rbforster

In retrospect, I should have used denial cuebids rather than keycards (regardless of suit), since this will show the missing trump/club ace reasonably quickly and from there I can decide whether to continue exploring. ... 3♦-3♠ relay; 1543 4♣-4♥ AKQ control ask; 7 AKQ controls (3/2/1) At this point, partner's worst honors are KQ♥+Q♦ which is only 4 controls, meaning that even without the A♣ he's forced to cover the diamond loser one way or the other with his other 3 control points. So it's safe to explore up to 6♣ for the A♣ and see whether the other controls will also cover the diamond loser. 4♠-5♥ location ask; honors: 1♥, 1-2♦, 1-2♣ (we know it's the A♣) If the only heart honor is the A, we can bid 7. If it's the K, together with the A♣ is only 5 AKQ points, which means the remaining must be the K♦. With the Q♥, partner must have both diamond honors. We can't have enough for 13 top tricks in NT, so it's a clear 7♣-P Using denial cuebidding here would find 7♣ comfortably opposite either the A♣♥ Q♦ actual hand, or the K♥♦ A♣ alternative. Denial cuebidding would have had trouble if responder had only 6 controls however, making it hard to separate hands with A♣K♦Q♥ from those with the red suit honors switched. For those hands, most methods will be difficult as keycards in clubs will leave the A♣ uncertain opposite a 1/4 response, while keycard in diamonds picks up the K♦ but could hold the wrong ace to go with it.

Edit: to clarify, I play 2/1 GF over our 1M precision openers. If you play 2♥ as invitational with 5, that's fine but highly non-standard. Normally new suits at the 2 level are drop dead by responder after a forcing NT. 2N is the only non-fitting invitational call available in most forcing NT sequences unless responder has his own good 6+ suit to bid at the 3 level.

Here is a link to Fred's article on methods after 2N (1M-1N-2m-2N sequence). They seem pretty good, although they spend some space bidding hands that aren't possible in precision (like 5/5 maximums which would likely have jumped the previous round). They do let opener describe his 5422 shape (direct 3N) separately from both 5431's which seems useful. Maybe not after 1♥-1N, but after 1♠-1N or 1♥-1♠, you want to make sure you find the 3-5 fit in responder's major since he'll rebid 2N with (52)33 routinely.

At the nationals, I ran into a couple hands that pointed out potential areas for improvement in our partnership's bidding. Consider the following (precision) auction that proceeds to an invitational 2NT by responder - 1♥-1N 5+ major, ~9-15 pts; forcing 2♦-2N 3+ (usually 4+); natural invitiation At this point, it seems likely that 3♦ needs to be a weak distributional hand (5/5+) trying to get out in a suit, and likewise 3♥ (perhaps on a weak 6-4). On the other hand, 3♣ doesn't have much of a natural meaning (unless you want to cater exactly to 0544's maximums), and there are opening hands that want to accept responder's invitation but still have not shown their 6 hearts (good 6-4's). These want to play in 4♥ opposite a doubleton or 3N otherwise. In this framework, it's not clear how to get to 4♥ except by bidding it, which leaves something to be desired when it's a 6-1 fit. Perhaps something like this would work better here: 1M-1♠ or 1N(f) 2m-2N 3♣ - artificial and min, scrambling. Asks for responder's preference between opener's suits (including pass). Usually a distributional hand with 5/5+. P - prefers ♣ to M if clubs bid 3♦ - prefers ♦ to M if diamonds bid; if not, 5+♦s natural and equal or better pref for M over clubs (catering to (50)44 which bid 2♣, and 1534 after 1♥-1N). 3♥ - 5+♥s, equal or better pref for spades over minor (caters to 53(50)). 3M - preference to M over minor, and no cheaper suit to bid naturally 3♦ - artificial and max, forcing. Asks responder to show any additional major length as cheaply as possible. Opener holds either 6M or 2OM or both. 3M - doubleton support for opener's major 3OM - 6 card suit that was unwilling to jump to 3OM to invite (checking for a doubleton with opener's (62)(41). 3M - min with extra length (6+), signoff 3OM - max with 3 cards in OM (53)(41) typically (or rarely (63)(40)) catering to 5M by responder or offering a Moysian in place of 3N if responder's 4th suit stopper is questionable Likewise, if the opener rebids his major, 1M-1♠ or 1N(f) 2M-2N it's similarly unclear what bids of 3m are naturally, especially in the style where 6-4 hands bid their minor first (weak 7-4's?). Perhaps these minor bids could be better used conventionally, although maybe stopper showing would be more useful than checking for support for opener's major (since with a good hand and a 7 card major, opener would have jumped to 3M). Then again, there are some seriously off-shape hands that need to rebid 2N on that sequence (like 5-5 minors with no OM stop or 5OM/5+m with no om stop), so I suppose one could try to cater to these somehow. Does anyone else play special methods in these types of situations?

