cwiggins

Do you know roughly when Kerr did his analysis? Simulation results discussed at http://crystalwebsite.tripod.com/pass_flat_hand.htm says that on average, your side has a plus result when you have 11 HCP balanced and are (i) 4333 with 4+ controls or (ii) 4432 and 3+ controls. One of the other responses says that matchpoints versus IMPS might make a difference on whether you open, and this might explain why Kerr's results and the theoretical results are different: at IMPs, people bid games almost on the hope that one might be there. When partner has a balanced 11 HCP, that is not going to work well. Opening 11 HCP can win another way: the other side must bid defensively, and no pair bids more accurately defensively than after a constructive opening. (Of course, this must be offset by the increased accuracy of their declarer play if the opponents win the auction.)

Using a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening, is a 1NT rebid limited to 12-14 HCP, or has the range expanded to 11-14 HCP? The range probably should be expanded. Unbalanced openings have gotten lighter over the last 20 years. As a result people are opening hands with 11 HCP that may be best suited for a 1NT rebid. For example, if you hold: ♠xx ♥KJxx ♦Axxxx ♣Kx then after 1♦-1♠, 1NT seems attractive. If that is happening, then the question is: why not open more 11 HCP balanced hands? Opening more 11 HCP hands may be desirable: Precision bidders have been opening most if not all 11 HCP balanced hands for years and causing problems for their opponents. But when I ask standard bidders, almost all resist and open balanced hands only if they have at least 12 HCP. I'm curious whether the 12 HCP boundary is holding ground more than locally.

Given Fantoni-Nunes's record over the last few years, I would have expected that other pairs might try using their bidding system, but I don't see any (major) pairs doing so. Any ideas why?

What modernizations are you think of?

Suppose you are playing that 2m shows 11-15 HCP, an unbalanced hand, and no 4-card major. I.e. you are either 1-suited in a minor (6+ long; other suits shorter than 4) or 2-suited with both minors (5+/4+). What responses do you recommend? What do you do with 5-5 in the minors? Do you open 2C or 2D? Do you use 2NT for minimum hands and 2m with better than minimum? Angelina-Sementa's WBF convention card gives this as their response scheme Over 2C: 2D = Relay 2M = Not forcing 2N = limit raise of clubs 3C = weak 3D = 5+ hearts and 5+ spades. Invitational or better. 3M = weak 3N = To play Over the 2D relay: 2M = Minimum with 3 cards in bid suit and 4 diamonds 2N = Maximum with 4 diamonds 3C = 6+ clubs 3D = 6 clubs, 4 diamonds, maximum Over 2D: 2M = Not forcing 2N = Relay 3C = 5+ hearts and 5+ spades. Invitational or better. 3D/3H/3S = Weak 3N = To play Over 2N: 3C = 4+, minimum 3D = 6+ 3M = 3-cards in bid major, 4 clubs, maximum It feels like better schemes must exist. Perhaps: - Make 2M forcing one round? - Over 2D, make 2H a relay and 2N = 5+ hearts, forcing one round? But I don't have any experience to judge what's important and what's not. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Assume you are playing Fourth Suit Forcing to game and you hold: S-AQxx H-xx D-xxx C-AKxx You are dealer and the auction starts: 1C 1H 1S 2D* You don't have any of the standard rebids: you don't have three hearts, you don't have a diamond stop, you don't have a fifth club. Question 1: What do you bid? I.e. what do you consider the smallest lie? Question 2: Paul Thurston recommends that the raise of the fourth suit means "I can't bid anything else" rather than showing 4-cards in the fourth suit. That would solve the problem here. Do you agree with that treatment? Question 3: Klinger recommends rebidding 1NT with a balanced hand rather than bidding 1S. Do you agree with this treatment? Thanks for your help.

