rbforster

3♣ for me playing standard methods, followed by bidding a major depending on what partner says next. If he can't rebid spades (only 4) I'm happy to play 4♥.

I vaguely recall some people who play off-shape NT's like 7222 or 6322 shapes with a long minor as showing this by responding 2NT (NF) to stayman. I haven't played this style myself, but that's what occurred to me should I be forced to interpret an undiscussed 2NT response.

I voted for 4♠, but didn't like my choices :P. I like splinters to be a little more constructive in terms of values, but as people have said the right opening hand can still make slam here. I prefer to combine the invitational and minimum 4 card raises into 3♦ to free up 3♥ to show this hand type - min GF values but based shortness and a good fit. Partner can then ask for shortness with 3♠ or just sign off in game most of the time.

I'm not a "top player" but you're welcome to my $0.02 :lol: I play runouts that emphasize majors (at the expense of offer a "both minors" option at the 2 level), which is probably more geared to MPs than IMPs. I play runouts "on" regardless of the meaning of the double, unless the opps convince me that they must bid systematically (rather than pass for penalty) with all good hands by advancer. direct bids over 1N-X show 2 suiters with spades (2♥ both majors but better spades, 2♠ preemptive single suiter). 2N for the minors pass forces XX. pass for business, or else new suits show 2 suiters with hearts (2♥ both majors better hearts, 2♠ constructive single suiter) XX forces 2♣ to show a single suiter, pass or correct. Really bad flat hands guess if they are single suited (4333 with most values in the 4) or 2 suited (4333 with values in 2 suits) and bid accordingly. Weak 3 suited hands with low ranking shortness can show a single suiter in their shortness and XX for rescue if X'ed; other 3 suiters can be treated as 2 suiters.

What about this variation on Phil's suggestion, also allowing 2 suiters in the possible suits: ♣ = ♣ or ♦ or both X = X or X+1 or both This lets you show both single suiters and touching two suiters (NT could cover non-touching 2 suiters). Of course the responser will be passing much of the time, but that's usually a good thing.

Alternatively, if you want to keep the redundancy of being able to show ♥ with a ♦ bid (♦ or ♥) or a ♥ bid (♥ or ♠), you could use the higher one as a more distributional preempt. Or you could show your better fragment between the adjacent suits, so xx KJTxxx xxx xx bids 2♦ since it has longer diamonds than spades, while xxx KJTxxx xx xx bids 2♥ since it has longer spades than diamonds This way you partner can pass rather than "correct" more aggressively knowing you tend to have at least some length in the other possible suit. Likewise, you can also pass his "correct" bid more aggressively with some length there. Make them double you before you admit what your real suit is B).

Yeah I thought about stuff like this, similar to 2♥ Multi (♥ or ♠). You don't need all the bids for single suited hands (since you're covering twice the ground per bid relative to the natural bidders). So use the other bids for 2-suiters ala Wilkcoz. Something like ♣ - either minor (single suited) ♦ - ♦ and another (not ♠) ♥ - either major (singled suited) ♠ - ♠ and another (not ♦) NT - ♠+♦ Obviously you can play around with the 2 suiter combinations to taste, with an eye to having the bid suit be one of the promised suits. If you prefer more uncertainly to give the opps headaches, you could try ♦ - two touching suits ♠ - two touching suits (somewhat more preemptive obviously, but same suits possible) NT - two non-touching suits

