rbforster

Don't forget Forcing Pass! Pros - even more space for low-level relay auctions than if you start 1♣ strong. Fert bid annoys opponents. Cons - annoys regulators, except Australian ones.

I saw a similar hand, not quite as strong as those posted above, but which upgrades greatly when partner hits their suit. ♠-- ♥KQxxx ♦AKQJxxx ♣x 1♦-1♥ 4♠* (ExRKC) Exclusion in spades seems like just what the doctor ordered. Even with a little less shape it merits a slam try of some sort: ♠-- ♥KQxxx ♦AKQJxx ♣xx 1♦-1♥ 3♠* (splinter) intending to continue with a 4♠ cue if partner declines your first invitation.

I was going to point this out too. Game in hand? Check. Unwilling to open game directly? Check. Must leave 2♣. Notice that something like 90%+ of the spade simulations are making game or better. This is also without exploring for hearts when they might offer a better strain either.

To elaborate on jtfanclub's reply, the thing to remember here is that we're talking about what's legal according to the ABCL Convention Charts, which only apply to conventions. In the case that you want to play 2♣ or 2♦ for the majors, it's clear this is a conventional bid and must be legal under the appropriate convention chart (this is what #5/#6 above refer to, and such bids, if weak, are only allowed at MidChart+). Natural bids, however, aren't regulated by the convention charts and the ACBL has defined "natural" to mean 3+ in a minor suit or 4+ in a major suit. If OP wanted to open 2♥ with any weak hand and 4+ hearts it's clear that he's allowed to do this as a natural bid (less clear if this is a good idea). So the question becomes if you put distributional limitations on a natural bid, does it become conventional at some point, and if so, at what point? Consider natural weak two bids - there's lots of precedent for people playing all sorts of various distributional constraints on their weak two bids without any legal issues - no void, no side 4 card major, must have exactly 3 in other major, must be unbalanced, etc. Nobody claims these constraints make the weak two bid "conventional" or illegal. What about requiring exactly a 5 card suit and an unbalanced hand? This seems innocuous enough (especially if you open all 6+ suits at the 3 level instead), but now you promise a 4+ side suit as a negative inference. Maybe you open weak hands with hearts and a minor (5♥/4+minor) in the minor instead (along with other weak hands with that minor). Now the only hands left for your 5♥ unbalanced are those with 5♥ and 4+♠, but the spade length is a negative inference of your other opening bids. In short, is this bid legal? Who knows? I think so; others think not. My suggestion would be to play this if you enjoy it since you'll never get a straight answer out of the ACBL if you ask them anyway (or rather, you'll get a different answer for each person you ask, most of them largely incoherent and contradictory).

A strict intrepration might say so, a less strict one would not. EHAA using 5 card weak two bids are fine, even if you require that they be unbalanced hands. Unbalanced hands always have a side suit if they are only 5 cards. There are many cases where people have played "restricted" weak two bids legally - i.e. no void, no side 4 card major, etc. "Unbalanced" doesn't seem to be an unreasonable restriction for 5 card hands. If you open your 6 card suits at the 3 level (or 1 level, or not at all), your unbalanced weak two's will be pretty close to the bid I describe.

Agree with Han. I'd like to keep diamonds in play with a rescue XX (rather than just running to hearts despite them being better) since I expect opener will often have 4 hearts behind me when he can reopen with a takeout X.

I play something similar, although I allow hands with more than just (54) major shape. My (hopefully) GCC version of this follows (but requires 5+♥s to comply with the rules allowing artificial responses and rebids): 2♥ 5+♥/4+♠, weak 2 bid strength (~4-9 points) Responses: 2S to play 2N invitational+ inquiry 3m GF long minor 3M preemptive 3N to play 4m preemptive 4M to play After 2♥-2N asking for strength and/or shape: 3C any min, 3D inquires further: .........3H 4S/5-6H (NF) .........3S 5S/5H (NF) .........3N 5S/6H or 6S/5H (4C asks to transfer to the long suit) .........4C 6S/6H 3D+ show maximum values (game forcing). shape is shown in steps: 3D 4-5S and 5H. then 3H asks for spade length ......... 3S 4S ......... 3N 5S 3H 4S/6H 3S 5S/6H 3N 6S/5H 4C 6S/6H I suppose one could play this in various combinations with other weak two bids, the most obvious combinations would be 2♦ multi 2♥ majors 2♠ 5♠/5+minor (or maybe a regular weak 2 bid that's weaker/stronger than the ♠ option in multi) or 2♦ weak two bid (or maybe ♦+major) 2♥ majors 2♠ weak two bid

All the cool kids know that 2♥ showing 44 in the majors is a better alternative :).

A clear 2♥ bid, but of course I play 2♥ as mini-Flannery :). I can't see opening 2♥ as a preempt in first or second seat in any case, especially since partner has request us to bid "normally".

