olien

When I bid 7♥, I figured I could gain in one of two ways: 1) Partner has ♣Kxxxx in which case the ♠K is irrelevant 2) Partner has ♠QJ and the K is with the NON-preemptor I would break even when partner had ♠K and I would only lose if I was on a hook into the preemptor AND it lost. The full hand was as follows: [hv=pc=n&s=sa2hak952da4caqt4&w=sk4hdjt98532c9863&n=sqjt653hqj83dck75&e=s987ht764dkq76cj2]399|300[/hv] As can be seen, E-W have an 800 point sacrifice into 1430. Our teammates did not manage this sacrifice, however if the ♠A was in the opposite hand, they were risking losing 13 (assuming we were in 6) vs winning 8 (since now -1100 vs -1460). Broze, I find it contradictory to tell me that the K&R evaluator (which is a frequent reference tool for me as well) evaluates my hand as 24.4, and then suggest an auction beginning with 2NT. Also, the auction you suggested that begins opening 2NT assumes some non-standard agreements; it is not "standard" here for 2NT-3R// 3M-4X to be a cue-bid, but rather as natural. The auction at the other table was: [hv=d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2n3d4d(Majors)4s(%21)5hp6hppp]133|100[/hv] Our teammates said that South never thought of re-raising and their auction shows how much harder it was for them when they opened 2NT. If they had opened 2♣, the auction would have continued (3♦)-3♠-(4 or 5♦) to me. I doubt that anybody would know what to do at this point beyond guessing. Opening 1♥ put us in a much better position to know what to do later on.

At a recent tournament, my partner and I held the following hands playing 2/1. [hv=pc=n&s=sa2hak952da4caqt4&n=sqjt653hqj83dck75&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1h3d4d(strong%20%21h%20raise)d4n(1430%20RKC)p5d(0)p5s(Q%20ask)p6c(%21hQ%20+%20%21cK%2C%20does%20not%20deny%20%21sK)p7hppp]266|200[/hv] I was south and was thinking that my partner has to have values somewhere and clearly has short ♦ to bid 4♦ with no keycards. I could have bid 6♦ as a further probe, but if partner has ♣Kxxxx, the ♠K is irrelevant. The finesse in ♠ lost, and we lost 17 IMPs. Obviously playing kickback would have helped some, but we are an infrequent partnership and wanted to avoid any mishaps with kickback.

I definitely prefer that completing shows the weak NT. The obvious gains being that you re-bid 1NT when the field is re-bidding 2NT which may let you play 1NT= and everybody else is in 2NT-1. It also frees up the 2NT re-bid to mean whatever you want it to mean. I like it to show a GF single suiter with 6+♣, may have 3-card support, and then 3♣ asks with something like the following: 3♦ no 3-card support (now 3M shows stopper) 3♥ 6-3 with ♦ shortness 3♠ 6-3 with oM shortness 3NT 6-3-2-2 with 3-card support Responder may also bid 3♦ over 2NT to initially probe for stoppers, but may be a move towards slam agreeing ♣. 3M is natural. The rest of the structure I like is as follows: 1♠ transfer to NT, may include GF ♣ hands. 1NT natural invite (keeps you low when opener is declining) 2♣ weak or GF with ♦ 2♦ natural invite 2♥ 4-9 5♠ 4/5♥ 2♠ invitational with ♣ support 2NT both minors <INV 3♣ 7-9 HCP 6+♣ 3♦/M weak

I guess I'm more conservative in my interpretation. No hard feelings.

Do you mean the 1♠-2♦ bid? or the 1M-2♣ bid? I don't think the latter is legal on the ACBL mid-chart (which the OP is wanting to play as INV+ relay), then I believe you're incorrect. I referred to the ACBL Mid-Chart, item #2 which states: "2. Relay (tell me more) systems that promise game-forcing values." are allowed. Not sure about 1♠-2♦ though; there's no specific reference to it, however the chart conspicuously states: "**unless specifically listed below, and (for 6-20) on the ACBL Defense Database site, methods are disallowed**" and #7 on the general convention chart (which I believe this section would apply to the mid-chart, but I'm unsure, just trying to be helpful hints at 1S-2♦ NOT being legal. It states (under allowed): "7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See #7 under DISALLOWED.)" Hope this helps out with answering legality questions.

