mikestar

I have played the way you suggest, and it works fine except for the wide range 1NT, though this can be a price worth paying. I find that the ambiguity in 1♦ is much less when the only non natural possibility is a strong NT as opposed to when it might well be short diamonds and primary clubs and any range. The weak raise to 3♦ can be made on six cards or five with a stiff and you stand no worse than 2/1 players who sign off in ♦ over partner's 1NT opening. The strong raise to 2♦ on four is no problem.

You could always swap the NT ranges if you want to match the field. 1♦ as 4+ or 12-14 balanced, and 1N as 15-17 should work quite similarly. Quite correct. In the notes as I give them, only the 1NT opener and the minimum NT rebid after 1♦ need to be switched. My own reason for preferring the weak NT is so 1♦ is natural or strongish, as in 1m openings in KS.

My latest experimental big club system. The Opening Bids 1♣=18+ balanced, around "rule of 26" unbalanced 1♦=limited, 4+♦ unbalanced or 15-17 balanced 1♥=limited, 4+♥ unbalanced 1♠=limited, 4+♠ unbalanced 1NT=12-14 2♣=limited 6+♣ 2♦+=as you please Limited Openings Choice of opening With balanced distribution (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2) open 1NT or 1♦, even with a 5 card major. With a one suited hand (6+ suit) open the suit. With a two suited hand where the longest suit is at least 2 cards longer than the second suit (6-4, 7-5, etc.), open the long suit. With spades and a red suit, open the longer suit (spades if equal). With spades and clubs, open 1♠. With hearts and a minor open 1♥. With both minors, open 1♦. With a three suiter with 5 spades, open 1♠. With a three suiter with short hearts, open 1♦. With any other three suiter, open 1♥. Choose the first alternative that fits your hand. The 1♦ Opening 1♥=4+♥ ...1♠=4♠, spade diamond two-suiter or three suiter with short hearts. ...1NT=15-17 balanced, denies 4♥. ...2♣=5-4 either way in minors. ...2♦=6+ diamonds. ...2♥=four card support, or three card support with a stiff. ...2♠=6-5 or better, strong ...2NT=exactly three card support, strong. May have long diamonds or minor two-suiter. ...3♣=minor two-suiter (5-5 or better), strong. Denies three hearts. ...3♦=6+ good ♦, strong, denies three hearts. ...3♥=four card support, strong. ...3♠=four card support, very strong, unspecified stiff. ...3NT=four card support, very strong, ♠ void. ...4♣=four card support, very strong, ♣ void. ...4♦=four card support, very strong, ♦ void. 1♠=4+♠ ...1NT=15-17 balanced, denies 4♠. ...2♣=5-4 either way in minors. ...2♦=6+ diamonds. ...2♥=6-4 in red suits, strong. ...2♠=four card support, or three card support with a stiff. ...2NT=exactly three card support, strong. May have long diamonds or minor two-suiter. ...3♣=minor two-suiter (5-5 or better), strong. Denies three spades. ...3♦=6+ good ♦, strong, denies three spades. ...3♥=four card support, very strong, unspecified stiff. ...3♠=four card support, strong. ...3NT=four card support, very strong, ♥ void. ...4♣=four card support, very strong, ♣ void. ...4♦=four card support, very strong, ♦ void. To be continued...

I've been rereading some old books from my bridge library and I ran across the revised edition of the KS system book. KS advocate that opposite a 12-14 weak NT, if you hold a balanced hand without major suit prospects you should bid game with 12 and pass with 11. I've found this works out well at the table--the majority of 12-12 hands offer at least a reasonable play. Passing 11 will lose if and only if partner would have accepted a 2NT invitation and game makes. Passing 11 is a big gain if 7 tricks or fewer are the limit and you break even there are 8 or more tricks are available but opener would have declined the invite. Add to that some additional penalties when fourth hand balances too aggressively, and I'm convinced that this is a winning strategy. It also opens up systemic possibilities as you don't need 2NT natural or a substitute sequence for it. KS also state that 12 opposite 12 will make 3NT more often than 20 opposite 6. I suspect this is also true and would like to hear the experience of others. If this is indeed correct, it has some important implications for hand evaluation and system design. Do any of you Zar Points advocates have some statistics about the comparable proposition in Zar evaluation? Does 25 ZP opposite 25 make 3NT more often than, say, 38 opposite 14?

