hirowla

Hi, After a bad hand or two where my partner and I were on different wavelengths, I'd like to know how others distinguish between quantitative raises, Blackwood and agreeing on a trump suit in particular auctions. I'll start with the simple ones: 1NT - 4NT, 1NT - 5NT, 2NT - 4NT, 2NT - 5NT is quantitative, so is 1NT - 5NT (asking between small and grand slams) 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 4NT, 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦ - 4NT is quantitative. I didn't mention 5NT here because if you play 5NT pick-a-slam, I imagine it is applicable there. If not, that is quantitative. Now some vague ones (at least from my perspective): 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 4NT: don't know. Have we agreed hearts or not? If not, how do we do so? If yes, how do we show quantitative? Same with 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 4NT 1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♣ (I guess showing a 4 card major and 5+ in ♣). Have we agreed on the major, the minor, or NT? How do we do a quantitative bid, or set the suit? 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 4NT: I guess it's quantitative, asking for a pick of 5♥, 6♥, 6NT or 4NT. How do people explicitly confirm hearts (hence 4NT later would be keycard)? 2NT - 3♦ - 3♥ - 4NT: Same question as above, but you have less room Is there a general rule in these auctions to distinguish? I have a temporary rule with my regular partner that after a transfer or some sequence involving suits (i.e minor suit Stayman) that 4NT is quantitative and if you want to confirm the suit you have to bid another suit before going 4NT. That works if you know the suit, but sometimes you don't (as shown above). Any ideas on how to do this? Thanks, Ian

Thanks for the replies so far. I’ll just clarify a few things mentioned above: I agree that overcalling on a 5 card suit is risky. I’ll seen both good and bad results against me doing it. Don’t know how how it works out overall. I’ve generally played you only overcall with 2 distribution points. So I’m seeing how it goes. I think the 13 point level comes from it originally meaning “I have a 1NT opening” in the Precision context - which is 13-15 pts. The original suggestion was play responses like partner opened 1NT. I don’t think this is workable but hence why I’m asking the question! More suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks, Ian

Let's assume that you are defending 1NT openings (note: most of them will be 12-14 or 13-15 pts - against strong NT we play a different defense). Your agreement is that you may overcall in your suit with 5+ in the suit and 10+ pts, and that 13+ pts without a 5-card suit is a double. What are some suggested continuations after partner has doubled. In both of the following sequences: (1NT) - X - P - ? (this is the major one I'm interested in) (1NT) - X - (some suit bid) - ? (this one can be easier as I can always pass if required). One suggestion is that you treat partner as having opened 1NT with 13+ pts. What are your thoughts on this? Initially I don't like it as the type of hands you would pass on (i.e weak hands) are probably the ones you don't want to pass as that leaves the double in! Any other suggestions for follow-up sequences? Thanks, Ian

Hi, I was after suggestions on continuations after an opening 2NT bid or 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT (showing a strong balanced hand). I’m mainly after suggestions to help navigate to slam. I don’t need to know about the following when just heading to game Stayman or Pupper Stayman Major suit transfers Texas Transfers Things I’d like suggestions on: Handling long minor suits Handling 2 minor suits Handling 2 suiters, especially after a major suit transfer, so you can pick the suit you’re playing How to "lock in" a suit, so Blackwood or cue bidding can be used, or whether the 2nd suit is chosen How to tell when 4NT is quantitative rather than a Blackwood ask I can answer most of these after a 1NT opening because there is plenty of room to show this, but not over 2NT because there is a lot less bidding room. Any ideas? Thanks, Ian

I’m assuming Texas because I play Texas!

Hi, I’m after some suggestions regarding follow ups after a transfer like 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♦, and what these follow ups should mean. I’m assuming that the NT bid is weak, but I suspect that it makes little difference for string NT. Assume that Texas transfers will cover most of the 6 card major suits, so the major is likely to be a 5 card suit. * Firstly, what should the strength and shape be of the hand be. I’m suggesting that is should be a minimum of a 5-4 shape but usually 5-5 and a hand that has some slam interest (with a weaker hand, don’t bother showing the suit) and just bid 3NT instead). * what follow up would you recommend to show: - min hand, no fit for either suit (I’d think 3NT) - min hand, 3 card fit and no fit for other suit (I’d think 4♠) - same but a 4 card fit - min hand, 3 card fit and a good fit for other suit? - same but a 4 card fit - max hand, 3 card fit and no fit for other suit - same but 4 card fit - max hand, 3 card fit and good fit for other suit - same but 4 card fit - min hand, no fit in major bu good fit in other suit - same but a max hand - any other hands I’ve forgotten? Thanks, Ian