Suppose you are playing Walsh responses to 1C. (I.e. you will bid 1M with a 4-card major rather than 1D with 5+ diamonds.) Do you require 4-card support to raise to 2M or do you do it with 3 card support? If you raise with 3-card support, do you do so freely or do you have restrictions? What are the restrictions? Only if you have a singleton? Only if you have at least Hxx and an empty doubleton? Something else? Does it make a difference if you are playing game forcing Walsh (i.e. to bid diamonds first, you must have a game forcing hand) rather than invitational Walsh (to bid diamonds first, you need have invitational or better values)? Does it make a difference if you are playing matchpoints rather than IMPs? Lawrence suggests that raising with 3 makes it easier to bid games if you have a 5-3 fit. If that's true, it is an IMP strategy. At partials, "raise with 3" may score worse than the "raise with 4." If that happens, "raise with 3" is a losing matchpoint strategy because the bad partial scores may well be more frequent than missed game scores. Does it make a difference if you are opening light? Precision opens light, and most Precision players seem to use a "raise with 4" strategy. Here's what I've been able to find through research. All of these styles of responses--the style of freely raising with 3-card support, the style of raising with 3 only if you have a singleton, and the style of raising with only 4-card support--seem playable. Most U.S. players raise 1m-1M to 2M with 3-card support freely but this may be in the context of responding up the line. See Lawrence's "The Three Card Raise" in "Workbook on the Two Over One System" pages 149-164, but he was not using Walsh responses. See also "Washington Standard" which raises to 2M with 3-card support with Hxx and an empty doubleton (page 152) but tends to bid up the line (page 132). However Bergen does use Walsh responses, and Bergen does raise to 2M with Hxx support and an empty doubleton. "Better Bidding With Bergen" pages 153-154 Rarely raising with 3-card support is suggested in Hardy's "Two Over One Game Force Revised - Expanded" page 24. Hardy uses Walsh responses and suggests (by implication) raising with 3 and a singleton and says that raising with 3 to an honor with a small doubleton is a matter of style but rebidding 1NT is the better bid rather than raising with 3 and an empty doubleton. You don't miss a 5-3 fit because with 5-cards in his major, responder will rebid 2M or use some other device with invitational or better values. The European players that I've watched on BBO--primarily the Italians and pairs playing the Polish Club--seem to raise only with 4-card support. The Polish Club documentation says to use a "raise with 4" strategy. See "WJ05" page 19: after 1D-1M, "a raise to 2M always promises 4 cards in that suit." "The Polish Club," which uses MAFIA responses (Majors Always First In Answering), agrees that 1D-1M; 2M shows 4-card support. page 72. Recently an article said that if you respond up the line, it is 50-50 whether responder has 5+ cards in his major after 1C-1M. But wouldn't Walsh style responses reduce that probability? With 4M and 4/5/6 diamonds that are less than game forcing strength, you would respond 1D up the line but 1M Walsh, increasing the number of hands that respond 1M with 4-cards only. Personally I use light opening bids (think rule of 19+), Walsh responses, and play mostly matchpoints. Each of these factors suggest to me playing "raise with 4." Since all the arrows point the same way, it seems that a "raise with 4" strategy would the be best with this set of choices.

Does anyone have: (i) A relatively complete set of competitive bids for a canape opening system? (iib) Experience or thoughts on how well a canape system works in competitive sequences and why? Competitive auctions are now the norm. In the two session event at a regional, the auctions were without competition on 5 of 52 hands. Perhaps that's extreme, but certainly the majority of deals involve competition. Given that, the test of a system should be how well it gets to the right spot in competitive auctions. Non-competitive sequences are not a concern: (i) They don't happen very often. (ii) All systems have advanced in non-competitive sequences so that the difference between a forcing club system and a 2/1 system is much less than it once was. Assuming auctions are competitive, do canape systems make less sense, more sense, or about the same? What sparked the thought was that if the opener's partner knows that opener has either a longer second suit (or maybe 6+ in his first suit), then it might be easier to compete on marginal values and shape. One key to effectiveness in competition is good agreements. But having no experience with canape, I'm not sure whether you would use the same tools, the same tools tweaked, or different treatments.

