bluecalm

I don't know what Larry Cohen plays. If you are going to bid 3H on both balanced hands and hands with natural clubs then this system sucks. There might be many reasons to play system that weak though. One is that maybe the losses are not that important as memory strain for some even very good players. I don't know. I am just saying that if you are unable to find 4-4 spade fit after 2C or/and have to bid 3H with both balanced hands and 5+clubs - 3H or/and you bid 2D with 4 diamonds and balanced hands then this is inferior system which belongs to history of bridge. It's still probably playable though, I mean, it's all about cardplay anyway... As to why 2C on 4-4black and slam invite hand is better in usual 2/1 frame it's because you get to know more and faster about opener hand if you bid 2C (which you want with slam invite). You also won't get stuck in: 1H - 1S 2D - ???? sequence when you will be very lucky to bid your slam invite with H support below game level.

2C on 4-4 black and gf is standard imo. I saw this recommended in a book about acol from 80's :-) It's also fit very well to how people play 2/1 here. And here we have example from someone playing ston eage 2/1 style. Of course if you bid 3H on this, then that sucks. I guess you also bid 2D (1H - 2D) with 4 diamonds. Back to the hand you just bid 2NT after 2H and all the problems are over. This by the way what you have, balanced gf hand which 2C includes. 3H should show real clubs. If you have more agreements even 2S would do.

This is the part of their system I've never much cared about. I like their idea of 2nd transfers: 1NT - 2H 2S - 2N/3C = transfer to 4+ clubs/diamonds which makes slam bidding with those hands much easier. I also like their idea of many game choice bid. If I remember correctly they have "choice of games" bids available after major suit transfers so opener doesn't have to guess with support and NT'ish hand. There are over 500 hands in vugraph history of them opening 1NT but only a few with responses higher than 2NT (different than 3NT, 4D,4H) so this resource won't be too helpful to you. As to 1NT - 3m, the vugraph archives only contains those: ['MECKSTROTH', 'WANG Weimi', 'RODWELL Er', 'ZHUANG Zej'] ('QJ7.KQ8.KQJ86.J4', '983.A7.7.AK96532') p 1N p 3C p 3D p 3H p 3N p p p p p p ['MECKSTROTH', 'VERSACE', 'RODWELL', 'LAURIA'] ('K65.AKJ74.85.KJ2', '84.986.KQJT72.Q9') p 1N p 3C p 3D p p p p p p ['Meckstroth', 'Cheek', 'Rodwell', 'Grue'] ('A32.AKQ73.Q7.J95', 'KJ.T.AK9532.K642') p 1N p 3D p 3H p 4C p 4D p 4N p 5N p 6C p p p p I am too lazy to check if this 6C is mistype by vu operator now (sometimes you have different bids in the bidding than in final contract in lin files and final contract is usually accurate). For detailed agreements you will probably have to ask them. When you manage to contact them please ask about follow ups to 1D - 2D and of course about competitive stuff which would be much help :-)

