mikestar

For me, there are no hands that are too strong for a weak two that aren't strong enough for a one bid, excepting the cases where the "too strong" is purely extra shape, in which case the hand qualifies for a higher preempt. I will never pass a hand that is too strong for a weak two. However, this doesn't mean that I won't pass a hand that is stronger than another hand that I'd open a weak two. I would open 2S on QJTxxx xx xxx xxx and pass xxxxxx Kxx Kx Kx. The latter hand isn't too strong for a weak two, it is too defensive.

To me, double is clear cut unless we are playing a very light opening system (if partner would have opened a mediocre 9 count with five poor spades, pass is more attractive.) The double should be fine if partner leaves it in--he'll either have some cards or some hearts or both. The fear is if he bids 4S on four bad spades and a weak hand. In that case we get a crappy result. Oh, well it won't be our first or our last, that's why people prempt. Double is correct but scary, but give me a fourth spade and it's comfortable as well as correct.

As stated, just as illegal as the random spade. Now if there were some judgement criteria which were explained to the openents, this is another question. If for example the 2m and 2M bids and the minor 1 suited possiblilty for 1N required concentrated honors and hands with scattered honors are bid at the one level, this is a legal defense. It could also be stiputated that geniune three suiters would be bid at the one level. The theoretical standard of full discloure is: if an opponent were given your hand, the conditons, the auction, and complete knowledge of your bidding methods and bidding judgement, could accurately predict your bid. No one achieves this in practice--but a method which is designed to make it impossible is illegal. With your methods as stated, you must be choosing how to bid the example hand by some random means (board number? hair color of LHO? flipping a mental coin?). Note that this is differrent from randomizing a choice between two well-defined alternatives when a hand is truly borderline. An opponent equipped as above wouldn't know what your bid would be, but would know you were on a blind guess between two borderline alternatives--that is, he would know as much as you do. By the way, I am not necessarily saying that random methods should be illegal--but they are illegal, even at the highest levels.

Suction is GCC legal over an artifical 1NT or a natuaral but forcing 1NT. Suction is GCC legal over a natural and non forcing 1NT in the balanicg seat, but not in the direct seat. 1S over a strong 1C on bad hands is GCC legal as long as there are substantial negative inferences and these are propertly disclosed. I ruled this crash type defense GCC legal in a club game after consulting the available ACBL info: Pass = most constructive hands Dbl = two suits, same color 1D = two suits, same rank 1H = two suits, same shape 1S = balanced or too litte playing strengh on the vulnerablilty for another bid. 1N = three suited 2C+ = natural preempt 2N = monster two suiter (constructive)

Perhaps English is not your first language. No doubt Gwenny said sexist remark, not sexual remark. Sexual refers to sexuality, sex acts, etc. If you thought this was what she meant, I can can see why this bothered you. Sexist means showing hostility towards/predjudice against members of one sex, in this case women. I beleive your remark was indeed sexist and you deserved some punitive action. Do you think that "White people rule and black people drool" would have been acceptable? Would you think it would be OK to advertize your tourney as "No [insert your favorite derogatory term for gay people here] allowed"?

I'm with Free on this. I think you should prefer the less described hand if the disparity in description is great, but the stonger hand in case of doubt.

If the biggest disparity is in bidding judgement, the weaker player should deal. The constructive difficulties may go either way, but by dealing, the weaker player gets one important decison without competition. If the biggest disparity is in declarer play, let the stronger player deal so he will declare more often. If the biggest disparity is in defense, the weaker player should deal. That way he is less likely to have the opening lead--though this is quite close. Aggressive vs. conservative really makes little difference, but I would choose based on the tone of the partnership system. If we are sound in first seat, let the conservative partner deal, if we open light let the aggressive partner deal. Inother words, it is more important for dealer to conform to the partnership style than for third hand to do so.