My partner and I are trying Lavinthal discards, and a couple of isses have come up. First: When discarding a suit to give preference and not for a ruff situation: 1) Do you use order of discards to differentiate commands to switch from informatory? 2) If not, is the preference a command or just an invitation? Hy Lavinthal's "Defense Strategy in Bridge" said that suit preference are commands but a middle card means "no command": you might have something or nothing in one or both side suits, but you don't have enough in the suit to give a command. Example: if discarding from the 862: 8 = command for higher suit 2 = command for lower suit 6 = no strong preference In "Switch In Time," the Granovetters give "screams"--a command--and "preferences"--informing partner of a feature--depending on the order of the discards. Example: 862 = scream (command) for the highest 268 = scream (command) for the lowest 826 = informatory for the higher 286 = informatory for the lower Sabine Auken ("I Love the Game"; 82) also seems to use the order of the discards to separate commands from informatory or invitation. So the modern trend seems to be use discard order to separate commands and invitiations (with the first discard guaranteeing an invitation). Second: when discarding on partner's winner, what does the discard mean? For example, partner leads the AK in a suit and you have a singleton in the suit. If you are playing notrump, a Lavinthal discard may make sense. But if you are playing a suit contract, then presumably both partner's suit and the trump suit are eliminated, which means that only two suits are left. So maybe a discard should show attitude? Other than the references I've identified above, I haven't been able to find any references. Other references, data, or experiences would be welcome. Thanks.

One variation would be to borrow the Romex sequences after 1NT-2C auctions. Over 1C-1D; 1H-1S: 1NT = 20-22 HCP 2C = 22+ GF (other than 1NT, all others shows 19-21) 2D = ask for 4CM 2M = 5+ in bid major 2N = 5/4 in minors 3m = 6+ 3H = 5+/5+ in majors, 4 losers 3S = 5+/5+ in majors, GF 3N = 5+5+ in minors; 4m = 5-5 in majors, 3 cards in m, void in om 4M = 1-suited You should carefully address the continuations other than the 1S relay: 16-18 HCP hands are more frequent than 19+, and good part scores can be key. Moscito (pre-semi-positive responses) had some elegant continuations. The Viking Club has something simpler: 1C-1D ? 1S = 5+ spades or 4 spades and 5+ minor 1N = 17-19 (if you are playing a 14-16 NT) 2C/2D = 5+, natural 2H = 5+ hearts, normally unbalanced 2S = puppet to 2NT after which: ... 3C = 6+ clubs and 4 hearts ... 3D = 6+ diamonds and 4 hearts ... 3H = 6+ hearts and 4 spades 2NT = 5440 with 5 hearts 3C = 5+ clubs and 5 hearts 3D = 5+ diamonds and 5 hearts 3H = 6+ hearts and 5 spades 3S = 9 tricks with spades as trumps 3N = To play

Yes, that's the question. While the top Precision players do continue to use a 15 HCP cap, what started this chain of thought was "Precision Today": "Wei . . . studied records of the world championships, looking for swings and how they occurred. ... Ultimately, he noticed a trend. On a significant number of deals, the Blue Team played minor-suit games or slams, making, while the Americans (or other opponents) were in 3NT going down. . . . Nearly 25 years later when some of Kathie Wei-Sender's Chinese students blitzed a strong team from the U.S. in the 1991 Venice Cup in Yokohama, Japan, the significant swings in that match involved the same sort of bidding superiority--six of a minor making versus 3NT or five of a minor making with an inferior game contract by the Americans failing. " page 7 Unfortunately, the 1991 match was in the round robin, so the World Champioinship books don't have a record of all the hands and auctions. So I can't see what Precision and standard openings were involved in the differences. Moreover, 1991 data bothers me. Bidding improves. I am not sure that such a difference exists anymore. In the 2005 World Championships, the Italians beat the Americans. When I reviewed (quickly) the hands in the finals, I found no cases where the forcing club pair is in 5m or 6m while the Italian pair is in 3NT. Eric Kokish's after-the-match summary said: "The Italians deserved to win. ...[T]hey committed fewer unforced errors and gained more from their methods. Most of their losses came from over aggressive bidding, but they won some IMPs that way too." Lauria and Versace were "superb." But Precision did okay also. Rodwell and Meckstroth "[gave] away considerably less than they brought in." page 336 With these thoughts in mind, I formed my first hypothesis: a Precision 1M and a Polish 1M reach the right contracts about the same percentage of the time. I ran the simulations that I described and found a slight edge to the Polish 1M. This data fit with my predilection that 1M auctions would not be the source of the difference described in "Preicision Today": 5m and 6m contracts are rare after partner opens 1M, regardless whether 1M's maximum is 15 or 18 HCP. If the difference isn't in the 1M auctions, it must be elsewhere. My intuition is that minor suit slams and games are rare after Precision 1D, 2C, and 2D openers. If so, then the differences described in "Precision Today" exist when Precision starts with 1C and "standard" opens 1m. Since standard 1m auctions have multiple issues, that seems reasonable, but I don't have data that helps me understand why.

