joshs

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sa8hk9xxxdaxxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] RHO opens 1C You overcall 1H LHO bids 3C (premptive) Partner x's (responsive) RHO Passes Now what? What do you bid here? If you bid 3D, what do you bid next if partner bids 3S?

Turn the jack of clubs into the queen of spades and change the shape a little. KQx xxx Ax KQxxx and game is lousy, opposite a 14 that is so good that some would open 1NT with it. There are many other cases of maximum hands for opener where game is bad. I am not saying this makes it wrong to raise, just food for thought. My one strong opinion about this auction is that opener really should be maximum to accept an invite, since with most 12s responder will just bid game, so responder tends to be on either a very good 11 or terrible 12. I think almost all opener's boring 13s should pass 2NT on this auction (your above hand would accept though). On that basis, I guess this is one of those hands I would bid 2NT vul at imps, but pass otherwise. And move the SQ into diamonds, and its not bad again. Anyway, we all agree that its close and agree that opener should be max to accept. If opener is a 4333 14, then I don't expect to make it without a few good spot cards, but we might get lucky....

Wow. I would have bid only 4S. 5H really is from another planet. Hopefully, han, you are playing with chewy, and can suggest the opponents use the time honored principle "let the wookie win." Now is partner 2353 or 1264 or 2164 or 1363? With 2353 he should bid 5N then 6D. So I expect 6D from him, but this contract is going to suck....

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=skt842ha84d2caq62&s=sj7hk753daqtckj73]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Opps silent. 1S-2C-3C-3N D6 lead (4'th) to the J and Q. Plan the Play.

I'll throw in the mea culpa too, I misdefended and let it make. Though declarer had badly misplayed and was always cold to begin with (declarer essentially didn't hook you for the diamond jack, despite the fact that you had doubled 3♦ and both our bids and the cards already played marked me with the ace.) I am convinced that without detailed agreements, redouble should not create a force on our side. There is no reason that it has to be our hand even if responder has a redouble. I understand that this creates problems, for example opener has a good hand and doesn't want to let them play undoubled, but doesn't want to bid in case responder is doubling. I guess you can't have everything. I guess I could believe redouble creates a force if your partnership doesn't open light, but that could really lead to disasters. It just depends on what hand types you are xxing with. If I held: KJTx Axx x JTxxx I would want to: a. make a penalty x of 2S or 3C b. sit for a penalty x of 3D c. compete to 3H over 3D I just think its inappropriate to xx both with this hand and with: KJTx Axx xxx JTx Its far more effective to xx with the first hand (so partner gets a crack at 3D if he wants it) and pass then x with the second.

If partner was silent the whole time, I would never x. Thinking about xing deserves a -5 imp penalty (since a good player might read you for a trump stack). This hand is case in point. 6N is cold and 6S has no play. This falls into the plus good, minus bad category...

Assuming that you open 1D with 4-4 in the minors (or at least msot of the time) partner usually has 5 clubs for this sequence. Here is a submin hand: Kxx xx Kxx KQxxx Opposite this submin, game has chances (e.g. 3-2 clubs with ace onside and diamonds 4-3 with A onside or a diamond lead) but I wouldn't want to be there Strengthen the hand to a legit opener: Kxx xx Kxx KQJxx and game approaches vul at imps levels, but is probably still submin And with Kxx xx Axx KQJxx (a hand that would accept the invite) you would want to be in game. I think this hand is (barely) worth a 2N bid.

For what its worth, a. Josh and I sat down and instead of playing our normal system, we were playing 2/1, so I wasn't quite sure what our 1M-2M range was (if its 8-10 my hand isn't worth a xx, if its 7-10 its close). b. I strongly prefer pass and then x on this hand type, and xx (setting up a force!) on hands that can make a penalty x of 1 or 2 suits, but are short in some other suit. For instance, 4315 shape and a max would be an ideal xx. But I was uncertain what my agreements were with Josh here. c. I doubt we weren't getting any mps, for 3D undoubled making, and they are red, so there is an upside to xing....

The best ice cream: In the US its generally found in Boston. My personal favorite there is Christinas, But Herrel's, Toscinini's, Jp licks, etc. all get votes from someone. I am pretty fond of Italian Gelato, although its not exactly ice cream, and I don't know where to get the best gelato.... (I did have some great gelato in verona years ago...)

