rbforster

I understand that it might be useful to transfer and pass with a weak hand and a long suit. Similarly, I can see that transferring to hearts and then bidding 3N or 4♥ would be nice to accept (and hopefully right-side) game with 5 or 6+ hearts respectively. Am I right in assuming by "transfers" you mean this: 1♠-1N-2N: 3♣ showing ♦ 3♦ showing ♥ 3♥ showing ♠ 3♠ showing ♣ (or is it 3♠ transfer to 3N to play, and 3N transfer to clubs?) A few questions for anyone who plays this - - Does a transfer to spades show a 3 card limit raise? (and then 3N is choice of games?) - If you transfer to say diamonds and return to NT, are you offering a choice of 5♦ vs 3N, or a slam try in diamonds or what? - How does the transfer to clubs work? Is opener expected to bypass 3N to bid 4♣ just so responder can sign off? Or is opener supposed to cater to the potential choice of games (3N vs 5♣) and bid his game preference (3N or 4♣) and let responder pass/pull/raise appropriately? I agree that transfer to spades seems silly unless you play some sort of very odd 1NT response over 1♥. Wouldn't it make more sense to play something like this: 1♥-1N-2N: 3♣ weak signoff 3♦ weak signoff 3♥/3♠/3N 3 out of 4 of: natural raise to 3N, limit raise in ♥, strong clubs, strong diamonds

I would think this is a little more common - XX 4+ good ♦s, suggestion to penalize/play 2♥ 3+♥s Pass nothing to say, only 2♥s

If you're looking for a better method along the lines of the Comic NT, you should consider 1NT for Takeout. This is part of "Overcall Structure", but for this you basically just switch the meanings of your X and 1NT overcalls. With 1NT for takeout, you get in the action with weaker hands but with good shape more than you can with regular takeout doubles. For example, we play 1NT for takeout as about 8-15 with the low end depending somewhat on the colors/shape.

This 2♥ is for people who think a 9-11 NT isn't preemptive enough :). Interesting anyway, can't say if it's a good idea. What are the basic continuations if you play this convention?

Before you can help your friend, she has to decide that her finances are a problem. You can't do this for her. All you can do is be there for her if and when she decides to seek your advice. In the meanwhile, just don't lend her any money or otherwise subsidize her unsustainable lifestyle.

Regarding that quote, I'd heard a slightly different version: "Kill one man, they call you a murderer. Kill a million, they call you a conqueror. Kill them all and call yourself a god." A similarly dim view on both men and gods. The origin seems to be Jean Rostand.

The way I was taught 3 card limit raises in 2/1 via forcing NT, if partner shows the 6th trump with a 2M rebid (1M-1N-2M) you just jump to game on account of the improved fit. This means that a raise to 3M (1M-1N-2M-3M) is specifically 2 card support, like this hand.

If 4♠ is the typical preemptive bid, I'm bidding 5♣ here. Too bad partner won't know about my longer clubs, but the suits are of about equal quality.

So which do people think is the best contract? Obviously they're all better from North, but 4H or 4S or 3N? I think I liked 3N best, but 4H slightly better than 4S.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply about walruses, and I probably don't want to hear what you call the folks playing "weak 2 = 3-8 hcp, 5+ cards" either!

We ran some statistics and it turns out that perhaps unsurprisingly in these methods the weak hands are much more common - about 85% of 1♦ bids are of the 0-7 variety rather than the GF hearts hands. Even if you condition on opener having some heart length, this doesn't change much. In light of this we are worrying less about the correlation with hearts and focusing more on being able to get to the right strain opposite weaker hands. This is the motivation for the 2-suited 1♠ bid described above.

Just an update. After playing around with this, I think I like a sort of "reverse Kokish" over 1♣-1♦. By this I mean you bid 1♥ (relay) on most minimum hands, and break the relay on most stronger hands. When partner is weak (and will bid 1♠ negative over your 1♥ relay), you essentially get 2 ways to make each of the common bids of 1N-2♠. Fast bids over 1♣-1♦ (relay break = generally stronger) 1N 18-19 bal 2♣ "strong 2♣" 2X 5+ suit extras but NF (~19-21) Slow bids over 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ (relay = generally weaker) 1N 16-17 bal 2♣♦ 5+ suit (usually 6+) NF 2♥♠ 6+ suit NF The tricky part that makes this work well is the 1♠ relay break: 1♠ min 2 suiter 5/4+, M+m or M+M (1 card difference - 5/4, 5/5, 6/5; not 6/4) 1N asks for which suits (2m = m+♥, 2♥=majors, 2♠ = ♠+m) 2♣ pass/correct for the minor (or 2♥ with both majors) 2♦ ?? maybe asks for a 5 card major? 2♥ pass/correct for the (longer) major This lets us get the 2 suited bids described early and responder can then scramble to a fit with a weak hand, invite if a fit is found, etc. I'm still debating the best signoff and asking methods over this bid. There are probably still some improvements to be made and things to be worked out, but it looks pretty good so far.

North opens and opponents are silent. [hv=d=n&n=saqhakj83d96ck983&s=skj954hq2dj7543c6]133|200|[/hv] What's your auction? (Fancy stuff is ok too) Where would you like to be if you could pick?

