mikestar

4♥ is a bit much for me under these conditions, but it might well work. X would have to be quite a bit more rational than it actually is to be considered insane. The doubler has not the slightest reason to hope to set 4♠, yet he has too much defense for a Stripe-Tailed Ape: 6♠ may well not make and may not be bid if it does. I might consider a STA if the doubler's Kings were small cards: 6♠ is virtually certain and 7♠ is possible--at least double might work.

For this very common sequence, I rahter like what Marshal Miles advocates: Most game tries are made by an artificial 1 step rebid by opener (2NT over spades, 2♠ over hearts. Responder signs off in 3M or bids game with a hand where the action is indicated regardless of what the opener has. In all othe cases, reposnder bids his cheapest suit (2NT to show spades when hearts are agreed) in which he has an honor concentration. Now opener has the usually has the info he needs and the enemy is in the dark (I'll post followups later where opener needs more info). An example sequence: 1♠-2♠-2NT-3♦-4♠. This could be a hand where opener needs help in diamonds and bids game when he gets it, but it also be a short suit try with a stiff club, or it could be hand where opener is always going to bid game but is fishing for slam opposite a perfect fit and gives up when partner has diamond cards opposite his shortage. Have fun with the opening lead, esteemed opponents. On the hand given, I bid 2♠ and bid game over 2NT(=spade cards) or 3♦ (probably bidding 3♠ to cater to the 4-4 fit) but sign off over 3♣.

In the SAYC/2 over 1 context the problem is presented in, 1NT seems clear to me.

If partner would jump shift with that, he deserves to be hanged. To me, this 9 trick hand is a 2♣ opener; but if not, then jump to 4♠ (or 3NT if this shows a hand with solid spades in your methods.) Please let's don't invent bids on three card suits when it isn't necessary. Opposite a partner who does this regularly, I'm inclined to give up on slam--if the three card clubs suit is possible, your club length makes it more likely that he has only three than if you were shorter.

This one wouldn't have been hard at all in my long standing Precision partnership. Over intervention we played natural positives and X was "card-showing", in principle 5-7. At this level some bad balanced 8s or even 9s might double rather then go to the 4 level and our real minimum would be more like a fair 6 count or a very good 5 count. The pass would therefor be 0 to a fair 5 or a spade stack--on our hand we can rule out the latter, so pass stands out. Admittedly this method sometimes endplays a minimum opener who can't leave the double in, but also collects a lot of penalties where there is no game or there is no room to find the right game.

I have some sympathy for 7♥ in the context of an erratic partner whose bidding may not be reliable. You are on a guess anyway, but the cards you hold seem to indicate that the aggressive guess is more likely to win than the conservative guess. This is practical bidding if you are playing with a partner who isn't as good as you are and is never going to be. It's quite wrong with someone whose bidding you can trust. It's not good with someone whose bidding you can't trust yet but whose game is evolving--you can set them back, winning the battle but losing the war. Perhaps if the problem were presented as "partner really has little idea of how to bid slam hands, but he isn't a wild overbidder", I would be advocating 7♥ in context. In an established partnership, this type of sequence should be defined. There are two rationally defesible ways to play this that I can see: I'm pretty sure of the small slam but my value are such that I have nothing else to show and the wrong hand to ask. Feel free to bid the grand with a perfecto. (Picture Bidding/Slow Arrival) Taking a shot at slam, feel free to bid the grand if you're insane. (Fast Arrival)

The main opposition to System On is the Granoveters. They do no play transfers as they believe it is better to have the opener on lead, even though the lead is going through the NT hand. They may well be correct vs. a Roth-Stone pair, but against modern light openings I'd rather have the lead ride up to the NT bidder, just as after a 1NT opening.

Doesn't this debate depend on what "15-17" really means to the partnership? If you liberally downgrade 15's and upgrade 17's then your effective range is 15 1/2 to 16 1/2 and there is no point in inviting. On the other hand, if you liberally upgrade 14's and downgrade 18's your effective range is 14 1/2 to 17 1/2 and invitations seem resonable in spite of the downside. Since most partnerships are some where between these extremes, it is a highly debatable question and niether side should be questioning the others rationality. It is no question at all for those of us who use nominal 4-point ranges, for example 12-15 in Precision, allowing all our suit openings to be unbalanced. We need 2NT invitational or its equivalent. (I rather like 2♠ range ask.) The 4 point range loses a bit but there are compensating gains in the suit opening sequences--in particular, artifical or semi-artifical 1NT and 2NT rebids by opener can clarify many otherwise difficult sequences.

