bid_em_up

Jacoby 2N was originally designed to describe a balanced game forcing hand when holding 4 card major suit support. These hands were considered to be: 4-3-3-3 and 4-4-3-2 Not 4-2-5-2 or 4-1-5-3 and certainly not 4-2-6-1. It was intended to describe a hand that you couldn't otherwise bid naturally. Who am I to argue with Ozzie? I realize that the modern tendency is to make a 2N bid on any game forcing hand with four card trump support, but I find in a 2/1 context you are usually better placed by describing a side source of tricks in your hand before the major suit raise so that partner can envision pitches from their hand, or count tricks when they also have a fit in the secondary suit. You will not be able to show the suit naturally later in the auction, as it will usually be taken as a cuebid.

Many players here do not claim to be experts. Anyone is free to answer the poll without commenting, so noone would know who they are anyway. I am not sure what your post has to do with anything. Btw, is it just me or does your avatar look like Jerry Helms?

The thread title mistakenly said "What level of competition would best describe your, abilities?" My intent was not to ask people to "How would they describe their level of play", but to ask "At what level of competition do you prefer to play"? or "Normally play". I think Frances understood that, but a couple of others may not have. :lol:

My guess is that it was Shelly (Notaru?), I dont remember how she spelled her maiden name. They were married when he lived in Atlanta in the early to mid 80's.

My daughter was wanting to learn at 5, unfortunately she couldn't add to 13 yet. ;) (you're right, but i can't go back and change it). Moderator, if you can, add an option for Under 10 please.

I started in high school at the age of 17. We had a free hour during the day my senior year, and the science teacher offered to teach several of us during this time. I have been hooked ever since, even though I can't get to games as frequently as I would like.

How would you describe your preferred level of competitions?

How old were you when you first learned to play bridge? What got you started in the game?

I thought it might be interesting to find out certain things about the forum posters, so I will post 3-4 polls regarding this info. I would have preferred to have all the polls in one thread, but I guess that belongs in "Suggestions for the Forum" ;) So, can you tell I am bored @ work?

Are you sure they've found a fit with 2♦? Couldn't opener be 5=3=3=2? Couldn't responder be 1=5=3=4 for instance? Doubling now is even more dangerous, since LHO doesn't know to bid over the double or not. Its the misfit hands where we rate to get nailed, and if LHO has shape; we'll hear about it over the double. There's no comfort in passing and backing in; I think if you choose to pass this initially, you pass for the duration. Umm. ok. So if they are on a 3-3 fit, and you double now. You dont think partner can't leave the double in on his 6-x-4-x hand?

Assuming 1N is forcing, how am I losing the partial? Am I not getting another chance to bid? Aren't I better placed by waiting to see where they end before making a decision on whether to act or not? They may subside in 2C or 2D or 2H. Do I really wish to "compete" if they end in 2C or 2H? If RHO has a limit raise in spades, they will likely have a tough time in 3S or higher, plus if he has a limit raise, it probably isn't our hand. I think you really need about a king more before you decide to act in the direct seat here.

I was at the tournament in question when Meckstroth made the statement you refer to (the Macallan Invitational Pairs in London in roughly 1996). I recall that Rodwell had similar feelings but was less outspoken about it. I believe Meckstroth was in a bad mood at the time because he thought (and he could have easily been right) that the organizers of this particular tournament either changed the conditions of contest or did not properly inform the players of the conditions of contest. He was expecting to be able to play his full system with Rodwell and it bothered him (reasonably enough) to learn at the last minute that this would not be allowed. However, it would be wrong to draw any general conclusions from this. Tournaments like the Macallan are seen as rare sources of "fun" for professional players. While there is some prize money in these events and while these tournaments typically pay the players' expenses, a strong professional player would tend to do better financially by spending his time playing in an ACBL Regional (for example). As such, I could understand Meckstroth thinking "these tournaments are supposed to be fun and it is not fun for me if I can't play my system". But I can promise you that Meckstroth-Rodwell (and probably any professional player) would be willing to be forced to play ANY system if it was in their financial interest to do so. This is how these guys make there living and that is (as it should be) by far the most important factor for them in deciding which tournaments to play in. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Ty Fred. It was my recollection that it was the Cavendish, evidently I was mistaken. (Heck, it was 10-11 years ago....and it was an Invitational pairs, thats probably why I thought it was the Cavendish.)

I pass, as long as 1N is forcing. They haven't found a fit yet. They may not have one. Let them struggle. If the auction, then goes 1S-1N-2D p p, I can x now.

