mikestar

1♠. Strong hand, strong suit, alternatives stink--perfect conditions for a four-card major overcall. Second choice 1♦, but I don't like it. Why encourage partner or opponents to bid hearts? Our most likely game is 3NT if partner stops clubs, followed by 4♠. 5♦ is not so likely. Now if we play that 1NT is based on shape and values and is agnostic about stoppers (responder will inquire before going to 3NT if he lacks a club stopper) then 1NT looks fairly good, but may wrong side the contract if partner has a positional stopper.

Totally agree.

East 100%. I would have bid 4NT directly over 3♠ and left it to partner; having saved space with 3NT and faced with strong interest from West (he would pass 3NT with mild interest), I must make up for my previous underbid. At IMPS I would try 5NT pick-a slam. If we were playing match points I would bid 6NT.

Agree 100%.

Surely this hand should pass. The chances of missing a game if you pass is far less than the chance of getting too high if opener has invitational values. Frankly, I see some merit to a style where Richard's set #2 is treated as if it were empty. Are we ever going to learn to pass bad hands? If not, why are we playing 2/1 instead of Fantunes?

I am really drawn to 2NT. This might get us to a making 3NT when 9 tricks are the limit in hearts. On partner's actual hand, he will bid 3♥ on his crappy six bagger and I will pass. If he shows a 2-suiter I go to 4♥. This is based on my assumption that 2♥ is not a prebalance on this non-fit sequence. If we do prebalance in this sequence, put me down for 3♦.

Agree with the consensus. At best, you get to a 25-point 3NT with 14 opposite the worst 11 possible. And how will you feel if you get to a 24-point game with this. I also don't fancy 2NT opposite 12 or a bad 13. And if partner is stretching with a good 11, we will be lucky to make 1NT. Add ♣J and I invite but don't feel great about it.

So right! It's been stated that the toxin in a single botulism infected can could kill every person on Earth if it could be optimally distributed. Can't beat that.

I prefer 2♠ but for me it is close. I say this agreeing with Max Hardy on constructive raises. Pros for suit play: heart suit, diamond doubleton. Cons for suit play: three lousy trumps, soft clubs. For me, swap K♥ or x♠ with Q♣ and it ceases to be close.

My previous comment was in respect to the restrictiveness of the convention regulations. As far as fuzziness is concerned, the ACBL would do very well to take a page from the EBU's book and work much harder on having coherent, well-explained regulations. I offer no defense whatever for this aspect of the ACBL's convention regulation, though neither do I find this sinister.

System regulation is always a trade off and will always generate controversy. In the ACBL particularly, the aging membership presents challenges: while the better senior players are quite willing to play/play against modern methods, many of the rank and file are quite conservative. Some time ago, my regular partner and I were playing simple Precision at the club level and were often accused of cheating--not because our results were so good, but the perception was that the use of the system was cheating in itself. So which policy does the ACBL pursue? Restrict systems so the old guard isn't driven away, or adopt a more free-wheeling style that will attract more younger players? The current General Convention Chart is a compromise, and has all the virtues and all the vices of compromise. In theory, each club could choose its own system regulations--a senior center could be even more restrictive than the GCC, a university club could be more permissive than the Super Chart, etc. In practice every club I'm familiar with either adheres to the GCC as written or removes the limits on NT defenses. By the way, transfer advances are now GCC legal though they have zero following among average players. They have very clear technical advantages and are being increasingly adopted among stronger pairs. Does this suggest that reducing variance is the big goal here? IMHO, looking for a logical explanation for the business of governing over 100,000 diverse members is not particularly logical.

We are on a guess. If we're playing that pass and pull shows slam interest, then I pass--partner may be stretching for his 5 over 5. 6♥ isn't grossly wrong--I just think pass is going with the odds.

Clear 2♠ for me playing 2/1 or SAYC. Not happy about it, this sort of hand makes me think "why the hell am I not playing Precision?" (in which 2♥ is obvious).

How about balancing with a double? if partner is weak and the opener has a monster, this gives us a better chance to escape than 1NT. If partner has a fair hand with long clubs, let them do the escaping. I certainly wouldn't argue with a pass, however. But if you are going to take an aggressive view, why not double?

I wouldn't double--too many problems unless partner has 5 hearts, may be control issues even then. So I'm realistically not looking for a heart fit or a marginal diamond fit. That being the case, the sensible bid would seem to be 2♣, looking to catch up later with a reverse in ♦ or a cue bid, depending on the auction. Doubling first as if I had a strong one suiter isn't crazy, but it will often lose the diamonds when diamonds are right or get us to diamonds when diamonds are wrong. Starting with 2♣ should get us to diamonds if partner has at least four fair diamonds with club shortness and seldom otherwise.

