: National Events, Some Regional Events, Sectional events in enlightened areas GCC: Most everything else I think there should be 5 different categories: Open (e.g. Flight A) Team Events Open (e.g. Flight A) Pairs Events Restricted Teams Events Restricted Pairs Events Novice events (but novices never know what is and isn't allowed so there is not much point in this category...) So players can get used to facing "non mom and pop" conventions at local open events and not have to wait until nationals roll around. Finally, since I have seen many mom and pop players open 2C strong on the hands that Donn proposes opening 3N on, I can't see how having another "strong" opening bid can possibly inconvenyance anyone. Especially since mom and pop play the following defense to gambling 3N: x "I think you are stealing from me" 4C Natural 4D natural 4H Natural 4S Natural 4N Never used 5m Natural Of course the same defense applies to 3N as a major suit pre-empt. In fact its even a good defense vs that convention.... So personally, I think this is one convention that I would put in the GCC or in my parlence allow in resticted team and maybe in restricted pair events.

I used to use this site (which I loved) until my work firewalled it.... ;)

The cue bid as a game force is standard. B)

Over a 2+D bid, I play normal stuff: x takeout, but may have only 2 clubs 2D= michaels (OK usually i play the overcall structure, so I still play the OS, but 1N for takeout becomes even more of a crap shoot) Also, after 1D-P-1M I play x as a 3 suited takeout x not a 2 suited takeout x. Over a symmetric 1D bid, or close to that I play modified woolsey: x= takeout for the majors or a good hand x then cheapist NT = 15+-18 1N=a 6 card minor or a 5 card minor and a 4 card major, about 8-14 white, and 12-15 red 2C=Majors, normally at least 5-4, about 8-14 white and 12-15 red 2D=1 major, about 5-11 white, more like 8-11 red 2M=that and a minor 5-11 white, more like 8-11 red Extra shape of course compensates some for lack of HCPs.

Yes. I usually play Capp or Landy in that situation. In my precision partnerships I usually play multi-landy there since I rarely want to raise 1D to 2D....

I started my bridge life playing systems OFF over the 1N overcall, and soon switched to ON but not for technical reasons, but because playing the exact same thing in as many similar situations as possible prevents accidents. From a theorectical point of view, the gains from system on (x-fer then 2N or 3m) is outweighed by the gains you get putting opener on lead (especially when the opening bid was a major), and being able to get out in 2m. I actually don't think its that close, since you rarely bid slam after an opponent opens, and much prefer 3N to 5m, so the x-fer then 3m sequences are not as important as usual. But avoiding accidents by not having a huge number of exceptions in your system is more important... Actually in 1 partnership, when they opened 1M we played the x-fer to their suit as stayman and 2C as a x-fer to diamonds

Mom and Pop are not used to defending against: 1N for takeout Roman Jump Overcalls 2N opening for the minors And quite frankly they are poorly prepared for handling: 1m Could be short (frequent accidents about if 2m is natural or not) [the precision nebulous diamond is in fact a much more insideous bid than most anything else we have been discussing on the forum) Flannary, Mini-Roman, Etc (what does the x show) Quite frankly they are not even used to a strong club (mom and pop play x for takeout of clubs).. Actually mom and pop think x of a 1N opening is also a takeout x.... Somehow, I don't think what "mom and pop" are prepared for is the criteria here.

Hmm, people play Nayyats all the time where 3N is a bad pre-empt in the minor, so this clearly is allowed even if they forgot to put it in the convention charts...

I have not been able to find a date good for everyone. If anyone else wants to run with the ball and get this match arranged, that would help...

Here is a general problem in 2/1: Lets say you need x points to game force over a 1M opening (including whatever upgrade you make for playing strength and fit). You then invite game with x-2 points. And you may have problems with x-4 points. For instance, playing Std 2/1 with sound opening bids, you might game force on 12's. With 10-11 and no fit you have no problem, you bid 1N then 2N. But what happens when you have 8-9? Partner with 16-17 can't know what to do. The wider the range for the 1M bid the more HCP combinations cause problems. Lets say 1M is 9-20 HCP. Putting these in 2 point bins: 9-10 vs 15+ no problem (3N might not make but at least it will not be rediculous) 9-10 vs 13-14 stop in 2N or 3 something if this is your invitational range 9-10 vs less, no problem and long as you don't go beyond 2M with 11-12! 11-12 vs 13+ no problem 11-12 11-12 - might miss a game, but probably happily stop low 13-14 vs 13+ no problem 13-14 vs 11-12. You will miss a game unless responder has a way of differentiaiting the 12 count from a 6 count! 15-16 vs 13+ no problem 15-16 vs 9-12 may be a problem and if opener always makes a 3'rd bid with 15-16 then 15-16 vs 5-8 is a problem The wider the range 1M is, the more combinations cause problems, since it makes the sequence 1M-1N-2x-2M OR the sequence 1M-1N-2x-2N too wide ranging (or maybe both). Gazelli, or bart helps some...