Lets say that the weak meaning is at least 90% of your multi openings. Lets say that the inference you can draw from you weakness and RHO's pass is that partner is more likely to be strong. It is still probably against the odds. And you can't draw any inferences from RHO's pass--he might have a battleship without the right shape for immediate action. If has diamond length, he is certain to get another chance--so he can pass. Also LHO might hold a battleship. Preempting is right in both of these cases and only wrong when partner is strong. But 2D-(p)-3H for example doesn't lead to loss in all cases where partner is strong, only in some cases. It must be right to preempt on any hand where you would do so if you were playing mini-multi (where only the weak meaning is possible). As an aside, I really love Ben's prefered method of only factoring the minor suit Acol twos into multi and handling the major suit Acol twos via 2C with passable paradox responses in the majors. This method even further reduces the loss on multis with strong hands when partner preempts (fewer hand types=easier to resolve), without inducing much if any loss into 2C. After all, a lot of us open major suit Acol twos with 2C even though we can't get out below the three level.

This was in an ACBL game about 15 years ago. I was an invited guest in a game where most of the players were seniors. To them it was provacative enough that I was there and my partner (who was 60 at the time) and I were playing Precision. In this context, going overboard in full disclosure made a great deal of sense --though they would have been acting illegally, no doubt the comittee would have taken away our top in abscense of the prealert. The context also explains why the opponents complained so bitterly and were taken seriously. LOL's (and LOM's) in America are not the adventurous types that they are in Australia, for example. Opening a multi would have gotten me banned from that venue for life. (Not all of the player would be kidding when they suggested I really ought to be shot.) If the ACBL were to propose to amend the GCC to disallow everthing except Stayman, Blackwood, and 2C strong and artifical and put it to a membership vote, it wouldn't pass, but it also wouldn't be defeated by that wide a margin, either. This is both a cause and an effect of the aging/declining membership.

Playing with a beginner, I picked up something like KQxxx x AKQx AKx and my partner opened 1S. I responded 4N simple blackwood. Partner misheard my bid thought I bid 1N (non-forcing) and passed. 4N making 5 should be a bottom as 6S appeared cold. Partner had the rest of the deck except AK of hearts,which cahsed on the opeing lead. As it turned out, every other pair bid 6S--and went down on the lead of a diamond from x xxx xxxxxxx xx, ruffed.

A point that isn't being fully brought out. The NT evalutaion of a hand and the suit evaluation of a hand are two different quaintites. A stiff in a side suit is an asset is a suit contract but a liability in NT. Similarly, controls are quite important in suit evaluation and fairly unimportant in NT evaluation. [Gambling NT situatations-- where you are in a race to run 9 fast tricks (ususally with a long minor) before they run 5 are an exception--here controls and particularly aces are highly important.] So I'd much rather have xx Axxx Kxxx Axx? if I knew we will be playing in hearts and I'd much rather have xx KJxx QJxx KJx if I knew we would be playing in NT. By the way, like ZAR, K&R is geared toward suit evalution--it gives misleading results for balaned NT bidding.

If North hestitated, then pass is certainly a logical alternative to 2S (though I rather like the bid) so an adjusted score is in order. South choosing from among logical alternatives one which could have been suggested by partner's hesitation is a violoation of law which calls for redress when it results in damage to the non-offenders. It is also a violation of ethics if South deliberately chose to take advantage of the hesitation (rather than being subconsciously influenced as most players would be, or ignorant of the law). It is cheating if an only if North deliberately hesitated for South to take advantage of it. If there was no hesitation, this is a perfectly legal though somewhat bizarre auction. Bad bidding is legal even when it works.

In its "modern" form, MOSCITO is distinquished by: A majors first opening style Light and limited opening bids Relays with strong hands Transfer opening bids "GCC legal" MOSCITO an oxymoron... Point well taken. It is not entirely dissimilar, but the likeness is not good. It is rather like Schenken with a weaker NT.

