ASkolnick

5H to me is the right call. I am not convinced that 3S has to be a splinter. 5H says, I have heart support two spade losers and you know about my clubs, I think partner is in very good shape to place the contract.

For precision, to take care of the 4 card major suit issue, we use a canape style, so 1C-1D-1M promises only 4 of a major and you may have a longer minor. We have follow ups as well, so by the two level we will know if we have a major suit fit. As for shapely hands, a system I am coming up with uses the following: 1C - Intermediate two suiters. 15-20 HCP 1D - 17+ HCP. One bid type hands (1 suit or 2NT)or REALLY strong 2 suiters) My biggest problem is that 2C takes up too much room to find a fit, and 2D takes up even more room. I also feel that a 2D bid as weak, makes competing more difficult especially if 4th hand had all the values 2D-P-3D, now first bid is on the three level.

I am one of the people who was disappointed the midnight slowball's seemed to have disappeared. Unfortunately, due to commitments, midnight is the time I can first get online. The other problem is we are trying to play a unique, yet relatively natural system with some follow-ups, that would require too much explanation in a speedball tournament. The simple one is our 2 bids are all natural, promising 6 and promise values between a 1 and 2 bid. We have two artificial forces, 1C & 1D with 1C saved for two suited intermediate hands. I have no problem coming up with a reasonably timed event, but speedball is very difficult.

The funny part is you already said the answer. You are afraid if the 2nd club gets ruffed. I don't know how to solve it if red suits are 7-0,6-0, but 6-1 clubs not a problem. Score 2 Clubs, 1 Club Ruff, AH, 6 spades. 1) Duck a club in both hands. a) If trump returned, win KS, ruff with AS, cross with hearts draw trump :) If diamond returned twice , ruff 2nd diamond, ruff with AS. c) If heart returned, win AH, ruff high with AS. draw trump. d) If club returned, ruff with AS, draw trump. If there is a red suit void, you are screwed. Too many books talk about having just 3 losers, how about counting your 10 winners? The way to make sure your AC does not get ruffed is by not playing it.

Actually I went to RPI. It wasn't run by Lynn Deas when I was there, it was run by Bill and Norma Shelley. But Lynn did frequent there a lot. Lynn was also very instrumental in helping us juniors at the time. Many of the people I played with then, I still talk to and play with today. I was up their several years ago for a sectional, but alas it was not the same.

Hey, I'm big enough to have some ideas shot down. But I actually still curious if it was legal. This all sort of stems from should you play 1m-1M-P-2x as forcing or non-forcing by UPH? So, if somebody has a better suggestion, I am for it as well. Truthfully, its not whether its forcing or not, I have a problem with, its if its non-forcing, what do you do with a hand that is forcing? I do not like using a generic cue-bid since I think cue-bidding should really promise support, since I can see the auction getting away from you. And if you jump with that type of hand, you take up too much room. I just noticed that with no room and the SWAP theory, it really gains you not much and is almost as good as forcing for 1RD. BUMP is OK, assuming you have room to do so, so I was trying to come up with a compromise

Add my 2 cents worth even though noone will listen. And I will say both sides are probably right. As for Foo's statement, I think there is some merit distinguishing between Dbl-5C and 5C and I don't think its necessarily flexibility. And I can tell you many times where my partner double with 6-4 type hands and gets us in trouble. I think its "playing strength" versus "HCP strength". So, I think 5C says this is where I think the value of the hand belongs based on partners expected 7 HCP. However, it does not bar partner from bidding again. But, the two things which I think are very important for you to have are controls and support. Its not that lack of aces (AD may not be important) that worries me, its the fact I only have 2 clubs. So, there is still a possibility of losing a major suit ace and possibly a club, so I pass and go plus.

As for two way bids, its really no more two-way than some people play a negative double. Haven't thought all of it yet, but it really is not that common to do so,,especially if the opener's partner is a passed hand. There is no reason you can't just assume he has the balanced hand and bid accordingly. When I say the balanced hand, I am referring to values for 1N, not 1N+. I still like 2N+ as natural. Yes, you may lose out on the 4-4 spade fit, but you are already on the 3 level so that shouldn't matter. This is why you cannot have 5 spades for your bid. If partner has 6 spades, he can figure out your expected value of spades by the other bids and bid accordingly. Will he occasionally get it wrong, sure, but I don't think this occurrence is very frequent. You can play double as take same sort of action.

