mikestar

As a former club director, my take is that a played card is a played card. In the long run, this causes less friction than trying to distinguish misclicks from dumb plays from outright cheating. Similarly for bidding misclicks. If the software allows a quick retraction, this is fine, but after the next bid or play is seen, the person maikng the mistake can gain an advantage by asking for an undo. If perfect equity is not possible, we should protect the side which didn't make an error, not the side who did. This sort of thing happens all the time in f2f bridge and while it tends to harm the side making the error, this is not always true. In af 2f game with a novice, I responded 4NT to her 1S. She thought I bid 1N (which we were playing NF) and passed. We missed 6S needing only trumps not worse than 3-1. Everyone else in the room bid it. But as it happened, trumps were 4-0 and 4NT making on the nose was a cold top.

I agree with Rado about the first question. If anything, I'm more inclined to show a 4 card minor. Marty Berger teaches his students 6-4-6 as the correct way to show 6-4 hands, values permitting. With regard to the second question, this is one of the most difficult construtive auctions in 2/1. 1S-1N-2H-3H can is around 8-12 and opposite some of the light opening bids out there, 4H instead on a good 12-bad 13 may not work well. Precision players have a much easier time with this. On opener's good hands, he either bids 1C to start or rebids 3H not forcing. Now responer can pass 2H with 8-9 and his 3H raise is much better defined. Our 1C opening costs us points, our limited openings get them back and some.

IMPs were devised as a compromise between match points and total points--cross IMPs shifts the line just a bit closer to the MP end of the spectrum. Free is right on the money. In total points, I don't take a 99.5% line for +1 if it risks a sure game, in match points I'll take a 51% line if it is a normal ocntract.

With a novice, I don't think there is any better way to bid this. Dbl is the only other option and this works out well if partner bids 4H, but is a bad result if partner leaves it in and might be a disaster if he has long, weak diamonds--he might not leave you in 6C when you bid it. With an advanced partner, I might try DBL, intending to bid 6C over 4D. If partner bids 4H we can try 5S (exclusion RKCB) or 5NT (Grand Slam Force) and carry on to seven if partner has AH. If partner bids 4C there is no way to really get to 7C if partner has AH and KD--no room to find out.

I originally voted for 2NT, but the more I think of it, I believe pass is better on this vulnerability at least. Game is quite unlikely if partner can't act. If partner is weak, pass does best to keep us out of trouble. If he has the spade stack, +200 or better will be an excellent result on a partscore deal. 2NT is probably still best if neither side were vulnerable.

In SAYC or 2/1 I open 1C, but I would open this hand 1D in Precision. I don't doubel as I'm stuck over 3H--partner may have a spade stack, but may not He might have hearts and no values, as RHO can pass a good hand here. Pass might well be best. If partner does have the stack, taking then down a few at 100 each will be a good score. If we're playing good/bad 2NT then I might try 2NT.

In SAYC and 2/1 this sequence is non forcing, but many partenerships prefer to play it forcing and I think forcing is the better way in this type of system. In big club systems, opener can't have a hand that can guarantee game opposite a 1-over-1 unless a fit has been found, so this sequnce can be played NF.

Depending on our NT range, I would either bid 3NT direct or pass 3D. Perhaps this was a tactical bid, designed to cause the defenders to mis-estimate each other's strength? If so, this is quite dangerous as the opener might have a hand worth bidding on after a mild slam try. On the other hand, if they have an explicit/implicit agreement that opener always passes 3NT, that is illegal unless alerted.

1. Pass. 2. 1D and curse myself for not playing Precision on this hand. 3. 4D. We assume 7 or 8 to a bad 10 value for partner's 3S. Of course partner may only have 3-4 points, but we're bidding 4S anyway. With AQxxx xx xxx Qxx, partner will bid slam himself on this sequence, or at least make a strong try. He might make a try on the much less slamworthy AQxx xxx xxx Qxx or worse (4H Last Train)--we will reject, but we are very likely to be safe in 5S. If partner has a bad hand, he signs off in 4S and we are no worse off than if we bid 4S directly. The issue is whether partner would jump to 4S on AQxxx xx xxx Qxx. I wouldn't-- partner might have a shapely 15 count with 3-4 in the majors. When in doubt go for the plus.

