rbforster

EHAA doesn't have a forcing opening as I recall - although all their 2N/3N openings are big balanced and have wider ranges than standard. It's not the end of the world, but without one you might need to blast game/slam on some hands or give up some game level preempts to be "natural".

I think the "standard" treatment for some of the higher bids, such as it is, is cue - (2♠)-3♠ - nominally stopper asking with trick source, but could be any very strong 1 suiter (even a 1-suiter in the other major, but that's by agreement) jump cue - (2♠)-4♠ - slammish with both minors 4NT - both minors, pick a game I'm not quite sure what the "stronger" version of leaping michaels is if you play 4m as NF. I believe playing it as non-forcing reduces the frequency of the bid, or alternatively partner will have no idea when to pass. How can partner decide whether to raise to 5m when your range is 3-4.5 losers? Well it's a trade off for sure. The issue is that if you play 4m as NF but fairly strong (~4 losers), partner can stop or bid 4M with a bad hand and an appropriate preference, or raise the minor with a little extra. You might say this is aiming for a "narrow target", but if you play 4m as GF now you only get one range for a direct suit overcall - (2♠)- 3m or 3♥ - which ends up being very wide-ranging (an opening hand with a good 6 card suit, up to a 4 loser hand with a 2-suiter). In addition to putting pressure on partner to find a call (since you could have a good hand and might miss game opposite a little extra), there's also the downside that you often won't be able to find the best fit when it's in the minor. (PS Oh, and I'm not Edmunte1 :))

5♣ for me, even though I'd rather declare than partner (so we can pitch any diamond losers he might have on spades before they get cashed). We have a fit and partner has a very distributional hand - I don't see any reason to insist on NT.

I play 4m as NF but highly invitational to game. I guess some of the higher bids are for even better two-suited hands (i.e. (2♠)-4♠ or (2♠)-4N or even (2♠)-5♠), but I've never gotten dealt a hand that good to really sort this out.

I think people are slowly realizing how rare classic "strong jump shift" hand are, so in the same way strong two's went out of fashion, the strong jump shift is getting used for other things. Plenty of people play other jumps besides strong ones - Bergen raises, natural invitations, weak jumps, mini-splinters, fit-showing jumps, etc. Solloway jumps are at least a move in this direction since they cover a couple of hand types instead of just one (making them more likely/useful). If you're willing to play relays over your strong jump, you can compress all the Solloway jumps into the cheapest jump shift (i.e. 1♥-2♠ or 1♠-2N). This is useful to free up the other jump bids for showing some of the popular treatments I mentioned above.

It's not quite as bad as opening a precision 2♣ with such a wide range (11-17), since at least responder has had a chance to show a 4cM. Their 1♣-1♦ shows 0-6 or 7-10 unbalanced minor(s), so maybe the continuations aren't too bad. If you're on the low end, you pass 2♣ and still don't miss anything game-wise (if not fit-wise). Otherwise, maybe you can raise to 3♣ or bid a natural(?) 2♦ with a constructive hand.

I would need a pretty exceptional hand to go looking for slam after the opponents open and respond showing some values. Pass for me.

Ok, but do they preempt with more strength as often as they do with less? Certainly KQJTxxx and out is a fine preempt in almost anyone's book. I don't think there are too many out there who will require that side K or Q too, and for hands with more like 8-9 points and a good suit, they may be judged to be "too good" to preempt with lest partner take you for a typical weaker hand and miss a good game. And many people will preempt with QJT9xxx or KQTxxxx and some shortness, both of which are on the low end in terms of strength. That's true a priori, but there are several factors in this auction that point towards the points being more evenly divided especially from overcaller's perspective - 1) overcaller's got 12 points, so there aren't as many available for the other hands to have 2) partner of the preempter did not bid, so he won't have lots of extra strength 3) partner balanced with a double and an average of 1.5 clubs, rather than bidding a suit or 3N. It's unlikely his hand is so strong it needs to start with a strength-showing double, which means that of the available balancing options, double is the one most likely to be on the lighter end.

