BillHiggin

Consider agreeing to make splinter bids only with singletons. Agree on strength (either a hand with opening strength, 4 card support and a singleton OR a hand that is worth a game force because of the shortness, 4 card support and a singleton). There are schemes to show 2 ranges of splinter (most commonly the two strength ranges above, but it will work to differentiate singleton and void) with a bit more memory work (and the sacrifice of the jump to 3N for some other purpose) Use cheapest double jump to show some void. Over 1H, 3S shows some void and 3N shows spade singleton! Then the next step asks for location (that ask will "eat" one possible answer but you bid 4M to show that void). It may be preferable to switch thing around - show the void splinter with the double jump shift and use the ambiguous bid to show some singleton - opener will almost always want to know where the void is, but may be able to sign off without asking about the singleton location so then the oppornents do not get free information. This scheme may be a bit much for typical Beginner/Intermediate players. Playing a 3N contract with a 9 card major fit and a void is a possible "I forgot" danger that should not be ignored.

Fluffys right, in practice you can't rely on the opponents. I found 68719476735 (6.87*10^10) auctions with the opponents silent. The longest auction you can have is pass-1♣-1♦-...-7NT-pass, consisting of 37 bids. Then you can leave out one of the first 36 bids (you can't leave out the last pass), and get 36 auctions consisting of 36 steps. And then leave out two of the bids, and get 36!/34!/2!=630 auctions consisting of 35 steps. And so on, all the way to the 36 possible sequences where we only have two bids. Number the bids 1..35 so that bid(1) = 1♣ and bid(35) = 7N AuctionsWhichStopBelowBid(n) = 2^n - 1 Auctions which stop below 1♣ = 2^1 - 1 = 1 ; i.e. pass pass AuctionsWhichContractForBid(n) = 2^n AuctionsWhichContractForNoMoreThanBid(n) = 2^(n+1) -1 Max auctions = 2^36 - 1 ; the same number that Jari produced.

With luck, this link will work better (with good luck that is) If it does, I will edit and expain. My Bidding System I removed the "wp-admin/index.php" from the url (which is invisible in the post, but visible while editing. Consider editing the OP to this and it will take people where they ought to go,

Perhaps the real question: A player has opened 1N with this hand (announced range being less than 15-17) and the opponents have hollered "MI". Both the 1N bidder and his partner state that the hand qualifies for their range (we will get to that shortly), so it is clearly not a case of "missed that queen". I would assume that if their posted range were 14-16, none of us would give any further consideration to the MI issue. How about if it were 13-15? 12-14? 11-13? Only after your ruling can you invite this pair to your high stakes set game.

[hv=s=saktxhkqxxdqjcqtx]133|100|[/hv]

Yes, understand the implications with regard to the whole system. As others have pointed out, frequently bidding 1N with a singleton in responder's suit works better when opener can often raise the major with 3 card support (and then a checkback is needed for forward going continuations). Those who choose the 1♦ 1♠; 2♣ style need to examine closely the 4th suit implications (how often does a heart fit get lost). I personally like Walsh responses to 1♣ (slight preference for 5542 openings) with full xyz (and responder's reverse flannery). In that context, frequent 3 card raises and rebidding 1N with a singleton in responder's suit seem to work well. With a different foundation, a different strategy may work better.

I prefer to let my opponents play the misfit hands. I pass

I do lead a small heart (and do so in similar circumstances regularily - it does not always work, but my success rate has been good) The 1♥ bid did not promise a concentration of values (nor did the 3♣ bid deny ♥ values - we takes our chances). But a heart lead is more likely to work than any other. In this case, it is still a bit of a long shot.

Pass - WTP Why is 3♣ even considered an option?

No Fit finding is now the most important next step. (idiot, foolishness, hairbrained, and imbecile included merely because I follow orders - has nothing to do with question - apply own opinion to answer).

Pound on this pillow as much as you wish. The best you can do is move the lump somewhere else. One hand type or another will become an issue after a 1♦ opening in 2/1. With regard to question #2, it will only add to the problem if you allow responder to bypass a four card major with less than game forcing strength. With some complexity, you can deal with either the 2♦ raise or the 2♣ response as invite+ including the possibility of a four card major only if responder has gf values (the complexity is too much for my olds-timers restricted memory since it applies only to these particular auctions). My choices (subject of course to partners agreement) is single raise as invite+ denying a major, 2♣ as game force possibly with a major and 3♣ as invite only long clubs. I also prefer Walsh responses to 1♣ with a full version of xyz and open 1♣ with equal minors (less than 5-5). Adopting Italian style 5-5-4-2 openings also reduces the occurances of the problem sequences. But, the lump is still there (jumping to 3♣ is not so attractive with 3 card ♦ support and a 6 card ♣ suit).

