mikestar

I agree with Gerben47 that 2H is best. I think double is fine--they will probably scamble in diamonds, then a heart bid shows the hand pretty well. If by chance they don't scramble you will set them a fair amount. Interestingly, if they stay put on the actual hand rather than bidding their long diamonds (not that this is correct), you take 9 tricks off the top for -3, which doesn't compensate for a slam. In practice they will only fail to scamble if your partner has the long diamonds and is a bit weaker than his actual hand.

I rather like the disciminating use or four card majors (Luis example hand is a case in point). What I have taught beginners is 1. A major suit opening shows 5. 2. A minor suit opening shows 4. 3. Edgar Kaplan's Liar's Code: a. If you can't bid truthfully, tell the smallest lie posssible. b. It's better to lie about the lenght of a suit than the strength of your hand. c. It's better to lie about a minor suit than a mjor suit. d. It's better to tell a small lie with the opening bid than risk the possiblity of having to tell a big lie with your rebid. So with [hv=s=skxxxhaxxxdaxcqjx]133|100|[/hv] We don't pass or open 1NT (better to lie about a suit than our strength), we open 1♣ (better to lie about a minor suit than a major suit). On the other hand, with [hv=s=skxxxhaxxxdaxcqjx]133|100|[/hv] we open 1♠--it's a much smaller lie to pretend KQJx is five cards than to pretend xxx is four cards.

East 100%--this is a forcing pass situation that isn't at all difficult to spot. West's redouble is reasonable (given that the partnership methods would allow 3S on a hand such as East's), though not as attractive as at matchpoints where +800 is a much bigger gain vs the +650 you can get in 4S. East should double. His hand is extremely defensively oriented in the context of his preempt: 1. He has three trumps. 2. He has the Ace of his suit--a fairly likely trick. 3. With only six spades, his King might win a trick.

I think the auction as given is correct but just unfortunate. The game is against the odds on these cards and down off the top if we switch South's hearts and clubs. North's hand is impressivw in context but he might well have passed a streongr hand than this that had no bid over 2C. Even if 2D is a negative free bid, should you bid it on xxxxx? South loves the double fit but is justly terrifed of the missing three aces--an invitation is enough.

Let me clarify my proposal: I would be opening 4-card majors on two suiters, but only if the long suit is clubs. 3-4-1-5 opens 1H, but 3-4-5-1 opens 1D. With no balanced hands in the 1 bids, the rebids after 1H-1S (for example): 1NT=only 4H (either x-4-x-5+ or 4-4-1-4) 2C=5+H,4+C Higher rebids natural, 2NT might be strong 3-6-x-x.

An idea for a Precision-like system with 4 card majors. 1C=all 16+ hands. Response and rebid structure according to preference. 1D/1H/1S=10-15, not 4=3=3=3, 4=4=3=2, or 5=3=3=2. Can be 4 cards with 4=4=4=1 or club canape; otherwise 5+ if two-suited or 6+ if one-suited. 1NT=12-15, 4=3=3=3, 4=4=3=2, 5=3=3=2, may have 5CM. 2C=10-15, 6+ clubs, one-suited. 2D+=Available for your premptive system. Point ranges approxiamte, more extreme shape opens lighter. The 12 point minimum for 1NT includes 11 pointers with fair 5-card suits. My preliminary idea is that the major openings may lose a little vs Precision because of the possible 4CM, but some of the loss comes back because the 5=3=3=2 hand is gone. 1D is not even slightly nebulous now and 2C can be quite accurate as well as rare. 1NT is overloaded, but I think playable. The increased frequency of the fairly premptive weakish NT may pay for some of the loss of accuracy. Since the one bids can't be genuinely balanced, artificial NT rebids by opener may be of use in clarifying distribution. Has anyone played anything similar?

4 spades is a good contract because of the double fit. It makes if the spade hook works or the diamonds break. Change D x to C x in North's hand and the game is against the odds. So the best seqeunce of all (if your are playing something so old fashioned) is 1S-2S-3D where 3D is a long-suit game try.

