mikestar

This sounds interesting, but I have some questions: 1) What do you open with a four card major, a five card minor, and 2-2 or 3-1 in the other suits? 2) Do you open 2♦ on 6♦ with a four-card major? If so, how do you find your major fit if there is one? (Good structures exist for 2♣.) 3) How do you handle minor 2-suiters?

If you like this method, also consider Marshal Miles game tries from Modern Constructive Bidding. With Miles, after 1♠-2♠ then 3♣/3♦/3♥ are bona fide long suit tries showing usually a 5-card side suit. Most moderns just shoot out game, but there are many hands where a near minimum 5-5 can invite and stop short if responder has the wrong hand. Both short suit tries and help suit tries go through 2NT. Responder can sign off or bid game if the action is clear cut. Otherwise, he bids the cheapest suit with a concentration of secondary honors--this is usually the same as the cheapest suit in which he would reject a short suit try. Opener signs off or bids game, or can make a help suit try if there is room. So in a sequence such as 1♠-2♠-2NT-3♦-4♠ does opener have a hand which needed help in diamonds; a very good hand that just needed a little more than a dead minimum; or a hand with a stiff diamond exploring for a perfect fit slam. Good luck choosing the opening lead. As in the Kokish method, over 1♥-2♥, 2♠ is the general try and 2NT shows a spade suit.

A grand is out of the question--if partner had two high spades and three hearts, he would have jumped to 3♥. If you want to be scientific, cue bid to show strength then follow with 5♥--this may inspire partner to carry on with a spade card. A blast to 6♥ is not a bad strategy at all. Partner may have a spade card, or the opponent may take a phantom save or may have a make in 6 of a minor--then you have a very cheap save or they may stretch to 7 down one. At matchpoints, I think that this is a difficult decision. At IMPs, I bid 6♥ without a second thought--this hand could be a double slam swing.

Partner has the most minimum hand possible for your system. If he can have poor suit quality in both majors, he does: pass. 5♠ is pointless as others have said. If your methods require that he has a good suit in at least one major, then 6♠ directly over 3♥ would have been correct: there must be a decent play for slam and a grand is out of the question if partner can't show even intermediate values.

This seems to be a good method. I doubt the 5M332 and the 5M4♣ can both fit into the rebid structure, so you are forced to choose. If your are playing at a high enough level for Mid Chart events, I would suggest 2♦ and 2♥ as transfers to the 5 card major. Here you should have the space to distinguish the hand types. This also has the advantage of retaining 2♠ (the most effective 2-level preempt) as a weak 2.

Should be preemptive. With a slam try, responder can force and bid 5♥ next time. When responder has a hand such that he knows that opponents can make 4♠ and 5♥ will be a good sac, he must be able to bid it immediately. If he is good enough to try for slam opposite a preempt, there is no hurry--the opponents will probably stay out.

I think that 2NT is just not viable if it is not forcing. If you don't want to bid 3♥ (which may work out badly if partner has no stoppers and three-card heart support) go ahead and give up on hearts and shoot out 3NT. In any case, natural bidding simply can't handle this type of hand as well as Big Club or Gazilli.

My 82 year old mother has a large collection of humorous stuff, obscene stuff, and brain teasers obtained in various offices over her working life--the material is in scrapbooks in chronological order. This specific test is on one of the very earliest pages. That makes it World War II vintage and there is no guarantee that it was new then. By the way, she tried the test on me when I was in Kindergarten and I correctly counted 6 the first time out.