IMHO, the first proposal may be sound, the second represents severe implications for the use of stayman (I would not agree to that). My approach to 1N with a five card major has always been that once I make the decision to open 1N, I have basically decided to treat the hand as if it does not contain a 5 card major and I remain consistent to that for the balance of the auction. Depending on the rest of the 1N response structure, one could possibly adopt using 3♣ as a form of puppet stayman (certainly, other schemes are also possible).

3C or 3D leave lots of room to sort out strength and control issues. 3 of other major is not too cramped. So I suggest showing singletons near automatically (exceptions: when the hand is better described by showing the second suit OR when the singleton is an ace or king and the strength is appropriate for 3M or 3N). If your agreement is that 4M shows a hand with no shortness and 12-14 HCP, then you are pretty much required to make that bid when appropriate (but as your partnership moves more towards advanced, consider alternatives to that agreement). How to show the strength is another issue. I think that Serious 3N is a concept that can be understood by at intermediate players (Last Train is tough for many advanced players). With both of the example hands, I would bid 3D. The first one is much better than a 7 loser hand (upgrade LTC for aces not balanced by queens, and the jacks in the long suits are worth something - I would consider it a good 6 loser hand - I always try to be extra aggressive with 3 ace hands since partner will be unenthusiastic about his lack of aces). Note that cue bidding style definitely enters into these auctions and I am trying to not overly push my own preferences. Have some agreement, even if it is not the "best possible" - that is always better than disagreement or no agreement.

Now we are into real judgement issues (standard is in the eye of the beholder). The side suit showing rebids eat up a lot of space, and tend to leave responder facing a "go / no go" decision immediately. This creates problems if we ask opener to always show such a side suit without regard to strength. In my opinion (note that is quite a different thing than "standard") one should restrict the side suit show to hands with near minimum strength that is concentrated in the two suits. Warning - i repeat - that is my personal opinion and is not to be considered any sort of standard. The issue is less when your major is spades and the second suit is clubs (there are two cue bids available to responder, zero or one cue bid is not enough to constitute a "discussion" between partners). Other two-suited hands do have the option of showing the shortness instead of the side suit. I really think that once you get ready to fine tune Jacoby 2N agreements in your partnership that you will do better to start examining some of the alternative rebid strategies (but that discussion does not belong in "Beginner and Intermediate". I have a tendancy to spend time "inventing" treatments that attempt to cover weaknesses in the standard treatments. In this case, I have a fairly large collection of Jacoby 2N alternatives that nobody uses. I will sell them cheaply ;)

The South hand is strong enough to insist on slam opposite a game forcing raise unless there are two quick losers (either North has no club honor or more unlikely, no aces). To determine that takes some experience or good hand evaluation. Losing Trick Count certainly works with this hand (South has a 4 loser hand, and that should suggest that a grand slam is possible opposite a forcing raise). Not everyone loves LTC, but other hand evaluation techniques should give the same answer. Slams depend on a combination of strength, fit and controls. Bidding slams accurately requires evaluation and communication. Strength - If we classify strength by approximately King size steps, we can say that opener and responder (having made a game forcing raise) each might have minimum, extra strength or maximum hands. Minimum opposite minimum are worth 10 tricks (i.e. game). If either player has a maximum, then 12 tricks are likely (assuming the opponents do not take 2 first). If both have extra strength, then that also should be worth 12 tricks. Of course, I chose fuzzy words deliberately - there are no hard boundaries. You might want to consider examining "Serious 3N" as a way to communicate extra strength to partner (but that is a rather advanced convention). Fit - In addition to a trump fit, how well placed the other cards are has a great deal to do with your trick taking ability. Take the North hand and change the ♣A into a small card and change small red cards into queens - the strength remains fairly constant, but now there is too much diamond strength opposite the shortness and slam does not work. But exchange the ♦K with the small ♣ and 13 tricks are virtually certain (little wasted strength opposite the shortness). Controls - RKC and cue bids will answer those questions if you have good methods. Again, this gets into advanced techniques. Try studying Fred's articles on improving 2/1 for good ideas. The rebids you have outlined for the 2N forcing raise are the standard Jacoby 2N agreements. You definitely need to know those, but be aware that most experts consider them to be flawed (especially the jump to 4M with a minimum - that is a slam killer). Also, note that singleton ace or king is a difficult holding. The singleton honor is not worth as much as if it were in a long suit (where you have choices about when you play it), and showing the singleton may cause your partner to downgrade honors in that suit when that is not appropriate (the ♦K will seem less valuable to responder if opener shows diamond shortness, but it will actually still be worth a trick). With a singleton king, it is likely to be correct to not show the shortness - a singleton ace requires more judgement.

