mikestar

I largely agree with Ben on this. In particular, a psychic is a very logical way to bid the hand he gave under these conditions--it's not the only way, however. With the example hand, I'd raise 3♦ to 6♦. I don't know whether or not they can make 6 of a major, let them guess. With the same trumps and no A♣ I jump to 7♦. Doesn't fool anybody, but sure doesn't leave them any room. But in any case, this isn't the type of psychic that Iv'e found most players get upset about. Something like 1♠ on ♠void ♥Qxx ♦xxxx ♣Axxxxx first seat just to stir things up is the kind of things that make opponents see red. Perhaps a particular tournament might have a rule barring psychic initial actions by each partenership, but no restrictons thereafter. As a matter of strategy rather than law or ethics, I doubt that psyching at above the infrequent level really pays--there is too much cost in partnership harmony.

Point well taken re partnership confidence but this is most dangerous when the anti-system action causes a loss. Let's look at this hand further with us vul and them not. If partner is strong, we won't have a game because I've got nothing and we can probably set them--in any case they won't make a lot of overtricks. If partner is minimum, for example a 1-4-4-4 11 count. Yes they will make overtricks. 1♠X+3 gets then 410 when they are probably cold for 4NT with there 29 HCP and all the points agaist them in one hand. And if they make four overtricks, how many tricks are we taking in 2♦X or 2♥X on our seven card fit? 2♦X-3 is better for them than 1♠X+6! LOTT suggest 14 total trumps/total tricks but it might be 16 if partner is void in ♠ lets assume 15 total tricks. They make in 1♠X We make in ♦X 11 tricks -510 4 tricks -1100 10 -410 5 -800 9 -310 6 -500 8 -210 7 -200 7 -110 8 +130 or +90 6 +100 9 +330 or +110 5 +300 10 +130 I give two values for two of the entires for 2♦ since they may well not double us in this case. Notice the losing cases are when they make on the nose and are down one. If we assume 14 total tricks, pass is even more likely the winner.

If vulnerable vs not, a penalty pass is a fair gamble -- if partner has a minumum double they're making overtricks, but this may cost less than the set the could have gotten against you. And if partner has a monster behind the opener, you will set them instead of going down in the game partenr will bid thinking you have a few points.

I think The Hog's sequence (1♠-2♠-3♦-4♠-6♠) is the only credible one leading to slam. If you start with 2♣ you are guessing where partner's values are. The responder's hand has too much defense for Bergen 3♠. That ♦Qx is useless on offense unless partner has a ♦ suit, but might be a trick on defense. If responder nevertheless does bid 3♠, opner should settle for 4. After all, reponder's minimum is xxxx xxx xxx xxx! After 1♠-2♠, opener is worth a slam try under the Culbertson Rule: Invite slam if a perfect minimum will make it a laydown. ♠Kxxx ♦Qx is all opener needs--and he can find out below game. 3♦ asks the right question. By the way, no point in asking for keycards. If resonder has ♠Kxxx and ♦Q he won't also have the ♣A: he is worth a limit raise.

29 HCP, 9 controls, no great shape. In spite of the double fit, I don't mind msiing this one. Seeing each other's hands, I'd be willing to be in 6NT by North--this makes if East has K♣ or leads a♦. 6♥ is inferior, as 4-1 ♠ can lead to a ruff. Similarly 6♠ might fall victim to a ♥ ruff. But 6NT is only a little better than 50% on these exact cards. Take away a major suit Jack and the odds drop below 50%. I think the Hog and his partner bid it just right for their system.

I would not open the first hand 1♠. If NV I would open 2♠, if V I would pass. How light you open in third seat is in a part detemined by how light you open in first seat. Lets assume you follow "Rule of 20" (HCP=length of your two longest suits>=20) for first seat openings. Then I would apply "Rule of 18" for third seat opening with the provision that a light hand (a) has a good feature, such as opening in a suit you want led, and (:D isn't suitable for a preempt. The other two hands are fine for 1♠ both count 19 and want a spade lead. Neither is is suitable for 2♠ because it may be our hand and we could miss a ♥ fit. This is less important when it is clearly their hand as is the case in had #1.

After 2http://mnet.bg/~mfn/d.gif pd will bid his 4 card major if he only has that one, if he has both he will bid 3http://mnet.bg/~mfn/d.gif. And if my pd X without any 4 card major and no http://mnet.bg/~mfn/d.gif stopper I think he should have overcalled 2http://mnet.bg/~mfn/c.gif or passed. Mike :D What should partner do with ♠AQx♥AKx♦xx♣Jxxxx?

The other cases have been covered well, but the cuebid needs more explanation. (1♦)-X-(P)-2♦ is either any game force that isn't appropriate for a direct jump to game, or a hand with 4-4 in the majors and at least invitational strength. This is needful because doubler may well be 4-3 and we need to find the 4-4 fit. Doubler bids his 4-card major, with both he bids 2♥ to save space in case advancer has a GF with 4 spades and less than 4 hearts. (1♥)-X-(P)-2♥ is GF as there is no need for pick a major. This is the classic rule but many players double more freely these days, perhaps doubling a minor with 3-3 majors or doubling a major with only 3 in the other major. A regular partnership may prefer to use the cuebid more freely as a checkback for major suit length and have the jump advance show 5.