I had the diamond 8 also.

I never got anything like this to work. It doesn't handle Game invites well, and it doesn't get you to the correct part score, and you usualy relay out declarer's hand, which is a net loss. Here is a structure that should work better, but its obviously not what you have in mind: a. open 1N or 1D on balanced hands, even with a 5 card major b. play 1N forcing over 1M. Over opener's rebid: 1. Cheapist New suit is a GFing relay 2. Correcting to opener's major is the 3 card limit raise (or play the direct raise as a limit raise) 3. 2N is natural and INV 4. raise of opener's second suit is natural and INV 5. Other new suits are 6+ cards, natural, and game forcing c. its not quite symmetric but use the symmetric steps over 2 suiters: Reverser, 5-5, High short, Equal, Run ons with Low SHortage d. Open majors in natural order, and thus don't use a reverser there e. Handle flannary somehow (either with a special bid, or with special continuations after 1H-1N-2H) f. new suits are natural, forward going but not forcing, except for 1S/1H which should be forcing 1 round. Canape systems where either suit can be longer have a problem when responder is 2-2 and weak, but its not space effiecinet to rebid a 5 card suit with a side 4 card suit (will not work with relays) and this has other problems as well...

Since Meyerson has a NT convention, I propose Sher over NT (aka, Modified Meyerson): x: Clubs Or a Major/Minor 2 suiter 2C Majors 2D/H/S Natural After 1N-x-2C: P=Clubs 2D=5+D and a 4 card major 2M=5+M and a 4 card minor OK, I still like woolsey, at least in the direct seat...

Meckwell: x=Both majors or 1 minor 2m=that and a major 2M=natural

Pass. Plus good. Minus bad. :D

3N. I have profound respect for slow triple stoppers.

From the poll results, I am completely alone here. I see no reason why this auction has claimed ownership of the hand for us, and consequently I don't think pass is forcing. I expect partner to act 80-90% of the time here, but not 100% of the time. And in any case, who cares, as I pass now whether it was forcing or not. One opponent passed 4C-x since there was a chance he might get to play 4C-x. When we didn't let him, he bid 5C. I have no idea if they expect to make this, or think they are down 2. Maybe my partner does.

I am missing something. The results from playing 10-12 NT have nothing to do with the results optained from opening 1N on hands with 10-12 HCP. Nothing. Your sample will include: a. people opening some of these hands, but playing a different range, perhaps 10-13 or 12-14 or 11-14. b. people opening hands that aren't even in their NT range. For instance promoting a 12 count to a 13-15 NT opener. Or psyching a strong NT in 3'rd seat with a 10 count. And furthermore, 10-12 NTers might have wide range rebids to deal with. For instance 13-16 (1N) and 17-19 (2N). How did they do on these hands? Again its impossible to tell unless you knew each players range. I am sure that a 10-12 NTer, who was not playing a strong club, and who rebid 1N on 13-16 did worse on balanced 13's than standard bidders did (whose 1m then 1N rebid was the tighter range of 12-14). The real question is, how much worse. Unless the ranges the partnership use can be used to control the sample, you can't learn anything.

1. Pass, despite the form of scoring, I don't like overcalling 1N on 15 and a flaw (the flaw is usually lack of a double stopper, but here its the lack of the correct shape) 2. Dbl. I slightly prefer 1S but I wouldn't spring it on someone who might not expect that much for a balancing x. 3. 2S. A maximum for this bid. 4. 3S. Who knows why partner didn't open 2S. I think its because of a bad suit. 5. 2C. Normal 6. 3H, made safe by the knowledge of their 9 card fit. But its close 7. Pass. Hard problem. I like partner's stiff club but with only 8 trumps we have a lot of work to do to make 6D...