A priori you figure the preempter has about 5-7 points typically, that leaves an average of 12 each for the other hands. From my balancing perspective, some of the better hands partner will have bid over 3♣ (so he's a bit weaker conditional on his pass over 3♣), but since we're the ones with major length and club shortness, he'll need a considerably better hand in terms of shape and/or values to have made a bid so this doesn't limit the upper end of his range as much as it would if we had club length for example. From overcaller's perspective, with 3 clubs he knows we've got shortness for our double and hence could be on minimum acceptable values or better. My hand was a little below this standard (as the results of the poll show), but probably most people would balance with 10-11 as a minimum, a stiff club, and takeout shape. So if overcaller figures that we have about 12 points, then his 12 points are about average conditional on the remaining points besides the preempter being evenly divided. Does this make sense?

I made the marginal double, hoping in light of the favorable colors that either partner could sit for it or that if we declared, we'd either make or go down one. Faced with a 3343 12 count, my partner tried an "inventive" 3N call with Jxx as his stopper. This didn't work out too well as one can see from the layout below: [hv=d=w&v=e&n=stxxhqtxdakqxcjxx&w=sxxhxxdxxcaqtxxxx&e=sqjxhakxxdjxxxckx&s=sakxxxhj98xd8xxcx]399|300|Scoring: MP (3♣)-P-(P)-X (P)-3N!-AP K♣ lead and continued[/hv] They made 3N on the run of the clubs and two high hearts. I suppose -250 was better than -670 since 3♣X makes the same 9 tricks. 3♦ or 3♠ are probably down 1-2 undoubled. When I saw partner's hand, I would be inclined to just bid 3♦. I didn't think his hand was anything more than was already expected by balancer so didn't justify any special action, especially with no stopper and no useful shape.

A couple of times recently I've been in 4th seat with a big balanced hand (~19 pts) and watched the auction go 1M-1N(f) to me. How do people normally handle this? Is this like in direct overcalling seat where sometimes you make a "takeout" double with a hand too big for a 1N overcall (intending to bid NT later)? If so, about how strong do you need to be for this? Since I generally play X as takeout of their major on these sequences I tend to pass here (although I'm open to other suggestions). It could be worse I suppose, since at least 1N is forcing in the common 2/1 style so I can bid again later. Without takeout shape however, I'm probably going to get fixed into passing. Here's one example from the NAOP qualifier today: [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sajxxhkqxdakqtcxx]133|100|Scoring: MP (1♠)-P-(1N*)-? * - forcing[/hv] In this particular case, the auction continued after my pass: (1♠)-P-(1N*)-P * forcing NT (2♣)-P-(P)-X takeout (P)-2♦-(3♣)-3♦ wimpy 3♦? (P)-P-(4♣)-X I think I'm beating this AP Here I wasn't sure how optimistic to be, but I settled on a meek 3♦ raise based on my good trumps :). When RHO balanced 4♣ over this, I had no problem doubling and taking 4 tricks myself even with everything over my honors. We were only making 2♦ since partner had an absolute bust (no tens even) with 5♦s (2452).

Yes, sorry. They bid 3♣, not 3♦ like I mistakenly put initially. You can take back your pass if you want :).

Favorable Matchpoints, you're in balancing seat after the opponents preempt 3♣: [hv=d=w&v=e&s=sakxxxhj98xd8xxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP (3♣)-P-(P)-?[/hv] Do you bid, and if so, what?

I think a lot of people will take "false preference" sometimes here, say with 4♣ and 3♦ and a low-end hand (7-8?), and bid 2♦ even though they have longer or equal clubs. This gives opener a chance for another bid when they have a big hand (like 2N or something).

If you think 5♣ (or 6♣) is making, don't you think 5♥ could be a reasonable sacrifice? If I've read the positions correctly, I think we're favorable...

5M/4m+?

power X showing 15+, usually balanced. partner is encouraged to pass with diamonds and moderate values. wtp :P

By your reasoning, the same would hold true if the 2♥ opening denied 4+ spades. Guess what - this means that almost everyone in the US who opens a normal 6 card "weak 2♥", but who won't do this when they also have 4 spades, is using an illegal method! Agreements not to have a side 4 card major for any weak two apply similarly. Good luck convincing everyone that under your interpretation all the standard weak two bids are illegal!

Let me interpret that for you: (note the minor difference from the original) Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but maybe a historian could tell us how many years have past since the C&C committee approved a new defense or convention, and did it have to be submitted by a current C&C member to get approved? I say play what you want - the regulators aren't listening and don't care, either about clarifying the current rules or adding defenses to currently legal conventions. I'd suggest voting the bums out ('tis the season and all), but sadly the C&C members aren't elected. Just ignore them, like they ignore their duties.