It's annoying that most people you ask haven't got a clue as to what's legal and what's not GCC. Especially when the people you ask are the official ACBL representatives who sometimes (often?) can't seem to read the letter of the law sitting in front of them and mistakenly tell you something's illegal when it clearly isn't. This seems to have happened here - all responses to a precision 2♣ are allowed GCC under the rule #7 above (transfer advances get their own rule permitting them). If you want to get technical, under rule #7 you can use conventional responses over an opening bid of 2♣ (meaning anything you are allowed GCC) as long as 1) the bid isn't "weak," OR 2) if weak, the bid promises a 5+ suit and a 7 point range or less (e.g. 4-10 points) Of course "weak" isn't defined anywhere, but presumably a precision 10-15 isn't. If you want to get into ambiguities, you might wonder if "weak" means A) the bid includes a range of values, all of which are "weak" (e.g. 0-6), vs B) the bid includes a range of values, at least some of which are "weak" (e.g. 0-20) I would argue that under a normal interpretation of the definition of "weak" a weak bid is one that is always weak (A above), not a bid that might be weak (B above). Of course there's no official definition of weak vs not weak, but it's probably clear that a typical 12 point hand is not "weak" since most people open those at the one level. You could probably make an argument that since an average hand is 10 points, 10 or more points isn't weak. Don't expect everyone to agree with that 10+ argument though, since weak in a mathematical sense isn't the same as weak in a bridge-bidding sense and it's not clear which the authors of the GCC meant. This would mean you could play some increasingly weird things like: 1) 2♣ 5+ clubs, 8-15 points (should be ok) 2) 2♣ 4+ clubs, 5-12 points (probably ok) 3) 2♣ 3+ clubs, 0-7 points or exactly 37 points (don't expect much sympathy here) all GCC and still use conventional follow-ups since none would count as "weak" (under my particular interpretation of the GCC). Case #3 above points to the issue of whether something is weak if it's weak X% of the time, and having X=100% might be silly and now you have to argue about whether X=95% or X=75% or what.

Fixed that for you.

Would you rather do well in a low level event (BCD) or play against better opponents (A/X) and probably have an average (or worse) result? Do you have a favorite convention you'd like your partner to learn? Would you learn and play their favorite convention?

Now that everyone's clear that this rule is all about cheating (instead of say, courtesy of phone use which is easily dealt with if an actual interruption occurs), the ACBL needs to ask itself some hard questions - 1. Are there good reasons for players to want to have these devices with them at an event? 2. How many people cheat vs how many people carry cell phones? 3. Will this rule stop determined cheaters? I would argue that is clear the answers to these are very clearly 1. Yes 2. Very few 3. No way Elaborating on these, 1. Why phones are useful, etc. As others have said, NABC's are huge sprawling events and coordinating with partners about getting to the right place at the right time is vastly easier with a cell phone. Meeting up with friends during the non-playing time at the event is also made much much easier with phones, hence the enjoyment of the typical player at the NABC is enhanced and they have a much better experience and are more likely to attend. As someone who's flown into town for just a couple days and tried coordinating meeting up with 15-20 old friends in a short amount of time during their ever-changing plans, I can say cell phones and/or messaging devices are invaluable in this regard. If I could only see a handful of my friends due to ABCL-enforced communication inefficiencies instead, I would be much less likely to bother going. Vegas will be a social event first and a bridge event second for many of the people I know. Hardly anyone will win the big important events there, but almost everyone wants to go and have a good time. This brings me to 2. The relative numbers of good vs bad guys, false positives and their costs These policies cause a big hassle if actually enforced. You're going to have people checking their cell phones at the door, buying expensive screening machines to look for hidden devices, etc. Now the ACBL is going to get sued when the phone check guy "accidentally" loses somebody's $500 iPhone and I'm sure they won't be willing to pay the screening folks enough to prevent this from being a serious temptation. I'm supposed to check my laptop at the door too, but I wanted to carry it in my backpack since I didn't really want to trust the hotel cleaning staff. I'm supposed to check my iPod too (headphones are evil and all). By the time everyone gets done checking all this stuff (and later reclaiming it), we've probably lost 20-30 minutes that we could have been sleeping, eating lunch, playing bridge, etc, leading to fewer sessions played per day or longer days that are harder on the players since the events have to be spread out by an extra 30 minutes per session and it's a 1.5 hour longer day just to play the same 3 events. These are the costs, and the costs are born by almost every player. You are causing a huge inconvenience for many innocent people in order to deter a few cheats. And how many people are actually cheating using these devices? Let's see some hard evidence, not just rumors started by technophobes, about the actual magnitude of the problem. I'm sure the answer here is that nobody really knows, maybe there's been a case or two of suspicions, and we're getting some huge overreaction to this perception of potential cheating. Of course even if there's actually some people cheating this way, 3. Will this stuff stop the cheats? I think the answer here is clearly no. You don't have to go to the bathroom with a cell phone to tell your co-conspirator about the marginal slam hand in this duplicate set. You can just meet him in the bathroom one stall over half way through the set and pass him your notes on the "interesting" hands. Then you flush the notes. No phone or computer required. Don't forget all the old fashion ways of cheating too with hand signals. I'm sure I could come up with quick eye gestures during a pairs rotation that conveyed to my friend in the same rotation that I just played a hand that should be bid unusually conservatively or aggressively due to the lie of the cards. Sure you can concoct elaborate fantasies of wireless single-dummy solving computers broadcasting to old-folks "hearing aids," but this is a long way from what the ACBL is worried about and if you were going to go to that much trouble you'd just play poker or blackjack at Vegas instead of bridge where you could get some real cash for your troubles. Besides, hasn't the ACBL basically decided that pairs events are a second class format worth only a tiny fraction of the team game's masterpoints? You can't easily cheat in team games in these ways since the boards can be played in short sets of 10 or so without needing a break before swapping boards. There's much fewer opportunities to cheat in that setting, and that's really the only format the real players care about, right? And lastly, let's not forget the most important thing - 4. Does it even matter? Sure nobody wants cheaters getting an advantage, but there will always be a few people who choose to cheat and many of them will get away with it. But you can't be a successful cheat in big events since as you play more and more important events you draw more and more scrutiny that will eventually be your undoing. Maybe you could cheat once and win some big event, but you couldn't capitalize on that "reputation" by being a pro or something since now everyone's watching you since they think you're good. In conclusion, I see this rule as a perfect analogy with the huge expensive and annoying waste of time and money that is airport security screening in the US these days. You spend lots of time and money on expensive machines to screen for innocuous items, hassling your general customer in hopes of making it marginally harder for the bad guys, and even then anyone with half a brain and malicious intent could find a way around the screens and accomplish the same goals anyway. I think the ACBL needs to think long and hard about these issues and then just scrap the whole thing. Richard's suggestions about simultaneous play is a vastly better solution to the cheating issue than anything that could come out of this half-assed, ill-conceived attempt at electronics regulation.