I had a bug in my program :) Actually there were 20 hands on vugraph were either Meckwell or Greco Hampson passed 1NT. Here are those hands along with the bidding: ['Mahmood', 'Rodwell', 'Rosenberg', 'Meckstroth'] ('AT85.J9742.K7.K8', 'J63.5.AT9652.AJ9') 1H p 1N p p p p p ['Rodwell', 'Lazard', 'Meckstroth', 'Bramley'] ('AK42.A9873.Q8.82', '85.T65.KJ6.QJ953') p p 1H p 1N p p 2D 2H p p p ['Weichsel', 'Rodwell', 'Ekeblad', 'Meckstroth'] ('Q4.KQ984.A52.J72', 'A83.JT.T8.Q98543') 1H p 1N p p p p p ['Berkowitz', 'Rodwell', 'Cohen', 'Meckstroth'] ('K8652.QT8.A43.A8', 'QJ.A72.JT872.QJ3') 1S p 1N p p p p p ['Meckwell', ' Zia', 'Rodwell', 'Rosenberg'] ('KQ854.AQ.J75.873', 'T7.T97632.K.AKT6') p 1S p 1N p p 2N d 3D p p 3H d p p p ['VERSACE Al', 'RODWELL Er', 'LAURIA Lor', 'MECKSTROTH'] ('KQ654.A4.632.QJ4', '73.Q5.KQJ85.9863') 1S p 1N p p p p p ['M. Bessis', 'Meckstroth', 'T. Bessis', 'Rodwell'] ('AJ932.98.K74.A92', 'T8.AQT52.Q.Q8764') 1S p 1N p p p p p ['Weinstock', 'Rodwell', 'Mihai', 'Meckstroth'] ('AQ742.A9.T72.KT6', '3.K54.KJ9.Q97543') 1S p 1N p p p p p ['Schwartz', 'Rodwell', 'Lair', 'Meckstroth'] ('J8653.A96.AQ5.Q6', '2.Q54.832.KJ9742') p p 1S p 1N p p p ['BRAMLEY', 'GRECO', 'FELDMAN', 'HAMPSON'] ('AT85.J9742.K7.K8', 'J63.5.AT9652.AJ9') 1H p 1N p p p p p ['hampson', 'weinstein', 'greco', 'levin'] ('K95.AJ873.T4.J72', 'A83.T2.9763.AQ83') p p 1H p 1N p p p ['2005', 'WORLD', 'ITALY', 'CHAMPION'] ('J63.KQ976.A82.94', 'AT74.42.J63.AT52') p p 1H p 1N p p p ['ZIA', 'GRECO', 'ROSENBERG', 'HAMPSON'] ('K9863.K87.Q2.AT2', 'J.QT42.AJ987.854') p p 1S p 1N p p p ['KREKORIAN', 'HAMPSON', 'DREWSKI', 'GRECO'] ('KJ85.J83.AQT95.3', 'Q7.62.J742.KT864') 1S p 1N p p p p p ['GRECO', 'ZMUDZINSKI', 'HAMPSON', 'BALICKI'] ('AJ732.975.T73.AK', 'Q64.AKT.Q62.T753') p 1S p 1N p p p p ['Greco', 'Fantoni', 'Hampson', 'Nunes'] ('AK642.63.AT5.QJ2', '83.J42.J8763.AK4') p p p 1S p 1N p p p p p p ['Nunes', 'Hampson', 'Fantoni', 'Greco'] ('K9873.KQ4.K52.65', '642.A962.Q76.872') p p 1S p 1N p p d p 2C p p p p p p ['Nunes', 'Hampson', 'Fantoni', 'Greco'] ('K9873.KQ4.K52.65', '642.A962.Q76.872') p p 1S p 1N p p d p 2C p p p p p p ['Zia', 'Hampson', 'Rosenberg', 'Greco'] ('KQ872.653.K9.K86', 'J93.T984.T73.A72') 1S p 1N p p p p p ['2005', 'WORLD', 'ITALY', 'CHAMPION'] ('AQJ93.AJ.984.983', '842.K732.QJ7.AJ4') p 1S p 1N p p p p :-)

I think this is the best book on declarer play which was ever written. It's true that explanations are short and not for beginners. It's true that English is bad. It's also true that there are some rare mistakes in solutions. Despite all that the problems are great and educational and very practical. Mix of pure technical plays with psychological ploys make this book a treasure. I think that if you want to improve get those books (vol I and II), if you are lazy and like reading more than solving problems and improving go for tons of others written so far.

1M - 1NT pass Seems to be extremely rare. In all vugraph history up to 2009 there are only 4 hands where Meckwell passed 1NT: ('QJ.A72.JT872.QJ3', 'K8652.QT8.A43.A8') ('KQ654.A4.632.QJ4', '73.Q5.KQJ85.9863') ('J63.5.AT9652.AJ9', 'AT85.J9742.K7.K8') ('A83.JT.T8.Q98543', 'Q4.KQ984.A52.J72') So not too much material too analyse. (There are no hands where GH passed 1NT). 2 more hands where Balicki - Zmudzinski passed 1NT: (out of 3700): ('83.A.QJ32.J87653', 'QJ65.Q8752.K.KQ2') ('JT8.KJ.KT954.T87', 'KQ5.AQ864.Q76.65')

I agree with this but the problem of mixed raise not vul remains. We play negative free bids so we don't play "everything is a raise". If goes: 1S - 2C we need both 3D and 3H as natural strong bids so what is left is: 2NT, 3C, 3S and I wonder what is the best use for them.