Blame to South if any is due. North's points are all working but those four clubs are ugly. Clubs may be 6=4=(2-1) or 7=4=1=1 around the table, therefor South's stiff will not be as valuable as he thinks it is and he might even have a doubleton. Overall, this hand is worse than a typical no waste 7 count. South's hand looks good opposite North's presumed 7 count and four spades. But South's spade suit has no body to protect against a bad break and North might have only three spades--although North will make a penalty pass on some of his hands with only three spades. Also South's ♣A is not worth a full 4 points, though it's far better than a King or Queen would have been. I would bid 4♠ with South's hand with considerable trepidation and would find it hard to criticize a pass.

Like all weak preempts, Frelling Twos steal opponent's bidding space--and Frelling does it on very frequent hands. The downside is that they also steal your own bidding space. The fact that the second suit is unknown makes them harder to defend and harder to bid constructively over. Much of your constructive bidding wil be "guess and hope you guess right" no matter what scheme of responses and rebids you play--and the same goes for the enemy. Because your hand is weak, the occasions where it messes up up the opponents will be more frequent than the occasions it messes your side up. If your partnership is not comfortable with this, an aggressive convention like Frelling is not for you. This is not a criticism--many fine players are not comfortable playing this type of preempt.

Luke's structure may differ, but this is what I play where 1NT is 12-15 and 1♦ is guaranteed unbalanced: 1♦-1M-2♣ is natural, showing 4+ clubs and 5+ diamonds, diamonds as long as or longer than clubs. 1♦-1M-2♦ is 6+ diamonds, one-suited (might choose this sequence with ♣xxxx on the side). 1♦-1♥-1NT is 4+ diamonds, 5+ clubs, clubs longer than diamonds. 1♦-1♠-1NT is as after 1♦-1♥ but there are two other possibities: 1) Exactly five diamonds and four hearts and too weak to reverse and not able to raise spades. 2) 1=4=4=4 shape.

always... in the context of a limit opening system (most big club systems), or other limit bids (1nt, for example), just gather as much info as needed and bid to whatever level/strain seems appropriate always, when the correct level/strain can't be ascertained quickly or when slam is envisioned Right on the money. This is the biggest advantage of limited opening systems--it is possible for responder to know that he wants to be in game but slam is remote after a suit opening. So our unrevealing 1NT-3NT auctions are supplemented by even more unrevealing 1M-4M auctions. Does responder have a balanced 13 count with fair trumps a small doubleton somewhere or does he have five trumps, a void, and no points whatever? Opener doesn't need to know and opponents get to guess at the five level--blindly, because the major fit might be only 8 cards on the strong hand--LOTT is no help. So with decent values, a long minor and void in the enemy major, which will it be: pass and miss a slam when responder is weak with long spades, or bid and get whacked when their HCP based game is going down because the trumps are 5-0?

If they aren't psyching, your weak hand is extremely defensive--♠QJx is a sure trick, possible two tricks on defense and worthless on offense. If they are psyching and you aren't strong/long enough to double, see if giving them enough rope will let them hang themselves. Pass.

Clearly the correct auction starts (1♥)-1♠-(4♥)-4♠. If they go on to 5♥, I would definitely blast 6♠ with the North hand--partner doesn't need much for it to be good, and he can't know about my heart void. Also they may well sacrifice in 7♥, in which case we do OK whether or not our slam makes. Blasting 6♠ when they pass 4♠ is too much for me but I have a sneaking admiration for it. The odds aren't as good because we are less likely to induce a phantom save. The partner who makes the first bonehead bid shouldn't be criticizing the double even if the criticism were correct--and it isn't. Responsive doubles don't apply here--even if there were no psyche, doubler will have at least three spades unless very strong and you have four spades and enough high cards to have the balance of power. If you can't go for blood here, when can you?

Defending 2/1 where they will have 10+ trumps, 5♣ stands out. Were we defending against a limited opening sytem, where 4♥ might also be based on high cards in a hand where slam is unlikely, 5♣ may still be right but it is scary as hell--it may be hopeless while their game is going down on a bad trump break. This is much more likely than in the 2/1 case.

