jallerton

That's the solution with standard methods, of course. An improvement might be to invert the meanings here, playing 2♠ as any invitational hand with direct 3-level bids as natural and game forcing. In other words the continuations have similar meanings to the ones often played after 1♣-1♥-2♦.

Your bidding problem on the second round of the auction illustrates why it's not a good idea to play an inverted raise as denying a 4-card major. A 2♣ rebid is not the only one to give you a headache. Suppose the auction goes 1♦-1♥-2♥. What do you bid now? Many play 3♦ as NF, but even if it is forcing, how will partner know that you are making a slam try in diamonds rather than probing with hearts agreed as trumps?

I'm not keen on methods where the trump suit is ambiguous. I think the simple natural methods here are: 4♥ agrees hearts [now Responder can use RKCB if appropriate] 4NT = I don't like either of your suits Others= cues, agreeing diamonds A potential improvement is to use the bids agreeing diamonds as key card responses rather than cues. There's only room for 3 steps below slam, so you can't always find out about the trump queen, but could count the K♥ as a sixth key card, e.g. 4♠ = agrees ♦, 3 or 6 key cards 5♣ = agrees ♦, 1 or 4 key cards 5♦ = agrees ♦, 2 or 5 key cards 5♥ = agrees ♦, 5 key cards + trump queen The low numbers of key cards are virtually impossible, but included for completeness/aid to memory. I think the hand which has defined its strength should be telling partner about key cards, not asking.

This doesn't fit in with Gnasher's 'minimise information leakage' scheme where 2NT-3NT is non-forcing with 4 spades.

Is the purpose of this thread to consult on what criteria should be used in picking the team, as the two paragraphs above would suggest? Or are you telling us that you have already decided upon the criteria below? [quote name='gszes' timestamp='1368670138' post='725107' ]Is there a method to choosing?? IMO I will try and turn in a team 4 days in advance up until that time the team that is chosen will go by the following "system" 1. Team or pair that won and sat out a session to play together 2. Posters that have never played 3. Posters that won the last time out (we have tons of those hehe) but still limited to every other session unless playing with a different partner. A team or pair that wins and wants to play together again have to sit out the next session but then move to the top of the seniority list (switching partners to keep the same team intact does not count as playing with a different partner). 4. Two posters playing together 5. Poster and non-poster partner 6. Poster and 3 non-poster team 7. Poster that lost less recently (a loss moves you to bottom priority) If we do not have a team by wed before the match we no longer worry about the above "system" and go to first come first served. If a chosen pair wishes to give up their seats for another pair that is fine but can do so every other week. This is a good example of how you can use statistics to draw whatever conclusion you like. Many people would conclude from the fact that we are 1-35 down that we ought to maximise our chances of winning a few of these matches.

As a matter of interest, what would a high heart discard mean in this situation, in your methods?

♥A lead also gains over ♥Q when declarer has ♥Kx and your natural entry is ♠K over declarer's ♠A(Q). On this layout, if you lead ♥Q declarer may be able to strip squeeze you.

I agree. If 1♦ can be a weak NT with 4 diamonds, I wouldn't jump to 3♦ on a balanced hand with 4 diamonds, but with a shortage or perhaps 2=2=4=5, a pre-emptive raise has a lot more going for it.

I agree about declarer's hand, but some hands with 4-card ♦ support will make a pre-emptive raise, even at this vulnerability.

Unless you have specific agreements about alternative sequences, it shouldn't mean either of these things. Without discussion, 5♠ should be a general invitation, asking partner to use his or her judgement rather than focusing on a single feature of his or her hand. In uncontested auctions, there is usually plenty of room to investigate slam; if a player jumps to 5M then this jump can be assigned a specific meaning (typically, ask for good trumps, or ask for a control in a particular suit) because all other hands can find another call (e.g. cue bid, last train, 4M having already implied a slam try through earlier bidding, RKCB). After, (3♥)-dbl-(P), our first duty is to tell partner what suit we want to play in. There's simply not room to cater for all slam invitational hands in spades by assigning such a specific meaning to 5♠. Hence 5♠ is best played as a general invitation in my view. Mike mentions the inference that you failed to use RKCB. Does he play (3♥)-dbl-(P)-4NT as RKCB setting spades as trumps? I suppose a partnership could agree to play (3♥)-dbl-(P)-5♥ as a slam try in spades with a heart control, but if a partnership had this level of sophistication in their agreements, they'd be better off playing that (3♥)-dbl-(P)-5♠ shows a heart control and that(3♥)-dbl-(P)-5♥ shows spades but denies a heart control, in case 4th hand's heart holding is Kx.

The last point is only really relevant to the AC Chairman. You only need one person who understands the Laws fully, particularly in cases such as this one where the main issue is bridge judgement.

Under German/EBL rules, is a player supposed to alert in "no agreement" situations? If not, then arguably South has not committed an infraction, whilst North's alert did not cause any damage because he followed it up with an accurate description of his (lack of) agreement. A more complete explantion would be "no agreement over TriBal but over if 1♦ had been natural it would have meant ........." but this does seem to be the sort of situation where E/W ought to be aware that the bid might well not be natural and should be able to protect themselves by asking if they want to know what 2♦ means.