I think there's an analogy with 1 level bids that might be instructive here. Here's a fairly natural set of opening bids: 1♣ strong 15+ (all below are 10-14 unless specified) 1♦ 4+ unbal 1♥ 5+ unbal 1♠ 5+ unbal 1N 12-14 balanced, including 5332's and 4414 2♣ 5+ unbal, precision style 2♦ 6+ one suited 2M 6+ one suited It might not be the best system, but I'd be surprised if the rules lawyers claimed you should "get the book thrown at you" for playing it. Observe that the 1♥ opening will always have a side suit due to the intermediate one-suited 2♥ option. So here you have a bid of 1♥ 10-14 5+♥, 4+ unknown suit Under the "this is conventional, not natural, and must be specifically sanctioned" interpretation, at what level can I bid 1♥ this way? The answer is that under that interpretation, this opening is illegal at all ACBL levels including SuperChart. The new Midchart removed the "4+ known suit" clause, and there are no specifically allowed bids for 1♥ that show hearts (it's ok if it shows spades though!). Superchart does not extend allowed 1 level openings beyond that of the Midchart. Does anyone honestly think this is a Bermuda-only level system? I would be 99% positive that you could run this system by any director and he'd say it was totally fine under GCC. This leads me to believe the "conventional, not natural" interpretation is not just unreasonable, its consequences are completely absurd. Don't forget that the 1♦ and 1♠ openings above are also illegal since they promise unknown side suits too! Yet here we have a 2♥ bid showing the exact same shapes as this 1♥ opening and it causes everyone to get all upset. (Ok, the OP here asked about 5/5+, but you could equivalently ask about the looser Polish 2♥ version where you only need 5♥/4+ which is the exact same shapes) So here's my question to those of you who think 2♥ as 5+♥ and 4+ other is not GCC. Do you think my system above is illegal at Superchart? Really? Or do you not worry about logical inconsistencies and just don't like people playing weak two bids different than yourself? And if you think my 1♥ bid above is ok under GCC, then surely the 2♥ version must be allowed under the same reasoning (i.e. natural), whether weak or not. Perhaps someone should shoot off an email asking about this system and its natural, unbalanced and 2-suited one level bids and see if they are allowed. I would say it's very likely these would be approved - just don't mention the 2 level version since I think some of the guys in Atlanta are hardwired to reject any 2 level opening proposed as illegal (seriously).

In direct seat, it seems clear to play the cue bid as your favorite, Michaels or whatever. In either seat as a passed hand, it seems less likely you'd want to bid (you could have bid before), but I don't see any compelling reason to play anything else and you probably just show the weak Michaels hand. In balancing seat, I know most people still play Michaels but I think some experts prefer to use the cuebid there as a strong distributional takeout, typically a hand that doesn't want partner to pass your takeout double because it's too offensive. Something like: 1♠-P-P-2♠ x AQxx AJx AQJxx give or take. Could be 0(436) shape too.

Playing 2/1, I held the below hand after partner opened 1♥: [hv=d=n&s=saj8ha9xdqjcjt8xx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♥-2♣ 2♦-2♥ 4♥-P[/hv] I didn't like making a 2/1 bid with such a bad suit, but without 4 card support I didn't want to make a 2N (Jacoby) raise. Any suggestions on other ways to bid this? In this particular case partner downgraded his minimum opening with a club void and we missed a good 6♥. He held something like [hv=d=n&s=saj8ha9xdqjcjt8xx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♥-2♣ 2♦-2♥ 4♥-P[/hv]

Yup, and there are no other restrictions on your conventional continuations either.

In std, I think I'd show a GF with 5431 5♠ and 4 in partner's minor (whichever that was). In precision, I think I'd only invite, maybe with 2♣ (2-way NMF) followed by 2♠.

Previous discussion There are various choices about what natural bids to give up if you shift things down by one, whether NT is still natural, etc. My personal choice after some thought is: 1. to pass with penalty-oriented "business XX" hands, hoping to double later for penalty 2. play 1NT as a transfer to clubs, and 3. play XX as a transfer to 1NT, showing a normal "1NT" bid possibly without a stopper, or various other hands with similar or better values like 2-suiters or 3-card limit raises (which bid again over partner's 1N).