shevek

Okay, no early takers. The double finesse in spades is just under 50% to make 9 tricks. Let's say you pitch some red cards. A spade finesse loses then they cash two clubs and a heart comes through. Presumably you rise on this and take another spade finesse. If that loses - and you have bared your ♥Q - they are quite likely to take 3 clubs, 3 hearts and 2 spades for -200. Maybe -150 if they can't take 3 hearts. Perhaps you will find East with ♠Hxxx, limiting you to 7 or 8 tricks, depending on how diamonds go. It may be better to pitch spades and try for as many tricks as possible in reds. Playing hearts twice towards QJx is about 70%. That brings you to 8 tricks only so you need diamonds 3-3 or perhaps ♦Hx on your left, maybe ♠KQ with 4 diamonds. Let's call it 30% overall to take 9 tricks. The advantage of this approach is -50 maybe okay if the other table is failing in 2NT by going after spades, maybe even failing in 1NT. System at the other table is a factor. If you judge they will always sit in 1NT or 2♠, then take your best shot at +400. If they might get higher, try to tie or even win with -50. In a very serious event, I suppose you should check the methods of all the other pairs before play starts. I remember asking Geoff Hampson about my rights, during a hand. He quite reasonably said "You can ask but we won't tell you."

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s82ha753dak4ck953&s=sajt93hqj6dq952c4]133|200|Scoring: BAM 1NT (14-16) 2♥ 2♠ 3♦ 3NT[/hv] The 14-16 NT got you a bit overboard. East leads ♣6-4-A-3. ♣2 returned so they look 4-4. Over to you under two conditions: 1) NS at the other table play the same method as you 2) Other table plays a 15-17 NT. PS. In BaM, can you ask questions about system at the oother table and expect a reply?

Checkback/Crowhurst over 1NT rebid, not 2-way Bit of a rerun but what to these sequences mean: 1♦ - 1♥ 1N - 2♣ 2x - 3♦ ? Forcing or invitational? 1♦ - 1♥ 1N - 2♣ 2x - 3♣ ? Forcing, invitational or sign-off? Can you in fact sign off in 3♣ - directly or otherwise - with a weak 4-6? 1♥ - 1♠ 1N - 3♦ 5-5 forcing? Or do they have to go through 2♣ and this is invitational?

We have tended to assume symmetric basis but your posts suggest that you don't use that. "Beta-ask" is a bit of a give-away. Really, SPs fit with symmetric because they lead to DCB based on suit length. Here's an example 1♣ - 2♣ 8+ balanced 2♦ - 3♣ 4-4-3-2 3♦ - 3N 7 SPs 4♣ - 4♥ ♠s - yes , ♥s - 0/2 4♠ - 5♦ ♦s - yes, ♣s - yes, ♠s - no second 6♦ [hv=d=w&v=n&w=sk82hadkqt32cak74&e=sa765h9432da76cq5]266|100|[/hv] 2♦ a shape ask, 3♦ asks for SPs, 4♣ triggers DCB. SPs don't go so well if you aren't able to resolve shape completely but they are still useful.

Preamble ... With relay systems - particularly symmetric - there is a real danger of going too far. The simple aim is to devise a method that will give better results at the table. You aim to bid more successful slams than your natural counterparts, while accepting there are some that they will bid which you won't. Yes, you can try for perfection with add-ons but there is a cost involved in memory strain and - more importantly - skewed focus. History I believe 3-2-1 points come from Dave Cliff in the late 70s. Marston used C1 & C2 to designate AK & AKQ. I used the term RP in 1983 (*****, that's 25 years ago) then thought SPs was better. Marston uses the term QPs now, quite good. In symmetric, sequences starting 1C - positive are unlimited till shape is out. It's still 16+ opposite 8+ (or 15+ opp 9+) so asker needs to be able to narrow down describer's strength, partly to bid the normal 33 HCP 6NT that the rest of the world bids. Thus SPs are particularly crucial for balanced hands. Our method Pretty simple. Step asks for SPs, Step+1 for Kontrols. We don't use end signal. Part of the reason is historical. We grew up using game bids to play, so we would be more error prone. If 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 4♥ is to play, it's too easy to forget that 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♦ - 4♥ may not be. Instead we use 4♦ as a mild slam try based on suit quality. I'll post if anyone is interested. We start at 6 SPs for a 10-15 opening, 5 SPs for positive to a 16+ 1♣, 3 SPs for a semi. We ignore stiff queens but count kingletons as 1 SP. Resurrection is optional at Base +4 (9SPs) We don't zoom on to SPs with the last shape. Too many accidents. We only zoom when the last shape is 3♠. DCB We look at suits in length order, including short suits (Positive cueing with singletons - maybe should rethink that!). Normal is to stop with none or AKQ but we also stop with AK or AQ. This has been very good. So stopping = 0 SPs or 4+. Second pass locates lower honours. In theory jacks included though that never seems to happen ATT. There other advanced DCB methods involving parity, or a mix of positive & negative cueing. Our crude method of grinding it out may not be ideal but it's simple enough and seems to work fine.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sqt987h6d75cak975]133|100|Scoring: IMP 3♥ - no 4♥ - 4♠ - no - ?[/hv]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=s987haj76d2cakj53]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠ - 2♦ - no - ?[/hv] Common enough is advancer's new suit forcing & 2♠ as a diamond raise. You may not like that, you may prefer 2♠ as "unassuming". Let's say partner's style is normal so 2♦ = near opening, often 6-carder. Anyway, what is your plan? (EW take no further part)

