mikestar

I wonder why no one has published a book of "general bridge knowledge". While this may be a "classic" psyche, it is no longer a psyche of any kind if it has become a partnership agreement. Tim Further, if it is done often enough to become a partnership agreement, in many jurisdications it is an illegal one--obviously not GCC legal, if it doesn't promise a known suit it is Mid-Chart illegal (even setting aside the ridiculous defense requirement).

I've played the Hardy method with one amendment: over 1D the 4H, 5+ C hand bids 2H rather than 3C. Leaves more space for constructive bidding and if we have to give up a preemptive jump overcall, let's give up the cheapest one.

Actually, the possibility of only 4 hearts in a 15+ hand tilts the balance more strongly toward Ben's 3H--if partner happens to have that hand, 4H is overbidding LOTT and 4H-1 whether doubled or not may be our only way to go minus. This is much less likely than partner holding 5 hearts in a weaker hand, but since it is doubtful whether we should bid 4H at these colors, the four card heart suit possibility tips the scales toward conservatism.

7H. Partner is already gambling that we fit one of his majors, he shouldn't be gambling on a high card. We have the King of hearts and a double fit, he couldn't have caught us with a better hand if he stacked the deck. If we won't bid 7H with this hand, what will it take? By the way this is very much like a hand that S. J. Simon has in Why You Lose At Bridge he regards 7H as correct if you trust your partner.

Qxx in hearts isn't so good--you will need 3-3 hearts or 4-2 hearts with a stiff trump in the hand with the doubleton. QJx is perfect and Qxxx is good. The real variable is partner's spades. With a doubleton, you don't need QS, as the trumps will play for no losers 78% of the time. You are odds on for 6 spades opposite xx xx xxx xxxxxx. No amount of science can get the needed information in the face of the opponents likely premptive action. At he table, I think I'd emulate Antoine's "to hell with science, six spades!" approach. Perhaps better would be 1S or 1C (Precision), intending to bid 6S next regardless of the auction unless the opponents forget to preempt. Blasting wins whenever: They let us play it and it makes. They sacrifice and it is too expensive. They sacrifice and it is a phantom.

North is correct except in his description of 3NT as a "shutout bid"--there is no such thing opposite a partner who is unlimited in either strength or shape. Give North a sixth spade and a club void and he bids 4S over 3NT. But he has no reason to overrule South on his actual hand.

Seeing the North hand alone, I bid 5C. As I am so conrtol poor, I hate it, but I have and opening bid and a slam try under the Culbertson Rule. I expect to be wrong fairly often. Certainly if there is an artificial GF available and partner chooses not to use it, there is an implication this his hand is not slamworthy and I pass like a shot. My answer was predicated on the idea that 4S was the only way to show game values with spade support. In some SAYC or 2/1 partnerships, I have agreed on 1m-1M-3N as a game raise in M, no stiff but control rich, splinters, and 4M discouraging slam even if responder has a good hand. More sophisticated version are available--you could adapt some of Bergen's high level responses to 1M--it porbaly pays to have responder ask for the stiff so you aren't showing it to the enemy when responder is minimum.

Since nobody else had done it, let's count Zarpoints: South has 19 HCp and 9 contorls for 28 + 8 for his 4333 shape = 36. This is two tricks better than a minimum opening (26 zars), so it merits a jump to game, but has no excess value for 4S. After all, the hand has great controls but no shape. Give responder Jxxx xxx Kxx Kxx, a perfectly reasonable 7 count, and even game hasn't got a prayer--though South must bid game becuase game will be good or laydown oppsite most minimums. North on the other hand, has 13 HCP with 2 controls for 15 plus 10 for the 4432 shape gives 25, even deducting something for the QD North is near opening count range--about two trickes better than he might have been. North must move. Let's also consider Culbertson's rule: "invite slam if a perfect minimum will make it a laydown." By this standard, South does not have a slam try but North does: South's "perfect minimum is his actual hand--4 Aces and the King of trumps.

No point trying for game here--a sound conservative weak 2 would have a maximum of five trump tricks and a side card. With your three aces, this is only nine tricks with no play for ten unless partner's side card is the KC--then game requires the club hook. Prospects are dim for 3NT as well--they lead to one of your Aces and unless partner's King is in the same suit, they take out your stopper before the spades are established. If your partnership opens a weak two on AKQxxx, then bid 2NT and pass when partner shows this hand by bidding 3NT--over any other reply, sign off in 3S.

Given the 1C opening, it comes down to a question--how likely is partner to raise to 2S on 3-card support ? If this is sytemicallay barred as in KS or at least rare, 1S stands out as the best of a bad lot--but if in your nethods a three-card raise is at all frequent, 1S is suicide: bid 2C. If partner happens to be 3-6-3-1, wouldn't you rather be in 2H than2S? If partener passes with a doubleton club, isn't this poor 5-2 fits likely better tha a good 3-3?

On the second hand, East's pass is merely wrong and one could argue a case for it. West's pass, however is either criminal or lunatic. He has 11 HCP, excelelnt defense, a fine 5 card spade suit and three potentiallly useful 10's.

