mikestar

I can't see 2D on this--if we are going to bypass spades, let's go for maximum preemption and bid 3D. This may leave them on a guess about whether or not to bid 4H. 2D is no more obtructive than 1S when we know they are bidding hearts. (2D is more attractive with a stiff club.) 1S is my choice because of the payoff when it is right--we then have a double fit and 4S is very likely a make or a good save depending on partner's strength. At MP I would forget the spades and bid 3D--I believe the frenquency of gain is higher this way,as it is always better when partner doesn't have spades. I think that 2D should show support and a low ODR: here my AS is equally offensive and defensive and my diamond honors are pure offense.

As far as I can tell, nowhere in the Laws is any notion of protecting the field in such a situation. There was no infraction in the case at hand and no basis for any ruling. You get your 0 and they get their top. A top from one's own brilliance or from opponent's mechanical error both count the same, and its the same for everyone in the field. The TD was 100% correct in his non-ruling.

This is a key point: under pressure, 3S ranges from a good single raise to a bad limit raise--with a good limit raise partner will bid 4S as a two way shot. So we are not in a forcing pass situation, but that's OK, as passing out 4H can be correct: whenver 4H makes but 4S is too expensive, 4H float is par. When both 4H and 4S go down, double is best but we don't lose much by passing as they won' go down a lot in most cases. The only bad results are when 4S makes or is a cheap save. So with hand #1, I pass--if partner has heart wastage, defending is best. If partner has no wastage, he can take the push to 4S himself. Also consider that partner might be max with a couple of heart cards--then he can crack 4H and 4S still doesn't make. Hand #2 is another kettle of fish: I know there is no heart wastage, so it is very likely that 4S is a make or a cheap save.

By the way, 3N opening asking for specific aces is ACBL GCC-legal and has been for many years. Item #4 under "Opening Bids" in the GCC: STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto.

The old days this clubs limits date to are the late 1920's, early 1930's.

With regard to the second hand, I think the ruling is correct. The case here is mistaken bid (assuming this is documented on the CC--the law requires the director to rule on the basis of mistaken expalntion when there is no evidence either way.) The knowlege that partner has misinterpreted the cuebidder's bid is UI and the correction to 3D must be disallowed, as one not uncommon use of 3C over Michaels is NF with long clubs. Forcing with long clubs is also common and some few use 3C as pass or correct and use 2N as something else. Since Michaels is not the partnership agreement, how can anyone know what 3C shows? So director must resolve the ambiguity in favor of the non-offenders. Whether I would allow 3D over a penalty double of 3C depends on the cuebidder's cards--in general I would not, but might if he had a freak hand with a club void. If this were a mistaken explantion case and the partnership were using Michaels, then I would require a pass only if 3C was natural and NF (or if there were no agreements about 3C, in which case I must again resolve the ambiguity in favor ot the non-offenders).

Given that with your NT ranges this is a 1C opener, I like Ben's suggested auction by far the best - 2H over 2H gets across your balanced shape, the 4C over partner's 3N shows the club fit and slam interest--partner can reject and we're in a safe 4N. However, I think that it is really necessary to take some of the strong balanced hands out of 1C via a natural 2NT or Multi (1C-1D-1H mini-Kokish can work if responder has a negative hand, but leaves the ranges over a positive wide.) In my regular Precision partnership this one would have gone 2N-3C-3D-3N. Responder could bid 4C rather than 3N with a better suit.

These caps are a resurrection of some ancient laws for aggregate score pairs, back in the days before all pair contest we scored by matchpoints. The purpose there was not to prevent collusion, but to limit the impact of strange results. Limits also applied to declarer's side and no limits applied to slam contracts.

