rbforster

Fixed that for you :(. Seriously, can I run for a position on this committee on the platform that I will at least send form letter replies to people who ask questions? Or that I'd publish the minutes of the meetings (assuming they've had any since 2004)? What a mess!

So I've been thinking again about the auction starting with 1♦-1♥, where it's an unbalanced but limited diamond opener (~9-15, 4+♦) and 1♦ - 1♥ shows natural 4+ or only 3+♥ and inv+ values (relay) I was wondering about the responses one might like to use for relays here, and was wondering if there were any other relay systems that faced this issue before (ie no balanced hands in their 1♦ and relay continuations). Pointers always welcome, and non-canape systems are preferred since I'm playing 5cM's. I was thinking about treating the wide-ranging hand types in 1♥ by something like "2 under" transfers by opener so that then responder's first step rebid can be the strong relay and completion would be natural and NF preference. For example opener's rebids might be 1♦ (4+ unbal, 9-15) - 1♥ : 1♠ - clubs (5+/4+ minors) 1NT - 6+ diamonds single suited 2♣ - 3+ hearts, maximum 2♦ - 4+ spades (and longer diamonds, conveniently NF) 2♥ - 3+ hearts, minimum higher bids probably various maximum hands with 4+♥ or extreme distribution Basically you lose the cheap and natural 1♠ rebid (playing in 2♠ instead of 1♠ or 1NT if responder doesn't like diamonds) in exchange for a step relay bid over all the common opener's hand types. Of course opener's rebids aren't actually forcing since this is a strong club context, but I would guess passing anything besides 1NT or 2♦ among the transfer bids would be rare. I haven't thought all this through yet, but maybe some of potential issues might be addressed by having responder start with 1♠ when 4-4 in the majors (and have the "extra" free NT bid after 1♦-1♠, either 1NT or permuted to something else, promise 4♥s). Also, to handle awkward 4441 hands where 1NT might be a better contract and transferring to the 2nd suit would push past 1NT, we might want to open 4441's with a short black suit 1NT with appropriate values, or pass otherwise. Any other thoughts or suggestions?

Sure, I agree the original hand is better than just "8 HCP," but do you really have any other bid other than 2♠ on a hand like this? [hv=s=sakjxxhxxdaqxckxx]133|100|[/hv] I guess my point is just that unless people are X'ing and then bidding 3♠ with only some extras and a 5 card suit, you don't really have another call with pretty good hands and 5 spades. This means there's a pretty wide range of hands on which 2♠ is getting bid in this situation. FWIW, I also agree that partner needs a penalty double if they raise to 3♥ in front of him. Maximal doubles are nice and all, but save them for situations where we've been able to both agree on a suit B).

Well, that was a pretty one-sided result. I guess 2♠ can be a lot more wide-ranging in that position than I had thought. Of course this will cause problems for partner when opener raises 3♥ to him and he has to guess between 3♠ and 4♠ with no space for an invitation, but lots of good things can happen besides that so it seems 2♠ makes sense even as a light overcall.

As South, you're in last position. [hv=d=w&v=b&s=satxxxhxdxxca9xxx]133|100|Scoring: MP (1♥)-P-(2♥)-?[/hv] You've got great shape and would really like to compete, especially knowing that partner with heart length is unlikely to act. But what can you do without overpromising your (lacking) values? Comment on the vulnerability if it would effect your actions.

Go to Google's rec.games.bridge and search for "Flader three card major." It's a November 3, 2006 posting titled "Official ACBL Response to 3-card Major Responses." Good to know. The popular scientific treatment of 1♦-1♥* - hearts or GF relay just got 1 card closer to ACBL playable. At least now with a 3 card heart suit I've got a cheap relay bid, and I imagine with only 2 or fewer hearts and GF values I might wish to make another more descriptive call anyway...

I like this setup, but I think the main reason it works is because your 1♦ opening is unbalanced. Otherwise, you give up a lot by not having a common and natural 1NT rebid after 1♦-1♠. Although it might still be right to offer 1NT with an appropriate unbalanced hand (1444, 14(53), 13(54)) with the understanding that partner knows you're unbalanced with short spades, I can certainly see the advantages of the transfer methods in terms of constructive bidding.