I like the forcing pass. If partner doubles you settle for six, if he bids, you bid the grand. I'm also not averse to 7C direct. They will be guessing whether or not to sacrifice, and if they defend, they'll be guessing the opening lead. So many chances for them to go wrong.

On the actual layout, 6H is cold, but that doesn't make it a good contract. You will get a trump lead very frequently on this auction to cut dummy's ruffing power and to avoid blowing a trick. And if a trump is lead, 6H goes down unless the diamonds are Kxx with West--much against the odds. A diamond lead is harmless--it eliminates any posssibe diamond loser and lets you get your club ruffs. I think Free's bidding suggestion is 100% correct, especially at this vulnerabilty. You only need to put them down two to score more than your game and slam is against the odds.

Definately 3H. The original Soloway theory of jump shifts allowed for: 1. A self-sufficient jump shift suit. 2. A two-suiter where the second suit is partner's. 3. A strong balanced hand with a good 5+ card suit. These days, most people don't use #3. In all cases the value should be about 17-19, 20+ is too strong. In short, the jump shift means "I know where to play, but I need info from you about how high."

I evaluate the East hand at a bit more than 6 losers. It is reasonable to open a six loser hand that is a bit sub-minimum in other respects, so 1SP by East is the best choice, IMHO.

In the example hand, both sides vul and we weren't playing Exclusion Blackwood (partner didn't know it). WIth regard to last guess, your'e right, they could have put me to it instead, though I'd already decided to bid 7HE if they bid 6SP. I'm interested in hearing comments about the general principle and would also like to hear about other player's spectacular successes/failures.

There is much to be said for "Bid what you think you can make" even at the slam level. In constructive slam auctions, science is the way to go if it is reasonably likely to work. If I am asking, is there room using the tools we have for me to find out what I need to know about partner's hand? If I am showing, will I have room to show what I have to partner? If the answer to both questions is no, then I forget science entirely for this hand and stop in game or jump direct to slam if a decent minimum in partner's hand will give me a play for it. If the latter course is chosen, I prefer to jump to six right away without investigation. Any exchange of information that won't be sufficent to make the decision doesn't help us and does help the defense. In competitve sequences, blasting is even more rewarding because it is very hard to find enough room to use science and there is considerable advantage to putting the enemy to the last guess. An example from a club game: Playing with an IM partner, I held a 19 count with AQxxx of hearts and a spade void. With both vul, partner opens 1HE and RHO overcalls 1SP. I think we can make six and have a good shot at seven, but I know fourth hand will bid at least 4SP at his next turn. I bid 6HE and opponent passed: he guessed and guessed wrong--on the bidding, it might well have been a phantom. We were dead cold for seven, and my partner was rather angry. But he got happy when the results were posted: +1460 was an absolute top, as everyone else was either +500 aganist 6SPX or +800 against 7SPX. Comments?

Point well taken--I had overlooked the specific example and was addressing the general question. Even when we splinter with a stiff Ace, the King isn't always valuable, and when we have AK oppoite a splinter the King isn't always valuable. I would still advocate not counting it as a matter of partnership agreement. This is also in accord with the quite common agreement not to count an Ace opposite a known void--the Ace might be useful, but it may well not be. These considerations argue forcefully for Specific King (and Voidwood).

In most of my partnerships, we don't splinter with a stiff Ace, so the King is seldom needed. I don't count it. (I would count it in a casual partnership with no discussion--but I would try no to play spinters with ssuch a partner.)

2DI wll cause partner to think that Ax will soildify the diamonds, 3SP will make him think the King is worthless. Jacoby won't get you enough info unless you play a sophisticated relay version (then use it). Parner won't know how to value his cards, so just shoot 6HE! I make be cold, it may make on a wrong opening lead, it may induce a phantom save if fourth hand is long in spades. To my mind, these last two possibilites together are much more likely than missing a cold grand.

I once directed for a non-sanctioned bridge club at a senior center which had a house rule making psychics illegal. I ruled on a lot of allegations about psychic bids, and Luis' advance on S A x x would have been ruled a legal tactical bid and upheld as such by the LOL's on the club's governing board. My experience is the kind of psychic bids most players get upset about are opening 1SP on a singleton or with 3 HCP. To my mind, the only way Luis' bid could be an issue is if there is an undisclosed explict partnership agreement or it happens often enough to create an implict agreement, in which case the issue is the failure to alert, not the bid itself. (I seriously doubt either is the case here.)