other than 1st line: first char is "*" if the opponents open then 2 digits first one 0 Any 1 None 2 Only We vul 3 Only They vul 4 Both vul 5 We not vul 6 We vul 7 They not vul 8 They vul second one 0 Any 1 1st seat 2 2nd seat 3 3rd seat 4 4th seat 5 1st or 2nd seat 6 3rd or 4th seat Series of calls with P for "pass". D for "double" and "R" for redouble or digit and denomination for bids (may be followed by a "condition" in curly brackets). "=" is just a seperator first "Y/N" is "Y" for artificial next 5 are for denominations that are possible contracts "CDHSN" last "Y/N" is "Y" if you are willing to defend a non-doubled contract next digit is "disposition" (ommitted for last bid of P,D or R) 0 No Agreement 1 Signoff 2 Non-forcing 3 Constructive 4 Invitational 5 Forcing 6 Forcing to game 7 Slam try 8 Control bid 9 Preemptive A Transfer B Puppet C Relay D Asking bid E Asking bid response if last call was a suit bid the next two digits show the min and max suit length for that suit (8 stands for longer than 7). Rest of the line is the explanation Get something wrong and FD will just quitely display nothing at all!

2♠ If I never open a weak 2 in third seat with resonable values, I become too predictable. I see very little chance of game. In general, I prefer to mess around with undisciplined weak two bids in third seat rather than with light openings. This strategy would be even more effective if my partners were not already so used to seeing pure junk from a third seat opening. Hard to believe, but sometimes the best hand at the table is actually held by the poor schmuck in the third seat - and his partner has been brain washed to disbelieve him.

The laws do NOT grant any rights to regulate natural bids to sponsoring organizations (the right to regulate conventions is so granted). The only thing sponsoring organizations can do to restrict natural bids is to regulate conventions used with them. This can be seen in the language the ACBL uses with regard to wide range 1N openings or weak 2 bids in the GCC. Sponsoring organizations do have the right to regulate (forbid) conventional responses which are designed to check for such light openings (where the ACBL specifically excludes Drury from such restrictions).

I will allow for partner to have been stuck (no true bid available), so I bid 2N now (cannot further risk wrong siding that strain).

And when some enterprising cheat enters twice (using dual identities)?

I can be quite flexible about jump responses to the 3 level (Bergen, strong, weak, intermediate, whatever partner loves). This also applies to 2♦ over 1♣. I will lobby hard for 2♥ over 1m as responders reverse flannery (less than invite, 5♠ and 4♥). I will strongly argue that 2♠ to 1♥ opening at least include game forcing heart raises which include spades as a source of tricks (It is a giant hole in 2/1 to respond 1♠ to 1♥ and then try to show a game forcing heart raise - too many ways that partner can prevent you from showing that below 4♥). Soloway jumps do include this case. (I am willing to "kickback" the 2N forcing raise and use 2N to show some set of hands that include the forcing ♥ raise with spades as a source of tricks).

Yes :P

IMHO If you are using Serious or Frivolous 3N, there is a simple patch to Jac2N that takes care of its ugliest drawback (the jump to 4M). It may not make things perfect, but simplicity is not always bad. Simple fix: let 3M show either minimum or maximum (say 12-14 / 18-19) balanced hands (use 3N for 15-17). This can be sorted out via Serious/Frivolous 3N. You can either define some picture meaning for 4M based on your choice of 3N, or just not include that possibility. My real choice would be some version of Swedish Jacoby 2N (I believe Martel is one such), but this is easier to explain to a partner that likely is not all that interested in learning yet anther convention.

I claimed 20-30. I started nearly 45 years ago. By the time I met the lady I was to wed, I had come to the conclusion that the person opposite me at the bridge table should not be the same as the person next to me at night (your mileage may vary). So I stopped playing for about 18 years. Now, I play some on-line but not at all face to face.

I am sure that there exist certain individuals in addition to myself that resemble my avitar. The artistic relatative that drew the sketch originally was certainly staring at me. Twas at a wedding reception, so one cannot assume that he saw exactly what he was looking towards. Later, as I was attempting to teach myself AutoCAD (engineering drafting software), I used that to transcribe the sketch from its napkin - stroke by stroke. Large quantities of beer were invested in the effort.