Is this not considered to be a prealert? We play the following methods that may require advance preparation:

no, Meckwell wont play with each other in the Cavendish because: 1) they represent a very poor investment in respect to the Calcutta auctioning system 2) they make a bucklet load more money playing with clients. nickf sydney While you may be completely accurate in your assertions, I recall reading years ago that Meckstroth specifically stated that they would not play together in events where their methods are not allowed, financial considerations aside. They have spent too much time in their system, to have to readjust across from the table with each other in a new system. It would not be natural to them to have to play a new system across from each other, and feel that they would not be able to play at their best if required to do so. From the Cavendish Conditions of Contest: In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed. Methods of a destructive nature are not authorized, nor are the following: Forcing or strong pass systems; Multi 2" and similar conventional opening bids; Two-suited weak two/three-bid openings which specify only one (or neither) of the suits held; anchor suit must contain at least five cards, except that two of a major showing that suit and a minor is permitted - even if the major is only a four card suit. Preemptive bids that do not specify which suit is held; Artificial bids or sequences that require a lengthy explanations; Canape' style overcalls or opening bids if the first-bid suit may be shorter than four cards; Any system, convention or treatment that would require a pre-alert (in ACBL parlance) and written suggested defenses. Transfer openings and transfer responses, subject to the following exceptions: Any transfer response structure to a no-trump opening, overcall or rebid is permitted, as are transfer responses showing at least high-card game invitational values. Transfer responses over a 1 opening bid. Now, I could be mistaken, but my read on the CoC says the points I have placed in bold would disallow the Meckwell system. There could be other points contained within it as well, but I'm not sure. From the Meckwell System Summary info on the USBF site: We play the following methods that may require advance preparation: 1. 2D opening showing short D, 11-15 (4315, 3415, 4414, 4405). 2. 1D opening showing 2+D’s 11-15. 3. Transfers used in many auctions, primarily competitive ones. 1D-X, 1M-X, after 1M overcall (normally with NegX or 1S NAT) By UPH, 1D-2C, 1D-2S, or 1D-3C. 1M-X and 1?-1M-X type sequences, transfer is possibly lead-directing with raise. 4. ART raises. 1H-1S-3D: Mixed raise, 2NT=Limit+ raise, etc. 5. Negative free bids @ 2-level in some cases (1D-1M-2C, or 2 of new Major when transfers not in use). 6. ART responses to 1C. 1D=0-7, all others = GF (1H=8+ with S, or 11-13 BAL, 1N=C, 2C=D, 2D=8-10 BAL, 2H=14+BAL, 3C=any solid suit 7+ winners, others = 3suiters. 7. 2-suiter conventions. 1S-3C = C + H. 4C jump overcall often minors. Meckwell vs Strong NT’s. 1C-2D=Michaels. 8. 1D-2H=5/4+ in S/H less than INV, 2S=same but INV. 3C as jump = minors less than INV.

What would an immediate 2H have shown? Spades/diamonds? Personally, I think that you are putting yourself in a bind by defining the direct cue as specific suits (♠/♦), and then not having a way to show ♠/♣ as well. Either you have that all suit combinations defined, or you should play the direct cue as spades+either minor. Btw, my partnerships use a jump to 3C as showing top/bottom. (Spades/clubs in this case). Yes, we give up a 3C weak jump overcall by doing so. Its a tradeoff. jmoo.

My top 10 list of why the Gatlinburg tournament is so popular: 1) With spring arriving, the area is quite beautiful. 2) It is fairly centrally located in the Southeast US. It can be reached within a 3-4 hour drive from a wide variety of parts of the country. Cheap plane fares can be found to Atlanta/Charlotte/Memphis/Knoxville, that allow a flight, combined with a week's car rental to still be reasonably priced. 3) It is usually held right before the Spring Nationals, so people are practising for them. 4) The costs of attending there are comparitely inexpensive vs. other tournaments. 5) The town of Gatlinburg has a unique feel/atmosphere to it. It is quite homey and down to earth, compared to other major metropolitan cities. The population of the town itself is in the neighborhood of 3500 people total. There are a lot of specialty shops in the area (most with a mountain theme), Ober Gatlinburg (a ski resort/amusement park) that has America's longest aerial tramway, Dollywood, the Great Smoky Mountains, and is about an hour away from the Cherokee Indian reservations (on the other side of the Great Smoky Mountains National park) where the only casinos in the central Southeast US are located. 6) The tournament is held in one location. 7) There are lots of hotels within walking distance. These are usually reasonably priced, as well. 8) It is usually held right around spring break. 9) It has become the "tournament" to go to, if you can't make it to any of the other Nationals (or even if you could). 10) The hospitality is fantastic. Every year, this is the one Regional I would like to attend. Unfortunately, I have only been able to make it to two. I will make it next year, hopefully.