My partner and I play that after the opponents overcall 4♥ or higher, that we are in a forcing pass, regardless of the colors. It may be best to play PDI over a 4m overcall as well (à la meckwell). However, our decision is based on IMP strategy. If we double a game, and it makes, its only a few IMPs away, but the additional auctions available more than makes up for these occasional losses. Its unlikely that the opponents will make overtricks in game after a strong club opening; not impossible, but unlikely. This has served us well, and we're happy with it. We just don't want to be in a force over a 4m overcall, and be backed into doubling what may very well be a cold contract and lose a double-digit swing.

My apologies, when I wrote this I had mentally reversed the major suit honors, I thought the hand in the OP was Axxxx AQJxxx xx --- That being said, playing 2/1 I would probably open 1♠ but I would prefer to open 1♥ if playing a limited opening system as I don't feel a subsequent reverse would overstate my strength. Also, in my regular precision partnerships, we play that a reverse after a 1-level response promises atleast 6-4, so 1♥-1N// 2♠ describes 10 of my cards while 1♠-1NT// 2♥ only describes 9

I do have a preference for opening 1♥ and planning to bid re-bid 2♠. I believe in bidding my longest suits first, and say partner ends up on lead against a contract (albeit unlikely), I would definitely prefer a ♥ lead to a ♠ lead. The other option is to play Flannery à la Levin-Weinstein where they include 5-6 minimums like this. So, I prefer to open 1♥ or 2♦ Flannery as mentioned above rather than distort my suit lengths (especially with ♥ being significantly better than ♠). Imagine if partner is able to show a GF hand with short ♠ and 3+♥ over our 1♥ opener, we will easily be able to evaluate this as a great thing for our hand, but if we open 1♠, it will be very unlikely that we will be able to find out if responder has short ♠ with 3+♥ while opening 1♠ and hearing short ♥ with 3+♠ will not improve our hand. I know this is an unlikely combination, but it is one consideration I have not seen mentioned before. I think a more interesting problem might be AQJxx Axxxxx xx --- which I would consider opening 1♠ playing a natural (e.g. SAYC or 2/1) system. Either hand I would open 1♥ if playing a strong/forcing ♣ system.

Well, my partner and I use modified relay points to account for stiff honors. The method has been used by Fredin-Bertheau and is called "ZZ points" and they work like this: A = 3 points (always) K = 2 points, unless singleton, then just 1 point Q = 1 point, unless singleton, then 0 points Has worked well so far. Has kept us out of some poor slams because of the systemic downgrade. Only once did we miss a slam because the singleton honor turned out to be a working card for partner (stiff Q opposite KJTxx which provided necessary discards to make 6).

1♦-1♥// 2♣-2♠ This is how we would start even though we play precision. Now, we play the following re-bids by opener: 2NT = 3=1=(5/4), does not promise a ♠ stopper 3♣ = 2=2=(5/4) w/o ♠ stopper (3♦ now asks longer suit) 3♦ = 5+/5+ minors (3♥ now asks shortness) 3♥ = 1=3=4=5 3♠ = 1=3=5=4 3NT = 0=3=5=5 min 4♣ = 0=3=5=5 max After our 3♠/NT re-bid, partner and I play 4♣=forces 4♦ for mild slam try, 4♦=end, 4♥=RKC ♣, 4♠=RKC ♦, 4NT=RKC ♥. After a 4♣ bid (as here), we play 4♦=end, 4♥=RKC ♣, 4♠=RKC ♦, 4NT=RKC ♥. This structure works because we don't re-bid 2♣ with 6/4 minors. The 2♣ re-bid, even though its an underbid, will make later bidding significantly easier. If it passes out at 2♣ its not the end of the world and we may be high enough, and if partner bids we can easily take another call. In the words of Al Roth "if I get past this round, I'll know what to do."