Since you are playing weak NT, I suggest having direct natural signoffs for each suit. For me, these are 2M and 3m - natural, non-forcing, and non-constructive. These often preempt the opponents, either shutting them out of the auction or making it hard for them to get a double to stick. If you wait until they start doubling to run, the opps will have a much better idea of when they can penalize you. Run first, before they start doubling. You still have all the sequences starting with 2♣ and 2♦ (2-way stayman for me), as well as 2NT and 3M for showing other hand types. Hopefully most of them can find a home.

Thanks everyone for the comments. At the table I chose the X...4♥ route, where we played predictably. Of course on this hand, 4♥+2. This was the hand: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=sxxh9xxdxxxxcq9xx&w=skxxhtxxdqjxxcjxx&e=sqtxxxxhxdaxxctxx&s=sajhakqjxxdkxcakx]399|300|Scoring: MP (2♠)-X-(P)-2N* (P)-4♥-AP K♠ lead[/hv] Not a great hand to want to be in slam, but a cue bid will drag 4♣ out of partner and might get there.

As South I held the following huge hand (25 HCP!) at unfavorable in a recent MPs club game. What's your plan over the annoying first seat weak two bid? [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sajhakqjxxdkxcakx]133|100|Scoring: MP (2♠)-?[/hv] If you double, partner has 2N Lebenshol available to show a minimum and will use it. Opponents remain quiet. I guessed at various strong auctions, but I may have forgotten some. If you've got a good feeling for the relative strengths of the various strong auctions in the poll, I'd love to hear about them.

If you want to play some sort of strong diamond (or strong club) system, don't waste $35 on something you've never heard of. There's plenty of good systems available for free on Daniel Neill's System Page!

If trumps are breaking, the contract is secure and despite the MP scoring I'm worrying first about making our slam since particularly with the preempt it will be a rare contract. If the bad case of a single trump loser (4-1 split), we can play West for 6-1 in the majors. Seems like the J♣ opening lead is most likely from shortness. Club shortness gives West 6=1=4=2 or 6=1=5=1 likely shapes, and hence can be squeezed in diamonds and spades. Hope for an ending like this (after East returned a minor when given his trump winner to avoid giving us a free spade finesse) - [hv=d=&v=&n=saqhdkxc&w=skxhdqjc&e=sxxhdcqx&s=shxdxxcx]399|300|[/hv] South's last trump hopefully squeezes West (we pitch the Q♠ if West has pitched 5 spades, otherwise a diamond). A diamond is then lead to the K and if the remaining diamond honors fall we have all the rest (together with the A♠). If West keeps the diamonds, hopefully the K♠ will fall under the ace and our queen will take the last. I suppose there might be other less likely squeezes too (a lead from JTxx in clubs and spades, or maybe against East with Kxx in spades and one of the minor guards), but I can't quite see how those would work and certainly not consistent with playing for the above one which I think is much more likely. Hopefully a real expert will enlighten us :).

All very reasonable in theory. Of course asking a "senior" director for your area is probably the best way to determine what will be allowed in practice at that event (even if that's not what the letter of the national law says). And we all know that waiting for conventions to be approved at that national level is about like waiting for chimps to get the right to vote so if the locals have taken a broader view perhaps we shouldn't chastise them for being a little ahead of Memphis. Oh and Suction is approved in these events, by the way. This just illustrates the problem. The rules on the books say one thing (which Richard cites), but as a matter of practice everyone ignores this in CA and allows Suction defenses to NT. Is this "fair"? Well, to the extent that everyone knows that all NT defenses are ok and hence are forewarned (if not prepared) for Suction over their NT, the only people who are wronged are those didn't get the message and mistakenly read the national rules instead of the local ones (whether they be those unprepared to allowed Suction defenses, or those who played an inferior defense in place of Suction). I understand that having the localities allow inconsistently advertised conventions causes some problems, but that really seems like the only way forward for innovation so put me in the locals-first camp. FWIW, I've heard that at least a few West Coast experts play 3N Namytas nominally under the "solid suit" provision which of course they don't always have when they "occasionally stretch" for their 3N bid. My sources tell me they "get away with it" as most non-junior experts do when the directors respect them professionally. Once the favored experts adopt their pet conventions and start widely (if illegally) playing them, then the rest of us can tell the directors that we're playing the same thing as Superflight Pro X does and so it must be ok. And like NT defenses, eventually it is pretty much ok.

found some discussion here

I like figuring out the "best" way to bid hands, especially in situations where it isn't clear. A nice recent example is where a garbage stayman approach with 4=4=1=4 leads to much better contracts than just passing a strong 1NT with a poor 5 HCP hand in simulations. I was quite surprised and that's the sign of a good experiment! I'd like to explore this and similar types of simulations, and would like to know what software tools exist and what people here think of them. I understand that other people may have other preferences, but ideally I'm looking for something that 1. lets me flexibly select the hands to meet certain (hopefully arbitrary) conditions 2. lets me specify the lead and contract, and perform a double dummy analysis 3. lets me automate running simulations of many such hands and collect the results Linux/unix OS, free, and open source would all be nice too, but I'm willing to pay for something that's flexible and fast for doing simulations. If you've used either hand generating software and/or double dummy software, what have you liked and have you been able to program it to solve the kinds of problems you wanted to? Thanks!

