BillHiggin

A different approach will accomplish what you seem to be trying to do. Open the original FD file containing the 1♣ sequences (and a lot of other uninteresting stuff). "Save as" a new file (it seems one needs to type in the .bss extension - it has fooled me more than once). Now, in editor mode, select in turn the uninteresting options and delete them. When done with that, save. Now you have a base consisting only of the 1♣ sequences.

You have now seen all the low cards. You need to win the rest of the tricks in this suit (no way to get there if you lose one now) There are two (well three) possibilities: LHO started with Jxx and RHO smoothly held up the K from Kx. So you can rise with the ace and run the suit when he swears at you. LHO started with KJxx and RHO played his only card in the suit under your 9. And no matter what you do, LHO will still stop the run of the suit. Absurd possibility - LHO started with xx, and RHO has taken perverse delight in ducking with KJx - so he cost himself a trick, but you still cannot run the suit. Absolutely clear to make the only play that can work. Play the ace! At this point, percentages have nothing whatsoever to do with solving the problem.

Pick a system (well - other than SAYC) Odds are good it will be there Hamway - strong c Meckwell - their own ver of precision Rubin-Ekeblad - ultimate precision Fantoni Nunes - Fantunes versions of Ambra, 2/1 and others

Many conventions have multiple versions/variations. The more complicated the convention is, the more versions there tend to be. Individuals (or partnerships) ought to be able to make their own decisions about which version they prefer (and of course, they are). The current flat list of conventions will quickly become unwieldy as more versions are added (note there are currently four versions of Bergen). A tree or outline structure might be an improvement. I see two main types of variation. 1) Alternate incompatible version 2) Extension or tweaks An example of an extremely variable convention is Two Way Checkback/xyz. The version included in the BBO-advanced convention card only seems to apply to auctions beginning 1m 1M 1N. I have more commonly seen that referred to as “xyNt”, and even that often includes agreements for 1♣ 1♦ 1N and may include 1♥ 1♠ 1N. My understanding is that “xyz” normally also includes 1m 1y 1M auctions (still with 1♥ 1♠ 1N being only an option). These variations are essentially additive. I.e. they can be divided as: a} 1m 1M 1N agreements (four unobstructed auctions) b} 1♣ 1♦ 1N agreements (one unobstructed auction) c} 1♥ 1♠ 1N agreements (one unobstructed auction) d} 1m 1♥ 1♠ agreements (two unobstructed auctions) e} 1♣ 1♦ 1M agreements (two unobstructed auctions) With the last two being somewhat logically combined (I have not seen a variation including d) without :P and e) also, but who knows). An example of alternate agreements with this example involves sequences where checkback is available but not used: a} Original version used alternate GF agreements b} More commonly I have seen alternate invitational agreements (and not always the same ones). Then there are the 2N tweaks: a} Delayed GF support for opener’s minor (since inv minor denies major 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3♦ - GF with support for x and lower shortness 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3♥ - GF with support for x and higher shortness 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3♠ - serious slam try with support for x and no shortness 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3N – mild slam try with support for x and no shortness b} Concentrated Value responder 1 or 2 suited 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3♦ - GF COV y+♦ or long ♦ (y=♦) 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3♥ - GF COV y+♥ or long ♥ (y=♥) 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3♠ - GF COV y+♠ or long ♠ (y=♠) 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3N – GF COV y+♣ c} Others (I am sure) It would be nice to define an add-on to implement these which would only actually activate the options chosen above for implemented x, y, z. Normally, the base files would define 1x 1y; 1z 2N as natural invite, 1x 1y; 1z 2♣; 2♦ 2N as some invite with clubs and 1x 1y; 1z 2♣; 2♦ 3♣ as ♣ signoff. In a perfect world, the 2N tweak add-ons would then redefine 1x 1y; 1z 2♣; 2♦ 2N as the natural invite, 1x 1y; 1z 2N; 3♣ pass as the ♣ signoff, and 1x 1y; 1z 2♣; 2♦ 3♣ as whatever 1x 1y; 1z 2♣; 2♦ 2N was in the base file (ok – I am dreaming). Note that if all the possible variations were included as single files that the list becomes enormous (especially since I only listed some of the variants).

2nd hand report on Cole Robinson At 3/4 point Cole up by 20 (Robinson led by 1 at the half)

Game forcing 5-4 or better. Any game forcing bid that suggests a minor suit game must have fairly serious slam interest. I prefer that opener now explicitly bid the major if he prefers that strain (over 3M, we should be able to comfortably cue bid). 3N would show inappropriate value placement (other suits well stopped), and other bids confirm the minor fit. This still keeps 3N in the picture when we do not have the major suit fit and slam interest is minimal.

A different conclusion is quite possible! Considering their well known card playing skills, can we not perhaps blame their consistent also ran status on the lack of sophistication in bidding.

