joshs

1. 5D but I don't think I can make 5D. :) I will then double cross partner and pass him in 5M, but be happy if he bids 5N or higher. I have 2 problems here: a. I am not sure about strain b. I am not sure about level If I wanted to stop in 4M its a total guess which suit. I have a slam INV hand. Against silent opps, I probably have a slam force but here I do not think I have a slam force if partner has only minimal values and we have only an 8 card fit, given the bad breaks. If I can find a 9 card fit, then we likely have slam. 2. 2S. When you have a distributional hand without lots of high cards, and the auction indicates that partner is going to bid again, give him room to bid again. If you bid 4S (or even 3S) partner might get you overboard playing you for values as oppossed to just spade length. Now if partner bids 2N next or 3D, or cue-bids you can bid 4S next. If he bids 3C, you can cue bid. If he bids 3N, you have to guess between 4 and 5S, I am a 4S bidder. 3. I am torn between 4N (natural) and 5C. I think 5C is safer, but if partner's suit is really strong I would rather be in 4N. All of this depends on my partner's style. With a partner who will gamble 3N on a suficiently strong hand and long minor, even with nothing resembling a stopper, 4C is much more limited. Personally, I usually beleive vul pre-empts, and don't bid 3N without a stopper over them, but some players do... Josh

Oh yeah the second question. In general, balancing x's are 3 suited, although most would make an exception if the opps guaranteed 5 cards in one of their other suits. E.G 1H-P-1N-P-2C-P-P-x is probably only 2 suited if 1H promised 5. But in the auction in question: 1C-P-1H-P 2H-P-P-x, the x is 3 suited. In fact I expect the x'ler to have better clubs than diamonds on average, since he didn't x 1H. Josh

Well this is very much a style issue. After 1C-P-1H-P a. I don't have 4S and 4D and a 11 count or 5-4, either way and a 9 count b. I don't have 5 spades and a 12 count c. I don't have 5 decent spades and a 9 count d. I don't have AQTxx or better in spades So if I bid 2S later, my typical hand is 5 bad spades and about 8-11 ish. With a singleton heart I might have less, especially if NV. ( NV I might have QTxxx x xxxx Kxx) I might have 4324 shape with 4 good spades and a pretty good hand (12-14 ish) but in general with 3 hearts I will pass unless I know partner is too weak to act (because I am pretty strong). I guess 4225 shape is also possible. In general, I don't expect partner to correct very often, and I expect him to almost never raise without 4 trumps and good values. Josh

1. A has 2 or 3 spades B can have lots of shapes: 5431 5422 5521 are the most common of them, but really responder might be: 4333 or even 4342 or 5332 with not much in clubs, strong hearts, and not enough to drive to a diamond slam and doubt as to if you belonged in NT or in diamonds or in spades 2. Well diamonds are temporaily trumps, but a 4 spade bid now is an offer to play. I don't think 4H is an offer to play, but others may disagree with me on that. 3. Any bid over 3D is game forcing 4. I am betting on 5D making 7 ;) OK I am not betting my money... Josh

I am expecting a 5-5-x-x shape and an absolute minimum game force but good suits. e.g. AQJxx AJTxx x xx I do not expect slam to make opposite that hand or something similar but I am very happy to actually have a fit for partner so I have a happy pass. (partner knew I had at least Hx in hearts, but I could have had just 2 of them, so I am happy that we are in a contract that is probably making) Josh

Actually, After (1C)-1M-P-? If you are willing to restrict 1M to 5 card suits then Here is an idea: Say over 1H: 1S = natural, but not forcing 1N= clubs 2C= diamonds 2D= 3 card limit (11+ in support) or a 14+ balanced hand or a hand that is too strong to bid a non-forcing 1S (both are VERY rare) 2H = 3 cards wide ranging (3-10ish) OR 2 cards, no 5 card side suit, and about 11-13 2S=fit jump 2N=4 card limit + 3m=fit jump 3H= pre-empt x-fering to a suit and then supporting partner shows a 5 card suit, 2 card support and 11-13 ish. If you raised 2H on the good hand and a doubleton you will bid game if the overcaller bids again which only happens when the overcaller was too strong for an initial 2 level action (e.g. a hand worth about 13-15ish) and has extra shape. When the opps open 1C there is very little reason to ever play in NT. If you want to be able to overcall on strong 4 card suits, then you have to pass with the 11-13 balanced hand with 2 card support when partner overcalls 1M which isn't the end of the world, but you might miss game when partner has a 6 card suit and a hand too good for an initial 2 level bid. But then again, the strong club side might rescue you... Anyway, some random thoughts, and this stuff only really matters over the light 1C openers... Josh