I still haven't figured out whether it is better to play advancer's bid as one round forcing or not. I think xfer advances solve this problem, but the way they handle some does not make sense to me. I understand the SWAP and BUMP theory, but I don't see the advantage to using a SWAP compared to making it one round force, with maybe the exception of making a fit-showing non-jump. Wouldn't the following be a little more productive over a heart overcall? 1x-1H-P- 1S (Shows either 4 spades and another suit, possibly tolerance for hearts, 6 spades or a balanced hand) Over 1x-1H-P-1S-P bid normally as if he had a balanced NT. If partner moves it, he has at least 4 spades and another suit. If he rebids 2S, he has 6 spades. Over backside interference, just play a variation of support x, where dbl shows 3 or more spades, and then just find a fit. 1N shows the other minor. 2C shows Limit+ 2D shows 5 card spade suit. But what I don't know is this legal GCC? Mid-Chart? If someone could let me know it would be greatly appreciated.

Don't agree that negative double does not show the unbid major, but that may be a matter of style. Here is the advantage of playing a Strong NT. When partner opens one of a minor, he has one of two hand types: 1) Strong NT+ 2) Unbalanced with a minor. Cuebidding is much better, since it is safer. If partner has a good stopper, he could bid NT. With a partial stopper, we play the raise of the cuebid looks for a partial stopper. As for Codo, asking what do you do with a bad 15-16 count over 1C-1S-2S-3S. The advantage now of cue-bidding is you have set-up a forcing auction, so with no stopper, you can actually pass and let partner make a decision. With a long club suit, you should be bidding over this. However, over a negative double you have not established your side has maximum values. However, once a negative double was made, how can you not bid 4H? Not that it will necessarily make, but you should know looking at your hand, you are probably not setting 4S anyway.

I am going to play the AD, then a small spade. I am not ducking the diamond in case he has 4. If partner has QS, or AS, I have set up the trick earlier and I still have the Ace of trumps. I don't think LHO has both the ASQS and a stiff diamond, and will sell out to that if that it was LHO has. If LHO has KJ of clubs, I may need him to guess by underleading the AC, so I won't commit originally. I think uncapping the AC can be a serious mistake, since if he has the KC, its OK unless club is doubleton and diamond is stiff.

I think this is a matter of style you have agreed with your partners. My general rule is would you like it if he led K from Kx, however with other partners I defer. When I play very sound overcalls where suit quality is more important.: 1) I think 1S is OK. 2) No. 3) No, no shape. 4) 1S is OK, no objection to not overcalling. 5) No. However, with some I play a more agressive matchpoint style. 1) No. 2) Yes. 3) The one I play matchpoints with assumes 5 card majors. 4) No. 5) Yes. And depending on the partnership, either way can work. Sound overcalls will get you in less trouble with bad suits, however, you may occasionally lose out in competing.

I am no longer a junior but I was lucky when it came to playing bridge. One year we were invited not to an NABC for the collegiate championships, but the ACBL headquarters in 1992. Here were some of the ways that it seemed to have at least a little popularity in the area where I was (Schenectady/Albany). 1) Club on campus - We were able to organize a bridge club and receive some funding from our student union. Although the club was not that big (We learned that with 7 people our most common number, if you use a rotating dummy, you can keep the game going). I happened to be the president of our Bridge club. 2) Local club which encouraged juniors to play - We were able to play in sessions for under $5 and there was also a local tavern next door which had 1/2 sandwich and drink specials for $1.92. During their sectionals, they also cooked and made their own food. 3) Good players in the area who encouraged juniors to play - At the time when I was around Schenectady, many players (Larry Mori, Juanita Chamber, Neil Chambers, Granovetters, Jade Barrett etc.) not only made it interesting, but were more than happy to talk to you or encourage you with playing. You never felt talked down to and thought they were clearly there to help promote the game. I still play and have friendships with many of the people from my college because of this bridge connection. It can be a serious and social game.

