rbforster

I hope to find something reasonable. I know this will be more vulnerable to preemption than a purely negative 1♦ (as The_Hog points out), but with a small and similar set of strong hand types hopefully it won't be too difficult for responder to balance in a competitive situation and have opener read things correctly. Besides, low level competition may make it easier for us to find the best strain than if we had to bid constructively on our own, or it might bail us out of a misfit. I'm using 1♣ as 16+, but I got the unconditional probability of 0-4 as 8.86%, and surely it's higher when partner has a stronger than average hand. Still, the double negatives are fairly rare and will probably just pass opener's natural rebid almost all the time (or transfer over NT with a long suit). These don't get a lot of specific attention unless opener shows considerable extras. Getting back to the problem originally posed, here are two different suggested structures to handle opener's hands. Perhaps those interested can comment on which they like better. Basically you can take your ambiguity sooner (instead of relaying) or later (after relaying). Method 1, "DONT-style" The idea here is to show minimum strength 2 suiters with hearts early rather than relaying (since responder is more likely weak in those cases). 1♣-1♦-? 1♥ relay (extras, min balanced, 6+ suit, or 5/4+ minors) 1♠ ♠+minor, unbalanced min (4-5 card suits) 1NT 19-21 2♣ ♣+♥, unbalanced min (4-5 card suits) 2♦ ♦+♥, unbalanced min (4-5 card suits) 2♥ ♥+♠, unbalanced min (4-5 card suits) 2♠ 6♠+/4♥, min In the above cases, opener will have 5/4, 4/5, or 5/5 in the 2 suits. With a 6 card suit (including 6-4's), extras or both minors opener will make the 1♥ relay. 4441 hands are treated as balanced or 2 suited with discretion, so those hands might bid 1♠ or 2m with only 4/4. After 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ negative 0-7 1N 16-18 bal 2♣ extras, artificial 1-round force (~20+ unbalanced, 22+ balanced) 2♦ 6+ 2♥ 6+ 2♠ 6+ 2N 5/5 or longer in both minors 3♣ 6+ Method 1 has the advantage that opener's rebids over 1♠ negative are very sound in terms of promising a 6+ suit. The disadvantage is that when opener makes a 2-suited bid, there will usually be a 1 card ambiguity (5/4 vs 4/5 typically) so responder may guess wrong and reach the wrong strain when holding equal length and a weak hand. Also, hands with only 5/4 minors like 22(45) or (31)(45) don't have a perfect bid, either NT if appropriate or maybe a delayed 2♦ or 3♣ with only 5. Method 2 "show a 4♥ side suit early" The idea here is to show a side 4 card heart suit since these hands may otherwise miss the right strain if they bid their primary suit first and partner is weak. Some 4 card side spade suits are shown as well for other awkward hands, but the emphasis is on hearts (since when these hands are held, it is more likely responder is weak). 1♣-1♦-? 1♥ relay (extras, min balanced, and most unbalanced hands without 4♥) 1♠ 4♠/5+♣ or 4♠/5♥, unbalanced min 1NT 19-21 2♣ 5+♣/4♥, unbalanced min 2♦ 5+♦/4♥, unbalanced min 2♥ 5♠/4♥, unbalanced min 2♠ 6♠+/4♥, unbalanced min Again 4441 hands might be 1♠ or 2m here, or else treat as balanced. After 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ negative 0-7 1N 16-18 bal 2♣ extras, artificial 1-round force (~20+ unbalanced, 22+ balanced) 2♦ 5+ primary diamonds 2♥ 5+ primary hearts (won't have spades unless at least 6/4) 2♠ 5+ primary spades (won't have hearts unless at least 5/5) 2N 5/5 or longer in both minors 3♣ 6+ primary clubs (usually single suited) The advantage of Method 2 comes in the initial relay breaks, where responder can judge more easily which of opener's suits to prefer since opener's bids are more precise. However, opener's rebids over the 1♠ negative are less well defined, but still natural and promising 5+ suits. Opener can have a wider range of shapes, including 5/4, 5/5 or 6+ being typical, making reaching the best strain sometimes more difficult if responder isn't strong enough to inquire about a possible side suit fit. What do you think? I have been and will continue to bid a bunch of hands on BBO under these methods to see how they fare, what some issues are, etc. If you see me in the partnership bidding area, feel free to drop in and see how it's going. Luckily the vast majority of strong club hands are 16-21 balanced and these are handled just fine with strong NT methods. The unbalanced ones are sometimes problematic however.

