mikestar

XYZ is so called because it applies in all auctions that satrt 1X-1Y-1Z. It is an extension of 2 way checkback differing in that 1Z need not be 1NT. XYZ relpaces fourth suit forcing in 1 level sequences. 2C requires opnener to bid 2D. Responer wishes to sign off in diamonds or will show a game invitation. Opener can make a different bid if he would not have passed a natural 2D signoff. 2D is an artificial game force. Lets' take 1D-1H-1S as an example: After 1D-1H-1S-2C-2D, responder bids: Pass= to play. 2H = invitational, 5+ hearts 2S = invitational, 4 spades 2N = invitational, club stopper, tends to be off-shape. 3C = invitational, real club suit. 3D = invitational, 4+ diamonds Repsponder's rebids other than 2C/2D: 2H=weak signoff, maybe only 5 hearts. 2S=weak signoff, 4 spades (sometimes 3) 2N=invitational, balanced with with club stopper. 3C= club signoff (weak 4-6) 3D = GF, excellent diamond support 3H = GF, excellent 6+ hearts 3S = GF, 4 good spades 3N = to play. Direct game forces thend to have very good suits but minimum values. Strong GF hands or hands where the partnership needs to find a fit go thru 2D. Some advanced players prefer conventioal meanings for the GF bids and show all natural GF hand by bidding 2D first.

1N-2C-3D is correct in SAYC given that you don't play minor suit transfers. Since it is the only way to make a game forcing bid in a minor suit, it doesn't promise a 4 card major. By the way, while I agree with a game forcing diamond bid at IMPs as in this case, I'd just bid 3N with these cards at matchpoints. With no aces 6D is remote and I only want to be in 5D if 3N is going down.

However the bidding starts, let's assume North has manged to show a 7 trick hand with good spades. IF North has AC, and his 6 trump tricks are KQJxxxx then this is a 5 or 7 hand depending on whether you can run the diamonds. IF North's 6 trump tricks are QJTxxxxx, then slam is unlikely. Slam is doomed if partner is not short in clubs and has 7 trump tricks and no side card or his side card is KH. I don't mind passing 4S and making lots of overtricks when things go right, though I have some sympathy for blasting to 6S. In my younger days I would have perpetrated ... 4S - 4N - 5S - 7S but this will get more bottoms than tops when partner can't show 2 keys and the Queen. On a version of NAMYATS where the 4D opener would should a solid or one loser suit and some slam values, I like the keycard ask much better--then you are much more likely to get the right answer.

Buy a copy of the Granovtter's Obvious Shift book for each of you and study it thoroughly--your defense will improve significantly. Count should be used sparingly (the book lists appropriate situations) as this signal is the most likely to give declarer information he didn't already have. Declarer is likely to have at least a good guess for your attitude or suit preference even without reading your signal, so on balance you are transmitting more useful information to your partner than to the enemy with these signals. Note that in most of the exceptional cases where count is recommended, the balance of information is also favorable. Knowing whether the Ace will cash against 6S after RHO signals count on the lead of the King is of interest but no use whatever to declarer--but immense use to LHO.

There's been much discussion of support doubles recently. They do have some merit but I prefer not to play them. The advantage: more acccurate LOTT decisions as partner knows how much support I have. The disadvantages: More accurate LOTT decisions for them as they know how much support I have. Takeout double is not available for truly difficult hands. Sucessful penalty pass of suppport double is unlikely, successful penalty pass of takeout double is much more frequent as we are more likely to be misfit.

Ben is totally right on this. Why distort your bidding to clarify the trump position for partner AND THE OPPONENTS. So our LAW decisons will be less accurate after the single raise--so will theirs. Double should be be for good cards but stuck for a bid: takeout.

Treating all of these a preemptive makes the most sense (given partnership agreement). In the 2H-(P)-5H case, which is more likely: 1) We've got a slam if partner has good trumps. 2) They can make 4S and are fairly sure to bid it (5H bidder has a spade void and five little hearts). I'm sure #2 is more likely. And #1 can be handled via RKCB or Exclusion RKCB with a void. (And with two voids you are going to blast to 6 or 7 anyway, aren't you?) The frequency edge is even greater in favor of #2 when opponent bids or doubles, showing some values.