I meant that if they accepted my 3N and the 4♥ bidder bid 4♥ again, then I could double for penalty. It does seem you can't correct an insufficient bid to X or XX - only pass or a bid.

That's what I was thinking... 3NT, wtp? Then I realized it was 4♥, not 3♥. Guess it was good I bid first and think later, right? Now I either get to play 3N, 4N or double off 4♥ for penalty if they accept 3N and re-overcall 4♥.

After P-1♣-1♠, 2♥ would be a reverse so 3♥ should be a splinter in support of spades by North. This will leave enough space to explore for slam so I think is a good choice. When there are 2 splinter choices (3♥ and 4♥ here), the higher is often used to show a void.

I know plenty of people who just carried their phones turned off in the game room. Of course there was no way to tell. In a non NABC event I had my phone in my pocket and it buzzed (vibrate mode) when someone tried to call me. No one at the table noticed.

Just a word of caution for those running - at these (unfavorable) colors, doubler may just have a huge hand and not a trump stack. I had a situation recently where I held a balanced 20 count and doubled in this situation hoping to beat our side's 3N score (-2 only for 500, but still better).

One more vote against constructive raises - I doubt it's "standard" and I don't even know anyone who plays them. 1H-2H on 6-9 and 3 cards playing Bergen is pretty much the expected hand. You might even have a minimum flat 4 card raise if you aren't willing to push to the 3 level.

and the opponents were never expecting this after your 3♦ opening! But now with the X, you got 'em.

Maybe it's not, if you've got the right methods. In part I asked because I was curious what different methods people would use (asking for 2-1 controls vs 3-2-1 controls, exclusion keycard, reverse relay, etc). Perhaps this would have been a harder hand, one which the strong hand would also like to play 7♣ opposite? [hv=s=sxhkxxxxdkxxxcaxx]133|100|[/hv]

At our table, South started with a strong club and bid somewhat unconvincingly to 7♣. Could you do so more convincingly? [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sxhaxxxxdqxxxcaxx&s=sakqxhdajckqjt98x]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Our auction: 1♣-1N 16+; H+minor 2♣-2♦ relay; H=>minor 2♥-2♠ relay; H=>D 2N-3♣ relay; x54x 3♦-3♠ relay; 1543 4♠-5♥ keycard in D; 2+Q 6♣-6♦ to play; to play (partner thinks we must play in D or H for our keycard ask) 7♣-P As you can see, we got a bit lucky when partner's 2 keycards of K♦, A♣, and A♥ managed to include the trump ace. Either of the other cover cards takes care of the remaining losers together with the spade ruff, so I suppose this was a 66% grand at the point our mixup forced us to bid it.

Some people play cuebid (3♥) could be a solid major suit too (not just a solid minor). I guess here you can safely double since you're so strong that partner can't reasonably sit for your double even with lots of hearts. Between 2♠, 3♠, 4♠, and X...3♠ and X...4♠ (presumably over partner 2N lebensohl), at least one of these should be forcing. My vote is for X...3♠ and see if partner can't cue something for you.

In a KO this weekend I balanced with something like JTxxx QTxx xxx x in a similar situation (bidding 2♣ for the majors at w/w). There was no hesitation and I was a passed hand (known to be quite weak) so there was less risk of partner raising with a good hand.

I was looking over the Viking book a few days ago too and noticed the same thing. It doesn't look like you can play in responder's minor preference when opener has both minors. This doesn't seem great to me - I think it forces responder to pass 1♦ often with hearts and short clubs, missing a heart fit to avoid playing a silly 2♣ contract after opener's likely rebid. Suppose responder is 4441. You have to play 1♦ instead of 2♥, or risk bidding 1♥ and play in 2♣? It'd be one thing if they put the 5/4+ minors hands somewhere else (1N, 2N, or something), but to have this sequence show both minors and not be able to play there seems weird.

But other people got their full board penalties reduced to 1/4 board for the same thing. We knew this rule would be enforced inconsistently and selectively base on the whims of the director and the particular player(s) involved.

I like a regular old takeout double. If parter wants to sit for it, I've got 4 quick tricks outside of my suit which should help us count to 6. If he wants to bid 2♠ or 3m that's fine too. Here's it's nice we can still play in our major at the 2 level, so I'm less concerned about getting pushed too high opposite a hand with 4 hearts but too weak to pass my double.

Make sure you lead face down, so your partner can remind you it's not your turn!