I open both: in fact I open both in first or second seat (but throw either in fourth seat). I don't love 1D on either--I much prefer 1N and 2D if ssystemically available, but 1D is better than pass.

The BWHD is a special case of the general problem of opener having 3-card support for responder's major in a hand too strong for a single raise. The BWHD is the worst example because it will virtually always be a problem--some of the others may not be, depending on your methods--but all are potential issues. For example, 3-1-5-4 shape and the bidding goes 1D-1S-2C: if partner is minimum and say 5-4-1-3, you will end up in 2C and miss the spade fit, pehaps missing a game if he has a good minimum. In a 2/1 system, perhaps the best answer is some kind or artificial 2C rebid. In a Big Club system where a suit opener can't be balanced, an artificial 1N is quite useful.

Most beginners are taught that a limit raise is 11-12 including distibution points. A typical point counter will evaluate this hand as 10 points and settle for 2S. So if partner has a hand where he accepts a limit raise but passes 2S, the field won't be in game. Now if partner makes 4S by good play/bad defense, +170 will beat the field--why risk everything by bidding 4S? As for the case if someone in the field takes the aggressive view--this may well be a hand where the usual presumption of more defensive errors than declarer errors doesn't hold. Declarers are far more error prone in difficult, against the odds contracts than in more comfortable contracts. The same weak declarer may make 4S if he stops in 2S but go down 2 if he's in 4S. I've seen this too many times.

I am indeed aware--I'm trying to improve on the count. 3 per trump with a void is too much IMHO. Also the promised trump basis creates anomalies: If I open 1S with 5-4-3-1 shape and patner raises spades with 4-3-2-4 shape, my initial 13 Zar DP stays at 13 if we are playing five card majors but revalues to 15 if we are playing 4 card majors. Partner's hand revalues to 11 if we are playing five card majors stays at 10 if we are playing 4 card majors. so with the same hands and playing in the same 8-card major fit, we have 25 Zar DPs combined if we play 4 card majors, but only 24 if we are playing 5 card majors. This can't be right, though a 1 poit anomaly isn't too bad. Also, if I have 5-5-3-0 and partner has 5-3-3-2 both of of having long spades, if I open 1S (five card majors) and partner raises, my 15 Zar DP remain 15, and partner's 11 Zar DP revalue to 14 for a total of 29. But if partner opens 1S and I raise, my 15 zars revalue to 24 while partner's remain at 11, for a combined total of 35--over a full trick discrepancy--again, this certainly can't be right and is beyond horrrible.

I've been experimenting with adjustments to Zar points after a fit is found. This is what I'm currently using and it seems to work well. The method is used equally by opener and responder and does not give different values for the same hands with 4CM or 5CM. Add 1 point if your hand is unbalanced (stiff or void in hand). With five or more trumps, if you are balanced (no stiff or void) add 1 point per trump over 4; if unbalanced, 2 points for each trump over 4. With three or fewer trumps, subtract 1 point per trump under 4 if balanced and 2 points per trump under 4 if unbalanced. For shortage in partner's bid suit (assuming the bid implies length and strength), subtract 1 for a doubleton, 3 for a stiff, and 5 for a void. Examples: Opener has: xxxxx xxxxx -- xxx Initial Zar DP: 15 After 1S-2S: 18 After 1S-2C-2H-3S: 18 After 1S-2D-2H-3S : 13 Responder to 1S has: xxx xxxx xxxxx x Initial Zar DP: 13 After 1S: 12 xxxx xxx xxxxx x Initial Zar DP: 13 Ater 1S: 14 xxxxx xxx xxxx x Initial Zar DP: 13 After 1S: 16 xx x xxxxx xxxxx Initial Zar DP: 14 After 1S-2D-3S: 11 x xx xxxxx xxxxx Initial Zar DP: 14 After 1S-2D-3S: 9 xxx -- xxxxx xxxxx Initial Zar DP: 15 After 1S-2D-3S: 14 -- xxx xxxxx xxxxx Initial Zar DP: 15 After 1S-2D-3S: 8 I have also been experimenting with a very simple Zar DP count for NT: Zar NT DP= 5 + longest suit. 3N requires 52 points same as 4M.

3S if invitational, else 2C. I'd shoot 4S if partner might be balanced but if this sequence shows real clubs, the void is a big negative--but 2S is too much an underbid.

I relay with 1H. I admire 3N, but there are just too many hands where 3N goes down and a spade partial or even game makes. If you had a bid that makes partner declare 3N I'd like that best--much better chance 3N makes from his side. With the additional options available how about 2D transfer to spades, intending 3N only over 2N, and play in spades over 2M?

I agree that forcing to suit agreement would be the usual expectation in a high level rubber game. The cuebid is used on two hand types: 1. Game forces where it is desired to conserve space to explore slam or alternate game copntracts. 2. Hands worth a jump to 2M but 4-4 in the majors where we don't want to guess which major to bid--which would risk playing in a 4-3 major fit when a 4-4 major fit was available. With less than game-invitational values, we risk playing our 4-4 major hands in the wrong fit in exchange for a chance to get out at the one level. The usual practice is to bid 1H when weak and bid 1S (with 2H to follow) with reasonable constructive values.