During the brief interval that Kaplan Inversion was GCC legal in the ACBL, I experimented with it and it seemed quite effective with few problems. Normally the rebid structure I used was: 1NT=4 spades, can't reverse 2CL/2DI=Natural (but could be 3 cards) 2HE= 6+ hearts 2SP=4 spades with reversing values. Your transfer structure looks rather better. Over 1NT, opener rebids 2C with 2-5-3-3. If your 1DI is natural, you might consider a similar treatement where 1H is artifical and may have a four-card major, while 1SP(=hearts) and 1NT(=spades) promise five.

I don't know who invented it but there is a good LOTT-based agreement for negative doubles of 1HE: X shows 4 spades, 1SP shows 5+. After X, opener's 1SP shows exactly 3 (alertable), opener bids 2SP with 4. With this agreement in place, 1SP becomes a no-brainer for this hand. I think 1SP is a resonable choice without this agreement if X promises 4 spades, but 3-3 fits make me too nervous. I risk 1NT if X only shows 3 spades. Let me clarify: opener bids 2SP with 4 spades and the values for a single raise if responder had bid 1SP in an uncontested auction. With more values than this, opener bids 3S, 4S, splinters, etc. BTW, in one of his early K/S books, Kaplan says that 1SP over the negative double of 1HE is a subminimum hand in either values or support. With a bonafide single raise and 4 trumps, jump to 2SP.

I've never played 14-17, but I played 13-16 for many years in a modified Precision and the four-point spread was never a problem. I've even played 10-14 (the ACBL maximum legal 5 point spread) in a K/S type system. Constructive 1NT auctions did suffer somewhat from the wide range, but we got all the preemptive advantages of the 10-12 NT with much better defined sequences in our one of a suit auctions (comparable to normal K/S).

Answers in italics. #1 IMPS, both vul East S 8 H AKT832 D A753 C AK South West North You (east) 2D* 2NT Pass ? (2D is multi, weak 2 either Major) Texas followed by RKCB or whatever comparable tools you have in your system. With no tools, bash 6H. #2, Matchpoints, neither vul South S 4 H J853 D J64 C T6532 West North East South 1H PASS 4H DBL PASS ? If this is the correct auction,I pass under LOTT: I estimate 18 trumps, if we make 5CL they're down three. If they make 4HE, we're down three. Any other combination of 18 tricks make pass the winner. If partner is void, I estimate 19 trumps--then bidding is correct if they make 4HE on the nose of we make 5CL on the nose. All other combinations of 19 tricks make pass the winner. #3, IMPs, EW vul East S A43 H Q52 D A85 C AQ42 South West North East(YOU) 1H 2H(*) 3H ? 2H = spades and a minor 4SP is enough. we have a double fit, but I hate that QH. Mike Lawrence says "When you have wastage in the enemy suit, partner will be minimum." #4, Dlr: East Vul: Both North S 42 H KQ975 D AQ5 C Q87 East South West North Pass 1H 3S ? 4HE. Partner will never play me for 5 card support if I double. He might even leave it in and we should be cold for 4HE. Opposite a typical light opening, the risk of not getting to the right game outweighs the risk of missing slam. If we were playing Roth-Stone sound openings, I'd try 5HE, partner bidding 6 with a stiff spade. #5. Imps, Dlr: West Vul: NS South S 632 H K96 D J5 C QT843 West North East South PASS 1D 1S PASS 3S DBL PASS ? Partner shouldn't double on a void here, so they have 9 hearts and we have 8 or 9 clubs. If there are 19 trumps 5CL is right is it makes exactly. With 18 trumps it is wrong. I pass.

Under these conditions, 3NT. If you have a game it is NT and you need to play it from your side. If your hearts were Axx, the responsive double looks better if your partnership plays it to show the minors.

The director call astonished me at the time. They had full disclosure of our methods and were trying to lawyer themselves out of a bottom. This was back before appeals committes in the ACBL started imposing penaties for frivolous appeals. (Director correctly ruled in our favor.)