1. Pass. Who was the world class player who said "Don't play me for specific cards, I won't have them."? 2. Really depends on what partner is showing, I would guess pass with a pickup. This hand is a fairly good advertisement for the weak NT. 3. 3S, the compromise bid. I will bid 4S without shortness if the hand is otherwise perfect, but the QH is worthless on offense but might take a trick on defense (I'm not worried about QS, it's wasted both ways.) I have some sympathy for 2S, but if you do it, then sell to 3m. If you are going to take the push, take it now. You wpn't get to play 2S unless the opponents are beginners.

I double if my partner is well versed in LOTT and will leave it in unless he is shapely.

In defending against light openings with light responses, it pays to be more agressive with shape. This is especially true if the opening is limited as in Precision or even more so Moscito. I think conservatism is still the best course with shapeless hands and with length/strength in the enemy suits. True they are less likely to be able to hurt us since they are weaker--but we are more likely to be able to hurt them. In terms of methods, after (1D)-P-(1S) for example: X=4-4+ hearts and clubs, good defense 1N=4 hearts, 5+ clubs, good defense 2C= natural 2D=5-5+ hearts and clubs, poor defense 2H=natural 2S=natural 2N=4 hearts, usually 6+ clubs, poor defense. This separates the shapely hands according to defensive strength and also separtes the two suiters from the long minor/4 card major hands. There are two reason for using 2D rather than 2S for the two-suiter with poor defense: 1. It's cheaper. 2. If there is a stack in the enemy suit youbid naturally, with responders suit it is in front of you, with opener's suit it is behind you.

Ben's analysis is right on the money. I only make splinters on very strong hands if I'm going to bid 6 anyway but think we might have a shot at 7 if partner has no waste in my short suit.

Not even close. 2H suggests some useful values for alternative contracts. If someone put a gun to my head and threatend to shoot me if I bid 3H, I'd rather try 4H than 2H.

You are a liar. No bidding method never misses a slam--even "Bid a slam on every hand" will sometimes fail by getting you to the wrong slam!

FN looks very much like EHAA with a more disciplined two bid, five card majors and a bit of science.

Ben, I read the original post and Jimmy's subsequent post-- the question was about a 1 heart opening that is only opened on 2-suited hands, promising an unspecifed second suit. In the system in question, one suited heart hands are not opend 1 heart, they are openend 2 hearts. The guarantee of the existence of a second suit it what makes the bid a convention, not the fact that it is longer. (A non-canape version which promisedised 5+ hearts and an unspecified 4+ side suit would be equally conventional.) You and Jimmy had a miscommunication or your interpretation of the law does not agree with Richard's and mine. The question of normal canape, where one heart could have a longer side suit but might be a heart one suiter was not asked in the post. If that is what Jimmy asked you in your private communication, worrying than canape itself might not be legal, it was a different question than the one he asked in his posts. OK--we've all had a failure to communicate. I assert that the one heart opening which promises a second suit is conventional. I also assert that canape where the second suit is longer if it exists but there may not be a second suit is not conventional. Is there agreement with these assertions?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s107652h6dakq7c864&w=skj8h10852d9632c93&e=saq4h74d54cakj1075&s=s93hakqj93dj108cq2]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] As usual in these cases, the problem is the first bid. A WJO or an IJO should have a high offense/defense ratio. Wuth the garbage cards in the minors South doesn't. Much better is (P)-P-(1C)-1H; (P)-1S-(2C)-P;(P)-2D Now partner can offer 2H based on his solid suit and you can push on to 3H if east trys 3C. [hv=d=w&v=n&n=s107652h6dakq7c864&w=skj8h10852d9632c93&e=saq4h74d54cakj1075&s=s93hakqj93dj108cq2]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Here the JO is reasonable. You probably don't want to double for penalties because of your finessable holding, but swap the K and Q of clubs and you will want to.

I agree with Richard. Fourth hand has a shapely hand with spades and 1C just won't do well in competition. I'm not sure I like 1D though--while bidding 4H over 3S is fine, what if they are at 4S by the time it gets back to me? If I'm going to double, 1D is best but if I'm going to take a shot at five, I should have opened 1H.