Wtihout the diamond support being shown by the cuebid, it is harder to find the club fit. But if North is aware that the fit is 5-4 diamonds and 4-4 clubs, he should play in clubs, especially if the heart stiff has been pinpointed--it is very likely that a discard will be needed for the third spade. It is an important point to notice why 6C plays better--not because clubs is a better trump suit (it isn't, the 4-4 is more porne to bad breaks)--but because diamonds is a better side suit. The diamonds produce a discard, but only if they are not trump. Notice that if we add the Queen of spades to either hand, now 6D is better--it is laydown unless they can ruff the opening lead. 6C can now survive 4-1 clubs, but goes down if they are 5-0. 6C can also be set by an opening lead ruff.

Whatever shows a mixed raise in our system. If we have no such bid, with ten trumps I'll choose 3D rather than 2D but I really have too much defense.

My most outrageous non-bid: passing partner's Precison 1S (partener dealt, opponets vul.) with xx Axxx Axxx xxx They went for 500 in 3Hx vs the 140 we had coming in spades. They could have gotten out for 200 if the declarer had guessed that I had both red aces. But even 200 would have been a cold top. Had to survive a director call and a commitee, but it stood up. (We prealerted that our passed of limited openings could be 6-8 without a fit.)

Assuming the original 2H promised diamond support, how about 4C instead of 3H, showing the double fit? If partner's 3C is a no trump probe and he doen't have four clubs, he will insist on palyoing in daimonds.

Actually, play it 2 points lighter and it pretty much is a GCC-legal form of Moscito. As for the 1C miminum, what Free considers a disadvantage I consider an advantage--I believe that having a probable game helps cope with intervention--we likely know "how high" and can focus on "where". In all big club systems, the 1C is the most vulneable part. A 17 point 1C will be much less frequent that a 15 point 1C--isn't this an advantage unless you set the minimum so high that your limit bids aren't limited enough? (Romex's Dynamic MT shades into this territory.) Personally, I think the 12 bal opposite 12 bal problem is better handled by allowing 1 of a suit on a balanced hand 3rd and 4th seat. (Perhaps lowering 1NT to 11-14 and having the balanced possiblility strong? -- worth trying this in first and second?) Here slam is flat impossible and game fairly unlikely, so the greater amibiguity in opener's shape is less important. But remember, my thinking is colored by a long history of passing balanced 12's and getting good results doing it. This system is still playable with a 12-15 1NT and a 16 point 1C. Luke's system is interesting and looks to be quite effeicent in constructive auctions, but I wanted something that leaves 2D+ available for preempts.

I've been doing quite a bit of experimenting with a Big Club system using 4 card majors. The opening bids: 1C = 17+ 1D = 10-16, unbalanced with four+ diamonds, may have longer clubs. 1H = 10-16, unbalanced with four+ hearts, may have longer clubs. 1S = 10-16, unbalanced with four+ spades, may have longer clubs. 1N = 13-16, balanced, may have five card major. We pass balanced 11-12's. 2C = 10-16, six+ clubs, in principal one suited. (You may use judgement and ignore a fair four card diamond suit or xxxx in a major.) 2D+ = whatever you prefer. Because the one of a suit openings are never balanced, an artificial NT rebid can be of use in clarifying opener's hand. If passing balanced 12's gags you, you could play everthing 1 point lighter. Vs. Precison, 1M auctions are less well defined but don't do badly. The 1S-2S on a possible 4-3 makes our LOTT decisions harder, but it also makes their decisions harder. One the whole I guestimate that the 1M openings in this system do about 85-90% as well as Precision. 1D is a very real diamond and the gain vs a nebuluous or even semi-nebulous Precison 1D is quite substantial. 2C is now rare and ridiculuously easy to handle when it happens. The 4 point NT range costs some accuracy, but this at least offset by the increased accuracy of biddding unbalnced hands. I am still working on the response structrue and am incorporating some Robson-Segal ideas. If there is interest, I will periodically post more details as the structure evolves.