I think that responder will generally be better placed by NOT bidding 3♣ the first time. Two kings and an ace opposite a strong 2♣ opening suggest that slam is virtually a foregone conclusion. Strain is not so clear (yes we like clubs, but spades could be even better and hearts will work if partner has a strong hand with long hearts and no-trump is certainly worth considering at this form of scoring). Considering the actual bids chosen, I would tend to suspect that this partnership is just not going to have the tools to bid the grand slam. What do I think of the 6♣ bid. I think responder is very inexperienced and somewhat naive. This slam is likely to score well below average. The combined strength seems to be at least 33 HCP, and even beginners can bid 6N on that. Lacking the tools to investigate the grand in clubs, at least choose 6N.

I frequently use the 6-4-6 bidding pattern to show extra strength (note that I choose to play mostly IMP scoring - your mileage may vary) I frequently truncate the weaker 6-6-4 pattern at 6-6 Add into the comparison 1♥ - 1♠ 3♥ This sequence can really present problems for responder - we have taken away a large number of options from him. Hopefully he is able to place the contract (and so I ask my partners to sit down and talk about a "picture" definition for this sequence). The worst (in terms of presenting headaches to responder) case is when he intended to support hearts but wanted to show that he held a fine spade suit (as a source of tricks). Now he can no longer really "tell" anything and must take control of the auction. Since this is the only exception to the pattern of responder showing a new suit while simultaneously establishing a game force (in 2/1 over a major suit opening), I like to use a jump to 2♠ as strong (Soloway or simply heart support with spades as a source of tricks and either invite+ or game forcing strength - pick your poison). Note again - this is based on IMP strategy (I just do not bother with MP strategy)

He has probably seen what you like to open 3N on ;)

Perhaps "monkey" should have been an option! The question "Do you like this bid" has much more pertinence. If 7♦ makes and they bid a makeable grand at the other table, xx can gain 6 or 7 IMPs. If you are destined to lose a spade trick and the other table bids some failing contract, xx risks 4 IMPs. If they bid a making small slam at the other table, then the quality of your choice of grand may win 17 or lose 14, and xx will add 1 IMP to either swing. If 7♦ makes and they bid a failing contract at the other table, you win 20 IMPs and gain one more by redoubling. If a spade ruff beats 7♦ and they bid and make a grand at the other table, you lose 20 IMPs and xx adds just one more. Ever so much more rests on the choice of contract than on redouble. I am still trying to figure out how there can be a play of hand story to 7♦. I can see a play of hand story in 7♠ with dummy tapped at trick one, Alvin holding ♠Qxxxx and the suit splitting 4-0 (making if East holds at least as many diamonds as North).

Open 2♠ (clear cut in my style) Responde 3♣ - my agreements - shows clubs as a source of tricks, spade tolerance, forcing for one round. Change the ♥K to ♥A and it would be 4♣ fit jump. Rebid 3♦ - descriptive, nothing to be ashamed of Most likely we now get too high at 4♠. I have gone down before. Reduce the ♥K to any lesser ♥, and I still start with 3♣, but now will clearly stop at 3♠. The ♣ suit does not need to be THAT good for the 3♣ call.

Wait, doesn't it lose the ability to play in 2♣, not 2♦? Playing two way checkback (xyz) does prevent 2♣ as a suggestion of final contract - you can get out at 3♣. Yous pays yous money and yous takes yous chances. Responder can unilateraly get out at 2♦, just pass the forced 2♦ opener bid. Somewhat common after a 1♦ opening, rarer but no unheard of when the diamond suit has not been mentioned yet (Walsh response to 1♣ with a weak hand, a 4 card major and a 6 card diamond suit).

Basic responses to Multi-2♦ (variations not uncommon) 2♥ = I want to play in 2♥ if that is your suit (may get excited if you correct to 2♠) 2♠ = I definitely like hearts, but not spades. (over either of these, 2N by opener shows the big balanced hand if that is an option) 2Nt = asks for clarification ... 3♣ shows max with hearts ... 3♦ shows max with spades ... 3♥ shows min with hearts ... 3♠ shows min with spades ... 3N shows the big balanced hand The other openings you asked about are usually called Muideberg (I don't really know the continuations).

You asked about judgment, lets talk about judgment. Certainly any game will be sketchy at best, but vul at IMP scoring favors aggressive games more than any other scoring or vulnerability. Things you do know from the auction so far: Partner has 3 spades and at least as many diamonds as clubs. How well do you know your partner and your agreements? My agreements about NMF here would require partner to bid 2 (or 3)♥ with 4 hearts and 3 spades (others may have different agreements) so I would know that partner does not have 4 hearts. Both JT holdings are well placed - in suits where they rate to be useful. I would certainly say that the two holdings combined are worth more than the 2 HCP basic count. The ♣Q is more of an issue - it might not have any value at all. But 3-2-4-4 shape may be a possiblily (it would not be in my advanced partnerships, but then we would be using 2-way checkback rather than NMF). Opposite that shape, all your cards are well placed. If your partner has 5 diamonds and 3 spades, then the club holding is possibly wasted (but the diamond holding is still golden). How well do you know your partner? If he is aggressive, then the 2♠ rebid is more discouraging. But if he would tend to take a pessimistic view of most 13 HCP hands AND you believe he cannot hold 4 hearts, then this could be worth another try (just because the scoring and vulnerability are so favorable). How well do you know yourself? I see indications of self doubt (well outright statements actually). I won't try to guess whether it is better for you to place yourself in more challenging situations or not. But that is a factor. Pass rates to be correct. But there are possible reasons to take a more optimistic view of this hand.