I just like a relatively simple structure over 2NT: 3♣ = stayman or natural slam try 3♦/♥ = transfers 3♠ = both minors 3NT = to play 4♣ = ♦ slam interest 4♦/♥ = transfers After 2NT-3♣: 3♦ = no 4M 3M = 4/5 M but not 4oM 3NT = 4/4 Majors, poor hand for slam 4♣ = 4/4 Majors, good hand for slam This structure is possible as 3♣ either promises 4M or is slam going single-suiter with ♣. After 2NT-3♣// 3♦: 3M = smolen 3NT = to play 4♣ = quantitative minorwood (4♦=bad hand, 4♥+=good hand, responding keycard) 4♦ = natural with 4M After 2NT-3♣// 3♥: 3♠ = slam going ♥ raise 3NT = to play 4♣ = quantitative minorwood (as above) 4♦ = natural with 4♠ (but now 4♠ = cue since opener has denied having 4♠) After 2NT-3♣// 3♠: 3NT = to play 4♣ = quantitative minorwood 4♦ = natural with 4♥ 4♥ = slam going ♠ raise After 2NT-3♣// 3NT: 4♣ = quantitative minorwood 4♦/♥ = transfers After 2NT-3♣// 4♣: 4♦/♥ = transfers 4♠ = RKC for ♣ 2NT-3♦// 3♥-3♠ = 5/5 majors mild+ slam interest (now 4m=major suit flag, 4M=neg) 2NT-4♣: Respond as though quantitative minorwood. I like this structure for its simplicity and its ability to cover hands. My experience has rarely been that missing the 5-3M fit and playing 3NT evens out over time. Maybe this structure can be improved, but its not mine. It was suggested to me by JDonn and he said he got it from a very good player, so I'll take his word for it.

I would just texas to 4♥ and not worry about the potential ♠ fit. It may be possible that you may find a ♠ fit, but go down because you have a 6-3♥ fit and suffer ♥ ruffs, or partner is 4-2 in the majors, and dummy gets killed because the defense taps out dummy and ducks a ♥. Normal stayman over 2NT FTW!

1♥ obvio. But since that isn't an option, I would open 1NT. Vote up with Rob's post; another possibility is that one can also play 1NT as 12-15 if you don't mind having the extra point. This may make constructive bidding after 1NT a little more difficult, but the trade-off is big. It increases the frequency of your 1NT opening which will allow you to put more pressure on the opponents. 1♦ can now deny possession of a balanced hand which will help competitive bidding and the "transfer" re-bids by opener can be used to handle hands like these where one can open 1♦ and re-bid 2♦ to show 5+♦ and 4♥ just as Rob suggested. Just have to pass balanced 11 counts instead of opening them.

Well, it would be like asking the opponents what hand they overcall 1M vs 2M with over your strong club. 2M is more preemptive, i.e. 6M or very good 5, starting with X or 1♦ is either more constructive or only wants to bid above the one level with a fit. No, 2m is a very good 5-card suit or a 6-card suit...overcalling 1M either wants partner to lead the M, or your minor isn't so hot.