You might also have a very strong hand unsuitable for a NT overcall lacking a spade stopper and lacking 3♥s for a tolerable takeout double. xxx Ax KQJx AKQx The was a MSC problem like this in the bridge world. While the majority bid a heavy 1NT over 1♠ despite lacking a stopper, a minority passed and later bid 2N for the minors over 2♠ later.

As for blame, I dislike the 3♥ call by South most, as some sort of game try for spades. Not only does he have no values in the suit (I'd much prefer 3♦ if one wanted to invite), but South has a poor 8 count not worth an invite. A random bad 8 count is certainly no more than North would expect when balancing, given West has shown a very weak hand by passing. If North wants to make a move for game opposite a hand this weak he needs to do more than just raise to 2♠. After all, South could have a 14 count too.

With a friend, I'm working on designing a transfer-oriented symmetric relay system over our strong club opening. We're considering the following significant departure from "standard" precision - 1♣-1♦ shows one of 3 classes of hands: 1. any double negative 0-4 2. most negatives 5-7 (but excludes most single suiters) 3. any GF with hearts or hearts and a minor. The idea for showing GF hearts hands in 1♦ should be fairly obvious - opener's 1♥ bid is cheap relay to inquire further as well as completing the "transfer." By using 1♦ for these GF hearts hands, we gain additional bidding space to resolve all typically resolved shapes at 3♠ or lower (improving over several other such systems which push to 3N or 4♣ on some 6-5's, 7-4's, etc). Our continuations are not too relevant here except for the negative one - 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠ any negative hand (#1 or #2 above), 0-4 or 5-7 non-single-suited After 1♠ showing most 0-7 hands, opener could make an artificial force with 2♣ showing a strong hand or bid naturally. In light of this combination of weak, intermediate, and GF hands in 1♦, I'm trying to give good meanings to opener's first round relay breaks (e.g. 1♣-1♦-not 1♥). The goals of these relay breaks are to 1. Avoid disrupting the GF relay when partner has a GF hearts hand too often 2. Help find the right strain when partner has a negative hand For example, if opener has a long single suit he'll have an easy natural rebid after 1♠ negative (although clubs will have to be at the 3 level). So I'm not worried about relaying with 1♥ on these hands since any of the continuations seem fine. In light of these goals, I was thinking of showing some of opener's awkward hands with hearts since 1) having hearts means responder is less likely to have a heart GF, and 2) these hands might reach the wrong strain if they wait to bid naturally over 1♠ negative. For example, I like these suggestions so far - 1♣-1♦-1NT 19-21 (bidding 1NT over 1♠ negative would be 16-18) 1♣-1♦-2♣ 5+♣ and 4♥, min values 1♣-1♦-2♦ 5+♦ and 4♥, min values I'm less clear on what 1♠ or 2♥ (or higher) bids might want to mean. Other problem hands I can foresee are 4♠/5+♥, as well as any 3 suiter especially those with 5♣s (since their "natural" rebid would be 3♣ or an off-shape NT over 1♠ negative). 1♣-1♦-1♠ ? 1♣-1♦-2♥ ? 1♣-1♦-2♠+ ? I welcome any comments or suggestions, both on our general approach and specifically on what might be good meanings to give to these relay breaks. Thanks!

LHO did not remember either the agreement or that the agreement was described on his partner's card. Prior to the opening lead, RHO showed us his card which described the jump as weak. I don't recall if LHO had a card, or whether it might have had the same thing on it.

