Tcyk

The hand is a little too weak for leaping Michaels so be satisfied with 1♠

With less than three cards in a minor suit, it should be alerted as "may be short." This applies to the Precision Club players that open 1D with less than two as well. It must be alerted every time, even when you have six cards in the suit. This is the most common infringement on the laws of bridge that I see on BBO. Perhaps they are playing Viennese Club where an opening bid of 1C denies five cards in any higher suit. Lacking a 5-card suit and the strength for 1NT, they must open 1C ... and it must be alerted. When I was an active director I asked my one pair that played canape to pre-alert that fact. Their minor suit opening bids always promised four or more cards but often promised a longer major.

For some reason, the concept of cover cards is new to me. Cover cards were introduced by George Rosencranz in his Romex System. I've been playing bridge many years but recently ran across the term in J W Montgomery's "Revision" book. He uses a 2-level splinter bid convention. If you are interested, you can look it up. The strong splinter promises 4-1/2 cover cards. This means that slam is almost assured. What is a cover card? Aces, kings, and queens in suits in which partner is known to have length. It's kind of like counting quick tricks but these kings and queens have full value. Aces are almost always a cover card but queens and jacks are worthless in partner's short suits. An ace may be worthless in partner's void and kings have no value opposite partner's singleton. Ron Klinger, in his book, "The Modern Losing Trick Count" has a brief discussion of cover cards (page 69). Cover cards are especially important when partner has shown a 2-suited hand. I didn't intend to make this a lesson. I just wondered how many players knowingly use the concept of cover cards when answering the question, "How high?" I think that all experienced bridge players do consider cover cards but on an intuitive basis. I haven't run across statements such as. "This bid promises 3+ cover cards.

I learned that double followed by a cue bid showed a hand that would have opened 2C forcing if given the chance. 2D seems to fit this requirement very well and your partner should not pass below game. Hopefully, you'll have room to ask about clubs. A jump to 4D takes up a lot of bidding room. Partner doesn't need much to make slam possible.

Some Precision bidders are now using what they refer to as Complex Diamond. Responder shows the strength of their hand with 1-level steps similar to that described in Janus. We have an artificial opening with artificial responses. Pass shows less than 6 HCP 1H shows 6-9 HCP 1S shows 10-13 HCP 1NT shows 14+ HCP and I think 2-level bids show long suits with a weak hand. I believe Oliver Clarke has published something about it on his Precision web site.

The Relay Club by S. G. Bose Mullick, 1975. Author lived and played bridge in India. Good discussion of Canape. 23 pages on interference. Strong 1♣ = 17+ Thanks. I'm getting old. He also had a brief discussion of relay Precision and some other variations. Thirty years ago I had a partner with whom I played his complete 1NT treatment. I still try to convince partners that transfers should be invitational and all forcing hands should start with Stayman The exact shape of all 1NT opening hands (if you didn't open 1NT with 5422 shapes) could be described without exceeding 3NT using the method Bose described. I wish I still had the book. Balanced hands with 5-card majors were opened 1NT if the major was weak. This meant that an opening bid of 1H or 1S tended to promise a good suit. As I recall, 2H and 2S promised a minimum opening hand with four clubs because you couldn't canape with shorter clubs and a major. I think that's where I learned the "rule of 19."

I currently use tranfer responses over a Precision 2♣ opening (denies a 4-cd major): Accept with xxx or Hx, sometimes with xx if min and unbalanced. Some authorities don't allow the transfer (ACBL). Works reasonably well. Thanks. You reminded me that my original discussion about playing transfers over 2C was when I was playing Match Point Precision (no 4-card major).

One advantage of Diamond Major is that you can effectively open 1M to show either 11-15 or 16-19 HCP. A direct 1M opening shows the minimum hand and 1C followed by 1M shows the 16-19 HCP hand. I used to play a similar system with Dr Culp of Dallas, Texas on OKBridge which he called dual no trump. It was kind of the inverse of Diamond Major. 1C promised a 4-card major and 1D was Stayman! 1H and 1S over 1C showed a 5+card suit. 1NT denied a 4-card major. Responder never bid a 4-card major. 1D and 1H were transfers to a 5+card major. 1S promised a 5+card minor suit and denied a 4-card major. 1NT was balanced and denied a 4-card major, like Match Point Precision. I forget the point range. To save me, I can't remember why he called it dual no trump. I have misplaced my old notes. (computer crashes without adequate backup.) I have not seen Dr Culp on Internet bridge since 2003. If he shows up, I will play his system with him again. It was fun.

It seems like Edgar Kaplan recommended responding 1S to 1H with a good 3-card spade suit. This is a good method for those that don't play some form of Flannery because it enables finding the Moysian fit when other fits fail. I once (and only once) played in a 3-3 spade fit for an absolute top; making 3. My hand: ♠Axx ♥x ♦AKxxx ♣xxxx Partner had: ♠xxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣AKxx The auction: 1H - 1S, 2S all pass It's easy to see that nine tricks are there for the taking if suits split as normally expected. Not even a trump lead can prevent taking nine tricks.