Another good but not common method: Washington Don't: A hybrid between don't and woolsey: x: 4M, 5+m OR 6+D OR 6+H 2C:4+C, 5+ in some M 2D: 4+D, 5+ in some M 2H: majors 2S:Spades

You must very seldom open 2♣ other than with balanced 22+, if all unbalanced hands have to be game force. One can save 2♣ for true game force, or follow the French lead of using 2♣ and 2♦ for strong hands, one game force, the other suggesting near game force. But what it he largest advantage of systems like precision? Anyone who says they start their strong auctions one level lower (in 1♣ rather than 2♣) doesn't understand. The largest advantage is that all their bids other than 1♣ are strictly limited. This helps with all the auctions that do not begin with 1♣. Using GF as your mantra for 2♣ opening bids, no doubt, solves the problems of reaching game. But at a tremendous cost, at least in my opinion, on making your one bids a total mess, and you can forget about adding light opening bids to your system, as the range from minimum (normal opening) to just short of true-game force is already too wide to unravel, imagine light opening bids (sub-"normal") upto just short opening bid. So such an approach (2♣ is either game force or balanced 22-24) is not a reasonable solution, not that having 2♣ unambigiously forcing to game is a bad thing for auctions that start 2♣, but for what it does to the other bids in your system. Now as for you part "c", do we belong in game. After, 2♣=2♥ (no tricks), opener knows the answer to the "do we belong in game" question, especially if you combine with 2♠ as I disucssed above (1 distirbutional/HQ trick for ♥, no trick for ♠). Certainly the way I play 2♣ structure is not the only way and probalby not even the best way to play 2♣ considered in isolation. But for the way I like to bid (opening bids, hand evaluation, second and third round bidding) it suits me fine. I think if I played 2♣ as absolute game force, I would play old romex control showing responses (the version with 1NT as artificial and 1 round forcing and 2♣ as pure game force), and not pussyfoot around. After all, partner says he has 10 tricks or so, so controls will be a huge help in deciding slam or not. Its nice that you feel that way but close to 100% of US experts disagree with you. The 2C opener is not game in hand. But it is forcing to game with very few exceptions (yes, many have one additional exception sequence involving a double negative and a suit bid and rebid). When people play 2C-2H double negative a new suit by opener is still forcing. This is basic bridge and passing it reflects a lack of understanding of the 2H double negative convention. Playing precision doesn't solve this problem. If you have AKQxx AKxx x AKx and the auction goes 1C-1D you rebid 2S showing a standard 2C-2D-2S bid. E.G. a game force. Yes the auction could continue 3C(double neg)-3S-P but this is a rare exception sequence, and its really not clear that the gains from having the double negative, makes up from the loss of not being able to bid game or slam in clubs very easily.... Where precision really helps on is the in between hands. AKxxx Axxxx Ax x opposite xx Kxxxx xxx xxx and the like where the standard opening bid would be passed, but you have game (or even slam!) in another suit. And on the hands where responder has not enough for a 2/1 bid, but enough to game force opposite a 16 count. Since a natural and Gfing auction starts lower, more information can be exchanged.

I was hoping for keylime's keylime pie recipe! Thanks! I love keylime pie B)

Playing 3N as forcing requires far more than flipping the 2♦/2♥ response structure. For many, 2♦ positive merely shows and Ace or a King: responder need have no more than that. So if you make 2♥ the positive waiting bid and then make opener's 2N create a force to 4 major (ok) or 4N, then you have to change the minimum requirement for responder's positive. A method that forces the partnership to 4N on balanced 3 counts opposite balanced 22 counts is unplayable. This means that 2♥ has to be a good 6 count or better. Now your 2♦ 'bust' can be 0-6 and can include an Ace! One of the advantages of playing that the immediate negative denies a control is that opener, with exceptionally powerful hands, can immediately stop worrying about missing a slam, because he knows immediately that the partnership lacks the requisite controls. If the negative response can have controls, this information is lost, and the partnership must adjust its bidding to take this into account. There are other consequences, but any interest I had in considering 2♥ as a positive wait has evaporated if the method prohibits us from playing 3N on 2 balanced hands. I was never discussing switching the 2D (pos) and 2H(xx neg). I was discussing switching the 2N(Balanced 8+) with the 2H(8+ with hearts) from the standard 2C responses except that since 2H is relatively a cheap bid, I have some suit quality requirements for suit positives, so some unbalanced hands go into the 2H bid as well. I usually require 2/3 top honors for a 5 card suit positive, but only about KJxxxx or QJTxxx for a 6 card suit positive assuming you have sufficient other values. Some people require stronger suits than I do for the non-2H positives. Essentially, the 2H double negative is "I have a hand that is probably worthless for slam", and the 2D bid is everything else while in my treament the 2H scattered positive is "I have a sound slam invite" and the 2D bid is "we probably only have game, but who knows". When I first started playing this way I required only 6 points for the 2H bid, but my experiance has been that rasing that requirement to genuine 4N values works better, so in general I require 8 points or an A and a K (hence the 2D bid has at most 2 controls in it). Since I have mostly been playing strong clubs in recent years (except with Marc Umeno who makes me play the stupid 2H double negative) I don't have a lot of recent experience here, so I can easily be convinced that the optimal point count is a point lighter or stronger than what I play. Note: I have always played very strong 2C bids. These are virtually all game forcing except for the hands that rebid 2N. If you play lighter 2C bids, then your objectives are different. My objectives are: a. the correct strain b. do we belong in slam? Others have to worry about c. do we belong in game and that makes the 2C structure much harder to handle. The 2H double negative, by killing the kokish sequence, torpedos a.