hrothgar, We have been tweaking with a somewhat similar system but with a canape style in the majors. Our minors are natural for preemptive value. We use Zar points for evaluation. 1C Shows an intermediate two-suited hand. Haven't figure out the best responses for this yet. I have a few ideas though. 1D Shows a strong single suited, balanced, or huge two suiter. Plays like a Mexican 2D, but 1 level cheaper. 1H Canape, longer minor OK. 4-5 thinking about expanding to 4-6 1S Canape, longer minor OK. 4-5 max thinking about expanding to 4-6 but I think its less necessary. 1N Balanced Min, No 4 card major unless 4-3-3-3. Can be 5-4 in the minors. Sometimes you don't find your fit, but lots of times they don't find their major suit fit which ranks higher. 2X 6 of suit. What I call 1.5 bids (between HCP of 1 and 2 bid). Minors can be (3-1-5-4). Majors should deny 3 of the other major. 2N Minors. I think you want to take advantage of opening at the 2 level and taking up bidding space. Through coincidence, our system winds up being very similar in fashion to something known as the Burgay Diamond. He wants to bid at the 3 level with any 6-4 in the minors. This makes sense since he wants to put maximum pressure on someone trying to find there major suit fit. And, no, I do not believe opening 1D showing hearts is GCC legal.

Our agreement is a little different. Double of clubs in that position suggests a non-club lead, but a pass suggests that clubs are OK to lead, but not required. So if it goes 1C-P-P-2C-P-2N-P-3N-x, at least the way we play it,a club lead is definitely called for.

I am going to take the dumb opinion. Case 1: Preemptive Who says this is our hand. A weak NT is still an opening bid and there is nothing to say LHO does not have an invitational hand. Let's let them make the last guess. Case 2: Whatever you want If pass is not a value showing pass, it sort of depends what your system is. We play transfers, so you can always raise yourself. Leaping Ripstra I can see is as good a treatment as any, but with a really good 4441, wouldn't you be better off doubling. If partner has any hand, you would rather let them play 1NT-x and if they run into your stiff, cuebid. So, I can certainly see an intermediate to good hand in balancing seat.

I think you should bid 2S with extras on this hand, however I can at least present his side of the argument much better than he can. I am also not thrilled that a person who publishes books cannot come up with a better explanation, but I think that is because most experts do not agree with his opinion. I also think if your spades are your clubs, his argument is much better. But here is at least a few reasonable arugments: 1) By bidding 2H, this does not inhibit partner from bidding 2 spades. So your auction will sort of be the same. So it can go 1H-2D-2H-2S if partner has that hand. Since you are in a GF you can bid 3S would also imply extras and start whatever good sequence you want from responder's perspective. 2) You don't give away your distribution. Partner does not rate to have spades unless he is at least 5-4 in diamonds and spades so it is not that likely. Also, against NT, by hiding this suit you may get a spade lead. 3) Reserve for distributional hands. Not only will the bid show extras, but it will imply shortness. This way when two suits are bid, you know ruffs are available or that both off-suits need to be protected.

Well, if my partner's bid only shows 8+, I will take a call, but I don't believe balancing that light is really a winning action in the long run. This is not matchpoints, its IMPS. So if you go plus on a part score, you are OK. When my partner doubles, I expect the same values as re-opening 1N, just with no stopper. I am going to take the middle of the road action, but go against the grain and pass. I am not sure where the opponents tricks are coming from. I have most likely 4 tricks sitting in my hand. I expect my partner's hand to be balanced since he could bid 2X with a decent hand. I will expect more often than not I am going +300 possibly against a game, but I don't expect the game to always make. I have 4 offensive tricks, but I also have 4 defensive tricks.

It seems we have come up with a simple reasonable interference methods over two-way clubs which seem to throw a monkey wrench into the responses. 1C - X Strong NT type hand or good single suiter. 1D Hearts Constructive Overcall. This way partner can also raise himself or bid again with a good hand. We will occasionally do this on the right 4 cards as well. 1H Spades Constructive Overcall 1S Transfer to Clubs (Yes, it could be right to pass, but sometimes you really have clubs and they have the balanced hands.) 1N and up are Suction bids. Over 1C-x-P- With clubs, obviously pass. 1D- 4 hearts. 1H- 4 spades. 1S - To let doubler play 1N. 1N - 5 card diamonds 2C - 6 card diamonds 2D - 5+ Hearts 2H - 5+ Spades Over 1C-x-1X- Bid naturally.

