ASkolnick

Never mind last quote. Misread post.

Don't worry, I can take the criticism and always happy to hear the alternatives. As much as people are saying it is awful to play because there is a difference between a strong balanced hand and a good single suiter, maybe I should give you the other portion. We play transfers, so an overcall of 2C shows diamonds, 2D shows heart 1) If I have the "penalty" double, partner does not usually pull until they run, but can. 2C isn't really stayman, it more "garbage" stayman since with values he is sitting. 2) I would put money on the fact that 75% of the time, the person holds the balanced hand, not the single suiter that wants to penalize. 3) With a single suiter, I can bid and raise myself to show a strong hand if I choose not to penalty double. Yes, I lose an occasional penalty double. But with a strong hand and a single suiter, I can always break the transfer if partner runs to show a good hand. 4) You don't get to play in 2 of a minor anyway, especially if they play a value showing pass. 5) You have the advantage of playing lebensohl/(U/U) which leads to very constructive bidding since you will trap the point count as well as the shape. So, as much as you may think this is an "awful" system, I tend to disagree. As for the hand shown, I can get out in 3C quite easily.

Slightly off the topic but related to Mike777 question about why are some forms of gambling legal and some are not? This was brought up by Barbados and Antigua about the GATS agreement where the US had signed an agreement not to be part of "off-site" gambling. After the US signed this, they decided to rescind their statement. I believe the WTO () found the US in violation of this agreement since you either were "all" or none and as punishment, copyright laws are not protected in those two countries. I believe this is being appealed. As for gambling, I have no problem not "banning" slot machines. Not my cup of tea, but that doesn't matter since I don't think it has an affect on most people. As for the "extra" money towards education, the problem is I'm always suspicious. It seems every time a "gambling" proposal wants to go through, they say its for education. I would like to see in the states where gambling started what the jump was between the "non-gambling" year to the "gambling" year adjusted for Cost of Living, Inflation etc. My guess is you really are not going to see a big increase.

I disagree the auction doesn't exist, because partner held this hand at IMPS. Ax Axx QTxx xxxx Auction 1D-1N 2D-3N Unfortunately, I had the xx xxx AKxxx Axx hand, but certainly partner was correct in bidding 3N. He thinks, I probably have 6 top tricks in diamonds, and 2 Acess. If partner has a 9th trick for me, we just bid a good very light game at IMPS.

Here is what I play: As soon as partner makes a X of a weak NT, he has "overcalled" a strong NT. Therefore, all of your strong NT systems are on. Since most people's runouts are the same as what they play over a Strong NT, you become in the same position.

I think this auction screams that partner has penalty double of spades and RHO has intermediate values with no spade support. So, the question becomes, does partner have any values outside of trump and how many hearts or clubs he has. So, I am passing because I have a feeling that RHO rates to be 0-4-5-4 or something of that nature and we have no fit. And no, I don't think 3S is making. I think 5C is more likely your game, but I don't know what you do and I am too chicken to double with this hand. Codo, partner with a 19 count and a spade stopper needs to bid 3 NT and hopefully you make it, so I don't think that is partner's hand.

I pass, but even more importantly, I don't think North has a 2nd takeout double. If you beat 4 Hearts, I doubt you are getting rich and you definitely have much more of a chance to beat 4H than go plus in anything else. Give partner an extra card (almost anywhere), and you have just changed your plus into a minus. And even still, it was no guarantee that they would make game. Without the 2nd double, they may even guess spades wrong for you to go plus.

I actually think it may depend on the context of what you consider weak 2's and how well defined the other hands are. For example, based on Zar points, I play a system with all constructive 2's (26 ZP, 6+ of suit or (13)(45) in minors. So, this is more of a 1.5 weak bid. Now, your 1 of a major is guaranteed to be only 4-5 and you will know immediately level. Also, because your bids are much more well defined, things like negative free bids will never "block" opener. The reason I do believe that weak 2's may give a slight theoretical advantage is because of their popularity. It seems getting your bids if first usually, work however is it seems: 1) Puts pressure on the opponents 2) For the most part, do not usually go for a number. So, there are probably many slight gains by each preempt. However, I think you may gain in a system where you don't play weak 2's on hands where you don't open a 2 bid because your 1 bids are more well defined.

To Phil's question: 1) If you are off shape with a minor and a major, you could just bid the major and reverse even though partner tends to deny a major, so he either rates to have support or the other minor, so you don't rate to go past three of the minor. 2) The issue comes up when you have both diamonds and clubs and you don't want to jump shift. The compromise I have come up with is that 2C is forcing for one round. Sure, you don't get to play in exactly two clubs, but you can play in 2D.

1. Agree with ochinko's analysis. 2.♣. If they are not insane, they would not bid keycard with a weak doubleton in diamonds. When in doubt, lead clubs against slam, hearts against club slams.

2♦ Transfer to hearts, indicating a spade invitational hand, but allowing you to stay at the 2 level. Would be an interesting treatment and does not really lose that much.