Does anyone have experience playing a narrower 1NT range such as 14-15 or 16-17? Playing a strong club and depending on how light you open balanced hands, you can have a more "precise" set of NT ranges. Just an example of such a system: 1NT 14-15 open 1N 1NT 16-17 1♣(strong)-1♦(neg)-1N 1NT 18-19 1♣(strong)-1♦(neg)-1♥(stronger)-1♠(weaker)-1N (12-13 balanced would open 1♦ and rebid 1N; weaker balanced hands would pass) I'm guessing it might makes sense to switch from traditional "strong NT" systems to something more relay-oriented. Standard NT systems focus a lot more on invitational sequences, which makes more sense opposite the wider 3 point range (possibly 3.5 point range if you include upgrades of 14+ to a 15-17 NT). Do you still need invites opposite a 2 point range? Or do you just check for major suit fits and then up/down-grade appropriately as responder? Or are there enough bids over 1NT that you can still have it all with good methods (i.e. invites for good hands in the 16-17 range vs bad ones, still check for the right strain, etc)? One last possibility I included in the poll is that you don't think this 2 point precision is worth it (and 3 point ranges are "good enough"). Depending on what you want, you could instead use the extra space to avoid a 2+ 1♦ opener, open a 10-12 weak NT instead (Non Vul), etc. If you've got an opinion as to the relative merits of this, I'm all ears. Thanks for your comments.

Yeah against players good enough to pass their strong NT's when I've bid out of turn (hoping to double me in my guessed and overbid contract), I might have to start psyching in 3rd seat before RHO bids. That'll mix things up a bit I'm sure - kinda of like psyching in 3rd seat after P-P, but more fun since it confuses 2nd seat who was thinking about bidding...

I'm not specifically familiar with this modification to Kaplan, but I think it should be doable. I was looking into using 1♥-1N as a normal "forcing NT" but it could include many game forcing hands as well. Switching this with 1♠ should give a playable version of Kaplan similar to what you suggest. While I played 1♥-1♠ as standard (natural 4+), it seemed clear that if you had a way to make an artificial game force after the forcing NT (2♠ for example is often free), it isn't really necessary for responder to show a 4 card spade suit right away when he has a game-going hand. I found it was helpful to bid with 5+ spades, but you might not need to do that either if you have shape relays after your GF to find the 3♠ fragment in opener's hand.

Make the hand a little stronger and 1NT becomes more attractive. In particular, being off-shape with short clubs is much less dangerous since most NT methods don't encourage partner to sign off in a long club suit. If you had a sufficiently strong hand (I added 2 jacks) but with round suits switched, ie KJT x AJxxx AQJx 1NT now carries the not-insignificant danger that partner will try to drop you in 2♥ via a transfer. Unless you're willing to pass that 2♦ bid (which works much better on a weak psych with long diamonds than a good hand), I'd be much less willing to go the NT overcall route.

And here I thought from the title this would be a discussion of the merits of online bridge (or the failings of offline bridge). ...and now back to your previously scheduled discussion of how not to revoke IRL.

Don't worry. Mr Bernanke just made it almost 1% less rewarding to save that money yesterday, as an added inducement to go blow your $500.

"direct calls, other than double and 2♣, must have at least one known suit" As long as you satisfy this, you're fine GCC. Meckwell is fine - the only call without a known suit is double (1 minor or both majors).

Ok, I understand the count principles on the 2nd card. Of course "standard count" is consistent with the often unblock of a high card on trick 2, so I wasn't sure if this was the default carding regardless of whether you play UDCA vs Std count (since presumably you unblock whenever you need to with priority over count). If you have a better set of agreements for leading partner's unsupported suit, I'd be happy to hear them. I lead high from a doubleton in partner's suit, which is often all the cards I have and is often necessary for unblocking purposes (especially from Hx). If you lead a high card from any of the above 3-4 holdings in addition to from doubletons, I'd think there's a serious danger of confusing partner about your length (2-4) in a way he's unlikely to be able to read and will often get wrong.

My question is which card you play on the second trick, after you lead low (attitude I guess) on the first trick. You'll have at least the choice of 2+ cards to play on the second round and I'm wondering what that choice means.

Along the way of the opponents bidding to 3NT, your partner shows a suit (5+ typically) while you pass throughout. You are on lead. Sample auction 1♦-1♥-(1♠) 2N-3N From all of these holdings, I would normally lead lowest Hxx xxx xxxx What card do you play on the 2nd trick of partner's suit? How can he tell which of these you might hold, and hence whether declarer will have 3 or 4 cards in his suit? For example, dummy has a singleton and partner's honor holds the first trick. He continues with a 2nd honor, taken by declarer's A. When partner gets in again, there may be a finessing position in the suit if declarer has 4 cards and you've lead from 3 (in which case continuing the suit gives away an extra unavailable trick). Alternatively, if declarer has only 3 cards and you've lead from 4, partner can clear the suit with a continuation and set up the rest of his suit. Are there any general agreements about how to follow to the 2nd trick to separate these possibilities? If you treat this as a count situation (and aren't unblocking on the 2nd trick), does the card you play depend on whether you play standard or upsidedown count?

Put me down for 7♠ as well. I'm just hoping that either partner has KQxxxx or KQJxx of spades which should be sufficient even in the cases of bad spade breaks. But LHO can't have more than 3 spades, and I find it hard to imagine RHO preemptively jumping to the 6 level with 4 spades on this auction (even with a huge diamond fit). If he feared our fit was clubs, 5♦ would be sufficient to make finding the club slam(s) difficult.

This is clearly Midchart legal in my opinion. Regardless of your definition of "intermediate," your strength range should qualify as either "weak" or "intermediate" per the Midchart (not that these terms are actually defined). If weak, your bid would be legal as a restricted type of Multi (5+ weak 2 bid in unknown M); if intermediate, your 4+ known suit of clubs should be sufficient. Another unsurprising example of the Conventions Committee not doing their job. I'd probably just have interpreted your convention as nominally legal pending any response and given the Multi defense to your opponents. If your bid couldn't be reasonably described as weak (say 12-15, vs 8-13), I suppose you'd need to get an approved defense which means you'd actually need to hear back from the committee.