I agree in part with both sides. If in the example case, you mean 2NT as unusual and hope that partner takes it that way but are merely guessing he will, this is a bona fide "we have no agreement" situation. On the other hand, if both of you are reasonably skilled SAYC or 2/1 players from the USA even though you haven't played together before, you have an implicit agreement that this is unusual unless you have made an explicit contrary agreement. The implicit agreement should be alerted and explained in case a player form other countires or an unskilled US player doesn't know about the unusual NT.

3C but I'm taking my life in my hands. This hand should have bid a round earlier: Either 3C if we play it weak, otherwise 2C intending to rebid 3C. In etiher case, partner will know enough to leave us in.

Actually it does. Responder transfers, and if opener has 5-2 he'll bid 3NT, and responder can transfer the major he wants. :D 3D = transfer H 3H = normal 3NT = 5S-2H 4D = retransfer H 4H = transfer S 3H = transfer S 3S = normal 3NT = 5H-2S 4D = transfer H 4H = retransfer S You missed my point. You do cover that case, but at the price of requiring responder to reach 4H on S xx H xxxxxx D xx C xxx when he least wants to--when opener only has doubleton support. With this structure responder can't count on bieng able to get out at 3H/3S as he can with simple Jacoby. The super accept with a fit is no porblem. Opposite 4 trumps and prime cards, the yarborogh above has a gret shot at 4H. I'm not saying that price isn't worth paying, I'm just noticing that it's there.

Looks quite good. More complex than Puppet Stayman but covers more ground. Like most method I've seen over 2NT, it doesn't solve the problem of responder being 5-3 in the majors and having to allow for opener being 2-5. I doubt any method can without having opener break transfers without a fit as Niemeijer does.

A radical suggestion for the ACBL. Stop trying to cater to the players who love conventions and the players who hate them in the same events. Have some games with the Limited Convention Chart (perhaps made even more restrictive) and the rest with the Mid Chart without the preapproved defense requirement. Clubs would be encouraged to but not required to offer both typs of games and tournaments would be required to offer a minimum percentage of each--the exact balance to be determined by player demand. I'm not at all sure this is a good idea--my purpose is to stimulate discussion. But I do feel that very few players are happy with the GCC. The players who want protection from what they view as excessive artificiality must cringe to know that a system as different from 2/1 as Key Lime Precision is GCC legal. [Not a criticism of KLP. It is an excellent system.] On the other hand, experimenters don't like the GCC's restrictiveness, particularly in the area of weak bids. Personally, I will play against anything up to and including forcing pass. If they are good enough to play such complex systems expertly they would have also beaten me playing SAYC. And if they only think they can handle such a system, I will have a fine chance of winning against them even if they would have beaten me playing SAYC.

The beauty of the 12-15 range is that you don't need 2 ranges under 1C, with 11 or less balance you pass. This leaves 1D-1M-1N free for other purposes. A natural meaning would be a hand playable in NT after the response, but flawed for a 1NT opening. For example 5-4 in the minors and a stiff honor in partner's suit. Various artificial possibilites exist. I've used: 1D-1H-1NT = 3 card heart raise (may be weak or strong like a support double) 1D-1S-1NT = 3 card spade raise OR 4 hearts and not enough strength to reverse.

Assuming no mistakes on the part of your opponents, you are down one. If West read the Lightner double correctly and didn't lead hearts, he is void and East has KJxx. Leading to the Ace and finessing doesn't work, East goes up with the King and you can't repeat the finesse. Your only hope is that East ducks twice insted of grabbing his king There are other possibilites. West might have failed to lead a heart from J, Jx, xx, or x. The the Ace and finesse line covers all of them.

Note: As usual, I think that MOSCITO provides some very interesting ideas on this front. In particular, "modern" versions of the system are designed to immediately clarify semi-positives after the strong club opening. MOSCITO uses 1C - 1S to show a double negative 1C - 1D and 1C - 2N+ show game forcing hands All other bids show semi-positives In turn, this allows us to support a considerably weaker "strong" club opening without completely overloading the 1D response. Using 1H+ as an absolute game force is fine for "conservative" strong club structures, but I fear its utility is limited with modern aggressive systems. Good point. I have nothing against semi-positives. What I am opposed to is GF positives that aren't strong enough. Perhaps a scale of responses that distinguish 0-4, 5-8, 9-12, and 13+ could be worked out.

I play like Rado does, except for the interesting multi idea. I think that its worth making 2C harder to handle to let 1D be natural instead of nebulous. I've played 13-16 NT for years without difficulty (using 17 minimum for 1C). 12-15 should be just fine. Most of the problems with opening 1C with 16 balanced come about because of the GF positives on 8 counts. Wei originally made provision for stopping short of game when 16 opposite 8. No one uses this now, it's much easier to make positives GF, but in that case, a positive should require 9 points.