Since the Polish Club is not played in my part of the world, I am uncertain what responses to use to 1D. Should I use what is in WJ05 or can you point me to something else? Secondly, do you have any thoughts about the strengths and weaknesses of the Polish Club for strongish (15-18 HCP) hands with a 5+ minor as the longest suit (or 5+/5+ in the minors) or 4441? I've been doing some simulation runs about the Polish Club approach versus Precision (16+ HCP). I use Dealmaster to generate 100 hand runs (multiple times) with Deep Finesse analysis and then review the results. For strongish, 1M hands, the results are clear. If you use a semi-forcing NT, 2/1 GF per Fred Gitelman's "Improving 2/1" style, and Gazilli with 2NT and up reserved to show strong shapely hands, the Polish approach beats the forcing club approach opposite weak hands (0-5 or 6; i.e. those that would pass a 1M opening) and matches it for stronger hands even assuming that no interference occurs over the big club opening. Since no competition over a big club is unrealistic, my assessment is that the Polish Club approach wins across the board. My next step is to compare Polish and Precision for one-of-a-minor hands in the strongish (15-18) category, which is why I want to know what system of responses to use to a Polish 1D and 1C. I like "natural" openings, but combining (a) trying to stay GCC legal--which means saving 2D for multi or something else is not important--and (;) my preference to open many 11 HCP balanced hands, a big club approach fits better: * 1C = (1) 16-18 unbalanced with some minor longest or both minors or 17-18 balanced but no 5CM or (2) 19+ any * 1D = 11-13 balanced or 11-15 with 5m431 or 5+/5+ in the minors. See AWM's description of this. * 1M = 11-18, 5+ * 1N = 14-16 * 2m = 6+ long, 11-15 A Polish variation of the above would be to move the 11-13 HCP balanced hands into 1C. Another variation would be to move the 11-13 HCP balanced hands into 1C and make the 1D opening 11-18 so that 1C becomes: 11-13 balanced or 16-18 1-suited in either minor or 17-18 balanced without a 5CM or 19+ any. Thanks for any insights you might provide.

Understanding that natural is not fashionable, you might try the following agreements. From K-S (sequence C-5) which uses a forcing 1NT and "light" 1M openings, after 1M-1N; 2m-2N: 3m = 5-5 signoff 3M = 6-card suit GF (with weak 6-4, rebid 2M over 1NT) 3om = if clubs, semi-natural, not encourging. If diamonds, non-forcing game try 5431 with singleton in OM 3OM = if hearts, non-forcing game try. if spades, forcing, short in om, could be strong 5-5 4m = strong 5+/5+ with no interest (or no way to express an interest) in 3NT Or you could follow the guidelines of "Precision in ACOL" so that over the 2NT rebid 3m= 5-5 signoff 3M = 6-card suit game force 3om or 3OM = Natural (so shortness in fourth suit) and forcing 1 round These aren't perfect, but clear understandings of what the "natural" bids mean will help.

If you decide to go with 2/1 GF, then you have another question: the style of 2/1. Style 1: Mike Lawrence's 2/1 style uses 2M as the catchall bid. Style 2: Rodwell-Meckstroth and Bergen use 2NT as the catchall so that M shows 6+ long. Style 3: Hardy limits 2M to a minimum hand. I don't see anyone using the Hardy style these days. While Styles 1 and 2 can be played in either forcing or natural club systems, in my area: the standard bidders all use Style 1 while the few big club pairs use Style 2.

For the unfamiliar: (1) What does "Meckwell openings" mean? Is it something different from 1D = may be short, 1NT = 14-16, 2C = 6+, 2D = 4-3 or 4-4 in the majors and 0-1 diamonds? (2) Why would the 1H (8-11 HCP) response be called Meck Lite? Isn't that what Hamman and Soloway played? Also: is online documentation available for these responses and continuations other than the Hamman-Soloway convention cards at ecatsbridge?

I also agree with showing shape and also agree that this hand is on the cusp. Given the S-AK, you might try a double. If partner has only two spades, then you may well have three defensive tricks off the top, and if partner can scramble a fourth, then they are down, even on some minimum hands. The double will also encourage partner to bid 4H with appropriate hands. The double seems to work okay with these in between hands with defensive strength. Partner is reasonably well positioned to determine whether to pass or bid.

