bglover

I have read quite a few of Mr. Lawrence's books... maybe more than you have... but not the one you refer to, so I will not comment on that book. However, I seriously doubt that anyone would advocating responding on that bad hand in a natural system. If you can show me a specific example of a hand of that quality or worse that Mr. Lawrence uses and says this hand must bid, I would like to see it. I seriously doubt if you can find such a hand in any example that doesn't start with a demand bid of 2C. The dynamic changes somewhat if partner opens 1d instead of 1C...although bidding on that garbage is still unappealing, the loss of the perceived club fit makes bidding 1S almost necessary (but I would not fault a partner who opted to pass)

In an odd sort of way, Misho's post shows why pass is correct, altho he wasn't trying to do so I don't think. Decisions in bidding are based on what is partner most likely to have, and decisions on close hands should not be based on catering to ethereal hands that "might" produce a game. Yet, many players (even good players) make this mistake constantly. If the hand partner is MOST likely to have is a straightforward 13 hcp then pass is clearly correct. The given hand has little value for either offense or defense and you do not want to encourage partner to compete in some way. If partner has the moose given in Misho's example, then the only way you are going to lose out is if he opens 1x and it goes ppp. Could it happen? Sure, but it hardly ever does... People who subscribe to Misho's thinking are going to get into a lot of contracts that are at least 1 level too high (partner will compete too much later if you choose to enter the auction now) and are looking at penaltiy doubles. If you pass now and bid later partner won't get too entusiastic on borderline hands.... Sure, you miss game the 2 times in a 1000 its correct to bid but so what? Think of all the penalty doubles you avoid by passing now and not misleading partner.

Since I have started this thread, I have politely asked each person who has the privilige to not abuse it and pointed out to them they are broadcasting to all of us. Some said they were not aware and said they would be more careful, but others told me take a flying leap off a bridge.... Easy to solve this...

2 choices... pass or 3c (weak). Do NOT bid 1s here. If partner has the moose he needs to make 4S the bidding is not gonna end. Your hand is generally worthless unless partner has a moose so either use up lots of bidding room with 3c (wish I had a 5th one tho) or pass... Personally, I probably pass then hope p can reenter the bidding... then I have been forced to show my 4 card spade suit.

I just asked (nicely) someone who has the lobby chat privilige not to abuse it. He refused and said I was infringing on his free speech rights. This is a perfect example of my point. This person clearly knew he was doing it, and clearly therefore was using his right as his little "forum" for showing off his ability to override the rights of others. There is absolutely no need for this. I again implore that lobby chat priviliges be revoked after a tourney has ended.

Depends on what aspects of your game you want to work on... I agree Lawrence's book on hand evaluation is the best book I've ever read... it really helps you think like a bridge player in all aspects of your game but... If you are relatively new and have trouble with declarer play, Watson's is the recognized standard. If you need to work on your defense, I like Eddie Kantar's books. They make you think through the problems, not just feed you the correct answer. If you want to work on your bidding, particularly in competitive auctions, there are many excellent books out there. Cohen's books are good for the "decision making" process, but are not going to help you devise a system of bids to communicate with partner... I would probably look at something by Dick Pavlicek or Frank Stewart if that was my intention (Pav's website has a wealth of good info there). Another good book for overall bridge is Kantar's Bridge for Dummies. I flipped through this book a while back and found it both entertaining and informative. I would have no trouble recommending this book to a newer player.

You got it!

Partmer. with real values is EXPECTED to double again... A bid by you here of 3h would show game interest (I am of course assuming the 3d bid was weak)... A pass by you here shows minimal opening values (which you have at best with the wasted DQ). Partner is not precluded from acting again... so any action by you shows more than the dead minimum you have. Common bidding error... a good post.

Not even close playing standard methods... it's a game try (or could be more if responder bids 3H and opener bids again). Until opener makes some 3d bid this is a try for game showing maximal opening values and looking for helpful cards... It is NOT a reverse unless opener bids again.

Even if you do not play MSS the south hand should make whatever bid shows strong clubs in your system. The south hand is more than mildly slammish opposite a 1NT opening and is not well suited to NT play. There are too many hands north could have that may produce 12 trix even if he is on the low end of his NT opening. I think no matter what the scoring is (MPs or IMPS), a 3n signoff by south is wrong. And, as Roland said, if you start looking for slam and discover you both lack a spade control, you will end up in 5 minor by "accident."