Ben is right, East's failure to bid 6H marks him as the beginner. Then South is the other beginner, North blasting because he didn't trust him not to mess up an investigative auction. In that position, I would have blasted 6C right over 1D. Then who accused who of psyching? Must be West, as North wouldn't call the director to accuse South and he has no basis to acccuse East--the pass of 6DX is an obvious beginner error. West accusing South of psyching because he's mad at going down one more in 6S than he would have in 6H?

I guess SOUTH and EAST. I lke Gerben47's reasoning about the director call. I'm quite sure NORTH is not an expert, so that strongly implies WEST is not. West shouldn't sacrifice over a blast to slam by a beginner and an expert would know that. As an aside for all of you 2/1 players, notice how well strong jump shifts work here. North responds 3C to 1D, then rebids 3N (or 4N natural over enemy intervention), showing good clubs and a balanced or semi-balanced hand. Now South can go to 6D (not 6NT as he may need to ruff out the clubs).

South's 4H is at least semi-premptive. Either South is taking a sacrifice if partner is minimum, or he hopes to make but has a poor hand for slam. He must bid 3S or 4C on these cards according to his partnership's methods. X after 4H means "I expected to make 4H, and I have some defense."

Don "It's legal to psyche as long as you never do it" Oakie wrote some official interpretaion in the ACBL bulletin: "A bid is presumed not to be a psychic if it is within 1 point of the expected strength and 1 card of the expected length." He doesn't say that outside that range is definately a psychic (or a system violation resulting in a failure to alert), just that there is a presumption that it is. Surely extreme evaluation factors could justify a 2 point deviation. If Edgar Kaplan (chairman of the ACBL National Laws Commission for many years) would pass or consider passing the example hand, it's legal. The fact that some directors are not competent or rule to please the Little Old Ladies does not alter the fact that bridge judgement is legal. Of course the LOL's jump over everything. I was called to a table after a 1NT opening on S-K H-AJxx D-QJxx C-KJxx followed by a transfer to spades, leading them to down 2 in 2S when everyone else in the room went plus. The LOL's screamed "DIRECTOR! HE OPENED 1NT WITH A SINGLETON! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT!" even though they had a cold top. [Reminds me of a time I revoked and the declarer made 13 tricks anyway. He called director and wanted me penalized--I guess he wanted credt for making 9!]

From Kaplan and Sheinwold's book: Open 1NT with 12 points and 2 quick tricks. With 2 1/2 quick tricks you may open a point light; with 1 1/2 quick tricks an opening is optional at best and requires an extra point. Don't open with 1 quick trick or less. The example hand has 1 1/2 quick tricks and 13 HCP, you can open it, but Kaplan would undoubtedly pass, disliking those two Qxx's. The need for Aces and Kings is because you may not be playing in NT--this is more likely than with a strong NT. Partner might jump to four of a major or make a penalty double if the opponents intervene. In both of these cases, you need Aces and Kings. For this reason, Kaplan relaxed the quick trick requirement in third seat.

Pass. I have some sympathy for 1NT if natural though I wouldn't bid it. RDBL on 8? Maybe if you're playing old fashioned Roth-Stone where opener probably has 14. I like the treatement of 1NT transfer to clubs. If we were playing 2/1 would use it here, intending to correct to 2H showing the "KS raise" with a doubleton. The whole Capp/1MX structure has much to recommend it. All you lose is the ability to play in 1NT (which 2/1 players don't have anyway if they pass).

All methods have tradeoffs and losing cases. The choice among methods and opening styles laregely comes down to what mistakes the partnership prefers to make. Playing 2/1, if we want to make life harder for the enemy, we open light. If we want accurate constructive auctions, we open sound. Larry Cohen states that he has played a very sound style, a middle of the road style, and an ultra aggressive style with Marty Bergen (maybe that should be "insanely aggressive"?) and has played winning bridge with all of those styles. Good partnership agreements and partnership harmony are more important than the exact technical merits of the methods, as long as these are within the boundaries or reason: if you routinely pass 14 counts instead of opening you are going to lose regardless.

Passing S AQJ H Qxx D Qxx C Q109x playing a 12-14 NT is not a violation: it is bridge judgement. If a player is passing S AKx H QJ9 D xxx C QJ9x I would be willing to hear arguments about it. If you believe the first hand isn't worth even a bad 12, you certainly are being resonable, though personally I wouldn't downgrade the hand quite that much. If someone thinks the second hand isn't worth 13, I hope to play against them some time. Nobody questions (or at least nobody should question) opening a 15-17 NT with 14 and a good five card suit or treating 17 and a good 5 card suit as too strong. Why should this case be any different? To my mind the correct interpertation of 12-14 is "I have at least 12 HCP or the equivalent in other values and not more than 14 HCP or the equivalent in other values." Resonable lattitude should be allowed, while distinguishing the true violations (opening 12-14 with 9 or 17 for example).