I think part of our problem came from having to guess from our respective hands whether 2♠ was weak or strong. I looked at my weak preempt hand and figured it was strong. Partner looked at spade length and high honors and figured it must be weak. Then he assumed that I could also figure out that it was weak, and hence my 4♥ bid should be sound. On these grounds he doubled their 4♠ contract.

Thanks all for the replies. They did have a CC (which I didn't think to check), which described certain jumps as strong and this particular jump as weak. I guess there was misinformation in the explanation and we might have been damaged if our bidding was "reasonable". For completeness, judge for yourselves: (1♦)-P-(2♠)-4♥* (4♠)-X**-AP * 4♥ intended as preemptive, ** 4♥ interpreted as sound by partner who doubled on AKxx♠ 4♠X made exactly. Opener's hand was approximately Qx Ax AKJxx ATxx so I expect they would reach at least 4♠ depending on how LHO took the jump.

I know very little about directing and the rules of bridge. A hand came up and after the fact a friend mentioned that we might have been "damaged". (1♦)-P-(2♠)-? I was 4th to act and had a weak preemptive hand. Opponents were both experts, but not familiar with playing together despite having fairly complex agreements (suction, variants of unusual/unusual, etc). I asked LHO how he took the 2♠ jump, strong or weak or what, as this clearing influenced whether I would preempt or pass. LHO replied that they had no discussion/no agreement. However being they were both experts and their other conventions, it seemed reasonable to assume that they were playing either strong or weak natural jump shifts. Looking at my weak hand, I assumed strong and preempted and we eventually got a poor result. It turns out that they did have an agreement to play weak jumps in this situation, but LHO had forgotten. Was there any damage? Does the fact that I asked help LHO figure out how to field the unknown/forgotten values associated with his partner's bid? It's way too late and it wouldn't have mattered anyway for the team match, but I'm curious as to the answer and the reasoning. As an aside, it seems the agreement "either a strong or a weak jump shift" is pretty destructive for the opposing pair's bidding agreements, and that whether or not the opponents inquire as to it's meaning even when correctly described as 2-way helps a lot in terms of figuring out what's going on without letting the opponents in on the situation.

Thanks for the replies. I suppose transfer advances simplify this auction if you have good agreements. So do people really play 3♦ here as a mixed raise? I'm much more used to seeing the mixed raise as a fitting raise to the 3 level in partner's major, but I wasn't sure if that was still applicable when partner's suit was lower ranking than the opponents. (1♦)-2♣ (1♥)-2♣ or 2♦ (1♠)-2♣ or 2♦ or 2♥ Is mixed raise still the standard interpretation of the jump cuebid in the above auctions? I guess part of me was wondering if a "michaels" use of the jump cue might be more useful when partner's overcall was at the 2 level (instead of at the 1 level where a mixed raise makes more sense).

Thanks to those who voted. Seems like the consensus is that these suit bids are treated as purely preemptive by most. A friend of mine went so far as to say that 3♥ was -1100 and 4♥ was -1400, by way of saying how much distribution one needed to bid in this situation. How would you rate this hand in this situation: [hv=s=sxhqjt98xxdxckj9x]133|100|[/hv] Pass, 3♥, or 4♥? Would it rate a bid at certain colors but not others?

The opponents open 1♦, partner overcalls 2♣ and you hold what you judge to be a game forcing hand with 5/5 majors. For example, maybe something like this: [hv=d=w&s=sakjxxhkqjxxdxxcx]133|100|(1♦)-2♣-(P)-?[/hv] (add some more honors if your partner overcalls 2♣ with light values) Since you don't know which game to play, you want to make a forcing bid. Annoyingly, it seems the only forcing bids are some number of diamonds (new suits would be non-forcing constructive). Part 1: What's your call? 2♦ - generic forcing bid, might not be club support 3♦ - is this really a mixed raise when it forces to the 4 level? 4♦ - this is a splinter for clubs, right? Feel free to correct my guesses if you think the normal interpretation of these bids is wrong, or if I've overlooked other good options. Part 2: When partner makes a 2♦ cuebid showing a wide range of good hands (possibly including the one from Part 1), how do you bid your game going single suiter in clubs? I take it a direct 5♣ bid could be embarrassing opposite the hand above on some bad breaks.

