CSGibson

West has a clear raise, no LA, and I don't see any damage from potential MI, either. Result stands. If South is at all experienced, he should be ashamed for feeling the need to call the director when he saw dummy, IMO.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq32h2da432ca32&w=s54hkjt98d5c98765&n=sjt6ha6543dkq6cj4&e=s987hq7djt987ckqt]399|300[/hv] Someone e-mailed me this fun problem. N-S to make 6 spades on a heart lead. FWIW, I had to think about this for a little while looking at all the hands before the solution presented itself.

Neither are kickback in my partnerships. My guiding rule is that if we did not play kickback, and the bid would be natural, then it is also natural in my kickback partnership. Both of these bids qualify.

I am a believer in light, shapely take-out doubles, but I think it depends on a lot of factors. I am more likely to make a light take out double non-vul, and more likely to make a light take-out double opposite a passed hand partner. I am also more likely to make a light take-out double when they have opened a minor at the 1 level and I am 4-4 in the majors. I can stretch down to a shapely 9 count given the right circumstances - lower than that and I start to get uncomfortable. Basically my rule of thumb is that the less likely partner is to hang me, the more likely I am to bid with light HCP, including take-out doubles.

Take a breath, Phil. I am not suggesting that, though I can see how my comment can be interpreted that way. I am simply saying that the tempo of a suction auction allows you to differentiate easier between invitational and game forcing hands, given their methods. One of the advantages the NT opening side has against people playing suction is that something like 98% of the time, they get two bites at the apple, so making use of the extra tempo in the auction just makes good sense. This suggested defensive structure allows them to show the invitational hand type also, when they would not normally have that option, unless the auction goes all pass. It is a risk that I'm ok taking personally with invitational hands, but not game forcing hands if I'm stuck playing traditional lebensohl agreements instead of something like transfer lebensohl.

Break even.

Yes, creative editing can make those seem unreasonable. But it makes sense in context of the conversation we were having, and in context of what they play normally - I'm assuming they don't actually have a way of showing an invitational had with 5+ diamonds after a natural 2H interference, for example, so this systemic structure does not give up anything that they would normally be able to show.

I've tracked my preempts in a spreadsheet, and come up with the following: When I open a preempt that is flawed, but only slightly, it turns out to be a big winner in the long run. When I open a preempt with 2 or more flaws, it turns into a big loser. Flaws are: not a traditional number of cards in the suit First round controls outside of my suit undisclosed four card major Even not counting the crappy suit quality and the worst seat position, this is an absolute hole of a preempt, with 3 flaws to it. I wouldn't actually mind if you were ATxxxxx xxx x Ax, though I would consider that a non-standard preempt as well, and be prepared to take responsibility if it didn't work out, but this hand has an absurd amount of playing potential and defense not expected by partner.

Over 2C, just play systems on, same as you would for any other unanchored 2♣. As for the invite/GF, yes, I think that you have it right, if that's what you would play over a natural 2D bid. I would tend to X initially with the game forcing minor hand, but 3m right away is also possible. Waiting then bidding 3C/3D should be invitational, and you can choose to lebensohl with weak distributional hands if you just want to compete. Yes No, with a game force either X or bid your suit in a game-forcing fashion immediately. With a competitive hand, you also want to start bidding your suits immediately. They may be about to jump, after all.

I've been playing mentally with strategies as to how aggressive I should be relative to an opponent's system. A lot of my thinking has to do with whether I think we are ahead in an auction or behind in an auction compared to other pairs. For example - when a precision pair opens 1♥ or 1♠ against us, I think we are behind relative to other pairs, because they have a tighter definition of 1M, and may have been able to open a marginal hand. On the other hand, when that same precision pair opens 1♦, I tend to think that we are ahead in the auction, because it is so much less defined. Currently my strategy against precision 1♦ and other situations where I think I am ahead in the auction is to compete slightly more aggressively than normal, including preempting more aggressively. So far I think it has paid off reasonably well as both a matchpoint and imp strategy. On the other hand, I am less sure about other auctions as to who is ahead or behind - for example, over a weak NT, if I have a hand that was worth a 1♥ or 1♠ overcall over 1m, I tend to think I am behind, but it is also true that the 1N opening side may be behind if they were supposed to play in 2 of a major, or have to decide whether to compete over my interference. Adding in the common agreement that overcalls over a weak NT tend to be more sound than over a strong NT, and I'm not sure what my strategy should be against that bid. So I guess what I'm trying to do is start a discussion about how the opponents system and your position relative to the field changes your own bidding aggressiveness, if at all, and what common system variations make you feel like you are ahead or behind in an auction.

easiest (for me) is as follows: An immediate double by responder is game forcing, generally does not have a 5 card major. Further doubles after that initial double are penalty, forcing passes are on, as is normal lebensohl agreements after they disclose their suit(s). 2 level suit bids are to play 3 level suit bids are as normal, but without stayman (stayman hands either double immediately or, if invitational, do so later) doubles after initially passing are limited and take-out oriented. Lebensohl applies (delayed)

The methods are playable in context of a weak NT - I don't really see the need to play different methods, really, though. You still have to describe hands opposite a balanced hand and sort out invites, game forces, etc. And I have never been impressed by any of "traditional" weak nt methods like 2H/2S to play, or GF stayman.