And yes, partner having a 5'th trump would make the slam excellent as opposed to just decent... (Justin is right, after a trump lead, and a trump continuation when the get in I am reduced to needing 3-3 hearts in my example) I guess I needed partner to also have the heart J instead of the spade J to actually make the slam great.. I am just too used to light opening bids and strong splinters where my hand is really good.... Sorry about that. If I listened to my own formula I would have said partner's hand is worth about 19.5 in support of my 11 (13 HCP and about 6.5 for the shortage opposite my 4 small with a 5-4 fit) which is in the slam neighborhood (30-31) but not quite a force. Josh

I think this is a definite (and common) OVER evaluation. If we knew partner had 5 trumps, that would change things dramatically. Even opposite your example hand where you say "slam is very good" it isn't. The opponents will presumably know to lead trumps after the splinter and your slam is not that great. You need hearts to break or a squeeze. That example hand also contains 0 wastage in clubs. Why can't partner's heart Q be the club queen (or jack?) Why cant his HQ be the jack? This DOES illustrate why having a 5-5 fit instead of a 5-4 when you need to ruff 3 losers is much better. OK I should have said I would drive to slam when the splinter's promise an opening hand plus 4 trumps and a singleton (not when it might be an 11 count with only 4 trumps - I have played two tiered splinters for so long that I forget its not standard) since the contract will be good opposite a sutable minimum. Yes partner might have: QJxx Kxxx x AQxx where I will probably have to take a club hook. or QJxx QJxx x AQxx where slam sucks. I was assuming that partner can't have: QJxx Kxxx x AJxx (or even worse QJxx QJxx x AJxx) because of my usual methods, but if thats in the range, this hand is merely worth 2 slam tries. Josh

The answer depends on how many trumps you have. If you have a 5-4 fit, singletons in the 4 card suit are worth closer to 5 points (increases trick taking by slightly more than 1.5 tricks). In a 5-3 fit, its worth only about 1.5 or so. In a 6-3 fit its probably worth 2.5 and in a 4-4 fit its probably worth about 3.5-4. These are on average. If partner has Kxx opposite its worth less, with xxx opposite or Axx opposite its worth more. Also if you have a big trump fit (5-4, 5-5, 6-4, or so), how many cards you have opposite the stiff is critical. If I opened 1S on: AKxxx Axx xxxx x and partner splintered with 4D, I would drive to slam despite having on an 11 count if partner has enough keycards. A singleton opposite 4 small when in a 5-4 fit is worth about 2.5 tricks, so about 6-6.5 points. If partner had 5 trumps its worth closer to 3 tricks so about 7.5 points. Further note that this hand is better than AKxxx xxx Axxx x since in the first hand your ace is promoting partner's heart honors and in the second hand its promoting nothing. For instance: QJxx KQxx x Axxx Opposite AKxxx Axx xxxx x slam is very good Opposite AKxxx xxx Axxx x slam is well under 50% ( the heart ace has to be onside, they have to not get a heart ruff, and you have to manage to ruff 3 diamonds). Josh

I have always played that the 4 level cue-bid in these auctions sets up a game level scramble, unless the subsequent auction makes that interpretation logically impossible: E.G. (3D)-x-4D-4H-4S is just a choice between spades and clubs, not a slam try. Note if the xer had: AQxxx Kxxx x Axx he should bid 4H not 4S playing this style, catering to partner having hearts and clubs. It also slightly restricts your choices with KQx Kxx xxx Axxx, since a cue bid doesnt solve any problems. You choices really are a. pass b. 5C c. 4D then 5C (which is only a slam try if partner happens to bid 4H) Except at Unfav, I would definitely pass. At Unfav its a very difficult decision. Josh

