mikestar

Let's define a "midpoint hand" as a hand (relative to the bidding context) that is of absolutely equal merit for offense and defense. A takeout double expects partner to bid with a midpoint hand, any hand more offensive, or a hand slightly more defensive. Partner may pass a hand significantly more defensive. A penalty double expects patner to pass with a midpoint hand, any hand more defensive, or a hand slightly more offensive. Partner may bid with a hand significantly more offensive. An optional double expects partner to bid any hand more offensive than a midpoint hand and pass anything more defensive. (With an actual midpoint hand, partner is on a guess.) The level of bidding shifts the boundaries--a low level penalty double may be taken out quite freely, and a high level takeout double may be left in quite freely. Thus (1♥)-X-(1♠)-X is a clearcut penalty double, but partner will tend to take it out with good offense and bad defense, even though the imbalance isn't great, while (1♥)-X-(4♠) is also a penalty double, but it will typically only be taken out if partner has a spade void and some minor suit slam prospects. On the other hand, (1♥)-X-(2♥)-P-(P)-X is a clearcut takeout double and it will only rarely be left in--say with a trump stack and poor offense, while (1♥)-X-(4♥)-P-(P)-X is also for takeout, but will usually be left in unless partner has short hearts and long spades.

At first I was going to blame East for not bidding 4NT over 3NT, but that isn't right. For all East knows, West could have a non-descript 12 count with five spades and a club stopper. Then 4NT can easily be too high, and slam is unlikely if West has extras but not enough to make a try of his own. West on the other hand has 14 HCP including the golden J♦. The ♥ doubleton is promising for play in spades as well. For 3NT he could easily be a King weaker with some wastage. He needs to show extras. I can see two alternatives for West: 4C, which must show slam interest, with a club suit or a club stopper West just bids 3NT, so it shows club values and is a clearcut slam try. If it will be taken as natural, 4NT quantitative is OK--it rightsides the NT but may make it haredr to find spades if that is needed.

Assuming your agreement is Michaels, you bid is reasonable but a bit agressive. If partner is misfit in both majors, unless he has an astonishing string of diamonds (with which he would probably have jumped), he has club length opposite your void and three trumps may not give him enough club ruffs. Also your hearts are wasted opposite shortness. Again assuming Micheals, your partner's bid is really over the top--if he bids 2♠ you go to 4 and make even if the diamond hook is off. If your agreement really is Spades and other, then 2♦ is pass or correct, implying short spades and playable in the red suits or diamonds and spades with better diamonds, in either case only intersted in playing diamonds if it is one of your suits. By the way, I heartily dislike ambigous two suiter bids.

Let me lay out what the alternatives mean to me, assuming we play 2♠=Limit raise+ Pass=Rejects game try, the hand is defensively oriented but not good enough to redouble. Redouble=Accepts game try but very defensively oriented, Will have only five hearts, some spade strength, and extra cards in the minors. 3♦=Fit showing, a counter try. 3♥=Rejects game try but has good trumps and fairly offensive hand. 4♦=Fit showing, offensive oriented but with some defense. 4♥=Totally offensive oriented hand, within the limits of not having preempted on the previous turn. In general, the heart bids show the most offense and the least defense; the pass and redouble have the most defense and the least offense; the diamond bids are for the flexible hands. Here, I evaluate this hand as a sure game and possible 5 level safety opposite a limit raise, so I choose 4♦ to bring partner into the picture and help him decide what to do if they bid 4♠.

I evaluate this as an 8 loser hand, adjusting the LTC as if I have a douleton in partner's suit--this allows for wastage in the short suit. This puts our partnership at the 9 trick level and I curse being unable to bid 3♣ invitational. Perhaps 1NT is the best of a bad lot, but I have some sympathy for 5♣ direct, it may make if partner is weak in diamonds or has some extras, or may be a good save if partner has a minimum opening. It also shows the hand type: lots of playing strength, poor high cards. Swap the red suits in both hands and 1NT forcing over 1♥ is fine.

Who cares about points on a 6-loser hand? I guess next you're going to say the hand is "weak"...? have no idea but please note LTC only works when there is a fit...not on an unknown hand...but most if not all count ltc on nonfit hands.,,Repeat ...most if not all count ltc on nonfit auctions. When you have an 8-card suit, you have a fit opposite a void.