Also it's not clear if you want to open 1NT with every 14-15 5M-3-3-2. It seems to me that Americans have no problem with that at all while Europeans don't like it. If you are going to open 1M then the benefit of knowing that 2C is natural after 1NT is gone. So I think that if you are going to adopt semi forcing 1NT you have to go for the whole package (1NT with 5M-3-3-2, puppet stayman of some kind etc. etc.)

Well, I trust your judgement more than mine on this one (still I am going to dig up all the hands from vugraph history where Meckwell or GH opened 1M and passed 1NT and see). One more thing is that I thought that it's common to bid 1NT with many 12 counts. In this case semiforcing doesn't solve the problem of being stuck in 1NT on 25pc. If we bid 2/1 with every/most 12 then we often play sharp 3NT on 23. I guess the difference in approach is that most people here play mainly matchpoints. At matchpoints missing better partscore or playing 3NT on 23pc is often a disaster. At imps not so much. I would be much more willing to play semi forcing 1NT if imps were my main game.

I think it could only work if you open all 11's. You really don't want to be in a spot: pas 1♦ ???? When the passer still can have 11 and the opener 14. Jumping to 2NT after passing first is obviously very bad but bidding 1NT puts opener in very awkward spot if he has 14. 11-13 range and 14-16nt solves a lot of those problems and allows for more or less free ride in 3rd seat.

This is interesting. In Poland it's going in the other direction. People are employing forcing 1NT even if systems which don't require it just to be able to bid 2♣ on every 5-3-3-2 (bidding 2♦ with 3diamonds is super bad in my opinion) and hopefully get to better partial than 1NT. I have noticed that both Greco Hampson and Meckwell play not (semi) forcing 1NT now but unfortunately only knowing the hands from vugraph isn't enough to tell if they are losing or winning thanks to it.

In precision where all the jumps promises 7 carders or 6-5 distribution this approach is playable. In standard I think it sucks because you will be too high too often without meaningful information.

I call BS on this but I admit that 3 card suit is possible. I am so used playing 2nd from Hxx that I forgot that standard is the lowest :-) Anyway, what's the line ?

I thought about it but I feel that it's too risky not to be able to bid 4S over their 4H with 10 spades because we don't know partner have weak hand with 4 of them and not balanced 6-10 count with 3 of them. I don't have experience playing this way though, maybe it doesn't happen too often ?

We don't have standard for that in Poland. Long time ago everybody played like you. Now some people reversed it, some didn't and you have to always ask before you play with someone :-)

One thing is that you didn't see 3, 6, 8, 9, Q, A of hearts; The lead could be from: AQ94 AQ84 AQ64 A984 A964 A864 and all of those with 3♥ added. I don't know if looking at our hands/bidding the 4-4 or 3-5 heart split is a priori more likely but I would guess they are very close which makes 4-4 heart break an even shot. If hearts are 4-4 you can run spades receiving a lot of additional chances (spades 4-3, Q of d falling, C finesse, them being endplayed after cashing hearts etc.). With just a diamond finesse you loose to Qxxx onside anyway which makes it about 40% shot according to my quick calculations

Wow, are you serious ? It's better hand than most 16's. Both Meckstroth Rodwell and Greco Hampson open most 15's with 6carder with 1C. Maybe they don't play in England too often though...

