mikestar

Some critical bidding differences: Game bidding: more aggressive at IMPs especially vulnerable. Choice of game: always the safest game. For example if (hypothetically) you have a hand that is sure for 3NT on the nose but will make 4H if the trumps are 3-2, 4H is the correct MP contract but you belong in 3N in IMP. Partscore battles: about the same, based on LOTT. You can even be a shade more agressive in IMPs vulnerable, as -200 vs -140 isn't as big a loss as in MPs and partscore doubles are more dangerous: If (both vul) they bid 3S over our 3H and every body else our way is in 3H +140, then the double is free at matchpoints. -730 is the same bottom as -140 but +200 if they go down one is top vs. +100 for a bottom if you don't double. At IMPs the double isn't free at all you change a 7 IMP loss into a 13 IMP loss if you are wrong, and change a 1 IMP loss into a 2 IMP gain if you are right, so the odds against the double are 6 to 3. Small slam bidding. Similar in both games. You won't win or lose big on 50% slams in either form of scoring. Choice of slams: in matchpoints you try for 6N if feasible, especially if the alteranative is a minor suit. In IMPS always go for safety. For example, if 6D is laydown and 6N is 60%. bid 6N if you think most of the field will be in slam. (Safety is better in MP also if you think the field is missing this one.) At IMPS, 6N is idiotic. Grand slams: In IMPs vulnerable it is only 17 to 13 against if the small slam is bid, but if they are stopping in game, you are risking turning a 13 IMP gain into a 13 IMP loss trying to get 17 IMP at odds of 26 to 4 against, it can't be right to bid. Conservatism is bidding grands pays well in MP too for the same reason. If the field are in 6S making bidding 7S is going top or bottom vs an average score is you stop in 6. All you need is a 50+% chance. But if the field is stopping in game, you are risking a bottom when you already have a top.

One very clear plus among the minuses--the 1N opening with its fairly high minimum (19+ balanced, ususally 18+ unbalanced--might be a very good 17) and a defined upper limit is much less vulnerable to intervention than a Precision or Moscito 1C. Yes you lose 1N but get a natural 1C--no nebulous diamond, no self-preempting Precision 2C. As against that, the limited openings are less limited.

The fairly well known 5 HCP grand slam: [hv=n=sat9876h8765432dc&w=skhaq9dkjcakt9876&e=sqhkjtdaqtcqj5432&s=sj5432hd98765432c]399|300|[/hv]

Doesn't this make them HUM? Quoting from the definition of HUM:- " B ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass." Here your opening 1M bids may be weaker (at least by some definition of weaker) than Pass. Eric The way it is phrased there is some ambiguity, but the WBF has never interpreted it this way. There is nothing highly unusual about opening some 12 point hands and passing others. Majors vs. minors is just as valid a judgment criterion as shape, honor concentration, etc. The definition is directed at FP systems and other systems where a pass has a lower limit higher than 0. For example, the Walpurgis Diamond where pass is 8-12 and 1D is 0-7 or natural 13+. It would also seem to apply to the old Marmic system where pass was either normal or 16-19 balanced, where a 1 bid can be weaker than pass' strong meaning's lower limit. The trouble is that the sentence as it stands is not ambiguous. If they wanted it to say something else they should have written something else. I note that most FP systems would be covered by " c ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength.", because of the Fert and the Marmic system would be covered by "a ) A Pass in the opening position may have the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes may hold values a queen or more above the strength of an average hand (an average hand contains 10 HCP)" So what exactly is the point of point b ? Also, " d ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows (a) either length or shortage in a specified suit or (B) either length in one suit or length in another" would seem to make a system with 5c♥♠ and 4c♦ a HUM because the 1♣ opening shows either length (3 or more) in ♣ or ♦. Eric You're strethcing things to make your point. Most players would open AJxxxxx ATxxx x x and pass QJ Qxx QJxx QJxx, yet the latter hand has more HCP--don't tell me that HCP are irrelevant (for the rules), as the rules define an average hand as 10 HCP. Everone on the planet makes this type of judgemtn calls all the time, and that doesn't make their methods HUM. I know that systems policies are somewhat irrational--they are not that irrational. KS is unquestionably GCC legal in the ACBL--nothing, absolutely nothing WBF HUM is GCC legal.