Partner had no reason to pass the takeout double--his hand is perfect for 1NT. He is no way certain he can beat 1♣ and has a perfectly descriptive alternative. I would have treated his 3♣ as natural, as the only logical explantion for his bidding would be the very type of hand I cited: xx xx xx xxxxxxx (maybe with a couple of random Queens or Jacks)--all alternatives are horrible misdecriptions and he can beat 1♣, but he can't beat anything else, even 2NT as the clubs won't win any tricks defending NT. His club bid can't be a cuebid, if he had such ahand he would bid 2♣ rather than passing the double. Of course, his bidding was blatantly irrational, so you could only win by lucky guessing, if at all.

An interesting and well worked out idea. One hand type is not covered--there is no bid for a hand with a four card major, longer minor and GF but not slammish, at least as written in the summary. This needn't be a fatal flaw.

One of the few rules I apply without exception--once we have made a penalty double, a penalty pass of a takeout double, or a balance of power redouble, all of our doubles are for penalty. To play otherwise will let them steal us blind. If RHO is stupid enough to bid 2NT on 19 opposite a fairly certain 0-2, we need to make him pay for it. Partner has a club stack and some side cards--otherwise he is duty bound not to pass the double, even if he has to bid a 3-card suit. I admit I would pass the takeout double with xx xx xx xxxxxxx, but having misrepresented my defensive strength so badly, I will pull a penalty double of anything except clubs, so partner needn't worry about this hand.

Agreed. This isn't a limit raise and partner doesn't have a game try. Too many hands with these combined values have no play for 4♥ and are in jeopardy in 3♥. If your never miss a laydown game when you have an undiagnosable perfect fit, your are being too agressive, even vul at IMPs.

If we are playing RS methods, #1 is a clear double and # 2 is boraderline (I would bid it). If we swap the rounded suits, #1 becomes borderline and #2 is a clear pass. Scrambling to 2♥ on a four carder is less likely to do well as partner won't have four. A scamble to 3♣ is not possible as that would be a GOSH in RS methods (It would have been a jump overcall if it had been bid directly over the opening.)

Pass must be asking for a rescue. Responder shows at least game invitational values and the desire to go for blood. If the enemy have their bids, you cannot defeat 2♥ and may give up overtricks. If responder psyched the redouble, then (1) opener has a rock and you still can't beat 2♥, or (2) partner has a rock and will know that you can beat 2♥ and will pass also, or (3) both opener and partner have about 15-16, you should be fine regardless of what partner does. Pass should imply a lack of tolerance for spades as 2♠ takes up no bidding room, and uncertainty as to the best place to play. Here doubler could rebid 2NT asking "you pick the minor".

If I recall correctly European standards of proof are similiar in civil matters and less demanding in criminal matters.

Some points. If bridge cheating accusations were determined in the court system, the applicable standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" only for the question of whether to impose criminal penalties (imprisonment, fines, etc.) for the alleged cheating. The question of disqualifying the alleged cheaters, making them refund prize money (if applicable), etc. is a civil question and the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence". If the only evidence is the testimony of the parties, it is sufficient if the accuser's testimony is more credible. In the context of appeals committees, the analogy would be that any sanction up to disqualification would require predonderance of evidence but a ban from future events would require proof beyond reasonable doubt. By the way, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean "certainty". It means that if there are two or more reasonable interpretations of the evidence and one of those interpretaions points to the defendant's innocence, the defendent must be aquitted even if that interpretation is less likey than interpretations pointing to his guilt. Even if this standard is applied rigorously, erroneous convictions do occur--an unreasonable interpretation of the evidence might be in point of fact true, or significant facts may not have been entered into evidence.

Best percentage plays is KQ of spades then low to the A unless East has shown out, in which case hook the 9. This works for all 3-2 splits, Hxxx with West, and JTxx(x) with West if he fails to split his honors (a good West will). This is nearly 80% without accounting for a defensive error. Master psychologists can debate which is more likely to induce a defensive error: running the hearts first in the hopes someone wtih 4 spades is stupid enough to discard one, or play on spades immediately in the hopes a defensive error is more likely eralier in the hand. The given bidding was guesswork, but you sure got to a fine contract. An 80% grand is wonderful when everbody will be in 6. But 7♥ hearts is even better: you get your thirteenth trick by ruffing a diamond after pulling 2 trumps. This is virtually 100% --to beat you diamonds must be 6-2 with a high trump left in the short hand or 7-1 or 8-0. 7♠ is the worst--it goes down whenever 7NT does, is down 2 when spades are 5-0, and can also go down if opening leader has five heartes and leads one. (5% chance he has them, will probably find the lead if he does.)

