mikestar

Unadjusted LOTT suggests 3♠ on this hand. Let's look at adjustments: 1. QTx in enemy trump suit is a major negative adjustment all by itself. It isn't always worthless on offense, but it is very often and is never worth a full 2 points even when it isn't. On the other hand, it has good defensive potential 2. 4-3-3-3 hands often result in fewer total tricks. These two are enough to disqualify 3♠. 3. We are red vs. white so we should pull it in a notch. 4. The raise may encourage a losing ♠ lead. A minor but real negative. 5. The wide range hampers constructive efficiency. These days, both 1♥ and 2♥ may be wafer thin--partner may well have a game try, and this hand will disappoint him quite a bit. (If we have a conventional method of showing a good three-card single raise, this point vanishes.) 6. This is IMPs -- the reward for -100 vs -110/-140 is much lower, but the cost of large sets is relatively more. This argues for conservatism in close cases. So we have four meaningful negatives to 2♠--four strikes and you're out. I can see no positives. I can agree with someone who bids 2♠ with (silent) fear and trepidation, but I can't imagine bidding 2♠ gleefully. As for 3♠, I think this is doubtful at favorable, bad bridge at equal, and barking mad at unfavorable.

In absence of contrary agreements, it is standard to follow suit with the lowest of equal cards, so the Jack is correct when it is desired to inform partner. In most cases of this type, declarer knows that he is missing a high trump and doesn't card which of you holds it, so there is no particular reason to falsecard here.

In most of my partnerships we play this as Larry Cohen recommends: after a double of the transfer opener completes the transfer only with three trumps, passing with a doubleton, tending to superaccept with 4 even if minimum. So game is more obvious opposite guaranteed 3 card-support.

I'm a 3NT bidder here, though there is a limit to how much I'd disagree with a partner who gambled a pass, especially at match points. I can see merit in hiding the horrible spades by responding 1NT and missing the 4-4 fit--which we won't miss if partner is unbalanced and strong enough to try for game, as he will bid 2♠ to show the strength and pattern out. In that case I raise spades gladly.

Mike, you are clearly not aware that there are many variants of Polish Club. Some use the Precision 2C variant, others do not. Then is Strefa and Nasz which also qualify as PC systems and use 2C as a game force. Comparing Don Varvel's system to these is like comparing a Fiat Toppolino to a Ferrari. You are quite correct with regard to the various other forms of Polish--I haven't the technical knowledge of the systems to evaluate them. I meant only to compare to Polish as given above, with the Precision 2♣ promising only 5 clubs. By the way, though I agree that Precision 2♣ (when it can be a 5-card suit) is horrible, I use it in my partnerships which play Real Diamond Precision. As always, we have to consider tradeoffs--having the more frequent 1♦ non-nebulous seems to gain more than 2♣ not guaranteeing 6 loses. Your mileage may very, but where I play, they intervene almost as aggressively over a nebulous 1♦ as over the Precision 1♣ itself. A special point in AUC's favor for those of us who play f2f in North America is that it is (by design) GCC legal--very likely the advanced Polish systems are not. Playing f2f in North America is my only choice--can't afford to travel to a more enlightened region for a game.

I'm passing though I don't like it much and I certainly think X is reasonable. We are missing a game pretty much only if pard has 5♠ and some decent cards. We may lose a partscore swing by passing, but we avoid going for 200 or 500 if the hand lies badly. The deciding point for me is that by concealing my extra strength, they may go down in 3♣ or 3NT when they could have made it if they knew I had all of our side's cards. A murderously hard decision, and I would X at MP: -500 is just another bottom and winning the partscore swing may be a top.

Agree 100%--no other choice in competition. 1♣ followed by 4♠ over a 1 red suit or 1NT response in a non competetive auction isn't bad: this should show extreme shape but minimum high cards--partner can look for slam with aces and pass 4♠ or correct to 5♣ otherwise.

Not close for me. 4♥ then bid one more over any number of spades they bid if partner can't double them. Come to think of it, if we have the understanding that it is preemptive, a direct 5♥ isn't so bad--it will really put them to the guess plus the information that I'm defenseless but too good offensively to settle for 4♥ will let partner bid some slams that he will miss over 4♥. The downside is the possibility of down one (or one more) in the event they would sell to 4♥ or partner could double 4♠ successfully.