deleted

I think X by North would be a very poor choice. This hand is not strong enough to be willing to defend 2H x'd, and partner is going to strive to play in spades (not a minor suit). Spades is unlikely to play well, with dummy being forced in hearts and holding 2 spade honors. If N/S happened to be playing a style where 2N is not natural but for the minors instead, then a 2N call would be acceptable. I think South must bid 3D, after 2H p p. Partner is marked with some values. I don't concern myself with finding auctions to unlikely grands, especially when you have already done well to reach the small slam on these holdings. Since being in 6+1 is effectively 90% of the matchpoints, why risk being in 7, minus one, if trumps behave poorly?

Meckwell won't play in the Cavendish because their methods are not allowed.

Pass. Seems clear-cut. Why? Partner did not raise spades (and he may do so when holding 3). Partner did not rebid 1N, which he may do holding 4 hearts. Partner should hold at least 6 diamonds (normally). Partner is a 3rd seat opener. He may well have nothing but AKxxxx(x) of diamonds and an outside Q or K. If I bid 2H or 2S now, I do not want to hear 3D or any # of NT rebid by partner. So I pass, and hope that he can make 2D. Exactly. Without the fancier methods, this is more common sense than anything "standard" which might allow for some creativity (in finding ways to get to a disaster faster :P The question that I now have is, what kind of hand could raise 1S to 2S with only 3 and with 3-1-6-3, what would be the requirements for the direct raise? So here is opener's hand.[hv=s=sj84h2dkqt942cak3]133|100|upon hearing the 2♥ rebid by the passed hand, 3♠ was offered and passed out, down 1.[/hv] So the question is, what is the direct raise to 2♠ worth opposite a passed hand versus the 2♦ rebid. I would bid 2S with this hand. This hand is much better for spades than many hands with 4 trump. It has 1st & 2nd round club controls, a good side suit, and 2nd round heart control. It does contain a spade honor. 2S is the most encouraging "sounding" bid you can make, without dramatically overstating the values of the hand. All partner really needs is something like AQxxx Axx xxx xx and 4S is practically cold. So on this holding, we actually want to encourage partner to bid again. Even if you end if 4S on a 4-3 fit, it will not necessarily be bad, as the heart ruffs will be taken in the short trump hand, and the diamond suit can provide the required tricks. On the other hand, if my hand was Jxx x KJxxxx AQx, I would not be quite as eager to raise to 2S (although some would), since the diamond suit is lacking in texture.

Really? I bet thats an overwhelming success considering as how your 2nd suit is also openers 1st suit. :P

That may well be true. :) Really, I wasn't attempting to insult you or offend you, and I apologize if it did. The fact that you play it this way just caught me off guard and surprised me. I was unaware that this had become the "norm" for US experts. Unfortunately, the written medium doesn't always portray the intent of a statement and after rereading it, I can see how my original post might have been taken in a different manner than the one that I intended it to be.

I have seen experts claim they use Rule of 20 (heck, Marty Bergen is one for certain, as much as I dislike his methods :P). The problem lies in the basic teaching and understandings of it. Beginners/intermediates get taught to add the number of cards in their two long suits plus HCP and think that hand #1 qualifies, because they (usually) don't get told that high card location is also a function of this decision. Or if they are told, they soon forget that part of the lesson. An accurate Rule of 20 opening based on the original definition would never open hand #1, but always hand #2. The Rule, when applied accurately as intended, isn't that dysfunctional. And... My understanding is, the Rule of 20 was originally intended for judging whether or not to open in 3rd or 4th seat, and not for 1st/2nd seat openings as it has migrated to these days.

Really? What do you think two American experts would play if they were playing together for the first time and had only a few minutes to prepare? I always thought it would be pretty close to BWS. Let me ask you something. Do you believe that the majority of US players are experts? (well, maybe they are on BBO....but only there.) Do you really believe that the MAJORITY of players are going to sit down and say "Bridge World Standard, partner"? Hell, they have a hard enough time counting to 13, remembering what trumps are, and following suit. Experts may say "BWS partner?". In real life, the majority of players, not being experts (read as meaning "professional or part-time professional or wanna-be professional level players), will not. Is this really that hard to comprehend? Since I don't read BW, nor do I know of anyone who has a subscription or copies to borrow, I am/was totally unaware that this is now the "popular" treatment. And I would expect that the majority of US (non-professional) players are in the same situation as myself. Edit: Notice nowhere have I said that I thought this was a bad treatment, or that it doesn't have merit. I can see how it does. It just caught me off guard that this has become the "expert" standard.