"Washington Standard" by Steve Robinson plays 2/1 as 100% game forcing and Jacoby. It then says 1S-2H shows 5+, 1M-2D shows 5+ or a very strong 4, and 2C shows all other game-forcing responses. So if partner opens 1S and you have 3-4-4-2 or partner opens 1H and you have 4-3-4-2 (not a typo; the hand has 4 spades), Robinson says "Since responder is going to support opner's major at his next call, its better to respond 2C on a doubleton rather than 2D on only a four-card suit. In other words, opener treats a a 2C response as a suspect suit similar to a 1C opener, but treats 2D and 2H as a real suit." page 100. I don't see any other suggestions on how to bid after 1M-2C. Rodwell-Meckstroth and Versace-Lauria have notes on their convention cards that 1M-2C is either a club suit or a balanced hand but no further notes on follow ups. Does anyone have any tips or GCC legal understandings on how to bid after starting 1M-2C so as to sort out the hands? Thanks.

I have a couple of questions. 1) Do you open some, none, or all 6m-5M hands with 2m? 2) After 1♦-2♥, what do you think about using 2♦ to be a 3-card raise of any strength and 2♥ to be a 4-card minimum raise? After thinking maybe 30 seconds, after 1♦-2♥-2♦ perhaps something like: ... 2♥ = signoff ... 2♠ = agreeing hearts and relaying for strength and distribution. INV+ ... 2NT = INV+ but only 4 hearts. Opener bids 3m with 5+ and a minimum or above with a maximum ... 3♣ = pass or correct ... 3♦ = ? ... 3♥ = signoff ... 3♠, 4♣, 4♦ = void splinters, slammish ... 3NT = signoff ... 4♥ = signoff Some of these auctions would disclose little to the defenders. For example: 1♦-1♥; 2♦-4♥

Does Kristof Martens's Stayman plus transfers improve over standard stayman? The following summary is based on "Bidding Like Music: The Martens System." After 1NT-2C; 2D: - 2H is garbage stayman - 2S is a transfer to clubs (could be any strength) - 2N is invitational - 3C is a transfer to diamonds (any strength) - 3D is a transfer to hearts (Smolen equivalent) - 3H is a transfer to spades (Smolen equivalent) - 3S is 5-5 in the majors; GF After 1NT-2C; 2H (shows 4 hearts denies 4 spades): - 2S = transfer to clubs with 4 spades - 2N = INV - 3C = transfer to diamonds with 4 spades - 3D = transfer to hearts, slammish, no shortness - 3H = invitational - 3S, 4C, and 4D = slammish, splinter 1N-2D is a transfer to hearts with 4+ hearts. Responder has 4 when he has a balanced hand and exactly four hearts. (1N-2C; 2S 2N is a transfer to clubs; so a balanced hand with hearts needs to be shown another way.) In response to the 2D transfer, opener bids: - 2H any minimum - 2N maximum but only three hearts - 3H maximum with four hearts 2H is a "normal" transfer to spades. You can use pretty much whatever you want above 2H. (Personally I like 3x being a splinter.) This scheme lets you make your "light" invitations with unbalanced hands as well as balanced hands and doesn't give up on garbage Stayman. In slammish auctions, responder usually gets to show where his shortness is, a critical factor. One plus of these auctions is that "light invitations" can be done with both balanced and 4M-5+m hands.

I can help with the legality of the 3-card major in the ACBL. Per a thread in rec.games.bridge, Mike Flader said the official ACBL position is that a Go to Google's rec.games.bridge and search for "Flader three card major." It's a November 3, 2006 posting titled "Official ACBL Response to 3-card Major Responses."

Here's some evidence in support of big club systems at matchpoints: Larry Cohen and David Berkowitz have more wins in the Blue Ribbon pairs than any other partnership.

In addition to a partner willing to play Precision, you need to worry about what your local bridge authority permits and what your local clubs and tournaments permit. Where I live--in Michigan, U.S.--all the local tournaments permit only the ACBL's General Convention Chart (GCC) unless the ACBL requires the tournament to permit more (e.g. a national event). Under the GCC, both Moscito and Viking are not permitted. The methods in B/M, Rigal, and S-W are okay, at least in my experience.