At these colors, anything except 4♥ is unthinkable to me-- the trump quality makes this a sound 3♥ at equal vul with or without the ♦QJx, so at favorable I bid one more. The doubler desperately needs to read S. J. Simon's Why You Lose at Bridge several times. Calling it a sucker double is being too kind. Two aces and three small trumps opposite a partner advertising zero defense? You don't even have a stiff heart where you might get ♥A and a ruff if partner has the Ace and leads his suit. I expect 4♠X will make 5 most of the time and make 6 more often than it goes down. At least you won't get redoubled in this auction.

If we are never going to pass an opening one bid, then why the hell are we playing 2/1 instead of Fantunes?

This looks to me like a classic X at MP, P at IMP situation. At match points, we're betting top against bottom and it is better that 50% that they are going down--but the IMP odds suck.

This is correct in spirit given that we have determined that two experienced players are trying to lawyer an undeserved good result against two beginners. However, an adjustment to teach a lesson is not the correct answer, and neither is a procedural penalty. What I have imposed in cases of this nature is a law 91A disciplinary penalty. This carries a stronger implication of wrongful conduct than a PP and cannot be reversed on appeal.

I don't think passing originally is bad at all in 2/1 with a strong NT. If you are playing 2/1 with a weak NT, I really like 1NT with this hand, wrongsiding or no--partner bids 3NT on the balanced or semibalanced hands that bid 2♦ over 1♥. The uninformative auction may well let us make 3NT when we shouldn't, even from the wrong side. Passing in the auction given seems obvious: minimum/subminimum strength and no interesting distributional feature.

If you raise with 3 cards with any frequency, it is very good to be able to play in opener's minor if responder's 4-card major is weak. I agree with Justing that working this into your 1 step relay is better than making 3 of opener's minor NF. But using the one step relay for the forcing bid of 3 of opener's minor should also be playable.

True as far as it goes, but with the club void is it at all hard to imagine opponents bidding 5♣ to put you to a guess at the 5-level? I think the chance of missing slam is less likely than being outbid in clubs when you show strength by doubling. 4♠ puts the enemy on a guess where the cards are. If they bid 5♣ over my ostensible preempt, I will double them. This will clue my partner in that I bid 4♠ to make, so he will have some useful data in deciding between 5♠ and pass. He will bid 6♠ on some perfectos that he wouldn't be sure about not knowing about my spade length: this will compensate for some of the time we won't get to a red suit when we should. Consider also that responder may not bid 5♣ when his partner has not had a chance to show real clubs. Even if we have slam, 4♠ making 6 will outscore anything we can get defending clubs.

If you absolutely must play this, same methods as over 2NT eases the memory load for a rare sequence. Kokish [2C-2D-2H=primary hearts or balanced GF] is miles above a natural 3N opening or rebid.

Someone at ACBL is feeding you incorrect information. All responses to openings of 2♣ are legal even in the Limited Convention Chart with certain qualifications relating to weak twos, which a Precision 2♣ is not: it is an intermediate two. Perhaps someone at ACBL has received inquires about a Precision 2♣ with an unusually low minimum (say 8 HCP) and thinks that the lower limit makes it a weak two and a 15 point upper limit puts it in the 7 point range restriction for weak twos.

I'm feeling good about 3♠: for game to be good odds, I need ♣K and ♠Q or ♠xxx. A heart card might be a fair substitute for the trump holding. I wouldn't expect partner to raise with the ♣K alone, but I would expect him to do so with ♣K and good trumps.

Pass. I would Stayman with the same shape and fewer HCP: 1NT might be a disaster and we should find at least a 7-card fit. With half the deck, the 7 card fit isn't so likely to play better and 1N is unlikely to be hurt badly white. (Red would be a tougher decision at MP: we are trying to avoid -200.) Also passing doesn't convey the impression we are on the run they way a garbage stayman sequence does--so running increases the chance of a double when we can be hurt.