You mean they actually think that no one will carry their cell phones when they're at a big bridge tournament? I don't know who thought up this stuff, but there's no way anyone's going to follow it... Why don't they just come out and say what they mean - please don't cheat with high-tech stuff either? But of course that was already illegal so this current rule is just stupid/redundant.

Since this is 4 card major methods it's likely that partner has 4=5 in hearts and diamonds. Unlike the 5 card major auction where responder can choose between inviting with 3♥ in the known 5-3 fit or inviting with spades unilaterally with 3♠, here responder is stuck between wanting to know if opener has an extra heart or just blasting out his spades. I'm guessing here you're just stuck bidding 3♠ and hoping.

Really? What would the reason be? I spent too much time looking at my bridge hand and deciding it would be great for a 4 Fantan instead of just passing? Most of the Barbu games are trick taking, NT-oriented games anyway so I doubt it's that bad practice. Maybe it was because they were up too late the night before since a full game of Barbu takes what, 2-3 hours?

You guys make it all sound so hard - Edit your profile -> Your skill level -> Expert Viola! I can even be paid to coach you on how to become World Class :).

I agree that playing a 15+ club and game-forcing positives will be inefficient since the GF responses by a PH are so rare when you open light. However, perhaps the conclusion to draw is not that a 15+ club is a bad idea, but that GF positives are a bad idea in this situation? I think this might be a more reasonable approach to this problem if you value preemption in 3rd seat. Depending on your strong club methods you might not even need to change the meanings of most first responses, just lower the value ranges (1♦ negative 0-4, 1♥+ 5-9). Of course you'd need to face the issue that instead of having a relay or natural GF auction after a 1♣ positive, now you need to have invitations and ways to stop below game. It would require a little more clarification, but could still be a good approach.

Your method with a strong NT is a more constructive, forward-going approach and is no doubt better at finding your games. A weaker and/or wider ranging NT is more obstructive to the opponents - it's a question of what you think is more important. At least in 3rd seat, many people favor aggressive preemption and obstructive bidding. When you make a wide ranging NT bid like those I suggested, responder knows he's just competing and only does so based on shape, rather than having to worry about if his values are sufficient to invite. As for the legal considerations, I'm surprised they'd even consider this since I don't think I've ever run into someone playing a wider ranging NT than the allowed 4 points (15-18 or 12-15) and it was probably worse for them than it was for me :). Seems like pretty much of a non-problem, so why bother worrying about it? In addition, I do know people psych 1NT in 3rd seat sometimes and if you play natural signoff methods (rather than transfers) it'd be pretty hard to keep people from psyching with weaker hands just to get around a potential range restriction. The rules about conventional followups wouldn't matter if all the bids where natural anyway.

