TylerE

Thanks for the replies guys. The full auction was: 1[HE} - (p) - 1♠ - (3♣) X - (p) - 4♣ - (p) 4♠ - (p) - 5♥ - (p) 6♥ Partner tabled something like ♠Axxx ♥ Kxxxx ♦ KQ ♣ Kx oppisite my ♠KJx ♥ QJTxx ♦ Jxxx ♣A Obviously 6♥ was not a success. Partner insisted that 4♣ here shows heart support. My counter-argument was that there was an easy way to show heart support here: Bid 4♥ over the double.

Had the following (start of) an auction in an ACBL tourney tonight. 1♥ - (p) - 1♠ - (3♣ Weak) X - (p) - 4♣ What should 4♣ show here, and what lengths does it show in other suit(s)?

And the other problem with stolen bids is that it if LHO jacks the preempt, you're in a world of trouble: 1NT - (2H) - X - (4H) Now what? Opener has no way to show degree of fit or otherwise evaluate his hand. Playing a lebensohl type structure responder clearly shows his hand strength.

This hand is a lot easier if E finds a negative double.

Lebensohl...learn it, love it, etc. Solves all these problems. Oh, and don't listen to any players (especially frequent opponenets...) who suggest "stolen bid X" or similar treatments.

Ok, I figured I was a bit pushy on this. Had the misfortune of running into AKQ8x of trumps...offside.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skxhqdjt9xxxckqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♠) - p - (2♥) - ?? [/hv]

Out actual auction was 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♦ AP Partner should certainly bid more than 2♦, but even given that... 3♦ would have been our strong raise (I said simple SA didn't I? *g*) After 1♦-3♦-3♥-4♦ (Denying spade stop) I can perhaps see some auctions to 6. This wasn't really a what should we have done, I was more curious to see legit natural auctions to slam on these cards.

Comfortable pass for me. Hope p knows how to balance. Playing with someone I don't trust, 2NT.

♠ Txxx ♥ Axx ♦ KQxxx ♣ x ♠ - ♥ KQxx ♦ AJxxx ♣ Axxx South deals. MP, all white. Making 7 on the crossruff. However, we had stopped in a partscore. +190 was actually worth a few match points. Brand new partnership, playing a very simple SA type system, e.g. not even explicitly playing NMF (other than NS by UPH F1). I'd like to see auctions to get to game or slam. It's a real problem set of hands, especially not playing advanced methods, especially since responders 1♠ response over the usual 1♦ opener puts the brakes on. Auctions please.

I don't quite follow your stayman arguement. It takes less to stayman over 2NT than over 1NT. Thus the set of hands that bid 3♣ over 2NT is wider than the set that bids 2♣ over 1NT. So why would this correction be allowed? Only if the 2♣ bid could be e.g. garbage stayman would this seem to make sense.

Illegal substitution. See 27B3

Edited for early morning stupidity

Not around here. 1NT with a 5 card major is rare, and so the need to play a 4-3 is highly uncommon, so it's not worth having those as to play. Playing a 5 card major common in 1NT would change that, of course.

Ruff and switch to a ♦ Probably wrong.

Like any convention, it's solely up to you and your partner. The first decision is if you bid the short or long major. Mainly a personal preference thing. A sample set of respones: 3NT - To play 4m - Preference, some slam interest 4♥ - Strong slam interest in clubs 4♠ - Strong slam interest in diamonds 4NT - At least 4/4 in the minors, slam interest in either minor. 5m - to play Some alternative ideas: 4m as keycard for the bid minor Also, playing any of these, 4NT by responder should be 6-key RKCB, with the keys being the 4 A's and the 2 minor suit kings. A sample set of responses. 5♣ - 1/4 5♦ - 0/3 5♥ - 2 or 5, No Q 5♠ - 2 or 5, 1 Q 5NT - 2 or 5, Both Qs

I'll half-agree. I think SAYC is a fundamentally flawed, unplayable in decent competition system. It just has too many limitations: No forcing minor raise, limited slam exploration, frequent lack of efficient forcing bids in general. Learning 2/1 is a good step, a typical 2/1 system with typical basic gadgets (I'd say at the least: inverted minors, 4SF and NMF, and some sort of drury) is far more playable. However, you might consider learning something else entirely, such as learning as a simple forcing club system. The original CC Wei precision is a good one to start with. While you will have to do some study in regards to the 1♣, 2♣, and 2♦ openers, the rest of the system is actually even simpler to learn and use, because many of the problem hands are well handled systemically. In fact, in some areas, for instance, Bermuda, some parts of China, etc, precision is actually the system often used to teach the game. You migth also consider learning any other sort of system...ACOL, Kaplan-Shienwold, whatever strikes your fancy. I've found that trying different systems actually improves your bidding judgement, because you try different approaches, instead of just making 'rote' system bids.

Frankly, I think the system stinks. Sorry, but it just doesn't make much sense. Using 1♣-1♦-1NT to show diamonds is just...odd. What's wrong with bidding 2♦ to show diamonds? In a strong club system the 1♦ opening is practically always the systemic weak point and you're thinking of moving even more hand types into it? Just doesn't make sense to me.

While I don't really consider myself an expert yet (Despite my self-ranking on BBO, but I'd say I'm better than at least 3/4s of BBO "experts"), I think the single biggest thing that has helped me to really increase my level of play is to play AGAINST the best opponents I can find. A year ago, in a regional KO I would usually play around bracket 5 or 6 (out of 8 or so). The last two tournaments I've been in nothing below bracket 2, with some bracket 1 play, especially in compacts. This brings you up against pro teams, real star/WC players, etc. This really focuses your technique, you learn not to make bad bids, learn to declare against consistently best defense, etc.

Since pard passed 2♥, I think the 3♦ bid wasn't "fielded". It's obvious partner decided to do something funny.

♠ KJ8xx ♥ - ♦ Ax ♣AJ87xx 3rd chair, IMPS, all white p - (p) - 1♠ - (2♦) 2♠ - (3♦) - 4♠(1) - (5♦) 5♠ - (p) - ?? (1) - Yes, I know some of you would bid 4♣ here, but didn't want to give opps a peck at bidding 4♦, perhaps talking themselves into bidding 5♦ over 4♠ when they wouldn't do it over a direct 4♠.

Strongly dislike 2♥. Too much outside defense. 1♥ or Pass, depending on vuln.

Anyone else hate the 1NT bid on this auction? I can't stand a rebid of 1NT by opener with stiff in partners suit. I think xx is the minimum holding. I *might* do it with stiff A, where I don't mind playing a 6-1, but not anything less. Bid your hand, 2♣.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=shaq43dj987654ckt]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]♦♦♦ 1st Question: In 2nd chair, R v W, at IMP Pairs, do you open this, and if so what? 2nd Question: LHO opens a weak 2♠, two passes to you. Your call?

Yep. The NT bidder had a 4=0=5=4 7 count.