The reason I was suggesting saying 2NT or below is that it is possible that offenders partner may not know what the suits are (I believe the withdrawn bid is UI) and I don't want to reveal what the suits involved are. I would have talked to the offender to find out the suits they meant away from the table, so I can judge the decision made. It does feel awkward hence why I'm asking for suggestions! The 2nd part of your suggestion I will definitely use.

Comparable bid is 27B1(b). I'm comfortable with that but trying to clarify (a). I know that in this example changing the bid to 4D is not permitted under (a) as it isn't at the lowest level, but could be accepted as a comparable bid (if it is a Texas transfer).

Hi, I just want to clarify something about the new law 27B1(a) and some suggestions about how to explain it to club players when you get called. Please ignore the comparable call part of the law for this question. Imagine a bidding sequence of 1NT - P - 1H (not accepted). Assuming that transfers are used, I gather that a 2D bid would be acceptable under 27B1(a)? And 2H would be unacceptable as it means spades? This is quite different from the old law as you could simply accept 2H in the past provided it wasn't artificial ( I realise it is in this case). In terms of explaining it, would you say something like this for this example (after you have offered whether it is accepted): "You may make any bid of 2NT or below that shows the same suits as you meant with your original bid, or you may make a comparable bid to your 1H bid, or you may make any other call including pass but if you choose this option your partner will be required to pass for the rest of the auction and if you are a defender there may be lead penalties". I'm vague about the hat the first bid means because the meaning of the first (insufficient) bid would be UI to the offender's partner. Any ideas? Thanks, Ian

I'm afraid Budh is actually correct and his explanation of it is quite correct. The reason 1H is not comparable can be shown as follows: * A normal 1H bid shows a minimum of 6 points and 4 hearts. It could have 20+ points. * An illegal opening pass shows approximately less than 13 points * A 1H bid after an illegal pass now shows a range of 6-11 points and 4+ hearts * Because of the illegal pass, partner of the passer now has information he is not entitled to have (i.e that his partner does not have a point range of 12-20 points). * From this, the bid cannot be comparable. However 2NT shows a within the boundaries of a passed hand and doesn't reveal any additional information to their partner - they knew from the illegal pass that they have less than 13 points, and 2NT indicates that too (it's actually more specific). The other bids mentioned 1NT, 2D, 3D, a weak jump shift also would be bid by a hand that wouldn't open the bidding. I'd probably allow a weak jump shift even if strong enough to open a weak 2, as it may be a judgement call not to open a weak 2 without partner having anything. Regards, Ian

Well, if you don't like the options given don't pass out of turn! Or just pass again. Those are the rules and those are your choices.

I'd say that 2NT is a reasonable bid rather an 1H (not my style but could be for others). Hence I would allow the result. Nobody would complain if 4H makes and you get a bad score. Based on the hands you always end up in game - you got lucky.

1H is an unlimited number of points, 2 NT shows less than an opening hand. Therefore 1 H is not comparable to an opening pass but 2NT is.

But the issue is, you can't penalise them on this auction unless there is a logical alternative to bidding 3H. Otherwise they have done the right thing. Mind you, on this hand, 3H goes down 1!

Thanks everybody for your suggestions. How does this sound for a possible structure: After a 1♠ opening: 2♠ 6-9 with 3 card support 1NT followed by 3♠ 10-12 with 3 card support 3♠ 6-9 with 4+ card support (sometimes with 5+ support jump straight to 4) 2NT limit plus with 4+ card support. Play as a modified Jacobs 2NT 3NT 10-12 HCP plus unspecified singleton/void (splinter) 3♣/3♦/3♥ 10-12 with 6+ in the bid suit No bid for 0-6 pts and 4+ trumps (not really useful) Over a 1♥ opening: 2♠/3♣/3♦ 10-12 with 6+ in the bid suit 3♠ 10-12 HCP plus unspecified singleton/void (splinter) Rest of the bids similar to above The reason I'm keen on the jump invite bids is some experiences where those bids could previously only be shown with 1NT then a bid. In the meantime opener jumped the bidding and hence the hand couldn't be shown. That caused issues. With this, going via 1NT then bidding a suit is now only weak. Note: this structure doesn't include competitive bidding, but that's another story! Also that Kaplan Inversion is played so the impossible 2S bid can't be used as such (it is used though). Thoughts? Thanks, Ian