I was surfing the forums the other day looking at strong ♣ defenses for ideas to possibly develop a defensive structure over the opponents strong ♣ opening. I saw several ideas I liked, and combining some of those with some of my own, I came up with the structure below and desire input. This defense is only to be used when NV (I have not started thinking about what to do over 1♣-1♦ until I am happy with what I have here, but ideas are welcome): X = 5+♥ 1♦ = 5+♠ 1M = 3/4M and 5+m 1NT = 5+/4+ Majors 2♣ = natural or 5+♥ 5+m 2♦ = natural 2♥ = ♥ or ♠ 2♠ = 5+♠ 5+m 2NT = 5+♦ 5+♣ 3x = natural I am happy with most of the structure, but I'm not sure about the 2♣ and 2♦ bids. The other idea I have for those bids is to play: 2♣ = ♣ or ♦ 2♦ = 5+♥ 5+m In the first structure, the 2♣ bid has ♣ 2/3 of the time and 5+♥ 5+♦ 1/3 of the time which may help partner in preempting the opponents, while the alternate structure its purely 50/50. The listed structure gives a definite cue bid over 2♦ with 3♦, but no worthwhile cue bid over 2♣. The alternate structure has a definite cue bid over 2♦ showing 5+♥ 5+m with 2♥ but allows partner to preempt more aggressively when he has a ♥ fit without knowledge of a minor suit fit; however, when we have a ♥ fit, the opponents may be able to just out-bid us in ♠. So, I'm not sure which is better, but I'm happy with the overall structure so far. Input and fresh ideas are welcome.

Yes, it will be near Shanghai.

My partner and I have put limitations on responder jumping to 4M with an opening hand in a precision context. These have made things much easier for us in judging later on. These are our guidlines: 1) <5 control points 2) If full opening bid, then not 4-card support with a "bluhmer" (e.g. side xxx or xxxx that would make slam look good opposite shortness). This does not apply if we have only 3-card support as the shorter fit makes a light slam in the major significantly less likely. 3) The fact that we play 1M-3NT as 3M-433 and minimum GF values lets us infer that partner is not 4333 with 3-card support if he jumps to 4M. Also, when I hold a good hand and my partner jumps to 4M, I get an idea of how good partner's hand is by the tempo of the opponents (especially RHO over 4M). Not always accurate, but if there's no hitch by either opponent, then there's a much better chance of partner having a good hand. (atleast this works better around here as people tend not to wait 10 seconds over a skip bid)

The ♥ lead, which I'm sure is last on everybody's mind, is the only lead to legitimately defeat 4♠. The ♥ lead was tied for last on my order of leads, which were: ♣>♦>either M.

I like to know if the auction is GF or not ASAP. Makes the later auctions easier. but, I do like transfer precision much more than standard natural responses.

Just play flannery for option 1 :)

I don't think I've ever seen a thread hijacked for the sake of discussing LOL LOL

I would X. However, I get to play equal level conversion. This may lie about my ♥ length, but my ♥ are pretty poor. I may get burned by missing a 5-3♥ fit, but its not the end of the world, if my partner wants to play NT, I have a pretty suitable hand for him. I also like to X because its fun. 2♥ would be my second choice, and I'm not a fan of 2♠, but that's partnership style. We require less defense and more of an offensive type hand unless GF (which this hand certainly isn't). Having 3 tricks on defense is too much for us since we don't have a GF hand. So, I'll be the crazy one to say X>2♥>2♠. I know there is little risk in getting nailed for a number by bidding michaels, but I'm just not a fan of it on this hand.

Agree with Justin. I've played this way and it is very useful. It also creates a few extra sequences where R can express minor-suit slam interest while staying at/below 3NT and you can also get out in 3♦.

So, the 2NT opening I assume is a 2-point range. In the auction 2NT-3♣// 3♦-3♠, opener basically has 2 ways to show ♥ and still play from his side: 4♣ and 4♥. If 4♣ is a super-accept for ♥ within a 2-point range, shouldn't this be showing strong controls rather than just a max? Therefore, the last-train meaning for 4♥ over 4♣ is less useful. Or, is it better to play that 4♥ over 3♠ shows poor controls, and 4♣ shows willingness for slam but not necessarily a great hand?

Pass seems clear. If LHO passes and partner can't re-open, we don't have game. So therefore, by bidding 2NT, I expect to take 8 tricks in NT and have partner pass 2NT and the opponents have to be making 2♣ for us to have a worthwhile gain.