Once bitten, twice shy.

I think you'd need to find out more details about the E/W methods before reaching such a conclusion. Many people have alternative ways to show particular hands with hearts after a 1NT opening, for example 1NT-(P)-3♥ is often used to show a single-suited slam try. After a 2♠ overcall, there are fewer bids available, so a 3♥ bid (if played as natural and forcing) has to cover both possibilities.

Zelandakh's structure is roughly what I'd expect without specific discussion. However: In theory, it's probably best to give up GSF, use 5♠ as key-card blackwood (responses in three steps only: 0 or 3, 1 or 4, 2 with or without) and 5NT as the spade side suit. In practice, it's risky to assign any delicate meanings to pass followed by pulling a double to 5♠/5NT/6m unless you can rely on partner to double in tempo (the need to do so will not be obvious as from partner's point of view, he will usually be making the final decision between defending 5♥x and bidding on).

Arbitrary is the word. What, you've only won just the one Bermuda Bowl? Obviously, a few decent runs in the NICKO have to be considered more important.

There are quite a few things you could so here, if you don't mind making thw whole structure unfamiliar. You could play 1♠ as showing any minimum (unbalanced) hand (so bidding 2♣ or 2♠ instead would be constructive, to mirror the extra HCP shown by a 1NT rebid). You could play 1♠ as showing extra values with various shape possibilities. Clearly, if you are happy to play 1♠ as forcing, it can be multi-way. You could play 1♠ as showing 15-17 balanced (possibly even 4-card support) with 1NT showing the 18-19(20) balanced hand types. Although the inferences are slightly different, I believe Fantunes play 1♠ as usually showing 4-card spade support. If you played this, you could use 2♠ for the minimum 3-card raises, a hand type not relevant in Fantunes.

Suppose that: A, B and C are all decent players of similar standard A&B are regular partners with a decent level of partnership discussion. C has never played with A or B before. In a 24-board teams match in which A&B had been due to play, B has to withdraw, so C comes in to play with A. A&C have some time (say 30 minutes) to discuss system but no time to practise. Scoring up with the same teammates, approximately how much worse, on average, would you expect the A/C partnership's IMP score to be compared with if the regular A/B partnership had played? Does it make much of a difference if A and C are aware of each other's style (e.g. if they have played against each other a fair amount)?

I would presume that you were not referring to these two: but there again, as you carefully wrote 11-18 rather than 11-16, maybe not.

I agree with Phil that we do find the brave 5NT bid, we should pass 6♦. I'd expect at least a 6-card suit for this when partner has an easy 6♣ bid available.

Is this a new type of "5 or 7 hand"?

Does he? What suit is LHO most likely to lead at trick 1? Even on a red suit lead, you could make 5♣ as partner might have an entry in trumps.

I think your question is slightly back-to-front. I decide on the 1NT opening range before I agree my responses to 1♣. However, if I'm playing a 14-16NT opening, then I'm most keen to be playing transfers over 1♣, because then I don't have to jump to 2NT on a random 17-count after partner shows a major over my 1♣ opening. I think MickyB was making a similar point, but I'm surprised he didn't mention TriBal!

I much prefer transfers here (as the overcall is non-exclusive, transfers can fit all of the hand types in). Transfers have the advantage over Lebensohl that Responder's suit has been shown immediately, particularly useful when the next hand raises. Playing traditional methods, 3♣/3♦ are natural and forcing to game, so if Responder can''t raise hearts the only positive calls available to a Responder who does not want to force to game are 2NT and double. If we have to give up one of these (the natural 2NT), then at least we should get back the ability to show some other hand types lacking a fit (competitive hands in a minor). Phil may well be right about the relative frequencies of a limit raise and competitive hands in a minor, but that does not necessarily make it right to play 2NT his way. Once Responder shows a raise and approximate strength, Opener has a reasonable idea what contract to aim for. It's better to preserve space for the hands where we haven't got a fit; the time we'll really appreciate the room is when we want to know which strain to select. Transfers are also useful when Responder has a game force, as Opener can just complete the transfer on a boring hand. 1♥-(2♠)-3♣[transfer]-(P)-3♥ ia better defined than 1♥-(2♠)-3♦[natural]-(P)-3♥. When Opener does complete the transfer, Responder often has room to make a further desriptive call below 3NT. It is true that using 2NT as the raise rather than 3♦ gives extra space if next hand passes, but 4th hand is also given two more steps. Often 4th hand just raises spades, in which case Opener does not have any extra space at all.

GreenMan is correct. In previous posts you seemed to have been complaining about the lack of volunteers and lack of available regular partnerships. Presumably it will also be a last resort for you to select JLOGIC given that he has a 0/1 record in BBF vs JEC and places restrictions on his preferred opponents. That is a shame. Anyway, good luck to the selected team. I hope TylerE and Nige1 have time to agree their system!