I disagree. That sort of 3 card raise is advocated by no system that I know of. (But it doesn't mean it's bad or wrong. I actually like it a lot.) The first time I saw 3 card raises mentioned was in Robson/Segal's competitive bidding book, and there the idea was to help a responder with 5 cards in case opps protect the bidding later. I should have said "most natural North American systems", I don't have the expertise about what they're playing in Europe/Asia/etc.

1. Opener's hand 1a. Would you raise partner with 4-3-3-3 ? Pretty much never. 1b. When would you raise partner with 5-3-3-2 or 4-4-3-2 ? How would you rate these trump holdings for doing so : xxx, Hxx and HHx ? Here the test is how NT oriented vs suit oriented the hand is. The strength of the doubleton is quite important: xx suggests the raise, Kx or Qx suggest 1NT, Ax and Jx are fairly neutral. Aces and to a lesser extent Kings in the other two suits, Queens and to a lesser extent Jacks suggest 1NT. The trump holding scarcely matters: HHx fills in the suit excellently, but there is less chance of a ruff than with xxx. If still in doubt, I prefer 1NT 1c. When would you raise partner with 6-3-3-1 or 5-4-3-1 ? Again, which trump holding do you prefer between xxx, Hxx, HHx ? Almost always, unless the stiff is a king or Queen, then I use the judgement criteria for 5332 or 4432, but prefering the raise when in doubt. 2. General direction after the raise. 2a. Do you think it's important to keep the NT strain in the picture, or on the contrary that the moysean fit is fine since opener will have a hand suited for it ? It isn't either/or. NT is in the picture even with an 8-card fit if the hands are sufficiently NT oriented, while the Moysian fit is fine if the hands are sufficiently suit oriented. When the orientation is not clear, we want to be in the suit with 8 trumps and in NT with 7, 2b. Who's "job" is it to cater for, or at least warn about, the moysean fit ? For example, responder could bid as if he was certain of a 4-4 fit, and so it would be opener's task to warn about his support. Or the responsibility could be shared by both, etc. The three card raise is a normal part of bidding in most natural systems and when used with decent judgement is better than the other distortions you need to have your raise guarantee four. Responder must allow for it. 3. Systems. What systems do you like or think handle the situation nicely ? I've played various continuations. The simple agreement that reponder's 3M shows 5 and anything below 3M shows 4 gets the job done fairly often, though with detailed agreements you can do better. Weak NT systems are much superior in this sequence (they have their losing cases elsewhere). Playing weak NT 1x-1M-2M can guarantee either 4 card support or a stiff.

One of the many arguments in favor of Precision and other limited opening bid systems. In Precision, I can afford to bid 3♦ on this hand and on xxx x xxxxxx xxx--with the latter hand I can pull 3NT to 4♦ as partner can't have enough to make it, while a 2/1 opener might well have 9 tricks in hand if the diamonds run. I also don't have to worry about a limited opener trying for 5♦ unless his shape is so freak that it will be a good two-way shot anyway.

Ben, do you mean 10 cents a hundred? At 10 cents a point, a vulnerable grand slam is well over $200 on a single hand--this will break me and not a few others. If it doesn't break you, congratulations and I'm envious. There's a story from the 1940's about three filthy rich Texans on a train who asked a fellow to be a fourth for a game. He was told "we'll play for 5 a point, you keep your winnings, we'll cover your losses." After the game, our hero added up the score and announced that at 5 cents a point, he'd won $500. That's when the Texans informed him they played for 5 dollars a point . . .

This is a good idea, but Al Roth proposed something simpler in Picture Bidding: 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ and 1NT-2♥-2♠-2NT are artificial game forces with shape. Natural continuations or relays could be used. 1NT-2♦-2♥-3♣/3♦ and 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣/3♦/3♥ are natural and invitational. This means your will need to bid Satyman with a flat invite with 5 spades as above. You might well use 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT as a "cancel the transfer" bid to show some minor suit hands or whatever system gaps you may have over 1NT. Then the flat invites with 5 hearts go through Stayman as well. I really don't mind missing a 5-3 fit when we are both balanced, and Stayman assures you'll never miss a 5-4 fit.

This is somewhat true in the ACBL on the Limited Convention Chart for games where the upper masterpoint limit is 20 (beginner to low intermediate) and not always used for these games: often the GCC is used even in beginner games. The only conventional forcing bids allowable are 1♣ and 2♣--though there is no prohibition on using both. Even on the LCC you could play FN style as though all the one of a suit bids are forcing, all except the 1♣ bid are natural. A long time ago, ACBL did not allow artificial 1♦ and 1NT openers on what is now the GCC, but that's probably at least 15 years ago. Artificial major suit openings are still GCC illegal.