I agree about GIB, but I would think bridgebrowser could shed some light on the issue I originally raised - how many tricks in NT on average does your side take if you have X combined points? It doesn't have to be 3NT on 10-15 hcp, it could be 1NTX on a similar range (say if a weak NT got opened)... the result still says something about how many tricks got taken. There will be slight issues as to what the defense knows and how they defend, but these are secondary considerations. Sure these are also good things to think about and knowing how your average strength level translates into tricks taken would be useful. You can have some idea for how much you might go down, how likely you are to make, etc. Another place this sort of information could help is in testing/designing a defense to a weak NT. If your opponents play a 11-14 NT and you play a penalty double, how strong a balanced hand should you have to double? 12? 15? You can ask what people normally do, but you'll get a range of answers. Doing some math on the conditional probabilities of the remaining high card points you could get some idea about the minimum strength required and a more sound basis for your defense. What about to sit for your partner's penalty double after 1NT(11-14)-X(13+bal)-P-? How strong do you need to be to pass? Since your partner could have extra values, it might not be just a question of having enough values opposite partner's minimum... you might be able to pass with a little less since often partner will have at least some extras for you. Well the 2♣ NV fert was Richard relating some older forcing pass system, but I'm just willing to be open-minded about things. The fact that Meckwell played 9-11 or 9-12 NT when NV (and outside the US) does seem to suggest that fairly weak NTs aren't a completely awful idea. Besides, if playing weak NT were just "bad bridge" you wouldn't think the ACBL would have all these restrictions legislated against them. I mean they don't forbid you to open 4♦ on a weak hand and a 5 card suit - they just figure you'll learn the hard way pretty quick and move on to a better idea. I'm much more inclined to think that anything the ACBL opposes is probably either a good idea or at least interesting and worth considering (like assumed fit preempts or 2♥ multi). Getting back to the original question, I'd love to see the results of a study of any NT contract, doubled or otherwise, and the aggregate results of how many total tricks it took compared with the declaring side's total strength. Something like: 20 pts .... 7.5 avg tricks 21 pts .... 7.8 avg tricks 22 pts .... 8.1 avg tricks, etc

Perhaps my original post wasn't clear. I certainly am aware of and agree with the various valuation issues raised so far - spot cards, split points between hands, long suits, etc. It would interesting to study for example how the distribution of values between the two declaring hands effects trick-taking ability (due to communication issues, etc). These are all important issues in constructive bidding, but this wasn't what I had in mind. I am thinking about this in the context of how to continue after a weak NT opening, when to psych, etc. If partner bids a 10-12 1NT and I've got a flat 2 count, they are on for 3NT most of the time. If they haven't doubled yet, can I bid 3NT to scare them out of game? What fraction of the time do I have to be doubled to make this a bad gambit? If I do this with all 15-19 point hands (to make, but not interested in slam) and also all 0-3 counts (preempting their game), what should 4th hand do with his random 13 count after 1NT(10-12)-P-3N-? Is it more likely that I've psyched and he should double (when his partner has a similar 12-14 count), or that I've bid 3NT to make and he's double will work out really badly since it's his partner rather than me that's got the bust hand? One advantage of a Kamikaze weak NT of 8-10 is that there's a wider range of weak responding hands where you can be sure the opponents have game and try some trickery to talk them out of it. Heck, if you played 1NT as 5-7(!) you'd have them missing slam sometimes which means that even getting doubled off might be a matchpoint top at favorable as long as you can take that one trick... Obviously to answer these questions, it's important to know about how many tricks you can make with a given strength level as declarer. Your sacrifices can't go down too many too often after all. I wanted to run some simulations, work out the common psychs and when to chance doubling them, etc. But as inputs to the simulation, I'd need to know what the likely number of tricks each side would take, which is something that depends more on real players and real defense, rather than double dummy analysis. I was hoping to get some idea if, on average, it was right to play a 8-10 NT or just give up and play something more normal. A lot of precision people like a weak NT, and if a weak NT is good (as a preempt), would a weaker NT be better?

Or just reversed majors right? With 3♠ and 2♥ you can happily pass partner's likely 2♦ transfer :P.

I'm interested in what the average number of tricks one can expect to take in NT with a given level of combined high card points. Say you have 22 points - is that 7 tricks, 8 tricks, 7.3 tricks or what? I'd like to know so I can think about (mathematically) whether it makes sense to play a weak 1NT (8-10, 10-12,12-14?) and also if I should maybe raise a weak NT to 2NT or 3NT with very weak hands (if I think the opponents will be missing their game). We've all heard the basic rules about how many points your side should have to bid various NT contracts (25 or 26 for 3N, 33 for 6NT, 37 for 7NT), but these rules certainly don't guarantee that you will make those tricks as many unlucky declarers can attest. Besides at IMPs especially your probability of making game doesn't need to be that high to justify bidding it. So maybe 25 points for 3N is really only 8.5 tricks on average? One might imagine that the number of tricks for your side with X points is simply related to the number of tricks your opponents make, like maybe this equation: (Our tricks with X points) = 13 - (their tricks with 40-X points) While simple, this doesn't include factors like the declarer's playing advantage (from being able to plan the play better) or the defense's advantage of getting the opening lead. Often times both sides (or neither!) can make 1NT depending on who declares it. As an extreme example, with 38 points the declarer will almost always find a way to make 7NT. What if one of the opponents psyched 1NT with their balanced 2 count and plays in 1NTX? The defense might accidentally give declarer a trick since it's harder to executing squeezes as defenders, etc. If a declarer with a weak hand tends to make an extra trick relative to what his side would take on defense, this would certainly be an argument in favor of weak NTs. Is this the sort of question that the bridgebrowser(?) software might be able to answer?