I believe it was Jeff Rubens who said that 2N-1 was a misdemeanor, 4N-1 was a felony , and 5N-1 was a hanging offense.

Double dummy solvers would tend to have a bias that varies with level. Take a grand slam the depends on a two-way finesse for the Queen of trumps. The DD declarer will never get it wrong and the DD defender gains no benefit whatever. On the other hand, DD defense will always find the opeing lead ruff to set a grand. But on the whole, the stronger the declaring side's hands, the more likely it is that DD information won't help the defense because they have little or no control of the play. My guess is that this pro-declarer bias at higher levels helps bring DD results closer to table results. DD may be a bit unfair to Zarpoints at the partscore level--when the strength is fairly equally divided, DD info will be useful to both sides and that will be a gain for the defense vs. table results. By the way, Zar points could be quite useful for suit contracts while being worthless for NT (compare the LTC) so the NT results will be of limited utility.

My rules for preemptive openings are: Appropriate playing strenght for the vulnerablity and position. Decent trumps. Not too much defense. A shortcut I use for the last two rules is at least half of my HCP must be in trumps. By this standard this hand is a 1h openenr or a pass is\f playing sound openings. As for appropriate playing strength, I start with 4332 and adjust as follows: Lean toward aggression NV, toward conservatism vul. Lean toward aggression in third seat, toward conservatism in second seat. (Fourth seat is a bit sounder than 2nd unfavorable at any vul. and may have better defense.) To quantify this for the case at hand, I start off at down tow then lead conservative once for vulnerable and again for 2nd set, so I'd want to be within about 1 1/3 fo my bid (down 1 with decent luck). So if I were to preempt, this hand is only worth 2H and I ahte waek twos on a seven card suit. On the other hand 3rd ahnd favorable, I'd probably disregrad the ecxcess defense and open 4H.

For most of Bridge history, it was permissible for a defender to ask partner "no hearts", etc. The change prohibiting it was fairly recent and was meant to prevent UI. In ACBL land where it is still legal, many directors I have spoken to say that the defenders need to be careful exercizing their right to ask: either never ask or always ask the first time partner shows out of a suit--don't fall into the habit of asking only when you think partner has made a mistake, this can transmit unauthorised information about your hand--and give an astute declarer clues.

The law is less accurate with larger numbers of trumps for one simple reason: all trumps are not created equal. The eighth trump is quite valuable. Compare 4-4 or 5-3 to 4-3 or 5-2. The ninth trump is almost as valuable: less chance of bad breaks, more opportunites for ruffs. The tenth trump is worth something, but clearly not as much as the ninth. The eleventh trump is worth a little bit, but not as much as the tenth. The twelfth trump is worth very little extra. The only thing the thirteenth trump is good for is making sure they won't set your grand slam by ruffing the opening lead. Of course, this assumes that the added trumps are divided between the partners: if we start with a 7-0 fit and give all the extra trumps to the long hand, that thirteenth trump is worth a lot more. But this is length value rather than trump value per se: Give the trumps to the short hand and you will not feel the difference between a 7-5 fit and a 7-6 fit, and odds are good that you won't feel the difference between 7-4 and 7-5. Both Cohen and Lawrence are simplfying a larger, more complex truth about the value of trump length and distribution--they are simplifying it in different ways. I take strong exception to Cohen's assertion that The Law is superior to expert judgement. I take equally strong exception to Lawrence's assertion that the Law is too unreliable. Until one has expert judgment, the Law beats the hell out of guessing.

I've found that I rather like a big club system with "4 1/2" card majors. Here's how it works (balanced = 4333, 4432, or 5332): 1C = 16+ art. 1D = 10-15 4+ diamonds unbalanced. 1H = 10-15 4+ hearts unbalanced. 1S = 10-15 4+ spades unbalanced. 1N = 12-15 balanced, may have 5 card major (pass balanced 11 or less) 2C = 10-15 6+ clubs single suited. 1D/1H will have 4 cards with 4441 shape or longer clubs 1S will have 4 cards with longer clubs only. If you open 1 of a suit with a five card suit, you will have a second suit. Since a 1 of a suit opener can't be balanced, minimum NT rebids by opener can be used artificially as a low level force with difficult hands. (If the response is 1N we give up the ability to play in 2C and use 2C as NMF by opener.) I find that this eliminates the worst hands for 4 card majors (weakish balanced) so you are unlikely to be in 2M on 4-3 when you should be in NT or defending. It also makes 4cM infrequent enough that it's fairy safe to assume five in cometetive situations where you can't find out partner's length. Notice that 1D is a real suit just like the majors. 2C guarantees 6 cards and no second suit in principle (we might conceal 4 mediocre diamonds or 4 worthless hearts/spades). This is rare but quite playable. I prefer transfer response to 2C where opener accepts with a doubleton (or three and a very bad hand) jumps with 3 cards, and bids a 3C, 2N or a new suit with a stiff or a void in the transfer suit.