barryallen

Diamond ruff seems the way to go, but I would not play the spades. leaving the squeeze in reserve if the 3rd round of clubs gets ruffed by west. Are you playing 2 rounds of trumps first? If so, when you overruff the 3rd club you are stuck in dummy. By the way, the showup squeeze is basically just the finesse. You do pick up 5-1 spades with singleton King offside, a touch over 1% extra. :) I changed finesse to squeeze on the basis to pick up that singleton ♠K with west you would not be taking a finesse? And yes, 1 round of ♥ to 10 then ♣'s

Diamond ruff seems the way to go, but I would not play the spades. leaving the squeeze in reserve if the 3rd round of clubs gets ruffed by west.

Well, the way I play it, 2NT is the strong response. 2♠ shows at least some willingness to push a preempt in hearts, but does not suggest wanting to be in game particularly (although with excellent heart support, you might still bid it if in the unlikely event partner shows hearts). This whole business about 2♠ being some sort of strong bid in hearts is foreign to me. I suppose it depends a bit on how permissive you are with your definition of what constitutes a weak two in the first place. In that case, if the auction that starts 2♦-2♠-3♥, opener could be quite wide ranging. I don't play particularly permissive at all, so this question doesn't worry me. Nick The point being, if the 2♠ bid represents a game try in ♥, by the very nature is not a weak bid. Therefore it's difficult to lay the criticism that the 2♠ bid pre-empts opener, nest pas? If the auction starts 2♦-2♠-3♥, it's very simple, opener is weak and the contract ends there.

Coz you don't really think you belong any higher than 2 if opener has spades - but hearts is OK to go on. Also, if you have strong options in your multi you have to worry about preempting your own partner too. Nick But if you have strong options in your Multi and your 2♠ bid represents a solid game try in ♥ or pass 2♠, how can you pre-empt partner, when you are representing an opening type hand? You can only be pre-empting partner when you represent a weak hand? This is exactly catered for with all subsequent bids from 2NT to 3NT over a 2♠ response to the Multi 2♦ opening. Apologies if I have completely misread your position, as I am likely to do.

Sorry, was not trying to be obtuse. What I was trying to say, that to use 3♣ to describe this type of hands looks to have some benefits over 3NT. The reasons being - You have no bare K or combination that requires protection from the lead. Partner may require such protection and would receive it if they were declarer in 3NT? - The other point being that this type of hand can easily become a slam possibility. The 3♣ bid gives that extra space to investigate in limited comfort. Maybe all would not be clear until you get to, or bypass 3NT.

I would prefer partner to be declaring in 3NT to give possible protection from the opening lead? As an aside, partner has that tad more space for investigating a possible slam? The 3♣ bid describes your hand fully and allows partner to go on from there with confidence?

I am not happy about 2♣ either, but to open 1♠ is fraught with danger. Just how would partner know that ♠xxx and ♦Q equates to game? The other advantage I would add to the 2♣ bid is the implications of a positive response from partner. Compare a 1NT response to 1♠ and a positive response to 2♣, which position would you prefer to be in? This hand may well fail the MLTC, but that system would singularly fail you for partner to respond accordingly.

I would open 1NT. Opening 1♣ or 1NT both have issues but I feel opening 1♣ just creates problems for the future that may not get resolved successfully.

Can believe the commentator, everyone seems to get snow blind in that position, but the spectators?

;) I often wondered how Henry Kissinger spent his formative years!

In that sort of environment, I would more than likely not play multi. Even when you go to the trouble of explaining all the negative inferences from any bid as well as the positive, you still get the mumbles and the grumbles. Just for the sake of the host, who get far more levelled at them, than you ever get to hear.

When you consider that the only criteria required for any bid is to have a long term percentage value, influenced by the prevailing conditions, it's on for young and old.

I suppose this depends what your multi consists of, but I would go direct to game with a good ♥ suit, bidding 3♥ with a poor ♥ suit. 2NT showing an opening 2NT hand and the 3 level suits being roman. This has the 2NT response from partner being Ogust and subsequent 3 level rebids defining the strength and suit for a weak 2. All strong bids being now elevated to the 3NT + level over a 2NT enquiry. Is there a more common place for psyches, then when responding to a multi?

Obviously two concerns here, the first being the fear of missing something, the second the amount of trouble you can get yourself into. The rewards lie with the double, but so do the risks if you want to take it anywhere. For that reason I would just bid 2♥. It does not block the ♠ suit completely but could require assistance from the opposition to avoid missing something. Do you feel lucky? Do you need to feel lucky? I can see this going either way at the table with hero and zero equally awaiting at the other end. If you do double, what subsequent level are you prepared to commit to without a positive response?