What's up with this X of 1♣? I thought it would be pretty much an obvious 1♠ call if LHO had 5 spades and the normal decent hand that could double. On the assumption spades are 4-4 and LHO having most of the values, it seems normal play the J♠, winning with the K if necessary, and play hearts. You might be able to squeeze LHO with Kx of clubs and Jxxx of diamonds in the end position (assuming you mis-guess spades and lose 3 spades and a heart).

But if the LOL is playing their lowest card each time, you'll see 4...6 from either 64 or J64 so I'm not sure what that tells you. Might be more interesting in a case with 5 missing cards instead of only 4.

You meant South opened 1N? If I'm North defending 4♠X I think I've got 4 trump tricks myself unless I get endplayed...

1. Pass with East 2. Pass with West (length in their suit, few points, and partner would have doubled with a decent hand and shortness). They are Vul and in a likely 5-1 fit from West's balancing seat. 3. X is penalty by a hand that could have doubled for takeout but passed. 4. You might want a natural 2N to show 13-14 balanced with stoppers. If partner bids on stuff like this in balancing, my hand is only good for an invitation anyway so why do I need two ranges? I can't have much better a hand or I'd have bid 1NT directly over 1♠.

I play a light opening precision style system and we use 2/1 GF. 1M openings are rule of 18 - all 10 counts, the 9's with distribution, the 8's with lots of distribution. I have found that playing 2/1 GF has worked pretty well and better than anything else I've tried. Here are my observations having played this style for a few years now - 1. When you open light, adjust your GF response to be a little stronger. This is most true when you may have a misfit. Our rule of 18 openers are supposed to be "worth 10 points" after counting distribution, and we make a non-fitting 2/1 bid with 14+. Yes, you'll get to a few misfit 3N contracts on 23 highs and go down, but the opponents can rarely double and you'll find some 26 point slams too. 2. With a fit, make sure you upgrade your hand, roughly making a 2/1 GF (or other fit-showing raise) about 1 point lighter than you would otherwise. 3. Bergen raises or equivalent are very good in a light opening framework since you will often preempt/steal the contract when the opponents' points are divided. Consider using some of your direct jumps for this (3♣♦). 4. Regarding forcing NT, use this pretty much as usual, including responding with light hands if you want. A few observations however - -- by opener, jump bids show lots of distribution and a pretty good hand, but are non-forcing. Typically a 13-15 count with 6/5 shape would jump in their second suit, and a similar hand with a 7 card major and shortness would jump in their major. I like to keep these standards pretty strict in terms of showing lots of shape, as this protects against getting too high when responder has a weak hand (that will pass or preference). -- similarly with jump shifts, I play reverses by opener after 1N are non-forcing and distributional. 1♥-1N-2♠ (or 1♦-1♠-2♥) would typically show a good 6/5. -- I play all suit bids at the 3 level rebids after 1NT forcing as invitational by responder. It's not that important to have special 3 level signoffs (i.e. 1♠-1N-2♦♥♠-3♣ and the like) since if you're broke as responder (KJTxxxx and out) and just pass the opponents, with the majority of the points, almost certainly balance (and you can run later it they try to double 1M). -- If you have a marginal GF as responder, feel free to bid 1NT forcing and await further developments. You can't go back after you make a 2/1 GF, but you if you start with 1N you can always bid 3N later if things look good (or 2N if they don't). I think a 2/1 "Standard" style or even a 2/1 Non-Forcing style could work in a precision framework, but both of these will require a lot more agreements about followup auctions to make them decently playable. 2/1 GF works "out of the box" just fine for precision if you just play it the same way you play it over standard openings (adjusted for what counts as GF strength of course) - it's simple and easy and most people know it.

I don't really see the need for a preemptive re-raise by the original heart bidder here. In the overcalling case, 1♣ opener has failed to act already at his second call so we're not preempting him. If responder passed (rather than doubling) in that same auction, again I can't see who we're preempting since responder already denied a good hand. Maybe if responder doubled there'd be some merit to a blocking raise, but advancer has shown a strong (limit+) and unlimited hand so it's also possible we're preempting him in a way that makes it hard to judge if our distributional preempt fits with his limit raise in a way that makes game or not. In the opening case, I think it's less clear since doubler could still have a very good hand and we might make it harder on him by preemptively raising. That said, it may also be dangerous to get too high with a strong hand sitting over opener. I'd probably use 3♥ as something constructive here, but could be convinced otherwise. If you want generalities, I can see two possible rules - 1. 3♥ is always a game try of your favorite type 2. 3♥ is preemptive if 1♥ was doubled, and a game try otherwise