Let's say it goes: 1♠ (2♣) ? Now with spade support we would like to have options to express: -Normal spade raise -Game invite -Game forcing -Mixed raise -Preempt That's five hand types which along with playing negative free bids doesn't make it possible to include every one of them in separate bids (but even not nfb players have a problem in 1S - 2H - ?). Now popular convention in Poland is to play that 2NT is game forcing with support, 3C is invite with support, 3S is preemptive and with mixed raise, well you just bid 2S and hope for the best. I think this is bad and mixed raise is very important hand type. How do you solve this problem in your system ? Do you play limited or wide range openers ? (I think this should influence your choice). What about 1M - dbl - ? Now there is more space; is there a place for both mixed raise/invite/GF in your system ? The following hand made me think about it: Spingold quoter final 2007; last segment [hv=pc=n&s=sqt973hkt72dakt5c&w=s5hj54d32caqt6543&n=sa862hq863d96c872&e=skj4ha9dqj874ckj9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1s2c2s3nppp]399|300[/hv] That was the bidding in Closed room which was disaster for Chmurski - Gawrys after Hamman made 3NT. In the other room Fredin didn't overcall so Rodwell could bid 3♠ as mixed raise and despite Meck going down one it was + 11 imps for Nickell.

[hv=pc=n&s=shkt5djt654cak542&n=saqjt32h72dak8cjt&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1cp2dp2sp3cp3dp3nppp]266|200[/hv] Auction is natural, precision style (2d = natural but 12+ in principle) (I switched N and S in bidding; strong hand opened 1C) 1st trick: 4♥ 2♥ J♥ K♥ Your move. I tried to solve it and I am pretty sure I would play better than actual declarer. I think my friend (polled about it) would play even better yet. And you ? :)

Yup, I don't know I thought 6NT could be winner. Looks retarded to me now :-) In Poland it's also standard regardless of 1D opener (in Poland some people play it's 5+ and some that it's 4+).

Pass and try to collect four digits looks like the plan to me.

While the hand is not suitable for simulation I believe that if difference is that huge (heart defeat the contract almost twice as often as Qc) dd lead is basically always correct. I don't think there is anybody in the world who beats those double dummy simulated leads but to prove this I would need to go through too many hands manually as there is no easy way to automate the process so it's remain just my intuition (quite well founded though by analyzing tons of vugraph hands).

This loses. It's how I played. I think there is much better play which cater for more layouts and I think it's quite interesting position: [hv=pc=n&w=sjhak85d742c&e=st7ht6dkt98c]266|100[/hv]

Smith doesn't make sense here. Overall it's like that: If you can't cover a card from dummy you give count (as you wrote) but then you don't give Smith anymore. If you cover dummy card and still can have other high card (QTx, you played Q, smith shows T; J9x, you plaed J, smith shows 9, etc. etc.) you give smith. If you cover dummy card and it's clear that you can't have a high card there are a lot of options. One agreement is that you give substitute count in lead suit. The other is that you give suit preference. Yet other is that you give substitute count if it matters (7x in dummy, partner lead small, you have 9xx, you want partner to know you have 3 so with 5 he know he can safely paly K from his KQxxx). The easiest and quite good agreement is that you just give suit preference if you can't have any more meaningful cards in led suit. Now the problem is if you should've given the suit preference to QJ of spades. It's not clear. On general principles you show A or K if xxx is in dummy so low diamond could just mean "I don't have As/Ks partner" To solve such problems you need to have detailed agreement and be aware of the context (bidding, play so far etc.). For example here what did 1NT mean ? I also can't see how heart continuation could ever win. Just play K of spades and see what happens. Declarer showed KJ87 of hearts by playing 7 to first trick an KQ of diamonds. He has at least one of the remaining queens for his opening bid. If it's Qc you have to cash out fast. If it's Qs it's eitehr Qxx and you have to hope for partner to have JT of spades and Qc or Qx and you have to play your top spades. W/e signal you agree onto K of spades you will know much more when you see it.

YEAHBUT... IT would only work with ♣ opener (if partner opened 1♦ he again needs 4♣ as natural). Even here he might be dealt 6-5 sometimes. In my opinion adopting such solution to bidding system is very dangerous. Giving up natural 3NT seems like auto-destruction to me. I think double should be t/o from partner perspective and maybe it's possible to double even with support and then hope partner won't pass. This obviously have other flaws though (like them bidding 4S and us having to double again hiding the support)