Similar to MOSCITO based on ideas by Zars Pertov and tweaked by us. Its a slightly stranger version of 4 card Majors, Intermediate 2 bids, and Non-forcing 2 over 1 bids. We play 2 different strong bids 1) 1C Intermediate+ 2 suiters - get to keep the bidding low with no fit. 2) 1D shows a 1 bid type hand, either single suited or balanced. 6-4's are a grey area. So, when we bid 1D, we treat it similar to a Mexican 2D. 1D 1H (GF Values) 2D 3D (Because of the inference of the 1D bid, we don't have to show the 4H, chances are partner doesn't have them and 8xxx 3433 and unless partner is 64 my hearts won't matter) 3H 4C (Control bids) 4D 5C 6D

I understand the problem with the logic with the AQ543 JT976 but if I have Kx. I do not have a choice at that present moment. And once LHO follows, the possibility of 0-3 offsides has now been eliminated. Instead of being insulting, here is the problem with your logic about eliminating 1/3 of JT possibilities. Let's talk about possible holdings which are relevant: Let me be more specific. You have the J T 4 3 2. J Finesse JT Drop JT4 Drop JT3 Drop JT2 Drop Will determine whether you play for the drop or the finesse. Give me any order you play the cards, I don't care if you are false carding or not. If RHO plays the 2 and the 3, J Finesse JT Drop JT4 Drop JT3 NOT POSSIBLE ANYMORE JT2 NOT POSSIBLE ANYMORE If RHO plays the 2 and the 4, J Finesse JT Drop JT4 NOT POSSIBLE ANYMORE JT3 Drop JT2 NOT POSSIBLE ANYMORE If RHO plays 3 and the 4, J Finesse JT Drop JT4 NOT POSSIBLE ANYMORE JT3 NOT POSSIBLE ANYMORE JT2 Drop In no cases does playing the two spot cards eliminate a case for JT tight since there is only once case of JT tight which would be JT opposite 234 regardless of which card he plays. Why would I need to eliminate 1/3 of the JT possibilities? If he plays the 42, JT tight is still just as likely If he plays the 32, JT tight is still just as likely If he plays the 43, JT tight is still just as likely And besides, there is only 1 holding of JT tight, so how can I eliminate 1/3 of those cases? In all cases there are two cases where its right to play the drop, and 1 case where it is right to take the finesse. So, why is it relevant what order RHO plays in? We can take into consideration the number of cards left to be seen if you want to adjust it slightly. 11 cards remain of RHO versus 12 cards remain of LHO. Now, if you tell me, "the person always gives count" or "the person falsecards x% of the time" then you are talking differently. I am not sure how I can be more explicit than this.

1) I agree there are many cases where it is irrelevant. It is also a matter of matchpoints versus imps as well. Underleading Aces at matchpoints becomes more dangerous, not because it is necessarily the setting trick, but it gives declarer an extra trick. 2) The second point is irrelevant unless I am leading the Ace. If I don't lead the Ace and find partner with the wrong suit, those tricks will still disappear.

Technically, proof not quite correct. It is slightly over 2-1 since there will be 12 card places that LHO holds versus the 11 card places that RHO has.

Interesting post. I am not sure either is right per se. If expert always false cards, then you can ignore any false card. If a person never false cards, you are still ignorning the false cards. Jlall, A priori, you are right its 5 time as likely, but once a 2nd spot is led from dummy, you are now limited to much less in combinations. So, there are not 3 JTx's at all, only 1 JTx since you have already seen the two of the remaining spot cards. You have 5 cards, J T A B C (ABC are spot cards) On round 1, card A and the Jack are played On round 2, card B is played Now the only possible holdings which are relevant for LHO are JTC or (JTA and JTB are not possible anymore) JT J so, it is twice as likely not 5 times as stated by many before this. You should still play for the drop, but it is much closer than indicated in any one else's proof. Similar to the situation with restricted choice, the reason the hook becomes a better play is because once left hand opponent shows up with a 2nd card, the cards cannot be 1-3 offsides. This problem seems very similar to playing Axxx opposite QT98x for 1 loser. The correct play is the Ace and low, only because of single case of KJ offside.

How can double followed by 4S be a slam try in spades? With any forcing hand and spades, you have 1 simple call: 3S, why, because its forcing? If you want to make a slam try, bid some more after this. 1D-3H-x-4m-4S It can't be a terrible hand, why, because you made a negative double forcing partner to bid at the 3+ level. Therefore, the only possible meaning it could mean is a bad suit (usually 6, maybe 5 spades if needs partner to bid 3N). The problem MikeH poses in his follow up, is entirely different the original