No. Per WBF, the rule that a weak opening that does not show 4 cards in a known suit is brown sticker only applies thru 3S. (By the way 3N=minor 4 bid would be brown sticker if the rule applied at this level.) In ACBL land, 3N showing an unspecifed major is not GCC legal unless the suit is solid. It is Mid Chart legal.

Doesn't this make them HUM? Quoting from the definition of HUM:- " :) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass." Here your opening 1M bids may be weaker (at least by some definition of weaker) than Pass. Eric The way it is phrased there is some ambiguity, but the WBF has never interpreted it this way. There is nothing highly unusual about opening some 12 point hands and passing others. Majors vs. minors is just as valid a judgment criterion as shape, honor concentration, etc. The definition is directed at FP systems and other systems where a pass has a lower limit higher than 0. For example, the Walpurgis Diamond where pass is 8-12 and 1D is 0-7 or natural 13+. It would also seem to apply to the old Marmic system where pass was either normal or 16-19 balanced, where a 1 bid can be weaker than pass' strong meaning's lower limit.

Most players playing 1N 15-17 will reject an invitation on 15 and accept on 16-17. If this is normal for your partner, this edges the odds toward pass--though I would still bid. Opposite a partner who will reject on 15, accept on 17, and use his judgement on 16, this hand is a clearcut game invitaion. As a general rule, I think inviting on 8 is a mistake opposite 15-17, but this hand is worth more than 8 points.

This is in accord with Kaplan, who believed in responding 3N to a 12-14 1NT on 12 (unless the hand had a serious flaw). He stated that 12 opposite 12 will make game more often than 20 opposite 6 (though 20 opposite 6 makes often enough that you should bid it). Kaplan was also of the opinion that a 24 count needed 4 points opposite.

True. But responder doesn't have the values to try a psss very ofter--and most of the time he will be wrongsiding the contract when he does have the values (The same defect as Gambling 3N with a solid minor.) Alos 4C/4D natural are much harder to defend than 3N=minor 4 bid.

Any scoring, any vulnerability, I will bid 2C intending to invite game. This hand starts out at 8 points, but gains value for honor concentration so call it 8 1/2. For suit play, it also gains value for extra controls (I have 3 controls in an 8point hand, a "normal" 3 control hand has 10 points). I'd allow another 1/2 point for spades for this. Then add a point for shape and I have 10 points--but partner may only be worth about 14 for suit play, as he may be 4-3-3-3, so inviting is enough.

It must be stongly emphasized that four handed bridge involves a mutually agreed on (and properly explained to the enemy) set of partnership agreements, both as to method and style. Four handed bridge can be winning bridge; so can two handed bridge--but three handed bridge (focusing all your efforts on messing with the enemy and forgetting you have a partner) is losing bridge just as much as one handed bridge would be.

If I remember correctly, Bill root taught that the delayed double of a suit that you could have doubled earlier is takeout thru 4D if the suit has been raised, but only takeout thru 2D if the suit has not been raised. I would amend the latter level to takeout thru 2S. (For this purpose, a chance to double a 1N response counts as a chance to double opener's suit.)

If we have it in our toolkit, the ideal is 2N lebensohl followed by 3H = got both four spades and the heart stopper--in absence of this, I bid 3N. I will editorialize on the initial pass. If in your system IN can't be opened on 11 point hands and AQxxx Kxxx xx xx is not a 1S opener, then there is no rational alternative to pass. You have 12 HCP including an empty spade suit and a doubleton Queen--this is scarcly worth 11, much less its nominal 12.

Correct, but to play a certain style, you need to play a system that facilites 4-handed bidding rather than thwarting it. Now 2/1 as Ben plays it is more 4-handed than Goren-Wei Precision--but on average, Precison or Moscito (even more so) are better adapted for 4-handed bidding than 2/1. Not the 1C opener, of course, but the far more frequent limited openings. In 2/1, you need so much space to resolve the constructive bidding ambiguities that it is hard to cope well with intervention or cause problems for the enemy.

I first encounterd the term in Bill Root's book Modern Bridge Conventions. For the reverse, opener shows invitational values but may have GF values so the reverse can't be passed. With 6-9, responder rebids his suit if he has five or more cars in it or bids 2N with oly a four card suit. (Some prefer the fourth suit to 2N if it can be bid at the 2 level.) All other bids, including a preference to openres first suit show 10+. Most 2/1 players use something like this these days. I can remember playing when in Standard American 1D-1S-2H was passable and opener had to jump to 3H with GF values. Of course, this auction is still passable in Precison--a limited opener can't have GF values after a 1/1 without a fit.