This is a no-brainer for me. Opener has declined a game invitation--we were stopping in a partial, we can be fairly certain that anything we might bid at the 5 level goes down. We certainly can't be in the position where our 5 level bid is odds on to be a make or a good save. Since there is no possibility of bidding on, it can't be a forcing pass. The only correct meaning for opener's pass is "I have poor defense and 5♣ may make." In light of that info, responder's pass means "I think they may make it, too." If opener thinks it odds on that 5♣ is going down, then double it.

Please specify the minimum length for your 1♦ opening--it can affect the answer significantly.

This sort of hand is the reason I think Don Varvel's An Unassuming Club is an improvement over Polish. It uses a weak NT, 2♣ with 6+♣ and no major and puts all unbalanced hands with 4M and 5+♣ into 1♣. The change in 2♣ is quite important--expert consensus is that 2♣ on 5♣-4M is so bad in Precision that an ambiguous 1♦ loses less--why should this bid be any good in Polish?

Pass is obvious. X in a game force situation is penalty--so forcing pass on a takeout double type hand is correct. I would have passed this hand, but partner's ♣ bid brings my hand up to full opening strength. If partner bids 3NT it should make, and I can leave his double in. We can even get to 4♠ when partner has four.

On the facts cited, the hesitation is not OK Now if declarer had called the dummy's card instantly or after a perfunctory plan (say 5 seconds) then third hand must be given time to plan the defense, including but not limited to the first trick.

Robert's method is excellent. In order to use 2NT artificially, it is necessary for 1NT to be forcing (not semi-forcing). Then with your typical 13-15 balanced, you respond 1NT and follow up with 3NT unless partner makes a strong rebid which puts slam in the picture. As long as 1NT won't be passed, the structure can be extended--now 1NT followed by a natural 4NT can show very strong balanced hands.

If you never go down in slam, you aren't bidding slam often enough. If you never make slam without bidding it, you are bidding slam too often. This hand is an example of the latter. A good place to start is the Culbertson rule: "Invite slam if a perfect minimum will make it a laydown." (From the Blue Book, 1930.) This hand needs some luck opposite a perfect 15, so on balance it shouldn't be inviting. My own catch phrase is "3NT making 6 always outscores 6NT making 3." I rather also like Jeff Ruben's dictum for match points: "A positive score will never be a zero." He cites an amusing hand where a pair stopped in 2♦ due to a system misunderstanding on a hand cold for 6 in either major on NT--and were about 30% because several pairs overreached and bid the unmakable grand.

On these colors, why not open 3♠? (It would be 4♠ at any other colors). It expresses your playing strength and your limited high cards and with spades both longer and subtantially stronger, it is possible but unlikely you belong in diamonds. Were this the opening, partner cannot possibly do anything but raise to 4♠.

Robert, As you said, we are in general agreement but weight the tradeoffs differently. I did not make my point about the double of 2♥ well (and it's a minor one). The term "free double"was a poor one--what I was refering to was the ability to double the transfer suit when you have the sort of hand where you want to overcall in the transfer suit: (1NT)-P-(2♥)-X where 2♥ is a transfer is at least as safe as (1NT)-p-(2♦)-2♥ where 2♦ is natural and it is most certainly safer than (1NT)-P-2♠-3♥ where 2♠ is natural. I agree that a lead directing double or a double showing length but not having values is quite dangerous.