To my mind, this comes down to a "which mistakes do you prefer to make? question. Not in a particular order of importance, the limited openings of a "perfect" strong club system need to satisfy the following requirements: 1♦ shows a real (4+ cards) suit. 2♣ promises 6+ cards 1NT range is not more than three points. 4♠-5♥ hands get to the right major. 2♦ not needed as a limited opener. Self evidently, we can't have it all playing 4-card majors or 5-card majors. Less desired alternatives to the above: Short 1♦ (2+) Very short 1♦, 0+ or 1+. 2♣ may be only 5 cards if a 4-card major is held. Wide range 1NT opener Risking getting to the wrong major on 4♠-5♥ hands. 2♦ fills in gaps in the structure (Precision, Flannery, etc.) I trust that it is obvious why the requirements are desirable if they can be had without excessive cost, though I would expect a lively debate about which are the most important. Let's look at the less desired alternatives. Short diamond is no real problem is most constructive sequences but is highly vulnerable to preemption. This is bad with 2+ and worse with more extreme shortness. 2♣ on 5 cards is a loser in partscore deals: whenever you belong in a major but partner isn't strong enough to investigate, you are headed for a poor score. Of course this can happen with 6-4 hands but they are less frequent and 2♣ is more likely to be a decent if not optimal contract with the longer suit. If your responses are well worked out, game try and stronger sequences come out OK. Wide range 1NT has preemptive value but loses constructive efficiency, both in the opener itself and in 1♣-1♦-1NT sequences, which end up covering a wider range as well. You will miss more games and go down more often in game invitational contracts than with a narrower range. OK, playing 4-3♠ instead of 5-3♥ doesn't have to be the end of the world; but how about 4-2♠ versus 5-2♥? Personally, I hate giving up 2♦ for preemptive use, whether as a weak two, multi, or some assumed fit bid. Both Precision 2♦ and Flannery work OK when used. Some clubs systems I have used in actual play. Real Diamond Precision 5-card majors, 1♦ 4+, 2♣ 5+, wide range NT. No 2♦: the very rare 4-4-1-4 is opened 1♥. This is the first Big Club I played. It works well at the club level as our 1♦ sequences are more accurate than 2/1 player's are and our wide range 1NT doesn't cost as much vs club level opponents--the constructive inefficiency is offset by the difficulties players at this level have with defensive bidding after 1NT and defensive play after 1NT-all pass or 1NT-3NT. The higher the level of play, the more the wide range will cost--at the Novice-Intermediate level it may even gain. 2♣ on 5 is nasty, there are many losing hands even against weak opps. Four-Card Major Big Club 4-card majors, 1♦ 4+ 2♣ 6+, wide range NT, Flannery. Natural 1♦ and wide range NT same as above. 2♣ is extremely improved by requiring 6. I find the gains and losses using 4-card majors vs. 5-card majors are roughly even. The wide range NT has a side benefit here--as 1 of a suit cannot be balanced, NT rebids can be used artificially to distinguish the suit lengths in some possible canape sequences. Marshal Miles style Precision 5-card majors, 1♦ 2+, 2♣ 6+, 15-17 NT, Precision 2♦. I like 2♣ requiring 6 (see above). I really like the strong NT: it keeps us even with the field and removes minimum balanced hands from 1♣. Precision 2♦ is rare but no problem when it comes up. 1♦ sends shivers down my spine (not the good kind) when I open it with primary clubs. The weak NT hand doesn't bother me so much as I can almost always pass next turn in competition. I am quite curious about a system with 4-card majors not using a wide range NT. How would the 5M-3-3-2 hands not in the NT range be handled? Rebidding a 3-card minor can be problematic when there is a possible canape, and rebidding the major on 5 when you are likely to be passed is unlikely to produce lasting happiness.

What is the vulnerability? I probably pass anyway as suggested by LOTT. Note that the issue is minimizing the loss--for a balancing double, pard is counting on me for 9-10 points and I don't have them. If he has substantial extras where 5m is in no jeopardy, they may well go for more than the game.

I really don't like giving North all the blame for this one. In this sequence, North can't be broke, otherwise one of the opponents would bid 4♠ or whack 3♥. So game must be a decent gamble. 4♥ by North is reasonable if the double is sure to be full strength, but 4♥ is an overbid if the double might be a prebalance.

To me this hand isn't worth its nominal 26 Zar points due to the weakness of the diamonds--yes 98 is better than 43 would be but is not nearly as good as as it would be with another high card (A, K, or J). In general, I deduct 1 point for a long suit with only 1 high card and 2 points for a suit with no high cards. That would adjust this hand to 24 Zars, which I would up to 25 due to the usefulness of the ♥T and the ♦98. Zar himself doesn't make this adjustment--he adjusts for honor location in partner's bid suit and in the case of unguarded honors, but the failure to distinguish between ♠KQx ♥xxxxx and ♠xxx ♥KQxxx is a a flaw of the Zar method. So I would prefer to open a strong (for suit play) 1NT to a shaded 1♥. If your red suits were reversed, I don't mind 2♥.

I've played 13-16 in a big club context for years and it has a fairly small net loss when used vs. a narrower range. The gains come from 1♦/1♥/1♠ guaranteeing either 6+ cards or another suit. Our practice was to quickly pass balanced 12's--this led to more losses than the wide range, but still came out OK over all. I've experimented with widening the range to 12+-16 with no changes in the response structure. We get to 2NT/3NT going down just a bit more, but pick up some good 12 opposite 12 games in compensation. As an aside book Keri works quite well over wide ranges--playing declined game tries in 2M rather than 2NT or 3M is even more helpful than over a narrower range--game tries are both more frequent and more frequently declined.