The opponents open and respond with a strong jump shift (1♦)-(2♠)-? With what kind of hands would you bid 3♥ or 4♥ here? Stylistically, are these basically preemptive bids, or basically sound bids? Does this qualitative nature change based on the vulnerability?

In the first case with 4+ trumps and a good side suit source of tricks, I make a strong jump shift, Soloway style, which could either be my own very strong suit or a GF+ hand with support and a good side suit. Often you will be able to show shortness as well. For example, xxx KQxx x AKJxx 1♥-3♣ (Soloway) 3♦(1)-4♦(2) ... (1) - waiting for clarification (2) - heart support, a good club suit, and diamond shortness New suit bids by responder after the jump shift confirm heart support and a good side suit and show outside shortness. Returning to hearts would again show a good suit and support, but deny shortness (with 3♥ being stronger than 4♥). Rebidding the jump shift suit would deny support and show a very strong single suiter. Alternatively, without a good side suit, I prefer either Jacoby 2NT or a splinter with GF values and 4+ support. In this case, the suit isn't good enough to show a strong jump shift (min 2/3 of AKQ) so I would splinter. Axx KQxx x KJxxx 1♥-4♦ ... I believe it is useful/common to have an agreement for the value range on direct splinters. For example, I play that direct splinters show either a min GF or a slam invitational hand. If you're in the middle where you won't be confident bidding on over partner's 4♥ signoff, bid Jacoby instead.

I think the larger issue raise here is that almost all systems have "holes" in their bidding, so that certain hand types don't have a perfectly descriptive bid. What everybody does, until they patch up their system, is tell the smallest lie based on their suits and values. For example, in SAYC there is no forcing minor raise. I'm not sure what one is supposed to bid opposite 1♣ with 3307 and GF values, but it might be 1♦ depending on how strongly you interpret 1M promising 4+. Of course until this comes up, you probably weren't alerting 1♣-1♦ as 0+♦. Without discussion of this problem, I would guess that Adam and his partner might bid Qxx AKx Kxx xxxx 1♥? xxx xxx Kxx AKQx 2♣? based on the suit texture. Improvising as best you can in light of your system/agreements is something people do all the time. However, somehow the problem comes when you decide to formalize this and agree that the best lie might sometimes be 1M on a 3 card suit. This is another one of those cases where the rules punish full disclosure since the people who haven't thought of the issue or who have but don't agree on a solution are entitled to make bids that are forbidden to those who take the time to have more complete and disclosed agreements. With incentives like this, it's no surprise full disclosure can be hard to elicit.

Isn't it possible that partner might have 3 spades for us? Double would have been penalty by opener, so he may be forced to bid his strength/running clubs in preference to showing spades. Maybe Kxx Ax Kx AKQxxx? I voted for 4♦ hoping it would be a generic strong forcing bid (rather than a specific cue or something), aiming to get a strain preference for spades vs clubs and then invite slam.

Yeah, I agree. I didn't want to make things too artificial in my original design, but to handle that you probably want to limit the range on 2♣ and add the rest of the club range to 1♣. Maybe something like this: 2♣ 12-17 5+ clubs (precision style, but stronger) 1♣ add 18+ club hands, now with 1♣-1♦ continuations 1♥ heart hand 1♠ strong club hand 1N 18-19 bal or 4414 2X very strong natural