Let me make some general comments about bidding over a strong club. I have always joked that a strong club is the world best pre-empt. People go crazy over it and can't bid their games, and go for numbers against it. Yes, virginia, you can make game even though the opps opened 1C, especially with a good major suit fit. But the likelihood of being able to make game varies greatly with how light the 1C opener could be. If you are playing against classical blue team or somethign like that with 18+ balanced, 17+ unbalanced. You will rarely have game. If they upgraded a distributional 16, you might have game, but its not that likely. When you play against a 15+ 1C opening, that might include: Axx xx xx AKQJxx (I would upgrade that to a 15+ 1C opener) I wouldn't be suprised if you can make 4 or 5 in a major, even with only an 8 card fit. Consequently, when playing vs the lighter 1C openings: a. have some way of bidding very good hands (some like x for this, others like pass and then bid later for this) b. you can't bid on total crap, or at least some of your bids should promise certain values c. you need to be able to have invitational sequences I strongly recomend playing 1M overcalls as promising something and then playing: a. 2N response as limit+ with 4 trumps (here a limit raise should be about 13 in support) b. 1N as forcing or semi-forcing (only pass if you overcalled a 4 card suit). This will handle the good 3 card raises. When the 1C is of the 17+ variety, don't worry about game, just try to put maximum pressure on them. ART methods over the stronger 1C systems, are fine (you choose you favorite, ideally you can bid both 1 and 2 suiters). In terms of tactics, usually the best tactic vs a strong club is to get to the 2 level as fast as possible, and then stop, unless you are sure of a really good fit. So I highly recommend methods that let you bid directly at the 2 level as often as possible, while retaining some safety. What I usually play is: Pass then bid = a hand worth opening a strong club x= clubs 1D,1H,1S=natural can have 2 level shape if 13-15ish 1N = Woolsey: 5 card minor and 4 card major, or 6D, about 6-12 2C=majors, about 6-12 2D=1 major, about 6-12 2M=5 M 4+ in m about 6-12 Note: the most dangerous of these bids (2M) are the natural ones, so hardest to penalize. The other bids allow them to make a value showing x and then x you later, so you need much more likelihood of finding an 8 card fit. If you are VUL or their 1C bid is of the very light variety, you should tighten these ranges slightly (extra shape is always better than extra values). Also if the opps play takeout x's or penalty x's rather then an omnibus "cards" x at the 2 level, you also need to tighten up these bids and have good suits.... Anyway, just some random thought. Josh

There is certainly no consensus here. I have always played this differently than 2 level balances. Over the 2 level balance, when they have 8 trumps, we practically always have at least an 8 card fit, which makes competing to 3 over 2 lawful, so it makes sense to be able to x agressively for takeout. Over a 3 level balance, when they probably have 9, but might only have 8, 18 total trumps is really not guaranteed (anyone know the odds, assuming they have a 9 card fit?), so I don't find the risk here worth it and play this x as the rare penalty x. My hand type is usually 3/4 strong trumps and often a singleton outside and about a 15 count, hence no 2N overcall, although it might just be: AQT9 xx Axxx Axx Josh

I am a passer. I (barely) have the values for 2N but the complete lack of communication makes this hand much worse. The best I can say for it, is at least I have good honors in partner's suits.... I expect partner has a 5-5 hand in the 10-16 HCP range. I might make 4H opposite those hands, but I may also for down 4. Josh

Well I appear to be in the minority here. I am a passer. I don't have any strict rules for how good of a hand to make a free bid here. I think of it in terms of offensive inclination. This hand is pretty defensive, especially if the opps stay in 1D. Considerations: 1. Is this a penalty pass of 1D? I don't think so, but its close. One more diamond spot would do it for me. 2. How happy will I be to play in a 4-3 spade fit? Not happy at all. 3. How badly placed am I after: 1C-1D-P-1H-P-2H-? Well pretty badly placed, since my hand is not really good enough to x (e.g. I didn't have a legit penalty pass the last time), but its close. I would probably pass again here, but I don't mind a x (shows a penalty pass of 1D and some defense vs hearts, although not a stack). If partner strangely leaves it in, we might beat it. :blink: 4. If if goes 1C-1D-P-P-x-P-? what do I do. I think I would bid spades at that point, but maybe I should bid NT. The communication will be better in spades if partner has 4, but in either case I think I can make 1 of either.... ;) Josh

sorry josh, i still don't understand.. are you saying that the opps' passing in 2h makes it more likely that partner has 17 than 15? and if so, does it matter that much? sure you might stumble on a 4/4 spade fit, but it seems equally likely you're in a 4/2 fit if the sequence you showed promises 4 spades and a longer minor, then i can barely see a reason for bidding (at MPs), but i don't recall that being the meaning.. with the hand you showed, i'd much prefer to be playing some form of garbage puppet stayman.. then bid 2c and pass anything The reason to bid is that you expect to go plus playing in 2S or in your 5 card minor, and you expect to go minus in 2 hearts. You are not interested in game, just contesting the part score. At mps this is correct even if you were going plus defending 2H but have a bigger plus available somewhere else. But this bid is pretty clear even at IMPS, its probably about a 3 IMP swing on average and more than that if partner had a penalty x of 2H available and didn't make one. And yes you might stumble onto a 4-2 spade fit - that why this bid guarantees someplace else to play, so partner never passes it holding only 2 spades. Josh