Let's look at all cases whwere responder might look for a major and analyze how the Kleinman structure handles them (I'm guessing at the follow ups): 1) 3 hearts, < 3 spades ....3D-3N ....3H-3S (asks for fifth heart) ....3S-3N ....3N-P 2) 4 hearts, < 3 spades ....3D-3N ....3H-4H ....3S-4D (transfer) ....3N-P 3) 3 spades, < 3 hearts ....3D-3H (asks spade length: perhaps 3S=4, 3N=3, higher=5 ) ....3H-looks like we're stuck here ....3S-3N ....3N-P 4) 4 spades, <3 hearts ....3D-3H (asks spade length) ....3H-3N ....3S-4S ....3N-P 5) 3-3 majors ....3D-3H (asks spade length) ....3H-3S (asks for fifth heart) ....3S-3N ....3N-P 6) 4-4 majors ....3D-3H (asks spade length) ....3H-4H ....3S-4S (or 4H or transfer to hearts or pick a major?) ....3N-pass 7) 4 hearts, 3 spades ....3D-3H (asks spade length) ....3H-4H ....3S-4D (transfer) ....3N-P 8) 4 spades, 3 hearts ....3D-3H (asks spade length, we lose 5-3 hearts, or 3S asks for third heart, we lose 4-4 or 5-4 spade fit) ....3H-3S (asks for fifth heart) ....3S-4S ....3N-P 9) 5 spades, 3 hearts ....3D-4H (transfer) ....3H-3S (asks fifth heart, we lose 5-3 spade fit) ....3S-4S ....3N-P 10) 5 hearts, 3 spades ....3D-3H (asks spade length or 3S asks for third heart, either way we lose the other 5-3 fit) ....3H-4H ....3S-4D (transfer) ....3N-4D (transfer--if we don't open 2N on 2-2 majors) 11) 5 spades, 4 hearts ....3D-4H (transfer) ....3H-4H ....3S-4D (transfer or 4S) ....3N-P No listing for 5-5 majors, 5 in none major and doubleton in the other, or 5 hearts and 4 spades--these can all be handled thru Jacoby. Some of the other holes can be filled in by Jacoby if you are willing to give up the abilitty to play in 3M. All in all, not that many holes, but puppet stayman doesn't have too many and Romex stayman is better tahn puppet. Probably stacks up about the same as Romex.

You need to be in 3N or 4H going off--bad result on this hand, but any system that lets you stay out of game on 27 HCP will have you missing laydown games.

Various possible ways of going about it, but 4N with a small doubleton when the lead is marked is a suicide attempt.

I would pass with South's hand but can appreciate 4S. Doubling with North's hand would never cross my mind. I might gamble a double if I had a small stiff in hearts, but the actual holding is deadly. KH is worthless on offense, but give the preemptor QJ and the Ace to his partner and North's stiff King wins a defensive trick. The chance of 4S being a phantom save makes double unacceptable to me--and from North's perpective, Sout'slength is nessessarily in spades--what are the chances of 5C being a phantom or too expensive?

Also, for 3NT partner needs more strength in the black suits opposite your actual hand than opposite a typical 10-12 NT and has no way to know it. To open 1NT here will cause the enemy problems, but gives up on constructive bidding. Opening 1H is dangerous in a five card major system as partner will often give preference to hearts with a doubleton, even holding 3 diamonds. shall we play our 4-2 fit instead of our 5-3 fit? In a four card major system 1H stands out--partner knows we may have only four and won't give preference on a doubleton, so the worst outcome is a 4-3 heart fit vs. a 5-3 diamond fit: much more palatable. So in your system I would open 1D and rebid 2D. This hand is one of the losing cases for your system no matter how you bid it. No argument against your system--all systems have losing cases. System design has an element of "what mistakes do we prefer to make?" to it.

No, both of these are GCC legal in the ACBL. (If other countries have rules against relays, their rules are different.) ACBL GCC defines a sequence of relay bids as a (prohibited) "system" if the opening is one of a suit and the relays start before opener's rebid. So all relays in resonse to 1NT or higher bids are legal, as are all relays by opener (excluding the possibility of the opening itself being a relay). ACBL Mid Chart legalizes relay responses to one of a suit, if game forcing. Invitational or weak relay resonses to one of a suit are only legal on the Super Chart. So in ACBL land, whether or not Stayman is a relay is of no relevance, as relays are unconditionally legal over 1NT.

I would double and follow up with a heart bid if they run (if they don't, they will lose a lot of blood). I don't care for the direct 4H as it might miss slam if partner has the right cards, but we are always going to bid 4H one way or another. So it's down one when the stiff King of trumps is offside. 4H makes on every 2-2 heart split and every 3-1 heart split except the one you got. That's almost 80%, you can't stay out of games like that.