Partner thinks a heart splinter opposite his stiff would exite him enough to bid a slam that needs 2-2 clubs? Wow, that's really resulting. I would never have criticised your 4♠ even if I disagreed with you--these freak hands are going to leave you guessing. A much more likely result if you splinter is they get a cheap chance to get together in hearts by doubling the splinter, when your bidding has clued them in to having a good heart fit. If your are going to take this risk, why not start lower and really exchange some useful info if they are quiet--2NT, for example, at least doesn't tell them how good their heart fit is. If your partner had advocated blasting 6♠, I would have sided with you but considerd his opinion reasonable if over-aggressive. Much depends on what your 10-point openers look like--if they typically have extra shape and good controls, the blast looks better. If they might be minimal shape with only fair controls, 4♠ stands out. Note that these arguments are laregly dependent on the systemic knowledge that partner has at most 3 hearts--in a system where partner may well have heart length, enemy intervention is less likely at this vulnerability.

Let's see. We have 10+ spades and they have 10+ hearts. At best they have a cheap sac, they might make 5♥ -- there are some 10 point hands for partner where they can make 6♥. So the odds that they have a paying sacrifice or can make is greater than the chance we have slam. I bid 4♠. This is particularly effective in a big club system where it might not be preemptive: it could be a balanced hand with good support but not enough values for slam to be in the picture--let the enemy guess with doubtful hands.

The application of this rule is quite strict in the ACBL: no conventions whatsoever after opening a weak two which might be four cards. That include no takeout doubles and no SOS redoubles (both of which could be quite useful)--double must be for penalties and redoubles are expecting to make.

This is the sort of hand where you curse yourself for not playing Precision--of course, we Precisionistas curse ourselves for playing it on on certain other hand types. If perfect methods were possible, they would have been discovered by now.

Chris Ryall's Paradox responses are IMO the best respones to 2♣ in the system context where they are given--2♣ is unbalanced, balanced powerhouses go thru 2♦ multi. Unfortunately, I play f2f in North America and the Multi is illegal on the GCC. With the Multi unavailable, most of us are not willing to use 2♦ as strong only in order to make Chris' 2♣ structure work--though it is so good our reluctance may be an error. In any case, 2♣-whatever negative-3NT as a balanced 25 count is horrible: reponder has no room to look for a suit, as he will get above game if he doesn't find one. Kokish is extremly valuable for these hands--but to use it when you need it, your negative resonse must be 2♦. When responder has enough points for game opposite a balanced 23, there is no need to immediatlely distinguish the 25+ balanced hands--the need arises when reponder is broke and would pass the 2NT rebid.

In most systems ♠KTxxx ♥Kx ♦xx ♣Axxx (the equivalent of what your hand is worth opposite the splinter) is subminimum, so 4♠ would seem to be in order. Also, you have some distributional waste opposite a stiff diamond: ♠KTxxx ♥Kx ♦xxx ♣Axx is actually more promising. I think that a cue below game after a splinter is in order if you have a minimum with no waste or significant extras. A cue above game should show no waste and significant extras. So in this sequence, 4♠ is minimum with diamond waste or no heart control. In either case, partner will pass even with his tip top max splinter (in most methods).

There must be some hand where South's correct bid is 6♠. Though in most situations I don't advocate Fast Arrival, here I think it is sensible. 6♠ should mean: "I've got enough to gamble the small slam, but the grand scares the crap out of me." You guys can debate wheter South should send this message on this hand. If North wants to fish for a grand (I'd be inclined to, depending on the state of the match) how about the simple, straightforward 5NT over 4♠? Gets you therewhen patner has ♠AQ, keeps you out when he doesn't. Gambling on the side suits when you have three first round controls can easily pay off. A grand off the Ace of trump is gambling on the opponents revoking.

I would pass on the actual hand but risk 3♠ with a small stiff. In Mike Lawrence's hand evaluation book, he states: "When you have waste in the enemy suit, partner is minimum." Happens not to be true here, but I've found it to be a long run winner. Additionally, the hand with the small stiff has a much more favorable ODR--the K♦ is most likely dead worthless on offense but is half a trick on defense: it will score whenever the A is in front of it.

Ok, let me explain. If you bid 3S, then pd may bid 4S with maximum. Besides, right decision doesnot mean right result. The reason why i say pass is correct is that it is correct in the long run, if you trust pd and opps. More important, I dont think discussing this kind hand wont help much. Next time you will find bidding 3S will cost you the match. Partner can't bid 4♠ on this auction--he passed rather than making an invitational move. He can't be good enough to justify a game bid. True, if partner isn't advanced enough to recognize 3♠ as competitive, he might bid game.

I agree with Richard, particularly in SA and 2/1 type systems. In Precision, I think the same argument applies fully to 2♦, but a four card major is no bar to 3♦ if this is a hand weak enough where game is unlikely--I don't much mind playing in a minor rather than a (possible) major when I get more preemption on what is likely to be their hand.