I suspect that system restrictions are the issue. Constructive 2-suited openings must have 2 known suits to be legal on the ACBL General Convention Chart which governs over 90% of the duplicate bridge played in North America. The requirement that both suits be know limits the utility of these bids, so they are not much played (except Flannery in some circles).

My own preference for this sequence is for 1♠ to show "4 1/2 spades": if I have a four good spades where I welcome playing in a 4-3 fit, I bid 1♠, with four poor spades I double.

Spot on. Pearson points should be used to determine whether a hand you would pass as dealer should be opened in fourth seat.

Assuming that 3♥ instead of 3♦ would be invitational rather than blocking, 3♦ should be a very strong invite--the sort of hand where the Landy bidder needs good support and one useful card (if he would have a good play with either, he would likely bid it himself). So your hand is exactly what the doctor ordered--4♥ is automatic. Even if 3♥ is non-invitational, I would bid 4♥ assuming 3♦ shows a fragment--your ♦K and ♣xxxx are solid gold.

I really, really like this response structure--it seems very well thought out. Thank you.

I'm trying my hand at this variation of the "Disciplined Diamond": 1♣: Big, if balanced then 18+. 1♦: 12-14 balanced OR Four card major with longer minor OR Three suited, no five card major. 1♥/♠: Five card major. 1NT: 15-17 balanced. 2♣/♦: Six card minor or five-four in minors. No four card major. I'm working on the 1♦ sequences. 1♥ response: four hearts. Opener's rebids: 1♠: four spades balanced 12-14 or three suited short in hearts. 1NT: balanced 12-14, may have four spades if hand is very NT oriented. 2♣/2♦: five plus cards with four spades. 2♥: four card support, minimum hand. 3♥: four card support, strong hand. 1♠ response: four spades. Opener's rebids: 1NT: Balanced 12-14. 2♣: five plus clubs with four hearts or 1-4-4-4 2♦: five plus diamonds with four hearts 2♠:four card support, minimum hand. 3♠: four card support, strong hand. There a a lot of possibilities for using opener's 2/3 of the other major and 2NT artificially to handle problem hands. I am interested in suggestions. 1NT response: minimum, no four card major, balanced or both minors. Opener will pass with strength in the majors or bid his longer minor. 2♣/2♦, single suited or both minors, invitational or better, denies four card major. Rebid structure is under development. 2♥/2♠: ??? 2NT: balanced invitation, no interest in majors. Perhaps this would be better as a balanced force, with the balanced invitation shown artificially. 3♣/3♦: six card suit, less than invitational values. This has good preemptive value.

I vote 1♦ as least of evils, but 2/1 can't handle this hand type well at all: 1♦ can get passed. (If not, you get burned responding on 5 to the Jack opposite a 16 count on a different hand.) 2NT is right on values, wrong on orientation and shape. 2♣ is under strength for a primary minor hand, and will lose a 4-4 spade fit. Precision anyone?

If it doesn't over strain the rest of your system, these two point ranges allow some excellent methods. The "no power invites" idea is a certain winner over 2-point ranges, and is probably a winner opposite 3-point ranges--but surely there will be fewer losing cases opposite the narrower range. Consider how complex invitational sequences can be with a power invite. Your invitational hand might: Need a fit, range doesn't matter. Need a max, fit doesn't matter. Need a max or a fit. Need a max and a fit. While playing no invites, all invitational sequences are like the first item--it's all about fit. I notice that power invites in 1M-2M sequences are becoming rarer as well.

It all depends. I would hesitate to attribute something to Fout that he is opposed to, even though his writeup is rather better than the book by Twining and Hodges. On the other hand, calling the Rapee convention Stayman is technically incorrect, but Sam Stayman literally wrote the book on his favorite partner's convention and did a great job testing and publicizing it. Yet again, Jordan and Lebensohl are really poorly named. 1M-(X)-2NT as a limit raise was invented by Alan Truscott and possibly others. Robert Jordan merely reported to someone that he had seen the bid used--he neither claimed credit for it, nor did he use it or advocate it at that time. Ken Lebensold (notice the spelling) disclaims any association whatever with Lebensohl.

Adam, Thanks for the prompt, detailed reply. I will definitely give this a try.