Wow, very interesting. I would have figured just from the degrees of fit that trying for a major fit that was only going to work half the time (and a level higher) would be a losing proposition. This seems not to be the case.

If you (not partner) like playing 7 card fits about half the time, go for it. fit prob 6 7.7% 7 44.4% 8 47.9% Note that whenever partner bids 2♠ directly he'll play an 8 card fit, while much of the time he'll pass your 2♥ rebid with 3 hearts. contract prob avg fit 2♠ 34.65% 7.55 2♥ 65.35% 7.23 Here are opener's most likely NT hands, and resulting contracts (sorted by decreasing probability) - hand rel prob contract fit 3-3-4-3 6.75% 2♥ 7 3-3-5-2 4.63% 2♥ 7 2-3-5-3 4.63% 2♥ 7 3-2-5-3 4.63% 2♠ 7 3-3-3-4 4.50% 2♥ 7 3-4-3-3 4.50% 2♥ 8 4-3-3-3 4.50% 2♠ 8 2-3-4-4 4.34% 2♥ 7 2-4-4-3 4.34% 2♥ 8 3-2-4-4 4.34% 2♠ 7 3-4-4-2 4.34% 2♥ 8 4-3-4-2 4.34% 2♠ 8 4-2-4-3 4.34% 2♠ 8 2-2-5-4 2.97% 2♥ 6 2-4-5-2 2.97% 2♥ 8 4-2-5-2 2.97% 2♠ 8 4-4-3-2 2.89% 2♥ 8 4-2-3-4 2.89% 2♠ 8 2-4-3-4 2.89% 2♥ 8 3-2-6-2 2.31% 2♠ 7 2-3-6-2 2.31% 2♥ 7 2-2-6-3 2.31% 2♥ 6 4-3-2-4 2.02% 2♠ 8 4-4-2-3 2.02% 2♥ 8 3-4-2-4 2.02% 2♥ 8 3-2-3-5 1.93% 2♠ 7 2-3-3-5 1.93% 2♥ 7 2-2-4-5 1.86% 2♥ 6 3-3-2-5 1.35% 2♥ 7 2-4-2-5 0.87% 2♥ 8 2-2-3-6 0.55% 2♥ 6 3-2-2-6 0.39% 2♠ 7 2-3-2-6 0.39% 2♥ 7 Avg fit 7.40 Sigma fit 0.63 I'm not sure if this means you should bid 2♣ Stayman or not (I assumed normal responses of only 2♦♥♠). These probabilities are exact calculations based on shape given your hand, but don't include the (minor) corrections for the given HCP range. The HCP correction probably makes the bad fits a tiny bit more likely since there are more diamond honors missing than other suit honors. For example, if you're hand is 4=5=x=x, Stayman and then pulling to 2♥ (pass/correct) works much better since you'll find the 4-4 spade fit and otherwise play in 2♥ most of the time. This has an average fit of about 8 which means it's probably a good idea (7.9+-0.7).

Yeah, normal methods it looks like a pass. 3rd seat I'd bid something, but 2nd just seems like it's asking to find the wrong strain.

Admittedly these hands are not treated well (although they weren't treated well in my 2/1 GF system either). It won't be the first time a minor suit oriented hand got the shaft in a bidding system :). In a limited bid system, it's not as critical to stretch to bid something on misfitting weakish hands since game is rare when partner's hand is limited. Often if you pass 1M, advancer will make some balancing action and you might be able to bid clubs later without any ambiguity. That said, - If you have 1M-3♣ available in your system, you could use that. Personally I prefer Bergen raises over limited 1M openers for their preemptive value, so I don't usually have 1M-3♣ available. - If you have constructive values with long clubs, but some tolerance for opener's major, you can bid 1NT forcing intending to pass a rare 2♣ response or correct to/pass 2M. Admittedly not perfect. Clubs will only be shown if there is competition. - If you just want a drop-dead bid with a very weak hand and long clubs, I normally play 1M-2N as a relay to 3♣, then intending to show a strong jump shift hand. In non-GCC events, one could pass the relay (or rarely psych it in GCC events). - If you're on the top of "constructive" values, you could stretch and bid an invitational 1M-2♣. This will win when partner has a minimum and you can get out in 3♣, but more likely will commit you to game (or 4♣?) on marginal values. It might be possible to include the hands you describe in either the 1M-2♣ response or the forcing NT response more generally, but to do so would complicate the response structure to cater to this one possibility, among other things making it harder to agree opener's major at a low level (with 3M support and a GF).