I have noticed that if I go to the tourney area and then return to the playing area, my list has resorted to the default (alphabetical) instead of being sorted by empty seats... Minor annoyance..

Many (too many IMHO) people now have access to lobby chat that overrides the setting to turn it off. There was a reason why these people were initially given this privilige... to announce that tourneys were going on. Now, many (WAY TOO MANY) of these people use this privilige to conduct coversations with each other, for no apparent reason but to show that they have this privilige and can annoy the rest of us. I strongly suggest that these priviliges be revoked once a tourney has been completed as this problem is becoming increasingly annoying to many of us...

So far I prefer the redouble solution to bidding a suit craeting a one-round force. XX tells partner it's our hand (we should have minimum of 23 points) and I can still bid my suit later. I need to be convinced that bidding as a one round force is gonna work out... The hand I devised (purposely and it wasn't too taxing) is a fine example of why I prefer my method. I DO like Luis's xfer method over 1M and may well decide its worth incorporating... Come one you guys...

Well, I should have mentioned I also play Jordan and flip flop for the minors... What if partner opens 1c and after RHO doubles you hold a hand like this??? Qx KJxx xxxx jxx Do you risk a 1N bid or do you pass? I would usually bid 1H here, mostly to take it away from the opponents, and partner should full well not be expecting any more than this... If we play that it's a 1 round force then it's quite likely we could be playing 2H in a 4-3 fit with a 4-2 trump break... Seems as if this hand really should be passing and reentering the bidding later, then, if 1H creates a one-round force. Yes?

What do you do with a good hand after partner opens and RHO doubles? I have played that all good hands (10 +) begin with a reX and then you go about showing your stuff.. A bid of a new suit is forcing and promises at least five, if the opponents bid their suit, then a double is optional, showing the ability to defend or to play somewhere our way. If I bid directly over the takeout x I am showing a badish hand and am attempting to interfere (and will jump with weakness and a long suit). I have never had any troubles playing reX this way (except when partner forces the bidding too high on minimal values). A few times in the recent past tho, I've had partners bid directly over opps 2d seat double (after I've opened) and gotten a poor result because I assumed partner was bidding on weakness (due to the lack of an immediate reX), so obviously others do not all play this way. So, how DO others treat these hands? My way is obviously not the only way....

This was actually covered extensively a few months ago. The rule generally is if you are 4-4 minors start with 1d and if 3-3 start with 1c. Both make sense in the context of leaving the most room bid your suits without using bidding space. If, like myself or pbleighton, you are comfortable with reversing on a 4-4 hand (many people will tell you they are NOT comfortable reversing with equal length suits), then by all means, open 1C and be sure your parnter knows your reverse can be on a 4-4 hand. Yes, you have lied about your shape (because a reverse, by definition, requires unequal suits) but you have accurately given your point range at a low level. I personally think the trade off is worth it, but I assure you that a flurry of responses are about to follow this post telling me why I am wrong... Come n get me!

I have always played that x of the major in balance seat guarantees 4+ or the other major in balance and that 1nt denies 4+ and promises a stopper. What do you do if you can't cover one or the other situation? Bid your suit... and if you have bad suits PASS. There are exceptions of course (for example you may have a moose as an unpassed hand and you always have to start with a double) but I have found this works well in general.