The problem I'm trying to solve is issues dealing with hands responding to 1M which have a 6+ suit and invitational strength. A suggested solution to that problem is having a jump shift to show these hands (over 1m we do this already in the other minor). The catch is we play Bergen raises, and one of the bids is a splinter ask. That bid can be changed, but the Bergen raises just clash hence trying to find out if I can do without them and hence how to handle those hands that Bergen covers. These hands weren't an issue prior to our switch to 2/1.

4 card raises, not 4 card majors! Opening is definitely 5 card majors.

Not dissimilar to what is above: Cue raise for a limit+ values. Partner should assume an invite and bid accordingly, you bid higher if you have more. Raise to 2 with 6-9 points, compete to 3 level if you have 4 card support. If you have 5+ card support consider going to game straight away Pre-emptive raise with 4+ card support by jumping straight to 3. Invite to NT game with a stopper by bidding 2NT Not sure without a stopper - maybe a negative double and then bidding their suit asking for a stopper? You might get too high that way though or your negative double might be offshape. Another slight variation is a jump to the 3 level shows 6-9 with 4 card support, and ignore the 0-5 point hands. I've tried both - got lots of 0-5 point hands playing this method, got lots of 6-9 point hands when I swapped! Direct penalty doubles are rare these days - best you can do is trap pass and wait for your partner to reopen the bidding. Regards, Ian

Hi, I'm looking for ideas on how to handle 4 card major suit raises in uncontested auctions in a 2/1 framework. In essence, I'm looking to replace Bergen raises. I don't need all of the point ranges covered as: Strong hands are covered using Jacoby 2NT and splinters Invitational hands are covered by a 3 level raise (3 card raises go via 1 NT forcing) The other question is should I bother covering all the ranges? Any ideas? Thanks, Ian

Hadn't thought of it this way and probably the best explanation I've heard. I will put this in the memory bank for future occurrences, especially because it's happened multiple times and I highly doubt any of the involved pairs would have such an agreement. Thanks, Ian

The players weren't beginners but not great players. I just couldn't think of any bid that the heart bidder could make over 2♠ apart from pass that wasn't suggested by the UI - 3♥ is definitely suggested by the UI but unless there are other possible alternatives you have to allow the call. I know those players wouldn't have been using what you were suggesting.

[hv=pc=n&e=sq8haq432djt5ct94&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1n2d2hp2sd]133|200[/hv] 1NT is 12-14 points 2♦ alerted as a long major 2♥ intended as natural, but alerted as a transfer to ♠. Later it is agreed they have no agreement (one played transfers, one didn't!) This is a typical club session. Given the misinformation and UI present, is 3♥ a legal bid? Is pass a logical alternative to 3♥? Are there other logical alternatives to 3♥ which may disallow a subsequent 3♥ bid? Does your answer change if the 2 ♠ bid is not doubled? Thanks, Ian

Hi, When you lead 3rd and low, are there advantages to sometimes leading 2nd highest rather than 3rd highest in some circumstances? I'm thinking of s common situation when you hold 4 spot cards like 9732. If you strictly lead 3rd, you would lead the 3. However how can you tell if it is a 3rd lead or a low lead? Wouldn't it be better to lead the 7, showing an even number? I'm thinking of situations where the 3rd doesn't really indicate even but the 2nd highest might delver the message. For 6 card suits you can usually tell but in 4 card holdings you might not. Am I missing something by doing this, when leading 3rd strictly gives some other information? Thanks, Ian

Without a shortage do you bid 4 of the minor or 3NT? It's quite possible to have a 6322 or 7222 hand consistent with the bidding.

I'm trying to work out whether a heart bid after the club transfer should be natural, showing a control, showing a shortage or something else. I'm concerned that if it is natural, what happens if you don't have a 2nd suit (which is very possible as you are unlikely to bid like this unless you have 6+ clubs)?