Robert, What you are not grasping is the tradeoffs involved in playing transfers over weak and especially very weak notrumps. You are quite correct that transfers conceal weakness better in that 1NT-2♥ (transfer) may be invitational or better while 1NT-2♠ (natural) reveals weakness. Now let's put you South and West opens 1NT, partner passes and East either transfers to or bids spades. In the transfer case you risk more intervening on doubtful hands, so you will have to pass more often--but you are sure to get another chance: West completes the transfer and East passes, its back to you and you can now make any bid you would have made directly over a natural 2♠. It is also very likely that there are hands where it is reasonable to bid immediately even though the enemy might be inv+. You also get a free double of 2♥ to show the suit--opponents are unlikely to leave it in and if they do you only need six tricks rather than the eight you would need if you had bid 2♥ (in a different auction). So all in all it is rather like having 2 1/2 chances--your partnership has two bids after responders strength is known, but three after his suit is known. In the natural suit case, your side has two bids after responder's strength and suit are known. Its (1NT)-P-(2♠) to you and if you don't bid now the auction will be over if partner can't balance. If you intervene and balance agressively, you are unlikely to get doubled, but you will either miss making games or get to hopeless games because your ranges will be too wide. So the reality is that natural suits are harder for the defense to bid over than transfers--not enormously harder, but significantly harder. So in my opinion, natural responses to 1NT are superior when responder is weak. It may well be that the increased efficiecy in game and slam auctions more than pays for this disadvantage in weak auctions--in fact I am very sure it does over a 14-16 or stronger, I think it breaks about even over a 12-14, and fails to justify the cost over 10-12 or weaker. I could be wrong, but it is a mathematical fact that there will be more signoff auctions when the NT opener has 10 points than when he has 15. Also the advantage of making it a harder for the defenders to bid accurately is likely to be greater when opener has 8 points (they might have slam) than when opener has 17 points (partscore is surely their limit barring very freak shape.) So while you disagree with the "no transfers over weak notrumps" school and may even be objectively correct in doing so, they are quite rational--they focus on a different set of tradeoffs than you do, and may well be objectively correct. The question cannot be answered analytically, it requires empirical evidence. A large scale statistical study of this question would seem to be quite desirable.

Not if he knows how to play the game: poll true experts on AQJxx AKxx Kxx x and I would bet that fewer than 20% would bid 3♥... and this is a GREAT 17 count. Ok, so I hold the ♠A: make it KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx.. no expert I know would bid 3♥ on this. Not to say that I know all experts... maybe some players better than me would choose 3♥, but I doubt it. You are missing my point--I think most experts would bid 2♥ on the hand you gave, but my entire argument was concerning 5-5 hands! No 5-4 you can show me has any bearing on the question. Given KQJxx AKxxx Ax x will any expert risk being passed in 2♥? Surely at the very least a subtantial minority will force with this hand--and I expect it to be a majority choice.

Not if he is a good player. One could argue that a "good player" wouldn't be playing an unlimited 2♥ rebid in the first place. But given the system with a 5-5 hand that is too good for 2♥ (=partner will have to pass a fair number of hands where we have game) and not good enough for 3♥(=partner will be forced to a fair number of unmakeable games), are you saying that good players take the conservative view all or most of the time? If you are saying that my 50% figure is wrong and the true figure is say 30-40% we are not really in disagreement--my argument still holds though not quite as strongly. If your are saying the true figure is 0-10% then we are in serious disagreement.

On the probabilties, pass is clearcut. The only time 2♠ or 2NT is likely to win is when partner is 5-5 and strong but not strong enough for 3♥. This is rare in 2/1 and non-existent in Precision or playing Gazzilli. Not passing will at best break even in the other cases. So though the gain of a game is large it is infrequent and the usually smaller losses are more frequent--and if partner is minimum, there may be large losses if the fit is poor. Pass only loses to those pairs that are playing a relatively unlimited 2♥ rebid who choose not to pass when it is right. Remember also that opener with 5-5 and invitational values will take the agressive view and force with 3♥ at least half the time--this makes the probabilty that opener has the hand you need even smaller. IMO if you must bid something, 2NT though dangerous is better than 2♠. While is it possible to describe 2♠ on a stiff when holding 3 hearts as a "false preference", it doesn't seem reasonable. General Sherman could have said "War is unpleasant", but he would be missing the mark.

Couldn't agree more. I have no problem passing a balanced 5 or a quacky 6 like Qxx xx QJxx Jxxx over 1♥. With a shapely weak hand like QJxxxx x xxx xxx I wonn't pass but much prefer 2♠ if weak jump shifts are available. If not, I like 1♠ better than pass, but not by a huige margin.

A very common understanding in standard that I would assume is on by default with a strong partner: 3NT after a 1 over 1 is to play but based on a long suit. Perfect for your hand. With a seventh heart and a couple of HCP less, rebid 4♥. Crude and old fashioned, but the best available in the system.

I would have passed absent an agreement to open this type of hand. But if this is an opening for our partnership, 4♥ is a no brainer--it must be this type of hand. Can you construct a more HCP-oriented opener that has four level safety but can't whack 3NT? Yes, but how likely is it?

1♥--not even close for me.