I agree with those that have said that if you're opening all your 10 counts, a "normal" Drury hand is pretty unlikely. There will be some shapely 9 counts with 4+ support that still qualify loosely as a limit raise in terms of playing strength (singleton or void, maybe a 5th trump or good values, etc). Still, it's a narrow target to aim for and I certainly wouldn't play 2-way Drury just for this. You might think about the rest of your system and decide whether or not to make 2♣ or 2♦ or neither Drury. If you can open a natural weak two in diamonds for example, maybe you don't need P-1M-2♦ to show this hand so it could be Drury, while letting P-1M-2♣ show a "weak two bid in clubs" which you couldn't otherwise open initially. Edit: If you're opening light in 1st and also in 3rd, you'll want to worry more about competitive bidding by the PH (since 4th hand often has 15+) than uncontested bidding. For example, you might want to play transfers if they double so you can show a strong raise to 2M (bid 2M-1) vs a direct bid of 2M which would be weaker and preemptive.

I think shading the 1♦...2N jump rebid to 17-18 is tolerable, but probably not great. You will also have to worry about the 17-18 5M332 hands in the auctions 1M-1N-? 1♥-1♠-? I guess you have to raise to 2N here with 17-18 balanced? I don't know if you use a forcing 1N in response to 1M, but if you do, you might need to increase the strength standards to respond if you'll get raised to 2N sometimes and might otherwise be too high. Systems are wholes, not just sums of their parts. Your 1♣-1♦ methods may work well in the context of a 16-18 NT, but might need revision if you decide you prefer a 14-16 NT. I know it's easier to adapt to what you already have, but do try to keep an open mind for better combinations of methods. A couple of possible suggestions for you - 1. You might consider playing 1♣-1♦-1♥ as artificial and forcing. Over a 1♠ minimum response, you could use 1NT to show your minimum balanced range of 17-18 (or 17-19 and play a normal 2N opener as 20-21 instead of 19-20). 2. I've seen systems where after 1♣-1♦, one plays 1N and 2♣ as "transfers" showing clubs and diamonds respectively. This has some merit if you don't need the natural NT rebid since these bids are forcing and can handle all the very strong minor hands (unlike a non-forcing 2m where you'd need to jump or something to show strength). In light of this, have you considered using 1N as clubs and 2♣ as diamonds? Also how are you showing stronger balanced hands presently, 21+? What are you using your 1♣-1♦-2♦ rebid for? If you give us more information about the system you're trying to use, we might be able to suggest smaller modifications that could include the 17-18 balanced hand without disrupting things too much.

I found an extensive discussion of competitive issues over 1NT in general, but only a few brief comments on the effect I'm thinking about. He makes the point that a wide-ranging 3rd seat NT can be reasonable if partner has failed to open light, but I didn't find much more than that.

In case 2 when you double for penalty, how strong are these hands? With diamond length, perhaps a 15-18 1NT overcall was an option. Does this mean you have an unbalanced hand with diamonds or does double show you weren't quite strong enough to bid a 15-18 NT overcall the first time (hence maybe 13-bad 15).

This is hopefully an easy question, but how do you play these doubles? Case 1: (1♦)-P-(1NT)-X Case 2: (1♦)-P(you)-(1NT)-P; (P)-X

Some recent discussion touched on the differences in style (system?) that might make sense in 3rd seat but not in 1st/2nd. I'm interested in situations where one might want to play a very wide ranging 1NT in 3rd seat, for example since the game exploration goal has been largely ruled out by partner's pass. Perhaps an example will make this clear - Suppose you play aggressive precision style with a 15+ club and light openings that includes opening all 10 counts when NV (and shapely 9 counts etc). What does this mean for your 3rd seat NV 1NT opening? Since partner's pass has denied as much as a balanced 10 count, in 3rd position your side is unlikely to miss game if you can't open a 15+ strong club. So instead of playing 1NT as 10-12 or 12-14 or something, why not play 10-14 or even 8-14? I suppose if you were really crazy and played an 8-10 NT in 1st/2nd NV, you could even have an 8-16 NT in 3rd seat and not risk missing anything game-wise. If you decide playing a preemptive NT opening seems like a good idea in 3rd seat (esp when NV), why stick with something traditional like 12-14 instead of something more wide-ranging? Presumably when you open 1NT this way it will make it harder on the opponents' bidding at the (minor) expense of making it harder for partner to make that rare business redouble. Another benefit if you normally have two different NT ranges is that your 1♦ opening can be more natural (4+ instead of 2+) since basically all balanced hands weaker than 1♣ are opened 1NT. Has anyone played or heard of something like this? What do you think of the general principles here?