Well keep in mind we are opening weak (11 point) hands the way we play... so you have to have a wider range to invite game since opener can not define his hand well with his 2d bid when it is showing some minimum (since the range is 11-15 instead of the normal 13-15), so our 2nt invite is, of necessity a good 11 to a bad 14 (a good 14 you are going to have to bid 3n and not be able to explore completely for stoppers... that's a given and something of a flaw, but a small one). To partially cover this, we also play that a NT rebid by opener shows extras as well... so that 1d-1s-2d-2h-2n shows around 14 (with 15 would rebid 3n obviously) and the 2/1 bidder is allowed to pass with a dead 10-11 point hand... or can bid 3 of minor to sign off there if NT seems in appropriate. Thus, opener's 3d bid avails us an opportunity to refine the point range further still without getting too high (ya we play 2n a lot... and its usually a good spot). But we gain in 2 significant ways... 1st being the number of additional hands we are competing on and mucking the opponent's auctions, AND (capitalized since it is germane here), the number of hands we get to 2 of a major and sign off in while the field has gotten a level higher. We aren't missing any games the field is bidding anyway although we risk playing 3n occasionally where a 4-3 major fit may play better, but that is rare enough that we can live with that. As I said, the rebid of a suit as stop sign was around for a long time before SAYC was developed and I still think it is useful, and I will also say that I know of many people who still play it, even if it is not formally part of the Yellow Card system. There are good reasons to play it this way, and that is all I have been saying all along. If other people do not want to, I certainly do not blame them, and if they do not play weakish openings (as my partners and I do), it lessens the advantage to the bid. But within the framework of my bidding structure, the bid works well (and comes up a lot out of necessity). We play a lot of 22 point fits my way, so you need an early bailout structure. Do keep in mind this is a very matchpoint-oriented stragegy. I would not necessarily recommend it for playing IMPS. But, at matchpoints, having a weak opening structure is a significant advantage (as is the ability to play 1nt if the field is playing primarily 2/1).

OK I'm a little clearer on what you are getting at, but I can't say I agree or am convinced by your arguments (but I'm a stubborn coot). I won't address all of your points, just 1 significant one. If I rebid 2n in the sequence 1d-1s-2d, it is not artficial... it is showing stoppers and a willingnes to play 3N. SA bidding is very geared towards NT contracts (thats not a secret), and usually the best spot for a set of hands where one contains a 6 card minor is, in fact 3nt when there are game values. 2N is, of course passable, by opener with a dead minimum hand. So, 2N is NOT artificial at all. If I lack a stopper in a suit, and for sake of this argument, let's assume its clubs, I would, indeed bid (1d-1s-2d) 2hearts (if I have 4 of them). If i have 3 hearts only, I will either rebid 2n (assuming I have enough points to almost insist on game as its invitational only) or I will PASS if I have a bad 11 or 10. If I lack a heart stopper but have a club stopper, my only choice with the invitational hand is 2n and hope partner can bid 3n. Yes, I risk that partner may have no help for me if all my 11 points are in 2 suits (lets assume I am AKA) but they are good points, and hopefully partner's hand isnt AKQJ10x of diamonds and an oustide jack. Of course, it's not perfect, but the good thing is I can pass out of a bad fit early, still show all hand types and continue to play weak openers. I am NEVER passing partner if i have 13 or 14, and I have ways to show this thru jumps, reverses, 4th suit forcing etc. The gain is that playing weak openers in general will get you some number of tops just by mucking up the opponent's structured sequences before they ever get started, and of course, give partner a chance to compete on fits earlier. But, if you play a weak opening style it is imperative that you have a way to stop the bidding early as well.

I suggest you reread your post. There is no logical response to what i said and I can't understand your argument. Look, I am not disputing that most people play the sequence 1d-1s-2d-2h as a 1 round force. I do not, but I play very weak openings in SA and so it is part of my system that it isn't forcing. My point is, was and will be that once opener has limited his hand, it makes sense to play that a new suit that isn't a reverse (or jump shift) is non forcing. Why? Because the other methods are still available. I said in my post my ways are from way back when and that I am not trying to persuade anyone to change to them. I have had a ton of success playing this way, but then I understand the workings of it because I've had a lot of practice playing this way. Your statement gives no logical extension as to why partner should be forced to bid again in a misfit. The sequence 1d-1s-2d-2h still does not create a game force so all you are doing is craeting a 3 level sequence instead of a 2 with no advantage that I can see... Now, as part of the way I play, 1d-1s-2d- 2n shows extra values (13+) to cover this situation where I have invite values (3h bid by opener shows game interest, 4 hearts and ability to play in 4hts or 3n). So, my system has covered all the bases... What I have that you do not is the ability to play at the 2 level. At MPs thats a SIGNIFICANT advantage and nobody is showing me the downside. When you can show me where I am losing something by bidding this way I will be glad to acknoledge I've been doing it wrong for all these years. As to "It's more feasible to play NF new suit after 1nt because there's more room available. Also it's more important to be able to get to 2H since a decent fit is more likely than after the 1m ... 2m rebid case. In the latter case passing is often reasonable" statement, u are either agreeing with me that 2h is passable (my whole point) in 1d-1s-2d-2h or you left something out that I am missing... Please explain so I can properly respond.