This is exactly what I thought, but how far does one go with this theory? Is there no hand to strong for overcalling? AKQTxxx x AKx Ax is self evidently too strong for an overcall--it about even money for 4S opposite 0 points and a void. (Though if the bidding excludes us having a slam, a direct 4S ostensibly prempitve is a better way to bid this hand than double.) Typically I won't overcall on a three loser hand and tend not to on a four loser hand if my suit is good.

When Neapolitan was designed there was no Precision system. The only widely known Big Club system was Vanderbuilt's, originated concurrently with the game itself and no longer played by anyone. The Italians were in virgin territory. And control showing is superior if you are in the slam zone and the enemy is silent or limits their intervention to the one level. In those days no one was as aggressive in defensive bidding as even an average player is today, so the decison made some sense, given the high importance of accurate slam bidding in IMP scoring--I imagine it was the wrong choice for matchpoints even in those comparatively innocent days. Just ask yourself which is more likely after a Precison 1C: 1. We have a close slam, and very accurate investigative tools make us the winner. 2. We face fierce competiton and we desperately need to know how our hands fit. In today's game, #2 is (conservatively) 10 times more frequent than #1 and the #1 cases aren't all loss. If the opponents are quiet, shape first still allows ample exchange of information--in the frequent case of finding a major fit at the two level allows for tools like Serious 2NT and all the asking bids/relays you could want. And when you are in the slam zone but facing competition, shape first allows you to find more fits, so you can blast to slam. This is a winning action overall--for every time you get to an unmakable slam, you will induce at least one phantom save--and getting to a making slam in competition will score pretty well. To sum up, whatever the merits of controls first in the Blue Team's heyday, it is the wrong choice now. This is particularly true the lower the minimum for 1C goes. The Italians required 17 and upgraded conservatively while Precision is 16 upgraded liberally as most play it, and Moscito player have been known to open a "big" club on a good 13! I think that Romex is better able to get away with control showing because of its 18-19 minimum for 1N and the fact that 1N has a fairly tightly defined upper limit. Nevertheless, if I were designing a Romex system today, I'd use shape first.

I disagree. A mixed bidding strategy you alert and explain to the opponents. A psyche you neither alert nor explain. I think that you misunderstand my fundamental point: I claim that "psyches" do not exist. The very concept of a psyche owes its existence to a very primative regulatory structure that doesn't want to address complexities like mixed strategies... Richard, I agree with you about mixed stratagies but psyches do exist. If by explicit or implicit partnership agreement my 1S opener may be Axxx of spades and no other values, this is not a psyche, even though the regualtory bodies may wrongfully choose to call it that. But if by explicit or implicit partnerahip agreement I cannot make such an opener but choose to do so anyway, such a bid is a psyche: a deliberate and gross misstatement of strength or shape. You may choose to psyche as part of a mixed strategy of course--but since a true psyche by definition keeps partner as much in the dark as the opponents, you are really playing three-handed bridge. This doesn't imply something is wrong with doing it--the tactical advantage may be worth having partner in the dark. But the term psyche refers to something real and distinguishable from the first case, which is four-handed bridge (though mostly wrongfully made illegal.)

Granted that this particular distinction is really ridiculous. Granted that ACBL leads the world in foolish system regulation. However many other Bridge Federations have thier own foolishness. For example the EBU is much more sensible than ACBL on most issues, yet bans non-penalty doubles of 1N openings except at the highest levels.

A sequence of relay bids is defined as a system if, after an opening of one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid. From the GCC. Checkback is legal. Only relays beginning with the respose to one of a suit are illegal. Elsewhere in the ACBL regs (can't find it so I can't cite it verbatim) I believe a relay is defined as a bid that is non-desciptive as to shape but asks about partner's shape. By this definition, Checkback and even Stayman and itself are relays (though GCC legal ones).

Ron, PB is from the US, where pet is also a verb.