Here is the core of the notes I wrote up for this bid last year (along the lines of what richard suggested), I need to find the e-mail where I put the complete structure together: Opening bids: 3N = Good 4M bid 4m=Natural and pre-emptive Over 3N: 4C: How good are you? (Slam Invite Hand, slam forces usually start with 4D) 4D: Min (Then 4M is p/c) 4M:Natural, Extras, forcing 4N: Extras, void in Other Major,Solid Suit (then 5M,6M is P/C), 5m=Extras, void, Solid Suit (5M.6M=P/C) 5M: 9 solid, no outside A, K or void 6M: 10 solid, no outside A,K or void 4D:What is your suit? 4M: My suit. then Normal Q biding, kickback, or whatever. 4M P/C (generally a slam try in the other major). Over 4S qbid if you have hearts and extras.

I polled 3 of my regular partners: Clem Jackson Voted for 1N Marc Umeno and John Pendergrass voted for x I submit this as further evidence that this decision is close... In my opinion, if partner has a weak NT you will get to 3N, probably from your side, no matter what you do (If partner has QTxx or Q9xx of hearts you might wrongside it). The main question is what works best when partner is weaker.... On the other hand, bidding 1N immediately does provide less information to the opponents and thats an advantage, if you in fact belong in some number of NT.

You didn't mention vulnerability and form of scoring.... There are, of course 3 possible bids: x, 1N and 2D. x is the most conservative of the 3, and the least likely to get you to game, and is anti-positional. 1N is the most agressive of these. 3N is the most likely game but you will need partner to have help in hearts (preferably Qxx) or help in diamonds. If partner lacks both, you can easily go down quite a few in NT, which would be bad if red. On the other hand if partner has a balanced 12-13 count and didn't bid over 1H partner likely has some help in hearts. 2D is the compromise, and gets partner to focus on his diamond holding. If partner raises diamonds or cue bids you will bid 3N next My tendancy is to bid 1N at imps. At mps the decision is really close. White/W I would x (or bid 2D and then x) since competeing the hand is my primary objective. Vul/Vul I would probably bid 2D and then sell out (in deference to the diamond 9!) but the calculus does vary some with partner's overcalling tendancies. In the other vuls its so close that my decision would change depending on who I was playing with..... I do think all 3 bids seem reasonable. For the record, I almost always x with this shape but this exact hand seems to be an exception.

People play fast arrival in lots of auctions, so its convienyant for memory reasons to play fast arrival, but this is slightly inferior for a number of reasons: a. If you have 2/3 small and partner has a weak holding the opps 2 level call might get raised, which will let you x it and go plus rather than get to 4 of a minor... b. If you have a stopper and have to bid 2N first this gives you LHO a chance to get a 3 level lead direct in (its not often this happens...) Also, when you have the stayman and a stopper hand, what the heck do you bid with Ax Kxxx QJxxx xx after 1N-(2S)-2N-(3S)-P-P-? What exactly does x show here? Maybe it is the stayman and a stopper hand... Note: In leb over weak 2 x, bidding NT to show no stopper is a terrible way to play. Most people use 3N direct and 2N then 3Nt either to: a. distinguish how NT oriented you are or b. distinguish strength I think a is better, using 2N then 3N on a hand like: Qxx xx KQJxx Axx (showing doubt that 3N is correct) While direct jumps show a strong liking for playing NT.

