mikestar

I've got to wonder whether the slam hands are frequent enough to worry about, especially if this involves using a method that helps the defense (imagine what good opponents could do with the double of 3♦ vs the negative inference of not doubling). There is a simpler method that caters well to the 4-4 game in the other major as well as concealing info from the opponents rather well. From Marshal Miles Modern Constructive Bidding: After 1♠-2♠, three of a new suit is natural and forcing, usually the second suit is five cards or a good four. 3♠ is in theory a game try asking for good trumps, but may be a 1-2-3 stop with good enough trumps that responder can't have good trumps. 2NT is the general game try. Responder can bid 3♠ or 4♠. On a doubtful hand, responder bids the cheapest suit in which he would reject a short-suit game try. Notice how well this conceals opener's hand. After 1♠-2♠-2NT-3♦-4♠, Opener might have a hand where: (a) he needed help in diamonds and got it, (:rolleyes: he wanted to be in game opposite any non-minimum, or © He was exploring slam with short diamonds and gave up when responder shows waste. Sometimes blind leads are for players who can hear quite well. 1♥-2♥ auctions are similar: 2♠ is the general try and 2NT shows spades.

North has a clear 1♠ advance--then depending on how constructive the partnership plays it, either South has a limit raise and Noth has an acceptance, or South has a single raise and North has an invitation which South will accept. Unfortunately, this is likely to lead to the wrong game: in spades, we are likely to lose 2 trumps, a heart, and a diamond even if everything breaks well. 4 hearts is fairly good--it requires trumps to be 2-2 or a stiff trump honor to drop: about 70% but you need to shave some off as the bidding suggest East has a lot of clubs as he bid them twice but West didn't raise. Say 60%. If North has followed up his initial pass with a raise to 3♥, this should get the partnership to game. The actual auction isn't so bad at matchpoints but even not vul at Imps its better to be in game. Perhaps better than 1♠ or pass would have been 1NT, this avoids a possible poor spade contract but advertises some values.

The spade stiff may work out well even if they aren't psyching. No one has promised extras and partner can see that both majors are breaking badly. The declarer will mark your lead as a singleton, but it may inconvenience him knowing you can ruff any spade card that your partner can't beat--perhaps leading to a premature drawing of trumps.

I don't know how major a change this is, but how about this possibility: put the 6+ control hand in with 1♥ rather than 1♦. Then your 1♦ response is traditional and after 1♥ you are in a game force situation--you can search for your fit and then take control afterwards. There should be various bids that a 0-2 control "game but no slam" hand would not make--these will show 6+.

If it isn't penalty, they will steal you blind.

4♥. If partner has half the outstanding HCP, game is likely and partner won't bid it over 2/3♥.

Fourth suit forcing is such an obvious convention the some English writers have asserted that FSF is the natural meaning of a fourth suit bid. I've played 3♣ as all three of the natural alternatives. (1) Playing FSF Bill Root style (responder's second round jumps GF, FSF is mostly for invitational hands), 3♣ is 5-5 GF, 2♣ followed by 3♣ is 5-5 invitational. (2) Playing the more usual FSF style where FSF is always GF or mostly GF, 3♣ is 5-5 invitational, 2♣ followed by 3♣ is 5-5 GF. (3) Playing XYZ or other forms of two-way checkback, weak 4-6 is reasonable, as both the GF and invitational alternatives can go through 2♣/2♦. When the fourth suit is diamonds, the same applies except in XYZ: there the weak 4-6 hand passes opener's mandatory 2♦ rebid over 2♣.

Sure. Here's how. Create several hands that seem like a dead minimum 2♣ to your partnership. Calculate the Zar points and this will give you an idea what your minumum will be. I am quite certain it will be less than 30 zars. If your Precison opening major bids have a 24-25 Zar minimum (not untypical as most Precisionistas open light enough that the "opening bid+opening bid=game" equation is not assumed), 27-28 Zars for 2♣ seem reasonable.

This depends on what 2C followed by 3C means, as well as the rest of your system. But the default* meaning should be natural and forcing. This meaning dates back to Culbertson's day is still advocated by many authorities, though there is clearly no consensus about the best way to play it. *"Default"=assumed in absence of discussion: a more descriptive term than "standard", which carries implications of correctness.

Pretty much agree with Richard. 1. Is a hard decision. I lean toward 3NT becase the preempt makes it more likely we get a bad spade break--likely fatal in 4♠, may be survivable in 3NT. 2. 4♥ is a no-brainer. 3. The 4♠ bid is no doubt a shapely hand, but should not be a pure prempt over our preempt. So X is the most likely to work. Depends somewhat on your partnership standard for 3♣.