I make this raise quite freely. With a singleton, always. With 4333, never. I generally raise with a doubleton unless my hand is particularly well suited for NT play (for example, my doubleton is Kx). When in doubt strong trumps favor the raise. Also, the weaker the minor, the better the raise is.

Disciplined is not the same as conservtive. Disciplined means if you would open Jxxxxx with 3C in a certain seat at a certain vulnerability, you can't also opne 3C with AKxxxxx in the same circumstances. It is possible for a preempt to be both undisiplined and conservative--for example Trent twos. My own preference is a fairly undisiplined and fairly wild weak two (not quite EHAA wild) but with a little defense (not too much). A defenseless hand should either prempt higher or pass. Higher preempts I prefer fairly disiplined at the three level and quite disiplined higher up. Moderte to wil at the three level, moderate to conservative higher.

The entire text of the relevant laws: The director blew this one and ruled as if the 2C bidder did not call subsequent to the redouble. Any call by the non-offending side after an irregularity condones the irregularity an no penalty is imposed--law 35 gives the proper way to correct the auction. By the way, whether a redouble is conventional has no relevance except for the application of law 26 (Say a rouble conventionally promised spades, a lead penalty in spades would apply.) Conventional passes are treated specially--a FP system openeing pass out of turn is treated as a bid out of turn.

I see that once again I'm crazy. I think double of 2♦ is terrible. If your partner has five diamonds he's likely to leave it in, and you don't have enough defensive strength to handle it. If he doesn't, you likely can make at least 3. My solution is simple...bid 3♦! That shows exactly this hand...shortness in diamonds, not enough strength to X 1♦. In fact, there really isn't many shapes other than 4405 that wouldn't have bid a major at the 1 level but would bid 3♦. Not crazy at all--this is risky because you may be too high, but you are unlikely to get hurt badly. The main danger of doubling is getting left in if patner has long diamonds. Here, he has a very simple 4H over your cuebid.

The second hand is perfect for CAPP/1MX, which uses 1N forcing and transfers over a double. Here you could bid 1N then rebid 2S, showing some values and doubleton support. Of course, anything that clarifies the trump positon for you clarifies it for them too. The direct raise on a doubleton can give the enemy fits even though you alert and explain. If you are on a 5-2 fit it is probably a mistake for them to compete, if a 5-3 it is a mistake for them to pass. You lose when partner can't take the push with 6 trumps. Against that, you gain when he has 6 trumps and they let you play 2S. I rather like the ambiguity--I feel it hurts them worse than us. I feel even more strongly that the 3 card raise of a four card major opening is a winner. The same competitve considerations apply, and 4-3's usually play better than 5-2's.

This is an excellent tip and most exceptions are obvious. In Flame's example of A42 ==== KQJ10987 the 7 is correct if and only if you want the enemy to know how good your suit is. This might be the case if passive defensive will kill you and your best chance is to induce the opponents to take desperate chances in a very active defense. Though less common than the normal case where concealing your strength is the best move, it isn't rare, and it isn't that hard to spot.

This really is a classic balancing position. In direct seat, I play "assume 8 points in partner's hand and bid what you thing you can make." In balancing seat, I play "assume 11 points . . ." So you are playing partner to hold 11 points, and he has 14 HCP, with 6 controls and no wastage in diamonds. The flat shape is a negative, but his hand is much too good for 2H--he should bid 3H and you with your void and unusually good hand for the bidding have an easy continuation to game. I agree with your not doubling the first round. While you have ample playing strength, your lack of HCP will be a nasty surprise for partner if he has the right cards for 3N.

North's trumps are playble opposite a void and if South has enough strength in spades to make that suit safe, either the dimonds are inadequtely stopped or partner's waiting bid is strong enough that 6H must be at least worth investigating. North can see this from looking at his own cards without even hearing any bidding much less the break in tempo. I rule pass is not a logical alternative, so the question of whether 4H was suggested by the hesitation is irrelevant. The table result stands.

This is a correct description of MOSCITO, which was derived from a FP system. Strong Clubs in general date back to the Vanderbuilt System, invented concurrently with Contact Bridge, and had been experimented with in the days of Auction Bridge. Some authors mentioned a strong spade opening back in the earliest Auction days when spades were the low ranking suit! Clearly at this time no one had even conceived of FP.