Revision passes 1H or 1S with doubleton support and as much as 9 HCP.

If I bid 3H with that hand, the next stop will be slam. I'm not sure partner would be able to read 4H as a weak jump shift. Maybe 3H or 4H will be the right thing to do but my partner still has a chance to call. I think pass is right because 3H promises a hand worth about 16 points. You shouldn't fool mother nature nor your partner.

I have never been afraid to pass with a hand unsuitable for an overcall or a double. After all, I do have a partner. If the hand belongs to the opponents it is probably better that my strength is hidden. Otherwise, I will most likely get a second chance to bid. If the auction goes 1D-1NT, Pass I may suffer but would live with my original decision to pass. If my partner bids, I will try to show the balanced opening hand.

I heard, many years ago, that some Australians played transfers over Precision 2C but the transfer could be refused with less than 3 cards in the suit. Thus 2C-2D, 2S would show 4 spades and deny 3 hearts. I never found a write-up about this method but tried it a little with mixed results. If partner had a weak hand, he could sometimes get out in a 5-3 or 5-4 or even a 4-3 major fit and with a better hand he could make a second forcing bid. Currently, my preference is not to open 2C with only 5 cards in the suit. (4-3)=1=5 hands are handled by 2D and I pass with (4-2)=2=5 and 11 (or sometimes 12) points. I open (4-1)=3=5 hands 1D which shows an unbalanced hand.

Sorry, I was looking at the 1D-1H sequence by mistake.

After an opening bid of 1H, it looks like there is no way to show a hand with five spades and two hearts, and no second suit playing this method. I suppose you would be forced to forget that you had spades even if it were a nice suit. Oh but we love spades.

Does your partner often bid NT with a singleton? I would prefer to open the hand 1D and rebid 2C (5-4 either way). We will find the right contract. It amazes me that the opponents failed to bid their 9-card heart suit but they probably will.

If you are adventurous and the method is allowed. Boomerang 2H and 2S are interesting from Diamond Majors. 2H is either weak spades and diamonds or strong hearts and clubs. 2S are the opposite. I believe that in ACBL, only the weak bid is allowed.

Canape can be fun. Some even play canape responses and canape overcalls but those that I know that did have given them up. I still like canape transfers after 1NT but few play them. My favorite book that used canape was "Relay Club." I've lost the book but I think the author was Bose and he definitely was a Frenchman. He also used losing trick count extensively. I am now told this is the worst way of evaluating the playing strength of your hand. One of his more interesting methods was to evaluate the trump suit using 4-3-2-1 and other suits using 5-3-0-0.

I played Match Point Precision when it first came out and 1D could be 0+ if you held something like 4=1=0=7 shape. The 1D opening never gave us troubles. It was the crummy major suit overcalls when we opened 1NT. We never seemed to have the hand to penalize them. You need to take a Kaplan-Sheinwold approach to opening 1D. You do so only with unbalanced hands. It might be right to open 1D with a balanced 11 or 12 count on occasion but I suspect that in the long run pass is better.

I understand the general theory, but if partner cannot go wrong, and likes this sort of thing, WTP? My hand is borderline between forcing the slam and "very strongly inviting" the slam anyway. If he passes, that's probably right (it should have been). If he bids 6♣, I obviously pass. If he bids anything else, I bid 6NT and consider that a fair chance contract. I know that he will not bid 7NT after an undiscussed 5NT. 5NT looks like pick a slam to me. I'd probably bid 4+ card suits up the line

I was a BBO expert ... and decided intermediate was better. ... and I even qualified by BBO standards; some top regional wins. but I make too many dumb mistakes to be an expert.

I guess I'm weird but I like to show my suits. Double might miss 6C and partner isn't barred from bidding after I bid 4C

Dennis Dawson always told me that I needed to learn to play the hands as well as I bid them. Someone reminded me that we bid on 100% of the hands, defend on 50% of the hands and declare on only 25% of the hands. I guess the answer to the question is that it depends on the person. I think learning basic declarer play was important to me and it also helped with defense because I began to understand what declarer was trying to do.

North has a real problem when 3♣ gets back around to him. Partner should have 10 or 11 points for his bid as a passed hand. Game is certainly possible in NT, ♥s, or ♣s. I think 3♠ would be a gross overbid. It is a reverse anyway you look at it. 3♦ must be saying "do something smart, partner." It shows just about what you would expect; support for ♣s, nice ♥s, and a willingness to play 3NT if partner has ♦ stopper(s). Now poor South is under the gun. The ♣s aren't very good. He only has two ♥s, all be it good ones. He does have a ♦ stopper. It looks like a tossup between 3♥s, 3NT, and 4♣. I don't what to blame either player for the contract.

No. Too many values outside of hearts. I am old school. I want three of the top five honors to preempt white against white.