May i interject here? LLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL

Just so the reader understands, NAMYATS is a convention devised to handle these rare freak hands. Opener, with a long major and 1 or no outside A or K (this all depends on partnership agreements somewhat) opens 4c to show a heart hand and 4d to show a spade hand. Now, responder with lots of outside controls can place the contract at 4, 5, 6 or 7, as opener is showing a suit that should have 1 or no losers even facing a void in partner's hand. It is useful when it comes up, but it doesn't come up often, so I wouldn't get too concerned for now. If, when I picked up that hand, I was playing NAMYATS it would have been useful (FY! i opened it 6 hearts because it was too hard to bid without NAMYATS and I didn't want to let the opponents exchange too much information).

Absolutely. I don't know when the rule changed that a rebid of suit did not throw up a stop sign, but I can't say that it didn't since so many people and authorities play this as a new suit bid is still forcing one round. Certainly, there is a logical reason why a suit rebid by opener should be treated in the same light as a NT rebid-- since both bids have almost exactly the same meaning (1nt bid by opener-- PARTNER i HAVE A MINIMUM AND WE DONT WANT TO GET TOO HIGH...Suit rebid-- PARTNER I HAVE A MINIMUM AND A SIX CARD SUIT), there is good reason to play them the same way. Responder still has several ways to keep the bidding from dying with apporpriate values, by jumping or reversing, just like before the change occurred. The advantage is, of course, that you can bail at the 2 level in a misfit instead of the three level... that is a significant advantage. I am not trying to persuade anyone that they should adopt this approach... just that it works for me and has been around for a long time.

Regarding the bypassing diamonds part of your post... It is a very common treatment to play the sequence 1c-1N shows precisely 9-11 HCP and no 4 card major, with balanced shape of course. I play this with most of my partners. A jump to 2N shows a good 11 (AAK) or 12 points and a 3n bid shows 13-15. If you care to play this, then the 1D bid becomes less well defined, since all bad hands without a 4 card major start with a 1D bid. Some people play (this is an old treatment that I still see) that, even in a standard treatment, 1C is forcing... with a bad hand responder bids 1D, with a real hand with real diamonds he bids 2D (undefined point count, but not a bust). There are a lot of variations on this if you care to investigate it.

I'm not sure you read my post correctly as NMF was not really a focus of it at all... just an example of a gadget that's been developed to get past some of the awkward sequences that come about in natural bidding. However, what I said about a non-jump bid of a new suit is only semi forcing if partner has limited his hand I stand by, although I am sure not all play it that way nor would I even recommend that it ever be passed. If you read what I wrote--Once someone limits their hand (either thru a NT bid of some sort or a suit rebid),-- it is not inconsistent with what you wrote... the only difference is that I covered both a NT limiting bid and a suit rebid limiting bid, and many people play both as nonforcing. The point is and was that by not jumping a level there is some "risk" that partner will pass if he plays this way...and it isn't uncommon at all. Thus, the way to show a full opener on the 2d round of bidding (assuming a reverse isn't proper) is to jump a level-- even if you play that a new suit after a minor rebid is a 1 round force. This way, a double jump is clearly a splinter (where this thread originated) while the jump shift is a game force probably showing 5-5 majors. CF the example hand I laid out earlier...The NT bidder passed because his partner failed to jump with 13 HCPs. He was in his right to do so since his partner indicated less than 13 by his FAILURE to jump on the 2d bid. In the sequence originally discussed (1D-1S-2D), if responder opts to bid 2H he risks opener passing (if opener has an 11 count and 6 diamonds for example). It depends on opening styles... I play SAYC with light openings (I feel that's the most advantageous way to play it) so any rebid of a suit is non forcing. I will repeat something I said in an earlier thread, so that you understand... I may not play exactly standard SAYC. I was playing Standard American long before the Yellow Card was develioped so I have some holdovers from way back when... So, my way may not be the "book" way exactly and I am aware of this. So, perhaps I should couch this a tad by restating that under "old" Standard American a rebid by opener of his original suit created a nonforcing situation absent a reverse or jump shift by responder.