Jimmy has elsewhere inquired about Larry Weiss' Simplified Club, where 1 of a suit is canape and never one-suited. This is conventional by definition just as Richard said. The canape style where the second suit will be longer if there is a second suit is not a convention. Simplified Club is a good system if you don't mind compromising your ability to open premptively and it isn't overly hard to defend against, but it isn't GCC legal because of the one bids. Personally, I think the current definiton is wrong on this point. Though such an opening should be alertable, it should not be deemed a convention. What I'd like to see is something like: Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, does not convey a meaning of willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. An agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. An agreement that a call concurrently suggests playing in or length or strenght in another denomination does not make a call a convention. The latter two sentences are for clarification. The first sentence is actually a sufficient statement. Note the good effects of restating the definiton in the negative--all sorts of wonderful bids that less advanced players are quite capable of defending against become non-conventional and therefor legal. To my mind, no one above the rankest beginner should need protection against any method where a player has hearts when he bids hearts. By the way, the existing law is flawed in that a strict reading of its letter makes Precision 1C non-conventional! Precision 1C does not express willingness to play in any denomination other than clubs, nor does it show length or values in any suit other than clubs--of course, it also doesn't express willingness to play in clubs or length or values in clubs. All it shows is 16+ HCP. This does not meet the current definition of a convention; equally clearly it does fit my negative restatement of the definition. In conclusion, a law that makes an opening bid of 1H a convention when the opener has hearts a convention and doesn't make a purely artificail 1C opening a convention needs some rethinking. Yes I know that both ACBL and WBF say Precision 1C is conventional, but they are contravening the letter of the law.

Ben is right, the ruling was grossly incorrect. However directors can, may and must evalutate hands. For example pychics are legal, but regualtions may reqire that the fact that a psychic was made needs to be noted--how can one do that if one is forbidden to evaluate hands? How can you determine if a bid deliberatley and grossly misrepresents the hand if you aren't allowed to determine if the bid misrepresents the hand at all? And if the tournament has special rules (no psychics) how can they be enforced? In determining misinformation, how can you rule without evaluation? Say over time you observe a pair who state that their NT range is 15-17 but are constantly opening hands like Axx Kxxx Kxx QJx with 1NT. If we can't evaluate, how can we distinguish them from the pair who regualrly opens AQTx AQTx QTx xx with 1NT playing the same 15-17 range?

In the ACBL, overcalling on four card suits is not an alert unless you do it above the one level--which very few do. A one level overcall which frequently has less than 6 HCP is alertable (and prealertable) even if it promises 5 cards.

When the opponents leave us alone (always the big disadvantage with Precision), our slam bidding is better than 2/1 even without asking bids and relays. The very common positive auction 1C-1M-2M agrees trumps and establishes a game force at the two level. By the time we're are at the five level, we can be cuebidding queens.

True random number generation is not possible is software but quite possible in hardware. I don't know all the technical details but I believe than the numbers are derived from various kinds of electronic noise in the computer. A good quailty random number device is around $4000 US last time I saw one advertised. Too much for your local club, but the ACBL could afford one and should use one. (They are sold primarily for use in cryptograpy, but are also used where massive simulations are being done and even an excellent psuedorandom algorithim repeats too soon.)

Zar estimates 6520 as 1 Zarpoint (=1/5 trick) stronger, most authorites rate them equal. I agree with the majority. 6520 is better is if partner's length/stregth is opposite the doubleton, worse if it is opposite the void (which is somewhat more likely). 6511 usually has one right stiff and one wrong one.

I'd love to see any kind of official ruling that backs this statement. I'll also be VERY surprised if you can find one. I've seen this topic discussed several times on the Bridge Laws mailing list over the years. There is a general consensus that mixed strategies are complete legitimate. It isn't an offical ruling--it is an interpretation of several offical rulings including the WBF rule against random calls. It is my own attempt to state a rationale (which I don't necessarily agree with) for the various prohibitons on random/ destructive calls. My understanding of the laws and rulings is that the method outlined (as well as the random spade) are illegal. I would like to see the rulings that indicate otherwise. You may assert that the laws guarantee the right to bid this way and the rulings to the contrary are illegal. This may be true in so far as natural bids are concerned but it is manifestly untrue as far as conventional calls are concerned. These ruling with regard to conventions may by ill-advised or unfair, but they are perfectly legal. A governing body is free to impose any restrictions it chooses on conventions, including banning them entirely--the extreme case is the Portland Club in England, where you can't play Stayman, Blackwood or takeout doubles. (I imagine that if a pair came to the Portland wanting to play Moscito, the only debate the Card Comittee would have is whether summary execution is called for or would a severe maiming be sufficient.)

This is a 5C opener. Patner needs litttle for it to have a shot, needs a lot for me to want to be in 6C, and its fairly likely that they can make 4M but not 5M if they don't have a club void and if they do they may have a slam. Little can go wrong and much can go right. Give me a void and a ninth club and I'd give serious consideration to opening 6C if our partnership defines that as premptive rahter than twelve sure tricks missing a high trump.