Lets suppose you are playing a 14-16 or 15-17 NT, the opponents are playing DONT, you are NV, and your hand is: xx xxxxx xxx xxx I think passing will make it harder for them to find their spade fit (if they have one), let alone game. Other than that, I don't pass 1N with a 5 card major much.... Josh

i admit i don't understand this post... why would you pass 1nt and then bid 2s (with a 4 card suit) over 2h? The auction: 1N-P-P-2H P-P-2S Shows 4 spades and a longer minor (If you play penalty x's and not negative x's here it might be 4144 instead). A typical hand: Qxxx xx KJTxx xx Partner is expected to bid 2N in seach of your minor with 2 spades or with 3 spades but length in both minors. Josh

You have left out one very important skill: g. Being a good partner. There are many threads discussing what makes a good partner. Some of it is which combination of the above set of skills one holds, but a lot of being a good partner is being able to sense what the person across the table from you is thinking, and being able to react to that. And no, I don't mean in play or bidding, but in between hands. For example, if your partner tells you to stop carping on some point, being ABLE to stop, without turning the very fact of stopping against them, too. Just knowing how to treat partners is a very good skill. At one club I direct, there is usually a gentleman who comes in without a partner, and whenever I call people to try to find him one, they say that they'll play, but not with him. And not because he's such a poor player (goodness knows, there are MUCH worse players that I can find partners for), it's because that guy can not shut his mouth! yes. g is a critical skill. Getting partner to play his best, requires certain behavior and a certain temperment. Josh

Fred, let me give an example: Example A: You are a promising young player with a flair for reading your opponents. You have some major weaknesses, such as not really being able to work out the better declarer line when line A was 60% and line B was only 50%. You have trouble with double dummy problems, and don't seem to get much better even with practice, but at the table you usually find the winning line even if against the odds. Is this player better off: 1. trying to get his technical card playing up to snuff? or 2. trying to further improve his already good card sense? Which gives the more bang for the buck? Can this person become world class without improving 1? Example B: You have a computer for a memory and so does your bridge partner. You have been playing some ART methods and when they come up, you find that you often generate slam swings. You have some new ideas that you have been thinking about that should help your bidding on 5% of the hands without losing anything the rest of the time, but have yet to work out the details. Your card play is strong but could get better with more practice. Sadly, you wouldn't notice that an opponent hitched if they jumped on the table. Again, how should this player spend his time to improve? And can this person ever become world class without any table sense? My main question is: 1. Is it always correct to attempt to improve your weaknesses, or might you be better off further enhancing your strengths? 2. Do the two optimization problems lead to different allocations of your time: a. become as good as you can in 5 years? b. win a world championship in 5 years? 3. Is improving one's 'bidding system skill' in a different catagory from these other skills? (You seem to think so) Note: I think there are two different skills at play with bidding systems (as with languages): a. vocabulary - you have a good memory and can remember the meanings of all sort of sequences and know what to do with various hand types and have developed some novel meanings for some bids/sequences that has gotten you improved results. b. grammar - you understand the internal logic of how systems are put together. You can work out what a bid should logically mean even if you don't remember the sequence or have never discussed it. If someone gives you a brand new set of methods, you can read them and play them easily, as long as they make sense. Note that skill 'a' is non-transferable, when playing in a new partnership it does not give you any instant advantage, while skill 'b' is transferable and I think much more valuable. Anyway, Fred thanks for your thoughts! Its always valuable to get feedback from great players on how to improve. I really appreciate your taking the time to do that. Josh