4441s are 3% of hand shapes. End of story.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=saq62h852d85ct653&w=skt54htdqtckqj872&e=sj98hakq76dj73ca4&s=s73hj943dak9642c9]399|300|Scoring: XIMP South opened 3♦. We didn't get our 600.[/hv]

Thanks for all that. We don't play much Acol in Oz so there is no body of knowledge to refer to, other than decades old texts. I have this idea that Acol and Standard are converging, that some sequences that were non-forcing in Acol have become forcing. Also some forcing sequences in SA have become invitational. This (the example in the post) seems to one area of divergence. I think of 1x - 1NT as 6-9 but chunky 9-counts or those with a decent 5-carder are worth 2-over-1. The uncomfortable auctions in Acol start with 1NT on a 9-count followed by 3 passes. Missing 16+9 was acceptable a few decades ago, not now. Added to this you have wrong-sided. Still no-one can be proud of a 16+6 2NT. A "solution" is to play 5 cd-majors with a forcing notrump. Americans would call this KS. What do English call it and how many do that? I can see that 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ is needed for 9-10 counts with a doubleton heart. I guess I have tended to bid that way with a 3-card limit raise and survived.

Pass? Surely not. Even Reese came to advocate that a sequence like 1♥ - 2♣ 2♦ was forcing (I think, can't find the reference)

I've heard it said that Acol is a light opening system but I believe that is no longer true. Perhaps in the 60s & 70s when Roth had a big influence on American bidding. These days, would someone look at this ♠Axxx ♥Kxxxx ♦QJxx ♣— and say "I'd open in Acol but pass in Standard." ? Either you do or you don't.

In the final of a recent national championship in Australia, both pairs committed the kind of auction that gives Acol a bad name: [hv=d=w&v=e&w=sa987hk7654dkjt8c&e=sk62hat9da5c86532]266|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥ - 2♣ 2♦ - 3♥ pass[/hv] At least one of the Easts was surprised by the sudden end to the auction. Crowhurst's "Precision Bidding in Acol" (1974) lists this sequence as invitational. He also has 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ as "not absolutly forcing." I'm guessing that more modern texts have changed all this. Is that true and when did it happen? Is there some new Acol authority?

Surely you want your 3-level bids to be very specific. Partner is unlimited in strength and shape, so you don't want to go around pre-empting him unless you have something very descriptive to say. Agreed that symmetric relay would be an answer but if you can't find a copy of that, how about 3x with KQJxxxx & out or similar, some one loser suit or 2 of top three, etc? That would be useful.

Forget about devoting 4 bids to the pure 3-suiters, which are 4% of hand patterns. Maybe even bid 1♥/1♠ with these and unravel, or throw them all in the same box. Whatever you ultimately choose has to be better.

I think it's wrong to waste time on developing a specific counter. The ideal is never to look at an opponent's system card. When some bid of theirs is alerted and explained, both of you should know what all your bids mean. In other words, you should aim for a generic defence against all methods, some of which are yet to be invented. While, it's true that this meta-defence might be less than ideal in some cases and run to a couple of pages, you will save time and anxiety once you get it down pat. Here are two starting principles 1) We don't want to play in their 5+ suit. 2) We make natural bids in their artificially shown 4+ suit For instance, against Flannery 2♦ (4♠s & 5♥s), 2♠ from us would be natural but 2♥ wouldn't. After our strong 1♣, we play system on if they double or bid 1♦. We would give up playing hearts if X shows 5+. Against 1♥/1♠ = 4-4 in greens or yellows, double = tko of the suit they bid, which they will hold half the time. All others are natural so no assumptions. Our method would change if 1♥ showed 5-5. They wouldn't be so restrictive but say someone opens or overcalls 2♥ = 5-5 in majors or minors. Now double for tko of spades makes less sense since - if opener has majors - you don't want to play hearts. We play double = 4-4 (4-3) in the bid suit and it's complement so majors in this case. You say "I think he has minors cos I have majors". In this style, pass then double of a minor can be penalty. 3) If they don't have the suit/strain they bid, double = "the tougher takeout". For instance, say their 2NT opening = ♥ & ♣ or ♠ & ♦. If you have say 4-1-5-3, you can pass this and double 3♥ for takeout, though risky. If you have 1-4-3-5, it's even less appealing to pass then double 3♠. It's the tougher takeout. Therefore, the heart hand should act directly so double of 2NT = ♥ & ♣. Against a multi 2♦, double = tko of spades. OKay we also play 2♥ = tko of hearts. Note we'd do exactly the same vs 2♠ opening (or response to 1NT) as six cards in either minoor. Prattled on a bit ....