Self-evident double, any vulnerability, any form of scoring. According to LTC or Zar you are a full trick better than a minimum opening and all of your cards are prime. You should be safe whatever partner does: you may go down, of course but you won't be hurt badly and will make a decent amount of the time. Partners worst hand offensively has heart length and soft cards in the red suits--and if he has this, he may well leave it in, and they aren't going to make more than 1 time in 20, if that.

Much depends on what role your WJS is playing in your system. Very weak is excellent for premption but has a rather low frequency. A semi-constructive WJS is more frequent, and can reduce the number of 1 below game contracts. In a big club context, semi-constructive WJS's are particularly useful: you can keep you 1/1 to about 8 HCP or so without losing the advantage of bidding your shapely 5 counts. I've never had a problem with passing balanced 5-7's opposite a limited opening--there's no game and you can't be misfit.

I'm passing--then they presumably bid 1♠ and I can come back in with 2♥ and there is no danger of partner getting too high.

Playing normal Stayman where there is no way to determine if opener with a 4 card fit for my major is 4333 or 4432, I will just bid 3NT. If we have methods where partner can make that distinction (for example Keri), I will enquire. With a bit stronger hand, say 13-15 points (game should be easy, no slam), I will bid 3NT as IMPs but will still enquire at MPs (I am less certain this is correct). At any scoring I will equire if slam is in the picture.

This type of hand is an excellent argument for Marshal Miles' game tries. After 1♠-2♠, 3♦ is a long suit try showing a real suit. This can also be used on hands with slam interest where you will bid game over 3♠ by partner. If partner is going to accept he should bid 4♦ on the way to 4♠ with a good diamond fit. This is made possible by a 2NT inquiry that covers both short suit and help suit game tries--while concealing as much info as possible from the opponents. Responder can bid 3♠ or 4♠ when opener's shape doesn't matter to him, and otherwise bids the cheapest suit where he would reject a short-suit game try.

With regard to methods, I rather like Bill Root's suggestion: Inverted raises are on, 2NT and 3NT are natural but based on support for partner's minor. Strong balanced hands without support redouble.

I voted for 3♦ (splinter). The downside is that it may help them find the diamond fit, but if they are good, they'll do that anyway. I prefer it as it forces to game and allows partner a good evaluation of his cards: he will have an easy choice between 3NT and 5♣ and we might get to 6♣ if he has a perfecto. I am certainly willing to bid a good 4 card major over a takeout double, but Kxxx doesn't qualify--we are less likely to have a 4-4 fit and more likely to get a bad split if we do have it.

Totally WTP. Swap the hearts and clubs and pass looks a lot better--2♣ cuts out any chance of getting out a the 1 level and partners have been known to double with a doubleton club.

This hand is clear evidence of the power of paradox responses to 2♣ as Ben advocates. Playing this, 2♣ is a no brainer on this hand, as it can get out in 2♠ opposite a worthless responding hand. No need to open 1♠ and risk an under strength 3♠, a space-stealing 4♠, or a manufactured JS on a doubleton.

I don't know why Jeff recommends it, but I think it can be useful for two reasons: 1. Buying partner something indicates you have good feelings towards him, mistake notwithstanding. 2. The offer of a Coke (or partner's favorite caffinated beverage) suggests that you think he is tired rather than unskilled. And if in fact tiredness is the reason partner erred, the Coke may actually help.

Bidding boxes: North was reaching for the 3♥ card and grabbed 3♠ and didn't notice. Spoken bidding: North misheard, didn't ask, and thought the opening was 1♠.

I agree with this analysis. I don't care for 3nt on Qx--partner would be straining to bid 3NT himself with a spade card, so likely he doesn't have one.

XYZ is 2-way checkback, but extended to all cases where bids X, Y, and Z are at the one level--opener's rebid need not be 1NT.

In 2/1, if 3♥ is not a splinter (I think it shouldn't be) after 1♠-1NT-2♦, partner should jump to 4♦ with his miracle fit and the slam should be reached.

I pull it in a notch and settle for 2♦ playing Precision. 3♦ is OK on values, but will miss a 5-3 heart fit if it exists. But partner's most likely shape has long clubs, particulary since neither opponent overcalled in clubs. If this is the case, he may well pass 3♦ with a doubleton and that isn't going to play well at all. The point of this being, if it isn't a good bet to bid 3♦ strong but NF in Precision, how can 3♦ GF possibly be right? Consider also that 1NT forcing can be weaker in 2/1 than in Precision, where responer can pass on a nondescript 6-count.