Unfortunately we can only vote for one option in your poll, when you clearly wanted us to vote for one choice in each of the different vulnerabilities.

In case anyone has a good set of agreements on when NMF/XYZ is still on in competition, perhaps you could share those? For example, I've heard some people play it if "Z" was a support double of a 1 level bid, for example 1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)-X*(support, showing 3♥). I'm sure there are lots of other situations and I'd like a simple set of rules for when XYZ is "on" before I agree to play it in competition.

Most people won't care until they get banned. Surely a link to a description of the policies would be in order along with the banned notice when you log in? I and I'm sure almost everyone else has had this problem of trying to reserve a spot for their friend while a parade of random people keep stepping into the free seat. Surely this is as simple as adding "Reject All for the next 15 seconds" as a button? Then you can fix the table settings to require permission, only boot one person, and then get things set up properly.

This way seems perfectly reasonable and is very similar to what I play. I would add that I usually still play the "weak" NT range in 3rd seat NV (as well as 1st & 2nd). Everybody knows you need to preempt aggressively in 3rd seat, right? As for 5 card majors, I like keeping them optional so you can bid 1M or 1N depending on what the hand looks like (recalling that if you start with 1M with the values for a NT opener you've got to rebid a 3 card minor next time...). I tend to like 5cM in the weak NT more so than in the 13-15 NT or in the 1♣(16+)-1Y-1NT(16-19) situations. You might also consider whether you want to open all the 10-12 balanced hands when Vulnerable 1♦ (not sure if you meant that you did this or not). Originally we played that 1♦-1M-1NT 10-12 balanced (when Vul) but later decided we didn't really feel compelled to open all balanced 10-12 counts when Vul. We switched to a natural 4+ 1♦ opener and just opened 1NT Vul on 13-15 (and maybe some 12's if we liked them). Weaker balanced hands we didn't open.

If you're afraid of the Q♥ offside, I'd run the Q♦ pitching a spade at trick 2, and then play hearts from the top if it holds. Of course if the A♦ is offside I'm going down more than one on the club ruffs. The fact that LHO lead our suit does seem to suggest he might have both missing A's...

I guess I had a pretty different idea than what you guys suggest in terms of strength at the 2 level, but this old discussion of 2D/2H/2S in 4th discussed a range of values with 12-14 probably being the average for a 2 level bid on a 6 card suit. Some people ranged down to 10 or up to 16. I would think for the 3 level you would certainly need some extra values along with the extra trump to make it likely you're going plus (which is the point of opening in 4th, afterall). This would suggest some of these hands start overlapping with the strong club opening. I think this probably also depends a lot on your 1/2nd seat opening styles. If you pass with sound hands up to 12 points, partner rates to have a pretty good pass so you need less in terms of values when you bid 2M or 3 of something. Alternatively, if you open light in 1/2nd seat, say a 10-12 NT and 10-15 openers, your partner will have about 3 less points for you and you better have those extra values if you're bidding to make. I could see benefits to opening certain single suited hands with say 16-18 since partner could show more troublesome shapes (like 4♥5m) after 1♣-1♦-? since some of the suit rebids wouldn't be needed for single suited hands.

Thanks for the interesting example and simulation!

I have a basic understanding of how in Standard or 2/1 the typical "preempt" bids of 2M or 3X get replaced with decent or strong hands with good long suits. Especially the 3 level bids are quite strong, maybe a good 16+, since they are fully intending on making their contract. Playing strong club in 4th seat, I naively assume that any 16+ (or whatever) is getting opened 1♣. So for those of you playing strong club (or strong diamond for that matter), what do you use these higher level openings as in 4th seat? What about 2N which isn't really needed as "weak 5/5 minors" in 4th clearly?

I like your effort to define this sort of negative information in a precise way, but I fear it's more complicated than that. This doesn't fit quite as nicely into your classification however. If you play Lorenzo Two's (where all 0-7 hands make a weak 2 bid), your pass promises 8-11. Most people pass with these hands too. So the fact that a pass in this system promises values is only a negative inference and hence shouldn't be alerted (since afterall you are still passing with a strict subset of the "expected" passing hands). I'm not saying I have a strong opinion about whether or not a constructive pass should be alerted or not, but your comment about needing an alert in this case is at odds with your earlier suggestion not to alert in cases of negative inferences.