Here's a short summary of the opening bids. 1C = 15-19 HCP but could be 20 HCP with a weak 5CM or unbalanced with fewer than five cards in both majors. Also could be 14 HCP with a long, strong major suit. 1D = unbalanced (a singleton somewhere or 5422 or 6m322). The HCP range is "usually 12-14 HCP, but could be 15 or 16 with no four-card major. It could also be a hand with a six-card minor and 11 HCP including an ace and a king, preferably in the long suit..." Apparently no LOBs from Marshall. 1H = 10-15 HCP with 5+ hearts. 1S = 10-14 HCP with 5+ spades. (Not a typo that the heart and spade ranges are different. Miles uses 1C-1D; 1H as a relay type bid and therefore wants 1H hands, which will always be taking a bid, to be stronger. By one HCP? 1N = 12-14 balanced. Denies a 5-card or longer major. 2C = 20+ HCP (or equivalent) with a 5+ major, usually 6. 2D = 20+ HCP unbalanced or 22-23 HCP balanced. Denies 5+ major unless 22-23 HCP balanced hand. 2N = 20-21 HCP, balanced With borderline hands, use judgment to determine whether to open 1C instead of 2C or 2D. The book is short on detailing follow on auctions. The thoroughness is well short of Rosenkranz's Romex books. As a matter of fact, the whole book is short: 152 pages. So if you can find it in a book store, you should be through it after a couple of visits. If one were going to play Miles's system, in addition to looking at transfer responses to 1C, it would be worth checking out Moscito 2005's response structure (including the positive 1D). At least Moscito documents the follow ups well. Lastly, Miles wanted to create a system that is legal under the ACBL's General Convention Chart (GCC). Whatever virtues the Magic Diamond has, I'm positive that part if not all of the Magic Diamond's opening two-bids are not permitted under the GCC.

Having just skimmed through Marshall Miles's new book "My System - The Unbalanced Diamond," I have lots of questions. 1C shows 15-19 HCP, any shape. His response scheme is: 1D ambiguous: could be 0-5 HCP or 6+ without a 4+ long major 1M = 6+ HCP and 4+ long 1N = balanced 13-15 2m = 10+ HCP and 5+ long 2M = 6 card suit less than 5 HCP (and not an Ace) 2N = 16+ HCP balanced The text is short on descriptions of the rest of the auctions. Wouldn't transfer responses be advantageous here? Even something simple like Poe's Millenium club responses? 1D = 4+ hearts, 0+ HCP 1H = 4+ spades, 0+ HCP etc.

Standard or 2/1 GF has a collection of bids where opener's rebid at the 2-level is very wide range: bare minimum openers (11 with shape) to just under a jump shift (18 HCP without exceptional shape). The bids include: 1S 1N (2C, 2D, or 2H) 1H (1S or 1N) 2C or 2D 1D (1M or 2N) 2C For example 1S 1N 2H might be AQxxx KQxx xxx x Or it might be AKQxx AQJx Qxx x WIth support for opener's second suit, what are the ranges for the various bids? - slammish could go through fourth suit forcing - game strength but nothing extra could just bid the game - weak hands could pass The problem is that the range of "too much to pass" to "invitational but not enought to force to game" strikes me as being too large for one three level bid to handle. The problem is worse when opener rebids a minor suit e.g. 1H 1S 2D Now responder has to keep 3NT alive as a possible contract. One message that I would want to send is: "If you've got extra points, let's play 3NT or 5m." I would do that with hands with solid HCP (10-11 HCP) and some shape. A second message would be "I am very distributional. We can make 5D if you hold even some minimum but perfrect fit hands." These hands might contain as few as 9 HCP and maybe even less. E.g. wouldn't you want to be in 5D if you and your partner held: xxxx Qx Axxxx void x AKxxx KQxx xxx A third message would be "This was a courtesy raise. Bid on only if you are maximum for your 2D rebid." I have two questions. First, how do Standard or 2/1 GF sort out this situation? I.e. if you were sitting down with an expert partner but had not discussed the situation, what would you expect them to do? Second, are there ways to improve this situation that are GCC legal? Thanks for any help you can provide. Chris Wiggins