Nope. This hand is too hard except playing Ultimate club. Ok if you opened 1S and relayed with the south hand you might get there. Personally, after 1S-2H-3H-3S anything I play double fit keycard, so I will not come close to getting to 7N (all roads lead to 6N). here is my best attempt to get there: 1S-2H(GF)-2S(hearts can wait)-3S-4C(serious slam try)-4D-4H(barely good enough for the last train)-5C-5D-5H-5S-5N(delayed rkc)-6S-? Opener has shown AKQxx[x] ?? K? K? With AKQxxx K? K? K? opener would have bid rkc over 4D. A stiff diamond and the heart K is also not consistant with only 4H and the 5S signoff. For the hand to be good enough for both a serious slam try, and a second try it would have to be AKQxxx xx[x] K?? K?? but would require another card so the likely hands are: AKQxxx xx KQx Kx AKQxxx xx Kx KQx But opposite the second hand you have only 12 sure tricks. So you will have to guess... Note: while 2S didn't show 6 cards, 2S then a later strong action shows a 6 card suit.

There are a few awkward hands such as: 2434 shape but no stopper 25xx shape and Hx in spades or weak hearts So what 4D shows, depends on your partnerships bidding priorities. Mine are "game before slam": Cuebid is initally a strain search and only becomes a slam try if I bid again. Many play this as a strong spade raise and just guess with the awk hands I have never heard of anyone playing this as a generic slam force (cue-bid then 5H as a forcing and natural call) but its a perfectly fine treatment, especially in combination with the strain search cue-bid (note: cue bid then 5C is not needed to force since you had a forcing 4C bid available)

I don't think there is a completely universal agreement here. A. The most standard agreement is that when "our side" has bid exactly 1 suit and the opps bid to 3N, x demands the lead of our suit. Since the pre-empter may not have a side entry and usually leads his own suit anyway, its not clear that this helps B. What might be a better agreement is exactly the opposite: they are going down on power, just don't blow a trick at trick 1. C. Lightner asking for a diamond lead. I think its pretty rare when agreement C will set the contract and agreement B wouldn't....

1. 2D. Yes this might go for a number but pass might miss game and 1N has too many flaws. 2. A common nasty MSC problem. The optimistic x always wins the MSC vote. I don't know, Pass, x, 3S and 3N could all work out. 4C is the most conservative, but the least likely to actually hit a target. Honestly, I still vote for pass, but I am a notorious pessimist when holding 3 cards in the opponents suit. I really would like to know what is right here. 3. I think a responsive x is a better description than a 2H bid. 4. 2S. Often when this was a mistake opener bids 3C before RHO can hurt you. You suit and hand is good enough for this. The main alternative is to pass and then x 1N or 2C next, aiming for blood. That plan is also fine, but the vul argues for aiming for your own game. 5. Pass. The problem with xing is that partner is basically only going to bid if he had a 6 card suit and some shape, and the 6 card suit will be in diamonds most of the time. For instance when partner had x Qxxx AKxxxx xx he will bid 6D and you just turned your plus into a minus. I don't think you will get them lots on average when partner passes, and they will even make some. Consequently,xing turns some pluses into minus, and doesn't turn many pluses into big plus, or many minuses into pluses (or smaller minuses). If partner will only bid over the x with a long major, then you could get some good saves out of this and wouldn't be turning many pluses into minuses. theme: the main reason to x agressively with hsape hands is that it helps you decide if you are better off declaring or defending. Xing with this hand doesn't help that decision.

Thats right one hand proves nothing. My claim is that this treament gains on close to 0 hands, and loses on a substantial amount. Not only do the 1m-3N auctions suck, the 1m-2N(INV) auctions also sucks, since the auctions: 1C-2N-3C 1D-2N-3C 1D-2N-3D can be given only one meaning (either forcing or not forcing) and when ever you hold the other hand you are stuck. You in fact only have al ong auction and give information to the opponents when you are not sure where you belong. The auction 1m-2N-3N provides no particular information about what suit to lead other than a. you knew what you were doing so less reason to make an extremely agressive lead on the hope that you are off the entire suit. If responder wanted to gamble 3N on occasion with an unbalanced hand just to keep the opps on his toes, well that might be a good mixed strategy, although its not my taste. In the US at least, the proliferation of 1m-2N INV started with players misunderstanding what the 2/1 system was, and thinking that since 2/1's were game forcing over 1M, 2C should be game forcing over 1D. But there is a huge difference between those auctions, and that is the forcing NT. In Britian, traditional ACOL is a profoundly unscientific system with lots of limit bids. The players didn't mind getting to horrible contracts as long as they got there quickly (its certainly better than getting to horrible contracts slowly...) My example hands are both very easy to bid in standard american bidding (which incudes most 2/1 systems). They start: 1C-2N (balanced, game forcing)-3D on the first hand (KQX Kxx Kxx Kxxx) responder bids 3S and opener bids 3N (or responder can just bid 3N since opposite a stiff heart his K would be wasted in a suit contract). On the second hand with Qxx Kxx AKx Kxxx responder should bid 3H (his K is wasted opposite a stiff) or 4C over 3D. In your example hand, Axx Kx Kxx Kxxxx Thats a forcing club raise, not a NT bid, so it doesn't matter what your NT ranges are.