I haven't looked at the actual play but I think its clear to let NS x EW in 3H. East was blatently using UI by bidding 3D, and since 3H is more than reasonable with his hand opposite 5+ hearts (whether the 2H bid was forcing, or just forward going), so NS deserved a crack at 3H-x. While neither South's bidding 3S, no north's passing (to in fact reach a pretty normal contract) has anything to do with the issue. Has anyone discussed with there partner's what your bids should mean here??? East prevented NS from introducing spades at the 2 level by his misbid (not a crime) but then prevented them from having the upside of the misbid by cheating at his next turn. I think its clear to rule - whatever in 3H-x (for both sides) plus a procedural penalty to E-W. As to the fact that south's x was penalty of a major, thats not the explanation that east would get behind screens since the x would be explained by north as whatever meaning x had of 2D over a natural overcall, so unless the x would have been negative, east would never know that south had anything in the majors, and thus wouldn't have any AI.

There are many different goals in designing a structure over the Opps Strong 1N Opener. the goals include: a. get to your best suit, b. from the correct side c. stay low d. don't push them into a 2 level contract thats better than 1N for them e. be able to bid as often as possible with some safety f. occasionally be able to bid distributional games, almost always in the majors For most of the reasons, the emphasis is always on the majors, but you might want to indicate if you have another place to play in case you don't have a 7 card fit in the major Also, I would much rather compete to 2D holding 4351 shape than 1354 shape because with the later shape, you have two ways of losing: a. not getting to a good spot b. pushing the opps into their major suit fit which they wouldn't have found There isn't much discussion about the correct side issue, but it a big deal. In general you want to: a. have the player with the most points outside of trumps declare the hand. That usually means the hand plays better from the short side, on average. b. Have the strong hand on lead. Consequently methods like a multi 2D response (woolsey) or x-fer overcalls are much more effective in direct seat than in balancing seat. I think that playing 2D as a major (in direct chair) is worth about 1 trick on average over bidding the suit immediately, due to the siding issue. I rather have that trick and suffer some minor competative disadvantage of a. giving the opps a x of 2D d. responder, on occasion, not knowing what partner suit is (he isn't on lead against 3N in any case) Similary, 2C for the majors is really powerful. It not only gets you to your best fit, it occurs on hands where its harder for the opps to out-bid us, so our getting to our best spot is even more important, and in the direct seat, you usually put the NT bidder on lead, which is an added benefit. Just keep in mind, some of these benefits are lost in the balancing seat, so you might well want to play a different method. For instance woolsey in direct, and meckwell in balancing is a reasonable compromise.

Just a personal observation about woolsey: Its my opinion, without having kept close count, that the auction: 1N-x-p-2D(what is your major) is rare. I would guess that you bid 2D under 10% of the time. Consequently, a. it may make some sense to include more minor 1 suiters in the x. Certainly with 6+ diamonds you are well placed, since you can pass partner's 2D bid (the main issue of including this hand occurs at higher levels if partner wants to compete). With 6 clubs and a reasonably good hand you can afford to bid x and then 3C if necessary (or rarely bid a 3 card major). The only hands with less than 4-4 in the majors that frequently bid 2D are: (43)(15) (53)41 (1 club) (41)(44) (this is rare since the opps usually don't lose their 9/10 card card major suit fit, so either partner's major is your stiff or you should be bidding to the 3 level before opener can bid his 5 card major) (42)(43) and a very good hand. Usually you are happy to bid 2C p/c and know you are in an 8 card fit.