Let me be clear about my take on this--no other situation cited here is comparable to the intentional passing of a GF opening by a non-beginnner, not even passing a Precision 1♣, which is a horrible mastermind but has a decent chance of being right and probably won't miss a game. The argument that passing 2♣ is comparable to not returning partner's suit is patent nonsense. It it pefectly possible given the sight of the dummy and one's own hand to rationally determine that not returning partner's suit is the best course, indeed in some cases one can discern that returning partner's suit is fatal. Of course one might misanalyse but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the situation. 1♠-1NT-3♦-P is also not comparable even though it is a GF auction--it is GF predicated on the 1NT bidder having a modicum of values, opener can't have game in hand or he would have opened 2♣. So if my partner elected to follow this sequence with void xxxx xxxx xxxxx I would expect him to pass 3♦--if I were to critisize anything it would be the 1NT response. 2♣ GF has a near game lower limit and no upper limit whatever and no information about shape. Maybe someone will run a simulation that shows passing with xx xx xx xxxxxxx is a winning action--but it will never win by enough to pay for the damage to partnership harmony. In the bridge criminal code, passing 2♣ is high treason. Death by slow torture follwed by eternal damnation. This discussion excludes the case where you are reasonably certain the 2♣ opener is an idiot and you weren't wanting to play with him again anyway. It also excludes cases where partner is trying 2/1 after playing only Precision for 20 years and the opponent's mannerisms indicate they have cards-- that is any case where you can rationally determine via authorised information that partner's 2♣ is likely to be a gross error (not an overbid). It further exlcludes Ben's example where one must get a cold top on the last board to have a chance--in this context, it is no different from any other extreme shot. In general, I'll accept any rational argument--but asserting that passing 2♣ is likely to be a winner in the particular case without trying to analyze the horrific tradeoffs in partnership confidence is blatantly irrational.

The difference in the (badly named) "semi-forcing" 1NT response and a non-forcing 1NT is that the semi-focring vairety may have game invitational values (the range is about 6-12), while the traditional NF variety may not (the range is 6-10). So opener with a 14 count playable in NT can pass a NF 1NT but must find a bid over a SF 1NT. Personally, I don't care for semi-foricng 1N and prefer it forcing over a major opening--if the NT has a doubleton, the major will ususally play as well of better, if he has a stiff the contract probably belongs in another suit. The thing I hate about the SF 1NT is hearing 1♠-1NT-P when I have x Kxxxxx Qxx xxx. If you open all junky 5332 11-12 hcp hands, playing semi-force 1nt lets you out in 1nt. Constructive raises get you out at 2 of a major. Note 1nt response over major can be stronger than most 2/1 or sayc here. "SF 1NT is hearing 1♠-1NT-P when I have x Kxxxxx Qxx xxx" Not sure what you mean by your example hand, with forcing nt do you expect p to often rebid 3 card minors? With 4 card minor everyone will get to 2H. We play BART over 1S=1NT=2C, 2c here may be 3 or 2 but that is somewhat rare. Yes, with forcing 1NT, partner bids a three card minor and I can get to hearts. With semi-forcing 1NT he will pass Axxxx Qxx Kxx Kx--so very often 2♥ makes when 1NT is down. Another way of making this work is to require that light hands have shape, so that a 5332 11 count is passed and a 5332 12 count can be passed if the hand quality is poor. Zarpoint enthusiasts are already doing this--an 11 point 5332 requires 4 controls to open 1♠ and 5 controls to open 1♥ in the Zar method. Of course, those who combine weak NT with 2/1 have the best of everything--they play forcing NT and 1♠-1NT-2♣ will either be a real suit or 3 clubs with 15+.

The difference in the (badly named) "semi-forcing" 1NT response and a non-forcing 1NT is that the semi-focring vairety may have game invitational values (the range is about 6-12), while the traditional NF variety may not (the range is 6-10). So opener with a 14 count playable in NT can pass a NF 1NT but must find a bid over a SF 1NT. Personally, I don't care for semi-foricng 1N and prefer it forcing over a major opening--if the NT has a doubleton, the major will ususally play as well of better, if he has a stiff the contract probably belongs in another suit. The thing I hate about the SF 1NT is hearing 1♠-1NT-P when I have x Kxxxxx Qxx xxx.

As an aside, in a regular partnership where we frequently doubled for takeout with only three cards in an unbid major, we had the agreement that doubler would always raise 1M to 2M with four cards even if dead minimum, and advancer's jump to 2M promised 5.