mikl_plkcc

On 5-4-4-0, I double, regardless of the quality of the 5-card suit; On 5-4-3-1, I bid if the 5-card suit is good, double if most of the value is outside the suit.

I open 1♣ and rebid 2NT. I bid all balanced hands strictly to the number of HCPs. If I have a nice 6-card minor, I NEVER open 2NT because my system don't allow me to bid NT with a 6-card suit or a 5-card major. I will try to count tricks, losers and controls and decide whether to open 1 of the minor or 2♣.

I would treat it as no majors. In my system, after Stayman is doubled: XX = 5 clubs / = both majors (after that transfer to the major) 2♦ = no majors nor 5 clubs 2♥ = 4 ♥s but not 4 ♠s 2♠ = 4 ♠s but not 4 ♥s

I would open 2♣, then jump rebid ♣.

In my system: North deals: 2♣ (20+ unbal or 22+ bal or 1.5 trick short of game) - 2♠! (3 controls) 3♣ (5+ clubs) - 4♣ (agree clubs) 4♦ (cuebid) - 5♣ (no more to cue) 5♦ (insist, grand interest) - 5♠ (spade second round) 7♣ (spade K can discard heart loser) It is so easy, isn't it?

My view on "wild" call is calling aggressively when you have the exactly right shape (for example double for takeout holding 4-4-4-1 even with very few HCPs, Michaels cuebid holding 5-5 or longer, opening at the 3-level at the third seat holding a 7-card suit, regardless of the quality, overcalling 1♣ with 1♠ with ♠T7643 and club void after partner has passed), but not stretching to bid off-shape.

Last night, I made a mistake that I failed to realise that a 9 was a top trick in a suit contract, trumped over it and turned -100 into -200, which was certainly a loss in any partscore battle. Recently, I and my partner got flame wars about defensive and competitive bidding with hands with no values. For example, when we decided the range of a Michaels cuebid and unusual 2NT, he insisted me not to bid it with a 0-HCP hand. If I can bid a 0-HCP hand with Michaels cuebid, then partner can happily raise me to the 4-level with 5-card support with also 0 HCPs. Then I asked him how I should bid with 0 HCPs and two 5-card suits. He told me to PASS!!!!!!!!!! The final range agreed was 8-11 or 16+ HCPs. I also insisted him not to bid anything off-shape. For example, I told him not to overcall with 1♠ at the direct seat holding ♠AKQJ, or overcalling with 1NT with a singleton, and told him to always bid 4-cards suit up-the-line in constructive biddings, even it meant bidding 1♥ with ♥5432, and always bid the longest suit first, regardless with the quality. After a deal, partner told me never bid 5♥ over 4♠. The reason was that 4♠ may not be made. He is also afraid of me raising his overcall to the 4-level directly with 0 HCPs and 5-card support. He thought the result would be -4 or -5 doubled, which would certainly be a disaster. (I am very disciplined in constructive bidding, but not in competitive bidding, especially, the fewer defensive values, the higher I preempt holding enough trumps. That disaster was because I failed to realise that a takeout double implies defensive values. I just thought of the "shape", but not the values. The "points" are the last thing for me to consider in competitive biddings.)

10 tricks in the hand. A sure 2♣ for me. In the first spoiler, I bid 5♦. I would not open this Acol 4NT, because I would not happy with 5♠ or 6♣ response. I cannot take the fourth heart as a winner in this hand.

Pass playing disciplined 2nd seat. It doesn't have 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 5.

There is a very common scenario where an auction which is forcing to 3NT may stop at the 4 of the minor: 1. Opener bids. 2. Partner, having lots of HCPs, make a bid "forcing to 3NT". 3. Opponents come in and find their fit. 4. We find our minor suit fit. With fits on both side and no stoppers in their suit, 3NT is definitely not possible. 5. We think that we don't have enough values to go to 5 of the minor.

I found that the gambling 2nt convention was mentioned in the book Auction of Today (1913) in page 27. And there was many conventions about the original cheap spade suit which scored only 2 per odd trick.

I think the best term is "forcing to 3NT".

South dealt, we played at 6N, also -1.

However, in my system, in most cases, 4 of a minor is a non-forcing bid, either a sign-off or an invitation to game.