The given sequence is unfortunate but not at all unreasonable, as both partners have negative evaluation factors. The alternative sequence of 1N followed by a limit raise is also resonable but North rightly hates the Qx of hearts. Perhaps best is 1NT intending 2S/3S depending on the rebid. Here opener's 2D makes a double fit probable, so North can scrape up a limit raise. I would have also gone for the limit raise over 2H as it redeems my H Qx, and probably over 2S, though with ten trumps my AQTx aren't as impressive as with 8 or 9. Over 2C I'll bid 2S. On the other hand this sequence can blow a game when opener is just a little better and would have moved over 1S-2S but passes 1S-1N-2C-2S.

I imagine Butller himself would admit that cross IMPs are better now that we are scoring by computer. The Butler method had some advantages in the days of hand scoring.

The simplest and probably most commonly played Lebensohl version: After 1NT-2X-2NT-3C: 3 of a lower ranking suit than X: signoff. 3X: GF Stayman, stopper in X. 3 of a higher ranking suit than X: invitational. 3NT: natural with stopper in X. Bids directly over 1NT-2X: Dbl: natural 2NT bid. 2 of any suit: signoff. 3 of any suit: natural GF. 3X GF Stayman without stopper in X. 3NT natural but no stopper in X. This variant is "slow shows", some partnerships reverse the meanings of 3NT and the cuebid in the two contexts--this is called "fast shows". Various forms of transfer Lebensohl are technically superior but involve more memory work for the partnership.

I agree with Free that Meckwell is a technical improvment over DONT. In the balancing seat, you can use the same methods as in the direct seat with some strength adjustment (especially vs weak NT). In both direct and balancing positions, if you are a passed hand you can use Meckwell or DONT even vs a weak NT, as you can't have a penalty double in this case. Perhaps CAPP by an unpassed hand vs weak NT and Meckwell in all other cases?

DONT would be my choice over a strong NT--we won't have game on power and disturbing their auction as ofter as we can safely is imporortant. The penamlty double just isn't that frequent and partner often can't leave it in when it does happen. Against a weak NT, you will want to have a penalty double. And in a way CAPP and DONT can be combined: X=Penalties. 2C=unspecified one-suiter as in CAPP. 2D=diamonds and another suit. 2H=hearts and (spades or clubs) 2S=spades and clubs.

A suggestion for these types of hands. HCP is just not accurate for unbalanced hands. For unbalanced hands, I suggest adding 9 (the mininum combined length of the two longest suits in an unbalanced hand excluding the 4-4-4-1) shape and use the reselting Bergen Rule. So Precision 1C=16 means Rule of 25 unbalanced, Precision 2C=11-15 means Rule of 20. But the Flannery case is different as it shows specific distribution--I would follow the ACBL on this. They could of course state something like 8-12 with a void,10-14 with a stiff, 12-15 wtih two doubletons (probably this is something like their actual agreement.) So no problem opening Precision 1C on 15 and 5-5 or 14 and 6-5, but that 12 point opener had better be 7-6!

I don't know about other NCBO's but in ACBL-land this will get a director call and a score adjustment. In absence of special conditions of contest, it is perfectly legal to play negative doubles in this auction--its common to play them higher than this, but if your CC is marked "Negative doubles thru 2S", then you have a mismarked CC which is an infraction. Such an indication on your CC tells an opponent that 1C-(1D)-X is a penalty double--not necessarily a trump stack, but requesting partner pass rather than bid. Would it also be appropriate for 1N-2D to be a transfer and have your CC say it is natural? This entire thread started as a question of "Law", not "Serious Bridge".

I've been doing some study and experimentation with Zarpoints and the idea seems to have fairly considerable merit. I don't think I will adopt the method, more likely I will use its main features as adjustments to my evaluation technique, giving greater weight to controls and extreme shape.

A very reasonable double. The rule for bidding directly over a preempt is "put 7 points in your partner's hand and bid what you think you can make." (Some authorites say 8 points. ) In the balancing seat, all your actions should have a minimum a King or so below the corresponding direct bid. So with the actual hand I feel we have a fair play for three of a major opposite a typical 10-11 count with a fit. I wouldn't feel this way about most 7 counts with this shape--the 3 controls definitely favor aggression. Zarpoint enthusiast will note that the hand counts to 23: 7 HCP + 3 controls + 9 (longest suit + next longest suit) + 4 (longest suit - shortest suit) which makes the hand almost opening bid strength.