I fully agree with your treatment of the responses to the balancing 1NT, but I would have thought the conditions existing, make it a greater possibility that partner has a 5 card major?

I thought this was standard? direct 3♠ showing game force with 4♥? sorry, just noticed the NT point range. Still looks the best option?

Sorry, thought I had pre-emoted this with my response. Taking this into account, you then run into the more frequent scenario of the over caller having less points and being raised to the 3 level by a partner allowing for more, which a lot of the time can be losing bridge. What ever you do leaves holes but I have never seen a comprehensive analysis of the whole shooting match? The other point regarding the bid of 2♥ over 1♠, with a good weak 2 opener in ♥. Some partnerships will, others will not? Is there a differential method allowable here between the weak and the strong, or just omit the weaker hand for clarity? Then the next bit I have a small problem with, (1) I believe it's almost always right to raise with support. I see a lot of intermediates pass partner's overcall with 3-card support and 6-8 points "because we can't have enough for game" and I would definitely never do this. I would add to this the question of entries in this hand! Without entries the combined strength will be weakened by leading from the strong hand continually, especially when sat behind the original opener? I have always favoured competition in the part score but that has it's perils. Defending a contract out of the opponents comfort zone I find gives the defence that bit more focus. Having seen 18 point over calls work out well in certain situations, I have been looking at taking this on board but keep finding these niggling grey areas.

TY for the extensive reply. The point this then brings me on to is partners response to any such over calls and the balancing logic in these situations. If your over call can be 18 points and 1633, how small in points can this over call be? Take the classic 2♥ over 1♠, if at suitable vulnerability you can have 6 cards and 8 points up to 19 points, that is a very wide range to cover? Particularly when one of the major factors in making the bid may be for the lead. I fully understand the logic of partner's actions in a either / or scenario coming out either way, but there is a lot of middle ground where danger lurks?

That makes sense to me assuming the lead is a variable in the analysis. You may only require one error in game / slam which most of the time comes from the lead. Again the assumption here is that this is points based, not tricks based.

Does the double dummy analysis include the lead being given, I would assume so?

Following on from the question as to what is acceptable for a X today, at what level do partnerships X on point count alone today? Just to clarify, at what level of points do you make a X, irrespective of shape and how does this fit into other bids available within your system?

I would make a take out double on all 3 without any issues. Part scores are the majority at bridge and being able to compete effectively in that arena has to be a priority. As long as you have partnership understanding, no great harm will come your way overall. Competing for the part score can often result in you making a profit, even if you go down. Equally you may end up defending at a level the opposition are uncomfortable. Forcing the opposition up that one level can result in a line of play that magnifies rewards more than the one trick raise in contract alone.

Very tricky and something you will base heavily on your previous experience of bidding and making slams. You have to be reasonably sure when you get to slam that the odds are commensurate with the risks, something nigh on impossible a lot of the times. But to be able to stop in the 5 level with a 78% chance of making is very good IMO. The scoring method is going to alter your percentages, but a 50% chance at a small slam can pay overall, but this has to factor in your chances of being able to stop successfully at the 5 level along the way. Normally your odds can be slightly higher because it does not take into account the oppositions lead or error. I often feel once you have made 2-3 "dubious" slams that the odds have to be stacking up against you and factor accordingly. Similar to rolling a single 7 at craps, compared to rolling three 7's in a row. A lot will be dictated by what you require to be successful from a set of boards and what level of success you already had. I have never seen a thin bookie riding a bike and they make their living from percentages. But they know what their exact percentage is most of the time, we are rarely afforded that exact insight. A very easy guide for any partnership at any level is to review their success at slam bidding (non tactical bid slams) and adjust their valuation methods to give the best returns. If you are bidding and making 100% of your slams, you are normally leaving a lot behind on the table. As George Bush previously stated, "in my experience, 99% of the time percentages are wrong".

See Han's post, which I agree with. While this may be true, partner will be expecting four hearts for a Smolen call, and will bid 3N with AK, xxx, Jxxx, AQxx and similar hands. Using Smolen with a weak 5 card major without the other major is a creative idea, but I'm not sure I like the idea when we have reasonable alternatives. Makes a lot of sense and all following bids can be as per your partnership agreement without having to be creative (confusing?). I think this is one of those times where you should be more concerned with staying out of trouble than finding slam, but slam is not off the menu with the correct responses from partner.

I like nfb because I believe they are more effective in the part score arena, not masked by a pre-emptive bid and sometimes reducing the opponents possible communication. The only trouble is that it can partially stymie those invitational hands. As rewards for game are far higher, I normally play it as standard. Because of my undying love for Lebensohl, I was wondering whether Lebensohl could not be used here? With openers responses to X, similar to those over a fnt in 2/1?