South dealt: [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?sn=alleycat%209&s=SAQJ84H643DAT3CK4&wn=hazzjk&w=ST62HJ985D92CQ973&nn=lakesmn&n=SHAKQ72DKQJ54CJT8&en=topky&e=SK9753HTD876CA652&d=s&v=b&b=103]480|360[/hv] Using standard methods, we found that only a first round ♣ control was missing, so we also land on 6♥, in fact, most of the field landed on 6♥, and all -1. Only the few pairs who stopped at 4♥ got good results. Is it possible to avoid bidding the slam?

The purpose of a forcing bid is to ensure that the bidder has a chance to bid again (but not necessary actually bid again). Therefore, a forced bid becomes a free bid if the intervening opponent acts. One round means 4 players making call. If one makes a bid is forcing for one round, he ensures that he can bid after one round. A bid which forces to game ensures that the auction may not stop below 3NT, unless the opponents have been doubled. (This name is actually a misnomer because if the final agreed suit is a minor, the auction may stop at 4 of the minor.) If a player makes a bid which forces both himself and his partner to bid, such that his partner may bid after one and a half round, it is "forcing and promises a rebid", or equivalently "forcing for one and a half round" (F1.5).

I don't believe that there was irregularity involved, assuming that 2♦ was actually a psych. Opener bid 1♣, which was wide-ranging; Responder bid 2♦, which was alerted as a WJS, exactly the agreement. Opener now expects a hand with long diamonds with about 6-8 HCPs; Opener than invited a game, knowing that responder had 6-8 HCPs. Responder than inferred that the opening was about 16 HCPs, which could make a game if the ♦ could run; Responder, actually holding 14 HCPs, happily accepted the game invitation. The auction was completely normal, if 2♦ was actually a psych.

[hv=pc=n&w=sakt632hkq876dtc3&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hdp]133|200[/hv] A good pass, or should I bid? I decided to pass due to the vulnerability. If we were vul and they weren't, I would cuebid and then bid 4♠.

What treatments (and/or conventions) which remain commonplace in nowadays duplicate contract bridge have the root from the era of auction bridge?