We play a walsh structure in this partnership - 2S as minor suit stayman, 2N as club bust or 4-4-4-1, and 3m as invitational & natural.

I agree that the methods are not the best, and may even be unplayable. That being said, I was not really hoping to discuss whether penalty or takeout doubles were better; I was hoping any discussion would focus on what you should do on this invitational-type hand on the methods given.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt73ha6dakt5ca2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2hp2s(natural%20%26%20forcing)]133|200[/hv] E-W are a worldclass pair known for psyching frequently. How do you handle this?

4♦, no later action. But I do also have two suited bids, and I would use one of them.

Funny topic - in the silodors, partner opened 1N with a 1=4=4=4 11 count 3rd seat white with a stiff J of spades (we play a good 11-14), and later when the opponents committed an infraction later in the auction taking advantage of UI, we called the director. While the directors ruled in our favor for the UI infraction, they also decided to give us a procedural penalty, stating that the very act of opening 1N on that hand type, with no rebid problems, indicated that we had an undisclosed partnership agreement to open 1N with a singleton. This is despite the fact that there is no record of either of us opening 1N with a singleton, and that neither of us had a memory of having done so previously in our partnership. We indicated that we were going to appeal the procedural penalty, and the directors eventually dismissed it in favor of filling out a recorder form, which I thought to be much more reasonable.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj6hk853d5caqt62&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(12-14)p2cp2s3d(undiscussed)]133|200[/hv] You are playing a bracket 1 knockout, opponents are world-class, though not necessarily regular partners (Hampson/Cheek). You have not discussed delayed interference over stayman, but given your other agreements, X by you is likely to be played as a strict penalty double by partner, who is an expert. You have not shown any values with 2♣, as that is frequently garbage stayman. What do you do now? Edit: In case it is not clear from the diagram, the NT opening is 12-14.

I super accept when I can picture lots of typical hands for partner that will make game, but not invite. If I'm 4-3-3-3, I have to have controls and a concentration of values that I can show, helping partner evaluate if his hoped for shortage is working.

So I was playing in the loser swiss in the St Louis nationals, and I found a position that I think comes up fairly frequently (ie, more than once a year): you have played two rounds of a suit. Both hands go up the line giving count, but a small card is missing. On the 3rd round, your first opponent plays the small card, and you "discover" that one of your opponents was falsecarding count. My stipulation is that it is almost always the first opponent that is falsecarding count in that situation. He/she recognized that they should have falsecarded, was ashamed of it in the 2nd round of the suit, and then was forced to reveal the situation in the 3rd round. I know I've done it, and, what's more, I know that in a situation where I am falsecarding count I tend to give as big of a signal as I can afford and happily complete the signal on the next round. That got me to thinking that this is a situation that I should probably play the same way - falsecard like I'm ashamed of having messed up (3-7-2) rather than in big gestures (7-2-3). Are there any other subtle tells that you have found, and counters, to tell which opponent has falsecarded in other situations?

Well, we got 4th in the 10K, and we tied the team that finished 1st when we played them, and beat the team that finished 2nd. It was a fun event, but it just felt like a good regional swiss, frankly.

its fun to me to see that Michael is planning on playing both the platinum pairs and the red ribbons; in my opinion, the two events should be mutually exclusive :)

This is meant to be an all-encompassing thread for the St. Louis NABC - are you going to be there, did BBO Forumers do well in anything, etc. Personally I will be there for all of the tournament, playing in the flight A NAPs Wednesday, the under 10K swiss on Friday, the mixed pairs, the Silodors, and the North American Swiss - if you see me there, feel free to give me high 5's, what ups, tops, whatever. Chris Gibson

If I were forced to play weak jump shifts (A method I personally don't like), I would use it on this hand - its perfect for it. If I instead was playing my preferred methods, and responded 1S, then I have the option of signing off at the 3 level opposite a 2N call, though I'd probably run through some 17-19 HCP hands with 5 hearts in my head before making a decision about whether to sign off or go to game.

I take the push.