This really depends on what sort of hand partner will invite on--anything could be reasonable. To me, this looks like a rejection. I start with a minimum opening, the Q♣ is dead but the ♥ honors are golden--so far we're about even. ♦Ax is doubtful--if partner has long weakish ♦ its wonderful, but that's unsure here. But if ♦A is poor, then ♠Q is more likely to be good: partner must have his values somewhere. I don't think 3♦ should be a generic counter trial, neither should it focus on diamonds. I would make this bid with a hand where I wanted to accept but was worried because I only had three trumps. Partner bids game with 5♥ or 4 strong ones, tries 3NT with some extras in the side suits, and signs off with nothing good opposite 3.

xxxx Axx Axxx xx is a clear limit raise to me.

5♦ bid what you think you can make.

Borderline. I would double but don't mind pass a bit. Two points: (1) It can't be a trump stack--with five ♥, I'm not bidding ♣ first. (2) It is however penalty oriented--we have already found a trump suit and have at least half the deck in high cards. As long as partner will pull freely with an unsuitable hand, this is a reasonable double--if he is short in hearts we have fine chances in 3♣ and down 1 will be OK if 2♥ makes. If he's not so short, they are going down. By the way, why is every certain that down 1 is the limit?

What does partner have? First of all, he very likely has exactly three hearts. With four he would raise or cue bid, with two or fewer he must have a very strong hand, in which case he can bid his suit to show this hand. He just might have two hearts with a very strong balanced hand--but he could show this by bidding NT. We can also rule out any minimum double--he would pass and trust us to bid with values. So what we are left with is a good hand with four spades--a hand where partner wants to give us the option to play for penalties. Give me just a tiny bit of strength and I will leave it in, but on the actual hand I will bid 2♣. Also, penalty-suggesting is the best interpretation to protect against psychics. This is rather similar to (1♦)-X-(1♠)-X: the infamous sequence where Hamman stole the Italians blind, leading them to change their system on the spot. A takeout interpretation is suitable for "Kitchen Bridge" where no one ever psyches and minimum off shape doubles are the order of the day.

I rather like Bill Root's treatment: Inverted raises (of whatever flavor you prefer) are on over a double. 2NT and 3NT are natural but based on support for partner's minor. Good balanced hands without support redouble. All you lose is 1m-(x)-2m on a crappy hand that is afraid to go to 3m.

From the standpoint of safety, it doesn't really matter how many diamonds 1♦ shows--all the short diamond hands in Precision have long clubs. Where it does make a difference is in what you can expect to gain by jamming their auction. Your odds are quite good if they promise 0 or 1 diamond, fairly good if they promise 2, iffy if they promise 3 and rather poor if they promise 4+. For me, this hand is borderline on the actual enemy system, I would overcall if they promised 2 or less and pass against those mighty few who play Real Diamond Precision.

You simply can't win them all. At match points you have to find a bid, but this hand is just too flawed to act at unfavorable at IMPs If you catch opener with a good hand, you can lose too much blood and if you catch partner with a good hand (as you do on the actual hand), you will get to a game and go down rather frequently. At any other vulnerability, I would bid 3♣ in a heartbeat--though the poor spots would make me nervous at both vul. In no case do I like 2♣: it's simply too likely to get us too high if partner has some cards.

I checked out their web site and their figures for 24 boards are based on 4.25 IMPs= 1%. So for 12 board matches, this would eqate to 2.125 IMPs=1%. Since this is an approximation anyway, why not simplify it to 2 IMPs=1%? So if you finish say +14 IMPs you would equate that to 57% , +23 IMPs would be 61.5%, -4 IMPs would be 48%.

I generally open a preempt with a strong hand only in third seat at game level. I will overcall with a game level preempt on a strong hand whenever slam is unlikely (partner is passed or their opener is sound enough--I would not bid a strong 4M over a Moscito limited opening with an unpassed partner.) In third seat: 1. 4♠ I'm certain spades it the right suit, if partner has a good pass it has good prospects, if partner is weak 4th hand will have an interesting time. 2. 4♥ About a playing trick less than the above. The trumps are solid enough that most hands that play well in diamonds also play well in hearts. Put me down for 1♥ if the hearts were less solid. 3. 1♦ Yes, I'd be content to ignore the 4CM with a hand about 6 points lighter, but here ♥Kxxx might be enough for 4♥ with 5♦ down off the top. 5♦ here feels like preempting my own side. 4. 4♠ The same as #2, but less certain--the 6-5 shape means there might be hands where 6 is a make, though that's still against the odds. Definitely 1♠ if playing a sound opening style. 5. 4♥ WTP?

Al Roth, probably. Nobody else I can think of.

Muiderberg is natural. But it is also conventional because it guarantees the existence of the 4+ minor suit. A weak two which will have a four card minor when it is five cards but might easily be 6 cards with or without a four card minor is not a convention--the existence of the side suit is not guaranteed, merely possible--which it would be if the partnership opened 5-6 card weak twos without any distributional restriction. This usage would be similar to Precision 2♣ but preemptive.