Below are some ideas about how to play a 2/1 Non-Forcing system over 1 of a Major openings. The very basic outline is below: 1♠-2♦, 1♠-2♥, and 1♥-2♦ 5+ like a weak two bid, non-forcing (weak and/or lacking a fit) 1M-2♣ 3+ natural, invite+ values, forcing 1 round but not promising a rebid 1M-1N forcing as in 2/1 GF, but could include balanced GF's or GF hands with ♦ and/or ♥s Background and Motivation for 2/1 NF But first, why bother? Previous discussions have touched on the general issues - 2/1 theory in a limited bid system, GF, Std, NF, or what? 2/1 bidding in a strong club system, GF, inv (F1 or NF), or NF? GNAT, Deerfly, Blackfly (some such), A GCC legal MOSCITO variant 2/1 GF is simple to play, but especially in a limited and/or light 1M opening context like precision, GF hands are less frequent. Furthermore, with a limited opener and a weak responder, putting pressure on the advancer with a non-forcing 2/1 bid (like a weak two bid) uses up more space than in standard methods (pass or 1N forcing). Additionally, opener is well positioned to make a blocking raise since responder's suit is known earlier in the auction. Another point is to discourage preemption in your GF auctions by having some of them begin with an ambiguous (weak or strong) 1NT forcing. In a 2/1 GF auction advancer can often make a preemptive or leading directing bid (e.g. (1♥)-(2♦)-2♠ on KQJxxx x xxx xxx), secure in the knowledge that his partner won't hang him by exploring for game. If instead the auction facing the same advancer was (1♥)-(1N)-?, responder's hand is most often weakish for his 1N response which puts a higher premium on constructive direct bids by advancer and discourages aggressive preemption on what rates to be a part-score hand. When the 2♦ 2/1 GF hand starts with a forcing NT, advancer's weak spade hand gets shut out. A 2/1 NF System 2/1 NF Continuations: Over the weak NF responses of 1M-2♦ or 1♠-2♥, uncontested auctions are simple and largely natural. Opener will likely pass, but could make a blocking raise with a fit for responder, or bid 2NT with a forward-going raise. Other suit bids by opener are natural and distributional, scrambling for a better contract with extreme shortness in responder's suit. The natural invitational+ 1M-2♣ bid: Most of the hands responding 2♣s are GF hands, specifically - any normal 2♣ hand in 2/1 GF (including those with 3M support) a GF hand with two suits including clubs (5/4+ either longer) a balanced GF hand that would rather have partner declare NT an invitational hand with 6+ clubs, possibly with a side suit Opener now bids 2♦ to accept the possible invitation (showing extra values), at which point natural GF bidding can proceed at a low level. Opener's other rebids at or below 3♣ are largely natural, minimal, and NF. 1M-2♣-? 2♦ maximum values, establishes GF 2OM natural 4+, minimum (NF) 2M natural 6+, minimum (NF) 2N 4+ ♦s, 1-♣s, minimum (NF) 3♣ 2+ ♣s, minimum (NF) higher distributional maximums With an invitational club hand, responder may pass any minimal response or retreat to 3♣. Any other action establishes the GF, allowing the auction to proceed naturally. Observe that this handles 6♣-4OM invitational hands well, with the option to stop in 2M when opener has 6+ suit and a minimum (in contrast to standard auctions 1♥-1♠-2♥-? or 1♠-1N-2♠-? where opener's wide-ranging values often forces an invitational responder to choose an unpalatable 2N invite with (41)26 shape). Game Forcing hands in 1NT: In addition to the normal hands included in 1NT forcing, GF hands now included are: a single suited GF hand with either ♦s or ♥s a two-suited GF hand with both ♦s and ♥s a balanced GF hand happy to declare NT a GF hand with 3 card support for opener and with less than 3 clubs After an initial forcing NT response, new suit bids up to 3♣ (and 3NT of course) by responder are GF. These bids will largely also be natural, although depending on the auction 3♣ may be the only available such bid. 3♣ is always available as an artificial GF since it not needed for a natural invitation (those hands start with 1M-2♣, while very weak hands with long clubs must pass 1M). For example, 1♠-1N-2♣ 2♦ 4+ natural GF 2♥ 5+ natural GF 3♣ agrees ♠s (3♠, also implies short clubs) 1♠-1N-2♦ 2♥ catchall, hearts or a diamond fit GF 3♣ agrees ♠s (3♠, also implies short clubs) 1♠-1N-2♥ 3♣ catchall GF 1♥-1N-2♣ 2♦ 4+ natural GF 2♠ 4+ natural GF, also 5+♦ 3♣ agrees ♥s (3♥, also implies short clubs) 1♥-1N-2♦ 1♥-1N-2♥ 2♠ 5+ ♦ GF (could have 4♠) 3♣ agrees ♥s (3♥, also implies short clubs) The best GF auctions occur when opener rebids 2♣ and there is lots of space at the 2 level for responder to distinguish his various hand types. However, since responder will have either one or both red suits when he holds a GF hand after 1M-1N, it is more likely the opener will have club length and rebid 2♣. This seems like a nice correlation between opener's likely rebid and efficient low-level GF auctions. Suggestions? I'm sure there are still issues to work out, but I have done at least some practice bidding with these methods which seems promising. The early values inquiry after 1M-2♣ seems nice, making it more clear to responder whether they should be exploring for merely game or possibly slam. I'll probably be around BBO's practice bidding rooms testing this out if anyone's interested. Comments and suggestions are most welcome!