I came up with this the other day on a lark and thought I'd share. It's not supposed to be particularly well thought out, but maybe just a fun variation on "Standard" that you could teach people as an introduction to artificial systems. In fact, I taught one of my parents who's a member of the old "party bridge" school and has never played duplicate at all. We had fun, and that was the point. Without further ado, the core of the system is... 1♥ 12-14 balanced (or 4414) 1♠ forces opener to bid 1NT, either to pass with a weak balanced hand or to bid again to make a natural invite (2X or 2N) 1NT GF artificial, opener describes their shape via transfers 2X 5+ suit weak, to play Most of the other opening bids are still the same as Standard. 1♦ normal, but now 4+ unbalanced since the weak NT option is moved to 1♥ 1♠ normal 5+ 1NT normal 15-17 (or 4414) 2NT normal 20-21 And now to make up for our lack of a natural heart opening, we have: 1♣ One of 3 hand types: (forcing and artificial) 1. A normal 5+ 1♥ opening 2. Any very strong opening (like strong 2♣) 3. 18-19 balanced Responses are natural, but weak hands or those without direction can bid 1♦ waiting. After 1♣-1♦: 1♥ normal 1♥ opening 1NT 18-19 balanced others very strong natural And lastly we need a bid of clubs since 1♣ shows (mainly) hearts, so we make 2♣ natural: 2♣ 5+ natural unbalanced clubs similar to precision (2♦ invites and asks for a 4 card major) I thought I remember reading about similar ideas where someone had used 1♠ as their weak NT bid. I liked 1♥ better since you could right side NT with the GF relay on good hands, but relay with 1♠ on weak hands to force opener to play 1NT.

1. 4♣ 2. 3♦ (showing the stopper)

Put me down with the 1♠ bidders on hand #1. I'll pass the rest - I've got no great desire to overcall with poor suits or balanced hands unless I've got considerably more strength.

I was also going to suggest running the J♠ at trick two. I'm looking to play the non-preempter for length and hence the Q. I don't play the A first since then even if I guess the Q correctly I'll lose to Qxx of trump when I play on diamonds and they switch to hearts and force me to ruff with the K on board (nor can I afford to draw the last trump and lose my heart control). If the J holds, I'll run another spade hook and switch to a low diamond. If they take the A♦ on the first round, I'll be able to ruff with the K♠ and return to my hand with the J♦ risking only 1-4 diamonds. If they duck the A♦, I'll play another diamond to my J. I guess my main fear for not testing diamonds before trump is that preempter might have a stiff and get a ruff if his partner grabs the A♦ and continues another.

I'm sure UDSP is just playing on the opps assumption of "normal" signalling, trying to trick them by playing deliberately contrary signals. Kind of like on defense if you lead a new suit, leading a high card to encourage partner to return it rather than a low one. That example is probably worse for technical reasons than the standard approach, but would no doubt mislead opponents who almost never ask for extensive carding agreements. On the other hand, I suppose there is a slight technical reason to favor regular suit preference signals. Remember the primary signaling principle is to use your low cards for the most likely signal so as to save the important high ones to actually take tricks. If you have strength in the higher ranking suit, it's more likely that you might have been able to bid it during the auction (especially if it's spades) and have already told partner about your preference. So I would say that short of conditioning your suit preference signals on the auction, lower ranking suits are harder to show in the bidding and hence should be given higher priority to be shown with low cards. This argues for regular suit preference.

I wasn't suggesting that everyone with a comment send the committee an email. I was thinking that we'd discuss the proposal here in a thread or two and then agree on a summary of the comments/issues. Then someone on the committee could read the summary (or the thread if they were feeling ambitious).

On the contrary, if they released a draft of a proposal, maybe with some indications of the motivation behind the proposed changes, one could let the community here (or rgb or where ever) discuss and come to a consensus on the issues at hand (if not how to resolve them). Seems like an easy way to get lots of free eyes to look over your proposal, find things you might have overlooked, and comment on improving it. Seems like a very good idea to me.

Change from within seems pretty hopeless. I'd be more inclined to just set up a new ad-hoc and self-declared Conventions Committee, set up a webpage, start threads for discussing defenses to Midchart conventions, implement a good decision process, etc. Basically, hold yourself out to be the "New Conventions Committee." If the official one continues to ignore everything, pretty soon you're in charge by default. If they actually respond, we'll have put together a big list of suggestions for them to address when they decide to actually start doing their jobs.

I don't think most people's unhappiness with the Conventions committee stems from thinking the players are unqualified - they are all excellent players. How can you be assured that anything is being considered at all? Re-read all the accounts of people sending their requests into the void and hearing absolutely nothing. This is the problem.