The OP did not mention whether un vs un was part of the partnership agreements. It is part of mine. This makes his 4♠ bid preemptive. There is too much chance that both 5♣ and 5♠ make or that 5♠ is down just one while 5♣ makes.

4N would be ok IF it were RKC. It is vanilla Blackwood - you must use some forcing raise first (by most standard agreements) to turn on RKC. I choose to bid 2D (game forcing), then support hearts, then pull out the RKC cannon. The choice here is mainly based on a habit of showing a raise with a side suit as a source of tricks. But that is not so critical when I have a hand that clearly calls for captaincy. Beginning with Jacoby 2N (or whatever flavor of forcing raise you agreed on) followed by RKC also works. It might be better if it gives partner a chance to show a diamond void now (diamond void and 2 key cards would be an embarassing response issue with RKC). Pick a splinter seems poorest - key cards tell the story.

It seems to me that the original question (with editorial comment) boils down to: "We need a legal method to deal with a situation that we have illegally created". Stopping play of a hand in progress is not allowed, and therefore the laws do not address a resolution of it. Fix the situation rather than inventing a bandaid. There is nothing wrong with ruling that players not be allowed to start a new hand within the last N minutes of a round. Once they have started a hand, the only legal option is to finish it (barring certain covered exceptions).

I have had less than spectacular success with showing a doubleton and have switched to: 2N: 3 card support with max and great controls new suit : 4 card support with max and good controls, cheapest cue bid jump in suit: 4 card support with less than max, but great controls. 2N = hand that is better than partner would expect. cue bid = since always the cheapest available, usually leaves open the option to retransfer. jump in suit = again the hand has improved, but do not want to over encourage partner. It might be useful to define a separate meaning for the maximal suit (which cuts off the retransfer option at least at the 3 level). These treatments are NOT my own invention, but a suggestion from a trusted mentor.

5♣, 6♣ and 7♣ are all possible final contracts. If partner trots out 3N, then 5 may well be the limit. A reasonable agreement is to use a jump to 4♦ as exclusion RKC for clubs. If we have that agreement, this is the hand we had in mind! Reasonable agreement: All splinters at the 4 level in support of a minor are ERKC (credit to Pitbulls).

My basic question is this: How do you show support for partner's opener when you have sub-standard trump support to make one of these bids? First, this is a good starting point. There are lots of raise structures and some may suggest their favorites, but keep things fairly simple until you are confident that adding complications is what you are ready for. With poor trumps (such as 3 small) and invitational values, you probably have a decent suit - bid that suit and then raise partner. If your side suit is lower ranking (it usually will be), then the 2/1 response will show the strength so you will make the cheapest raise possible. If you respond 1S to 1H, you will need to raise to 3H next to show the strength. With game forcing strength and minimal support, you will usually begin with a bid showing your best suit. Of course you must not make a call at your next turn that is not forcing unless the call is 4 of your partner's major. It can be a useful excercise to write out a diagram showing the various new suit bids over each major opening and the possible opener rebids - mark all the opener rebids that show extra (game forcing) strength and over the others, list the bids by responder that are now forcing. Discuss this list with your partner. What do you think of the point count ranges and trump support I have suggested for the various bids? A good start. For raises, another hand evaluation technique is even better. Losing Trick Count works very nicely for raises. A web search will find many articles on that. A nice thing about LTC is that it will help you in raise situations whether your partner uses it (or is even aware of it) or not. For the limit raise, make sure to include any 4 card support (not just 3 to an honor). What do you do with a splinter and more than 16 points? If you bid 2 suits and jump in a third, you are showing shortness in the fourth. This was used well before splinter bids were even thought of. What other conventions would you suggest as good complements to the bidding system I have described? 1) Discuss raises when the opponents compete. Look up Jordan 2N for use over their take out doubles, and consider using a cue bid of their suit as a invitational raise or better over their overcalls. 2) Look at game tries over a single raise. Keep it simple. Help suit tries with counter tries (if responder does not have real help but is otherwise maximum he shows where his help lies) are a good but mostly natural system.

I prefer a form of fit bids for new (lower ranking) suit bids. I use 2N for most forcing hands (there are exceptions), and a new suit at the three level to imply at least tolerance for opener's suit with my suit as a "source of tricks". This has the effect of "turning opener's judgement back on" in that I expect opener to be able to make wise decisions if (when) the opponents enter this auction. It certainly works as a lead director (this can be very important when 4th hand tries 3N). Jumps are definitely fit jumps (I want to be in game in openers suit and want to show my side suit so partner may make a wise decision if the opponents compete). The only attempts I will make to improve the partscore are with a major suit that rates to be better than opener's red suit (2 level new suits are still forcing though). If 2nd hand has already initiated action, the fit bids are even more effective.