This was the hand: [hv=d=n&v=b&n=skqjt932h94dq75c4&w=sa8hak5dj92cqt653&e=s654hjt62d643cak7&s=s7hq873dakt8cj982]399|300|Scoring: IMP 3♠ - no - no - ?[/hv] 3♠ is 140 while double led to -200 in 4♥x. A brave 3NT nets 600. It's surprsing how often this works. Or perhaps the -800s don't get reported.

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa8hak5dj92cqt653]133|100|Scoring: IMP 3♠ no no ?[/hv]

Doesn't belong in this forum but where else? Dutch bridgemates have been around for a while and work okay. I've been hoping for new hardware (like a 4-line display) but no sign so far. American bridgepads are newer, I read some good things about them though mostly by vested interests. Maybe a bit cheaper .... We'd want about 20 & have scoring software that will run on both. The club is in Sydney. Which should we get? TIA

Old-fashioned 16+ for us. I guess West "added a point for a decent 5-card suit" which would be better with spades. However, auctions starting 1♥ (or 1♦ showing 4+ hearts) tend to be awkward with this shape. We play 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♣ as Aspro

SAYC incorporates a principle that responder's 2/1 promises a rebid the corollory of which is that any simple rebid by opener is forcing. Thx Wayne. Don't play SAYC much so now I know that 1♥ 2♣ 2♥ is forcing (according to ACBL summary). Nick

OKay I see. No thanks. David Morgan likes end signal but like you with natural breaks, I found 4D a waste of time. I guess the appropriate hands didn't turn up. Hands for natural breaks are quite common though [hv=d=w&v=n&w=sxhakxxxdkqxckxxx&e=saxxxxhxxdaxxcxxx]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] We bid 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT - pass! Nick

Guess I don't understand this. It's been a long while since I played reverse relay. So 1♣ - 1♠ (hearts, not spades) 1NT relay 2♣ is this 15-17 and the shape that would respond 2♣? I guess not since that means you miss out on shapes that would respond 1♥/♠/NT. Not so useful so what is 2♣? If it's a shape that would respond 1♥ (spades) you are 3 steps up. That can't be useful. If it's something else, I would forget. Also, helpful to defence to have the 15+ hand known & the 9+ part known. A minor point but responder should not autoressurect with base +4 Slam points. Clearly not with say 4333 & ace-empties. Has to depend on shape & the amount of space relayer had. A better solution is to give relayer a mild slam try. We don't use end signal. Rather, after shape is out, step is SPs, +1 is kontrols, 4D is a mild slam try. Responder bids 4H with minimums & bids bad trump suits up the line with base +2 say.

Okay consensus is NF which is fine though don't understand Helene saying it's not forcing because 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♣ would be forcing. Surely not in SAYC? Anyway, opener has ♠AQJTx ♥AJT54 ♦— ♣KQ9 What's best after 1♠ - 2♣ 2♥ - 2NT NF If 3♦, will you be able to show the 5th heart & club support? 2♥ last time because 3♥ is inferentially a splinter.

We don't use reverse relay any more, though they were part of Kiwi club in early 80s. Found it too complicated after say 1♣ - 1♠ (hearts) We didn't want to put too much effort into rare artificial sequences. These days we break with ill-fitting hands, usually minimums. Auctions are F2NPR (forcing to 2NT, preference or repeat) so we can occasionally pull up short. This can happen when both have added length points, so 16+8 has become 15+7 with no fit. Breaks other than raises show max of small doubleton in responder's suit: 1♣ 1♠ (hearts) 1NT GFR 2♣/♦/♠ F2NPR 2♥ balanced 4-cd raise 2NT+ various fit-jumps Hands with shortage opposite partner's length are bad for relay. Also, good to raise with flat minimums to give responder a chance to show shortage. We use a similar style opposite responder's balanced GF: 1♣ 2♣ 8+ balanced with a Major 2♦ GFR 2♥/♠/NT natural, can stop short 3x splinters These splinters have been useful, to avoid 3NT, cool partner's heels and find slams on perfect fits.