I'm really not so worried about this. Could be that having three calls lose a little accuracy is better than one call losing a little and another call losing a lot. So I advocate Edgar Kaplan's "least lie" principle. So on on the assumption that 1♣-1M-2♣ promises six clubs, 1♣-1M-1NT promises a balanced hand, and 1♦-1M-2♣ promises diamonds at least as long as clubs: With the example hand ♠42 ♥J6 ♦Q642 ♣AKQ83 I think 1♣-1M-2♣, pretending the ♣ are 6 long is far superior to bidding 1NT with the other major wide open or opening 1♦ and implying longer diamonds. With ♠x ♥Axx ♦AKJx ♣xxxxx I rather like 1♦. If opposite 5422 we end up in a strong 4-2 fit instead of a weak 5-2, we were probably heading for a poor score anyway. So I open 1♦ intending to rebid 2♣ over 1♠ or 1NT. Obviously, I raise 1♥. With ♠K ♥Axx ♦Axxx ♣Qxxxx 1♣ intending to bid 1NT over 1♠ seems fine. I do agree that an off shape 1NT is the best default for the difficult cases.

If I'm going to bid, it will be on the first round. No reason to get to the 3 level with a crappy balanced hand with Qx in the enemy suit. I'm fine with pass throughout.

I rather prefer 2♦ to double: the lead directing value and the danger of a club advance tip the scales. I would prefer double to keep hearts in the picture if we are playing ELC.

The hand Frances gave is a good test: Kxxxx Kxx Qxx Kx If this is an opening bid, the hand opposite is a limit raise; if this hand is a pass, a GF raise seems in order on responder's excellent hand. I strongly suspect the OP would pass this mess. No one at all skilled with the LTC (for example, has read Klinger's book) would evaluate this hand as 7 losers. There are three negative factors: One queen, no aces Poor trumps Kx in ♣ is a poor 1 loser holding unless partner something in clubs So this is an eight loser hand. If the x's are truly small cards and there are no 10's and 9's, then I would rate this nearer nine losers than seven.

True, this doesn't prove anything. But it is suggestive that further research could be worthwhile. If (as I have tended to believe) that Flannery totally sucks, then this data is a surprise. It may well be that Flannery gains when used but the losses from the system changes outweigh it.

This argument is wrong. Even if you know 100 % that you must either bid (if they make) or double (if they're down), pass can be the right bid. I will let you figure out why. Off hand, I'd note that while if your assumptions are correct pass can't be the best call, it also can't be the worst. So you need look at the cost of being wrong. Passing and avoiding the guess might well be the best (or least bad) option.

I'm with the 2♣ bidders but have much admiration for 5♣--when it's right its likely a big gainer, but will be a phantom save fairly often.

I would use this raise on the same hands as I would give a raise to 2M in standard, but raise on all doubtful hands, where in standard I tend to bid 1NT on doubtful hands. If this sequence does not promise real diamonds for you and is therefor forcing, 2♦ can also be used for very strong 3-card raises--opener assumes weak and responder bids again over openers 2M rebid. Likely you are already playing this.

2♣ always, even on 5=3=3=2 (assuming partnership agreement, of course). Let's define a losing case as where we end up in a six-card fit. 2♣ has a single losing case: partner has 1=4=4=4. We end up in 4-2 clubs instead of 4-3 diamonds. 2♦ has these losing cases: 1=4=3=5 1=3=3=6 with weak clubs 0=4=3=6 with weak clubs If you avoid the last two losing cases by bidding 3♣ anyway, you will lose back your gains when opener isn't 5-3-3-2. Also, 2♣ gives you a better chance that the opponents will balance and rescue you from your six-card fit. They must exists some hands where an opponent would chance 2♦ over 2♣ but would not bid 3♣ over 2♦ on the same hand with the minors reversed. Given that 2♣ more often works better constructively as well, this is a no brainer to me. By the way, I'm equally fine with 1♥-1NT-2♣ on 3=5=3=2. There are no losing cases at all for 2♣, but 3=1=3=6 with weak clubs is still problematic for 2♦. Playing this way also handles the dreaded 4=5=2=2 nicely for those of us whose wouldn't be caught dead playing F******y or need 2♦ for something else in their methods.

Very good analysis, Wayne. If spades is a poor moysian, it will be because they have the hearts and lead them. Bidding 1♠ may shut out the heart bid that makes it more likely for them to lead hearts, so at least sometimes we will steal it in a 4-3 spade fit when they lead clubs.