I think all you can conclude is that the methods played by the world's leading players are at least reasonably good methods. Otherwise these players would either be smart enough to know that their methods were ineffective or their poor methods would give them such a handicap over the rest of the field that they would not be able to be successful in major tournaments. Yes there are a lot of strong club pairs in the group you describe and several flavors of such systems. There are also a lot of pairs who play natural systems (some weak notrumpers some strong notrumpers some 4-card majors some 5-card majors...). There are some pairs who play Polish or Swedish style 1C systems as well. Some of these pairs include a lot of science in later rounds of the bidding. Others do not. To me this suggests that basic choice of system is not important (as long as the basic system is not completely absurd). You will notice that very few (none?) of the pairs at the highest levels use strong diamond systems or Raptor 1NT overcalls. This doesn't necessarily imply that such methods are inherantly bad - perhaps the world's leading players have simply not tried them. However, if such methods offered significant advantage over more "traditional" methods, I am pretty sure that at least some of the world's leading players would have figured this out and that they would be using them. It would not take long for word to spread. Once you play bridge anywhere close to as well as, say, Fantoni and Nunes, by all means go ahead and try to play a system like theirs if you are so inclined - you will be ready for it. What I am trying to say is that, until you reach that point, you will be better off spending your time trying to reach that point. My observations suggest that the vast majority of talented players who focus on system "too early" in their bridge careers and refuse to let go of this never become successful at the highest levels. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. ww.bridgebase.com Well I have never understood this "learn to play bridge better line of reasoning". Playing bridge has many aspects, and involves many skills: a. technical skills playing the cards b. psychology/ card reading/ logic c. good visualization/judgement in the bidding d. memory for what cards have been played e. having bidding and carding agreements (AND remembering them) that solve problems for your side AND/OR give opponents problems [Essentially this falls under "do your homework"] f. mental toughness and endurance A great player usually has good skills in most if not all of these areas. Most players have skills in at least some. I think you do need good skills in all of these areas, but you don't have to be world class in all of these. Feed off your strengths! If you are a good card reader, try to become a great one. If you have accedents when using complex methods, use simple ones and focus on what you do well. If you have a computer for a memory and so does your partner, go ahead and try to get an edge in the bidding with them. Just keep in mind for most of us, at some point remembering a complex system takes a mental toll on you, and tires you out while playing in a big event. If you are the sort who can play Ultimate Club in a long match while being able to still play your cards well and not lose whatever psychological skill you have, more power to you, I think you should play the relay methods - get the biggest advantage from your skills. For the rest of us, its an optimization problem - how do distribute your mental energy to perform the best at the table. Speaking for myself. My biggest strength comes in understanding the structure of bidding. Its not hard work for me to play fairly complicated methods - I remember them and get good results from them. Complicated methods doesn't necessarily involve lots of conventions, just lots of agreements of what partner will do which such and such a hand type in a given situation. But conventions do help in many situations. The time I put in ahead of time into putting good methods together pays off for me. I don't think its fair to say that isn't "playing bridge." Its the aspect of bridge that I am best at. While I would like to get better at solving double dummy problems, and in general improve my card play and my table reading skills, it wouldn't be the same game, and it wouldn't have the same people win if you eliminate the value of some of these other skills. (Read this as both a diatribe on too overarching system restrictions as well as my thoughts about what "playing bridge is.") Now having said that, I know a lot of people who spend a lot of time on bidding gadgets, and can't play the cards at even a respectible level (and some who have bad bidding judgement). Well there is no point bidding 60% slams if you can't make them over 50% of the time... And there is no point pushing your opps into a bad contract, if you fail to beat it. Fred do you disagree? Josh

One personal story, playing in the Australian national open teams (5 day swiss event) with a friend, and a random pair I held: xxx xx Kjxx Kxxx or something like that 3'rd chair Fav. We were playing a weak NT and I opened 1N. Strange psych you say, since this will get xed? Yes it is, but the strange opps were playing DONT even against weak NTs. One important lesson, when you sit down against a pair, glance at their NT defense. This will tell you what you can get away with in 3'rd seat. Now this story had a funny conclusion. At my table the auction continued: P-P-1N-x (that player was 4513 with 21 HCP) showing a 1 suited hand 2S(1 or both minors)-P-3C(I prefer diamonds)-3H- All Pass Making 7 on a heart hook through partner. The other player had Jxxxx Axxx xxx x and didn't raise. At the other table, it went P-P-P-2C-P-2S! and soon a double fit was found and they climbed to 7N since opener feared a ruff if she picked the wrong major. This was a make or go down 5 hand, but it made... Its quite interesting, but I rarely ever make total psychs like this, but DONT vs a weak NT was a red flag... Josh