I would have said that 16-17 gives you 4N safety, so you can much more safely bid your distributional hands over a 3N bid that shows 16-17 (since you are able to stop in 4N when partner has your shortage well taken care of). Also, With: - QJx Qxxx AQJxxx KQx Kxx kxx Kxxx 3N is slightly better than a 50% contract. 4N is slightly better than a 0% contract. 5C is slightly better than a 5% contract You have 3 levels of bidding available to figure out where you belong, but instead you pre-empt yourself by bidding 3N and forcing your side to guess. If you bid over 3N and this is the mesh, you have just turned your good contract into a bad contract. Good constructive bidding is all about getting to the best contract most of the time and a reasonable contract the rest of the time. I don't think playing 5C with the above two hands qualifies as reasonable and neither does playing 3N when the 3N bidder has Qxx Kxx AKx Kxxx. Yes I have sympathy when a pairs methods forces them into an unreasonable contract, but if those methods don't solve lots of other problems to compensate for these losses... I would define an unreasonable contract as one that: a. has close to no play b. some other game level or higher contract is making c. the other game contract is easy to bid, using relatively simple methods getting to 3N instead of 4H on Axxx AKxx Qx Kxx Kxx QJx Jx AQxx Is not what I mean by an unreasonable contract.

I think the following definitions are very easy and have nothing to do with the liklihood of the x getting passed: Takeout: I have extra offense but tolerance for defending Co-operative: I have extra defense but tolerance for declaring Penalty: I have a strong desire to defend A takeout x is not the opposite of a penalty x. A bid is closer to the opposite of a penalty x (a strong desire to declare the hand). Once we understand this, this subject is not so complicated... If I make a takeout x of 6H, I don't expect my partner to bid very often, but I am still expressing my hands leanings for offense instead of defense. Its just that: if I claim my hand is 75% offensive and partner hand is also 75% offensive that still may not add up to enough offense to expect to make a very high level contract, but has enough defense to beat a high level contract. For instance if you can take 11 tricks on offense and 2 tricks on defense, your partnership is very offensive oriented, but still shouldn't bid over 6H... On a side note, playing in australia's nationals, where they don't alert any x's, I asked if a particular x was a negative x (I had a 5440 hand with weak hearts and strong diamonds and had to decide which 4 card suit to rebid), was told it was, and then was perterbed to find out that in australia apparently the term negative x merely means "not penalty". :P

Is "happily ever after" a statement about their state of mind or their bridge results? Going down in 3N on an easy to bid slam hand is not a good result...

How do you invite game in spades in your methods? A semi-psychic game try, followed by being pushed into 4S (if the opps enter the auction) might prevent the opps from saving....

If you want my opinion, which nobody ever does, playing 1m-2N INV and thus 1m-3N as any or most 13-15 balanced hands is among the worst agreements in bridge. Even if its 3343 or 3334 13-15 it uses up so much space that opener never knows what to do with unbalanced, but relatively minimum, hands. Now if its 13-15, 4333 with kings or QJ's in all 3 card suits, then it would at least be helpful, but it will not happen much and you have a problem with the other 13-15 balanced hands.

Obviously I can't speak for your opponents, but why are we certain West was going to pass 3NT on that hand? Traditionally the 3NT response shows 4-card club support - maybe it didn't here, but you didn't mention anything special? I have to say that if these unbalanced 11-count hands are a pass after 1C x, then you should be playing redouble as artificial, because you clearly are never going to redouble. I eliminated this as a possible hand because it's not possible. Woops. I mis read the problem. I thought there was a 1S overcall not 1C-x. Now I have no idea why there wasn't a 1D bid or a xx....