McBruce's second adjustment is perfectly correct given the conditions of contest. He gives the players the CC to look at before they sign up and if they refuse to do so, that's their problem. Whether or not SAYC in general restricts negative doubles to 2S or lower is utterly irrelevant--the particular CC given in the conditions of contest does. Having everyone play identical CC's (not necessarily SAYC) is not a bad idea in individuals. It has been done in invitational individuals involving world-class experts--normally the sponsor sets the CC after consultation with the players, then all players adhere to it.

The Zarpoints article briefly describes the Drabble method for comparison.

As a former club director, my understanding is that it is a judgement call: if I determine that opening such a hand 2C is the partnership's actual agreement, then it is a failure to alert the unusually low playing strength and will adjust if there is damage. If I determine that the player does not have sufficient hand evaluation skill and really thinks this hand is worth 9 tricks, the result stands.

On this specific issue, I htink the ACBL has it right (for once) 1NT-2H no alert means natural, you announce "transfer" if this is the case and "Alert" means "not natural and not a transfer."

For anyone wanting more distributional accuracy in the majors at the cost of getting to the three level more often, I used to play invitational 2D with these rebids: 2H=doubleton heart, says nothing about strength. --- 2S=5+spades, invitational. --- 2N=5 hearts, invites 3N. --- 3C/3D=6+ suit wtih 2 high honors. --- 3H=6+ hearts, invitational. 2S=doubleton spade, 3+ hearts, says nothing about strength. --- 2N=5 spades, invites 3N. --- 3C-3D=as over 2H. --- 3H=5+ hearts, invitational. --- 3S=6+ spades, invitational. 2N=at least 3-3 majors, minimum. --- 3C/3D as over 2H. --- 3H/3S=to play 3C=at least 3-3 majors, no club honor, maximum. --- 3D=as over 2H. --- 3H/3S=forcing 3D=at least 3-3 majors, club honor, no diamond honor, maximum. --- 3H/3S=as over 3C. 3H=at least 3-3 majors, honors in both minors, maximum, chooses 3N over 4H. --- 3S=as over 3C. 3S=as 3H, but super maximum for hearts (4 cards and good controls). 3N=as 3H, but super maximum for both majors.

The transfer advantage of having the lead ride up to the NT bidder applies to signoff hands as well as game hands, but at the two level there is another factor--natural signoffs make it harder for the defense to intervene effectively, especially over the weaker NT ranges. Over a transfer, you have the option to pass and bid later and you have a cuebid at the two level. Over a natural signoff, you propably won't get a second chance and have to go to the three level to cuebid their suit.

In the ACBL, any opening which shows 15+ HCP is considered "Strong", so it would be legal to agree to open this 2♣. I believe it is off center enough to need an alert. In general, 2♣ shows either a balanced hand too strong for 2NT or a hand with about 9 tricks with some defense, so that[hv=s=sakqxxxxxxhxxdxcx]133|100|[/hv] is not a 2♣ bid even though it has 9 tricks. Your example hand has enough defense, but is not likely enough to have 9 tricks to be a sound 2♣ opener. While it is reasonable to assume a fit in one major or the other, it is not reasonable to assume a double fit. I would not consider this a psychic, just an overbid. The hand is worth about 8 tricks.

If you pass a 15-17 balanced hand, you willhave at least three cards in the enemy suit, so partner needn't balance with real length in the enemy suit, but probably should with 4 cards. I would go as low as a good 9. It is a little riskier than the 11 point minimum you suggest, but no too dangerous if partner takes the lower range into account. When playing Raptor, you will quite likely want to adopt a "when in doubt, double" balancing philosophy--you have a better chance of getting them for penalties than when playing the natural NT overcall. Apart from the issues cause by Raptor, all balancing actions are naturally wide range and you may want to look in to some balancing conventions.

This is not entirely correct. While private institutons are not bound by all the technicalities of the legal system, their internal "legal systems" are expected to provide basic fairness and due process--the failure to do so would expose the organization to litigation it would be quite likely to lose. In particular, while the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" would not be required, a "presumtion of guilt" would very likely land the organization in legal hot water. Apart from the legal issues, to my mind a presumption of guilt also raises serious moral issues.