For a different perspective, I usually play Overcall Structure where 1NT is a 3-suited takeout bid, like a normal double only it could be lighter (the idea being to compete on shape aggressively, moreso than values). That said, I'm sure this needs to be figured into my balancing decisions, although I admit I haven't thought all that through completely. 1. pass. (would have bid 1NTO directly at favorable first round) 2. X. (would have bid 1NTO directly at all colors except unfavorable) 3. pass 4. pass? 5. X. (would have bid 1NTO at favorable) 6. would have bid 1NTO at all colors the first round

One thing to remember is that the general 4441 shape is really really rare relative to almost all other shapes. In this sense, it doesn't much matter how you treat it since it's almost an exception more than anything else. Sure it makes sense to agree on a partnership style, but I think it's a little excessive to redesign your system around it. Heck you could open it 1♥ if you really want (at least you've got no more rebid problems), and now your 5 card major style will merely be a 99.5% (or whatever) 5 card ♥ style instead of a 100% 5 card majors. The 1444 shape might even be less likely than the odds your brain glitches and you pull the wrong opening when you should have bid 1♥... I see your point, but I disagree about the "often pulling to 2♠" part. Of all the hands that opener will have on the 1♦-1♠-1NT sequence, even removing some of the 3 card balanced raises, balanced hands are a lot more likely. You've got 2443, 2344, and 2353 for sure, and in my style all of the 3343 hands and maybe half of the 3442, 3244, 3352, and 3253 shapes. The balanced hands are all considerably more likely and my rough estimate using a priori probabilities for the shapes is that partner's 1NT rebid will have 1♦-1♠-1NT How many ♠s by 1NT rebidder? #♠s ~Prob Shapes 1 7% 1444 2 43% 2443,2344,2353; half of 3442,3244,3253,3352 3 50% 3343; half of 3442,3244,3253,3352 So even agreeing to rebid 1NT on 1444 you will still almost always want to pull with 5♠ and a weak hand. Sure it will suck every once in a while playing the 5-1, but playing all those 5-2 and 5-3 fits will more the compensate in the long run. It's much more important for example to decide how to rebid hands with 5431 shape. Those with 4♦5♣s like 1345, 2245, and 3145 - these are about 2.5x the total frequency of the 1444 shape (ignoring conditioning the probabilities on partner's 1♠ reply). There are also hands with 4♥5♦ like 1453, 2452, 3451 to consider as well. If all of these hands with 1-2♠ are rebidding 1NT, now you might have enough probability to consider revamping your partner's rebid rules.

GCC clear? Lol! If for some reason one felt that promising a 2nd suit was troublesome, I developed some methods for weak bids that were either 1) 5+ in the suit bid and a 4+ side suit, or 2) 6+ in the suit bid with high standards on suit quality For case (2), I would suggest either a 7222 shape unwilling to preempt at the 3 level, or a very good 6 card suit something like AQJTxx. In case (2), you can safely rebid your suit at the 3 level in response to a pass-or-correct or similar action by partner. With this agreement, the bid is clearly natural and doesn't promise or deny a side suit. Pretty much the definition of a 5+ card weak 2 bid.

The part of GCC you quote is relevant to artificial bids showing two suits, maybe 2♦ for specifically ♥+♣ or something. Natural opening bids, which under GCC include 4 card majors, are always allowed. Basically Wackojack's suggestion is to play canape openings of 2M. They are just as legal as canape openings at the one level I should think (which is to say viewed as odd, but probably tolerated. YMMV with regard to any particular director in the ACBL, as always). Furthermore, specialized followups like a 2N asking bid or pass/correct responses are allowed as well (under "artificial and conventional calls after a 2♣+ opening") since this opening is not "weak" (weak 2 bids have restricted conventional followups if they are too wide-ranging or might have only a 4 card suit).

In the US under the general chart you can use pretty much any defense you want to a conventional opening, for example 1♣ or 1♦ that might be only 2+ cards in that suit (including a strong club and its nebulous diamond, but also a polish club, a "prepared" club, etc). You can also use any defense to openings of 2♣ or higher. Over natural openings 1 level openings, you would not be able to play your "psycho-suction" style overcalls. Edit: I will point out you can play a double as any weird conventional bid you like in the US, including conventional continuations thereafter.