Once west limited the hand, he could always bid 3♥ on his way to 3NT. It does not prevent you from getting to any club slam which is 50/50 at best, but this would at least suggest West has trump support for east. 3♥ would not show hearts since hearts could have been shown with 2♥

I disagree with everyone that you should not show the AH. It does depend on style. That may be the card he is missing to make slam. However, once you bid 4H and he bids 4S, sounds like you are off a diamond control so you should pass.

Like Mike said. 1C followed by 4N. Normally in competitive auction this implies a 2nd suit higher than the suit opened, but not as much length. This allows the responder to either sign off in the original suit without going a level higher.

I am leading a top heart.

This is an interesting discussion about counting for the following reason. I stopped playing with a partner who religiously gave count. I play with someone who almost never gives count even when he should. I am sure the answer is somewhere in the middle. I am curious how often giving count as a defender, I am not talking about doubleton when partner leads Ace from AK, actually helps the defense versus the declarer. If I were to guess, I would guess rather infrequently it actually helps the defense. The major time it helps is when dummy has a side suit with no clear entry. Can anyone do a simulation on when count tells declarer versus being necessary? Ceratinly when declarer has 4 opposite 3 missing the Jack, the last thing you want to do is give count of the hand.

The funny part about the wives swap was it was originally done as a parody in the "chapelle show" where they switched the black, gambling man type with a middle american puritan type man. So I find it very amusing that people said, "you know, we could actually do this show".

No, ArtK. Those are the same methods. The difference is the combining of the two hands: Method 2: Use LTC to determine LTC in hand. Method 1: To figure out the level of contract, it is (24-MLTC). So with 11 Losers combined (Grand Slam) 12 Losers (Small Slam) 13 Losers (Minor suit Game) The only difference is you can think about it from the response side as well. 9 losers Simple Raise 8 losers Invitational 7 losers Game Plus. But you still need to know slow cards covering length are better than slow cards covering shortness. Qxx is not good opposite x, but Axx is good opposite x even though they are the same loser count. At least the principle of the ZARS takes this type of information into account.

Here is also why you should allow it anyway: The only way to develop systems/defenses to it, is by letting it be played. Once people get more exposed to the idea, the easier it will become to defend it. I am sure when stayman first came out, people probably thought it should be banned. But now that there is exposure to it, you can play double shows cards, double shows clubs or whatever your favorite treatment is. The problem with BBO would be what is standard in the US, may not be standard all over the world. So, why should we not be able to expose ourselves to something different, so the next time we play it, we can say... "Oh, they played the Hooti-Nani diamond, showing odd amount of points. Its a good idea to jam up there auction since they have trouble getting the shape out over interference." Sure, you may get bad boards the 1st or 2nd time you play it, but once you experience things you will be a lot more comfortable playing against it. It took me a while to figure out a good defense against a Weak NT, but eventually we did because we were able to play against enough Weak NT's.

The way partner played, he better have a stiff club. Why would he break a 5-card suit unless looking for a club ruff. I don't think he is underleading Qx in clubs. Setting up the suit could be really dangerous. So, I give him the club ruff, have him cash the diamond and try to give an uppercut for down 2. If he did do it from Qx, it is a very strange play.

However, I believe when I play with a partner of mine, he would say this is takeout. But we have the implicit agreement that these types of doubles are takeout. But since 1m-P-2m-2M, pass is forcing, so partner can strive to reopen with a double. I don't particularly like it, but I tend to acquiesce because what happens when the auction continues 1m-P-2m-2H- P-2S Now was I sitting, did they find a fit, partner does not really know where I stand.

The pattern I notice about conventions, at least when I was playing was the following: FLight C: Very little conventions, just learning. Flight B: Every convention under the sun or what you choose to play. Flight A: OK, we have gone through the process of figuring out which ones we like and which we ones we don't. We will stick to those. Not going to argue the merits of any convention, since on any hand, one will work out better or worse.

Not really. As the more prolific master points come with scattered events, the cheaper they are. So, to make it a status of any sort raising the bar makes sense. Sure, I am already a life master, but it seems reasonable.

A club lead makes sense, I was thinking that myself, don't know if I would do it though. Here is the logic.... Spades: Their suit not ours. Hearts: If partner really wanted hearts that badly, he could have doubled, so he doesn't have great hearts. Diamonds: I need a lot of help in the diamond suit. Clubs: All I need is partner with the KC or JC with an entry. Sure it may give up a trick to the King, but he may have length in it.

If I were going to play a method where I have two ways to raise, I think I would rather split them by distribution not by points. 1S-2H (Spade raise with shortness) 1S-2S (Spade raise without shortness) By doing this, partner can find out the effectiveness of the shortness if he wants. 1S-2H 2N-3D (I would play 1 under the shortness so they can't double for the lead) But I would probably just bid 3S with the hand with the methods given.