I'd ruff high and then draw trumps ending in my hand (up to the A, J and back to the Q if necessary (otherwise overtaking the J with the Q back if spades are 2-1) and then consider my options. It seems unlikely for East to have the J♣ given he cashed his ace over the board's KQ. Therefore I'd run the T♣, expecting it to be covered by West's jack, return with a diamond ruff, and then run my trumps before taking the club finesse of the 8 for my heart pitch. There might be squeeze chances too... I'll think about those and maybe update this.

You are South and open the bidding in 3rd seat with a 15-17 1NT (see your nice hand below). The auction progresses quickly and naturally. Partner had 2NT Lebensohl available, so their natural 3♥ call is game forcing. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=satha98xdaqxxck9x]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-(P)-1N-(2♠) 3♥-(3♠)-4♥-(4♠) P-(P)-?[/hv] When the opponents take the favorable 4♠ sacrifice(?) over your game, what's your call? Feel free to comment on what sorts of hands partner might have for their bidding, and which of them would double 4♠ in direct seat (especially given their likely spade shortness on the auction).

I've read about the "Impossible 2S" bid used to show good hands after 1H-1N(forcing)-2m. For example, 1♥-1N*-2♣-2♠ strong club raise (stronger than 3♣) 1♥-1N*-2♦-2♠ strong diamond raise (stronger than 3♦) However, I haven't seen any discussion of what this means when partner rebids hearts: 1♥-1N*-2♥-2♠ ?? Typically in 2/1 methods, the best hands in 1NT forcing are 3 card limit raises, which would normally just bid 4♥ here on account of the good fit revealed by partner's 2♥ rebid. Does anyone have any specific use for this particular "Impossible 2S" bid? Should it be some sort of strong heart raise, or maybe showing some sort of other problem hand in 1NT forcing that is otherwise poorly handled in 2/1 methods?

I'll try play on hearts hoping for 3-3. If they're 4-2, you can always hook the diamond into the short hand (safer for undertricks, but less likely to work), or hook into the long heart hand (down more if you're wrong, but more likely to work). Not sure what your first trick was supposed to mean on that one, but I don't think it was a diamond.

I'm not sure about that. I play power doubles and herbert negatives (first step 0-4 points, opposite a 15+ double), so at least you'll have an idea whether partner has any values or not before you have to make your unpalatable choice. I'd be much happier bidding 1NT knowning partner was almost broke, especially on the stronger balanced hands. This particular case of 1♠-X however (in contrast to over 1♥) is bad for the negative bid methods too though, since the 1NT advance by partner could be on any 0-4, or could be 5-7 balanced (not necessarily with a stopper). At least, that's the way I play it.