Your comment about the flatness of the hand interests me. I think Kit Woolsey (or was it Terrance Reese?) had an example hand where the player psyched with a void and that was a losing action since it kept the opps out of a terrific grand that goes down because of the bad breaks. As to everyone's mixed strategy rants, my usual comment about this is: If you don't play a lot against the same players, but do play a lot with the same partner, mixed strategies actually hurt you. Its much better for partner to know what you have and the opps not. Now having said that, there is full disclosure issues here, but no one alerts mild tendancies. If you do psych the same bid with any frequency, it should become an alert. E.G. If Partner A would overcall 2C over 1D white vs red on: xx Qxx Kx AKxxx and Partner B requires a better hand, you are much better placed if you know partner's style, especially as the opps rarely ever ask these questions. If partner would overcall xx Qxx Kx AKxxx 20% of the time and not the rest, it really doesn't make things more difficult for your opponent, just for you. Now if you play against the same people frequently, or your hands are likely to get press, so that you have a reputation (ZIA?) then its best to not have a reputation for doing the exact same thing every time in the same situation. Here is a bridge problem: You hold: xxxx AJTxx Q xxx White vs Red 2'nd seat Auction: (1C)-1H-(x)-3H (3S)-P-(4H)-P (4S)-(P)-(6S)-All Pass A: What do you think LHO has? B: Playing rusinow leads and 3 and low, what should you lead? C: Does it matter if LHO was ZIA? How about someone who always has his bids? As an aside, I find semi-bluffs to be more effective than bluffs. For instance opening a strong NT white vs red in 3'rd seat on xx Kx AKJxxxx xx. If partner bids game, you might make, but the opps are much less likely to be able to bid a major suit game over 1N than over a 1D opener. Josh

Well opposite an normal opening bid I would game force with 2D. Opposite one of my limited opening bids 1N (or 1S showing a forcing NT). There is no way I would ever bid spades: a. if partner raises spades I am poorly placed (I play that 1H-1S-2S-3H is forcing, since if I had an invite and a double fit it should be enough for game) b. my bidding spades hurts partner's hand evaluation - spade shortness in his hand is good, not bad Josh

In classic K-S the style was: 1. respond 1 of a major over 1 of a minor much lighter than standard 2. do not jump shift over that on 19 or 20 with 4 spades 3. after a 1 over 1 over 1 auction, responder has to bid again unless his first bid was made with less than 6 HCP 4. jump shifts to 2S are game forcing (like normal), but are slightly better hands than normal Note: since minor suit openings were sound the ranges for non-jump shifts are really about the same as in standard. Both ends just differ by about a point and a half or so. In any case, no matter what your NT range and structure, I will always bid Axxxx at the 1 level, and here I have some shape, so I have serious game potential. E.G. After 1D-1H-3H, I think that hand is good enough for 4H. Josh

I also have never played raptor, but have a lot of experience with the overcall structure (at least a sane version of it) and I disagree about the strengths and weaknesses. a. biggest strength are the roman jumps and cues (4 in higher suit, 5 in lower) these fill a hole in standard constructive bidding, and they are hard to defend against (what really is the best meaning for 1C-(2H)-x when 2H showed 4+S and 5+H? ). When the auction goes: (1D)-2C-P-? Partner does not have a 4 card major. If I cue bid and he has a good hand, he will bid a good 3 card major. I never have to bid a 4 card major. Its really easy to find our major suit fits this way. There is one big weakness of the roman jumps and cues, you have no bid to show 5-5 in the majors over 1 minor and have to start with a 1S overcall or a roman 2H bid. b. The biggest weakness is the power x, since it leaves you poorly placed in competative auctions since it says nothing about shape (its like opening a precision 1C bid). Its also a bit awkward sorting out 4 card vs 5 card suits in some gameforcing auctions. But most of us play different followups than the orginal structure (with a herbert negative) that does make these auctions tolerable. It is nice on the balanced hands that didn't actually have a stopper, but they really are not that common... I find these auctions to me slight losers but only slight over normal methods. c. When NV, the NT for takeout bid is a big winner: it A. helps us compete hands B. Makes it hard for them to find 4-4 major suit fits C. leaves us much better placed when the auction goes 1M-1N-4M than 1M-P-4M D. Most importantly, it really helps us with our opening leads!!!! Going for a number is rare, although when it happens, its bad. (its not just 800 vs 500, its 800 vs the 500 our teammates were unable to get since its hard to x at the 1 level) Vulnerable, I have rather mixed feeling about 1N for takeout... In general: in all methods you do well when your descriptive bids come up, and you do poorly when your more nebulous bids comes up, so its a question of having enough gains from the good hands to offset the losses from the bad hands in your methods... Josh