This is an interesting thought - although I don't know that I follow, (or agree) with all the logic. Certainly there are other "high-variance" calls that are realtively standard. Some that I can think of are the stopperless 3N call in the balance chair, overcalling 'under the gun' vulnerable over a high-level preempt, etc.. Just because my downside might be significant doesn't mean the call is wrong, because of the potential upside. Going back to your example of the Hibernian 3♦. The EV of the call seems to be +4 IMPs, although the downside may be huge. I think you are trying to equate these high-variance situations to the following: You want to give me 2:1 odds on a coin-flip for a million dollar bet. While it makes economic sense to take the bet, if I lose, I'm wearing a barrel and making a sign of out cardboard boxes advertising my ability to work for food. However, if I'm playing a match against Meckwell, I definitely want to INCREASE my variance, especially when the variance call has a positive EV. If I'm playing a weaker team, I agree with Richard - keep the variance lower. Even if the EV is a slight negative, I still want to get the throw some variance into the game. Sometimes you have to cut the dogleg, sometimes you have to keep it in the middle. :rolleyes: Richard is quite correct that a high probability high variance method is a better choice than a low probabiltity high variance method. To make it clear, let's look at your 2:1 on a coin toss example. For a single toss, your expectation is to win $500,000 but the bet is scary because 50% of the time you lose everything. Now let's say the coin will be tossed twice, with the same bet on each. Now you expect to win $1 million, but your chance of losing money has gone down to 25%: You are +$4M if you win both tosses (25%), +$1M if you win one and lose one(50%), and -$2M if you lose both(25%). Add more tosses and your expectation goes up and your chance of losing goes down. If you are interested in more in-depth explanation of the concept, google "gambler's ruin": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gambl...G=Google+Search

In the ACBL in a GCC game it is illegal to open 1N with a singleton as a matter of partnership agreement--it is legal as a very occasional excercise of bridge judgement (infrequent enough not to give rise to an implicit agreement). Since partner is in the dark, no alert is necessary or possible.

Ben, I am finding this thread quite interesting. I would like to see more hands where: 1) Opener has a three-level prempt 2) Responder has a preeptive raise of a three level preempt but opener is strong. I particualry wonder about the last with the 3C opening when the auction would go 3D-5D with natural preempts.

Playing 2D waiting, the agreement I prefer is that the bidding can stop short of game if and only if: 1) opener rebids 2N over 2D 2) opener bids a suit over 2D and rebids the same suit over the second negative. All other auctions are game forcing. The method that Ben prefers for 2C is vastly superior, especially when combined with multi. See http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/two/clubs.htm and http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/two/diamonds.htm If you must play in a venue where multi is illegal (ACBL GCC), you can drop the three suiters from 2C and use 2C-2x-2N for your strong balanced hands, then you won't need multi.

What is your prefered method for 1C-1H-1S and 1C-1H-1N? Does 1S show an unbalanced hand so 1N might have 4 spades? Do you bid 1S whenever you have 4 spades so 1N denies spades? Does it make a difference if you are 4333 or 4432? Do you play one way when playing a weak NT and another playing strong?

2C is a standout if natural. It doesn't matter to me if he might be balanced--if he's got four clubs we're fine, if he bid 1S on 4333 he will correct to 2H. Not saying that this would be the best method for him to use, but we can cope with it. Playing XYZ it's a difficult decision between 2S and 1N. Pass is wrong because game isn't excluded and 2H will get you into a 5-1 fit when partner is unbalanced. Now swap the minors and make this a Precision sequence and passing 1S looks just fine.

Yes. Originally first NT trick (or mayber all NT tricks?) scored 35 instead of 40. In Vanderbuilt's original scoring table, all NT odd tricks were 35 each. A revision in the early thirties changed it to 30 for the first, third, fifth, and seventh odd tricks and 40 for the second, foiurth and sixth odd tricks. The next revision established the modern values.

Of course. My question is, how does the fact that you are playing OS in direct seat affect your balancing methods, given the direct seat pass is so much more informative that in standard defensive bidding?

6C. I have no sympathy for 5H or 5N pick a slam. Partner doesn't guarantee 4 hearts and even if he has them, a 4-1 or 5-0 split is quite likely on the bidding.

I've read quite a bit about the Overcall Structure and it seems to have a lot going for it. But I've never seen anything published about how to handle (1x)-P-(P) balacing autions playing the OS. Since partner will long in the enemy suit or weak, what balancing methods are best?