1. lack of long-term partner due to schooling: The bridge club in our school was in a very high standard when I joined in F.2, always having tables filling more than a classroom in the meetings. This was probably due to the then-recent award got in the Rose Bowl (the highest level tournament for secondary schools). After that, the club became smaller and smaller. When I was in F.3, the tables filled near a classroom (there can be at most 7 tables in one classroom); in F.4, there was only 3 to 4 tables left; in F.5, there was usually only 2; in F.6, there was usually only 1, and some meeting had to be cancelled because there were fewer than 4 members present(!) In my last year (F.7), the regular meetings even seemed to be disappeared! The first regular partner (Jason Wong) I got was studying at the same year as me in secondary school, when I was in F.4, but he was knocked out after the HKCEE (HK equivalent of O-levels, discontinued) and failed to get in university after the A-levels due to poor academic results, while I could. The second regular partner (Patrick Cheung) I got was from the school's bridge club when I was in F.6, but when the older members graduated from F.7, the club went dysfunctional with the lack of new members, with only me and him knowing how to play contract bridge. Now, I've already finished my secondary school and is getting into university, in my secondary school, there are now about 3 tables of players, but all of them, except me and Patrick, are new players which have played for less than a year. My current partner is Jacky So, but I'll have to find a new one again when I get into university, since all the older members in our school's club have got into different university. (Although I'm getting into a top uni in HK, it is unpopular in my school even when our school has generally the high academic standards required to get in that uni.) 2. lack of coaching: When I was in F.5, Charlie Lee, who won the Rose Bowl mentioned above and got into the Hong Kong youth team, regularly went back to school for coaching every Saturday. However, I had to participate in other training teams, in my case, the Hong Kong Olympiad of Informatics (HKOI), so I couldn't attend them. Afterwards, as the older members were near their public exams and Charlie was busy in university and his youth team training, the coaching in my school disappeared. 3. Inferior bridge judgement, especially when competing: In yesterday's match, LHO opened 1♠, partner doubled, RHO raised to 2♠, confirming a fit. I held a hand with great ODR, with one ♠ only and ♥AKTxxx, and bid 3♥. LHO then bid 4♠, after both partner and RHO passed, I raised to 5♥, thinking that 4♠ would make, with equal vulnerability, thinking that partner had 4 ♥s and short in ♠ shown by the takeout double. LHO penalised us, and when the dummy lie down, it shocked me. There were only 3 ♥s! (15 HCPs 2=3=4=4), with great defensive strength!, which was not I expecting. Finally, we went down 3, certainly losing lots of IMPs. 4. Frequent overbids and underbids: All overbids are done by me, and all underbids are done by my partner. First, let me talk about my overbids. One of my overbids is already mentioned above, and the following is another: Partner opened 1♥, I raised to 2♥ with 10 HCPs (2♥ in our agreement is 6 to 11 points, while 3♥ is a game-forcing raise), LHO overcalled it with 2♠s, and I balanced with 3♥, thinking we could made with at least 22 HCPs combined, and went down 1 vulnerable. Sometimes, when not vulnerable, I tend to overbid when I think that the opponent's contract can be made, hoping that the opponents don't have enough trumps to double me. But unfortunately, sometimes the opponents double on their defensive power (such as controls and quick tricks), even with trump shortness, and successfully set our contract. Nearly all underbids are done by my partner, which he need to find some strange bids after his underbid. For example, on one hand, he overcalled at the 1-level with 22 HCPs(!) (he actually remembered our agreement that an overcall is 8-17 HCPs), and rebid 2NT, which is undefined in our agreement, when I held rubbish in my hand and was unable to rescue him to the 3-level (no trump fit existed!), and went down in 2NT. Another example of his underbids is that, he failed to raise my 1♥ overcall which shows 5 ♥s to 3♥ in competition, which in our agreement is weak, when he actually had 4 ♥s and nearly no HCPs in his hand, and let the opponents play cheaply. The third example, although the underbid is not done by my partner, his misbid caused me to underbid, and missed a cold game: Partner opened 1♥ in 5-card majors, me, holding 4-card support and 3 cards in all other suits (the "flat" shape) with 8 HCPs, raised to 2♥s. Then partner bid 3♣, alerted as a weak suit game try, and I, holding Kxx in ♣s and xxx in ♠s, denied the game try and stopped in 3♥. I lie down the dummy and watched the play, and discovered that the "weak" suit actually was AQxx, the strongest side suit in his hand! 4♥ was actually an easy game. I don't know what's wrong, but in a match, I found us defending for about 2/3 to 3/4 of the session, and let opponents make game easily because we don't have an 11-card trump fit to compete to the 5-level! (We have agreed that we should compete the the law of total tricks only, and only compete when we don't have defensive strength) 5. Extremely bad NT play: Yesterday, in a 3NT by me, I repetitively counted and counted and couldn't count nine tricks. Then, hopelessly, I tried to establish the dummy's 5-card ♠ suit, hoping to get two more tricks to make the 3NT. But unfortunately, the ♠s split 1-5, and no additional tricks could be taken, and even failed to take a winner (I planned to take that winner after running the ♠ suit, but the ♠ suit failed to run. The suit could be run when it broke 3-3 or 2-4). In the hand record, a way to make 3NT is provided. Moreover, in some 3NT-1, partner told me that I failed to cash a winner. I asked, he told me that 9 was the top card at that time!

I think it shows 5 clubs and 5 spades with game values! If you don't want to go game, you just bid 2♣ in place of 3♣.

You are overloading your 2NT bid and have a BIG hole in your responding structure. Dump this one and replace it with a new one, especially in MP events where partscores are important!

I haven't tried any artificial system yet, but I would like to try the following natural system, apart from my currently used one, in MP events: - No forcing opening. - 1-level opening shows 12+, 3+m / 5+M and is non-forcing - all 2-level or above suit openings are preempts, with our usual strict agreements on the quality - 1NT = 15-17 - 2NT = 22-24 - 3NT = 25-27 - 1/1 and 2/1 are non-forcing and shows 5 of the suit, but a jump shows a game-forcing hand and at least 5 of the suit.

你想要什麼？

A very interesting auction: [hv=sn=baskahya&s=SAKT5HDAJT42C8753&wn=mess1&w=SQJ3HKQJ42D95CJ62&nn=ackie043&n=S98642H8763DCKQT9&en=mikl_plkcc&e=S7HAT95DKQ8763CA4&d=n&v=o&b=369&a=P1DDP1S3DD3NPPDPP4HDRPP4SDPPP&p=CAC3C2C9C4C5CJCKS2S7SAS3SKSQS4D3S5SJS6H5C6CTH9C7CQD6C8H2H3HTSTH4DAD9H6D7DJD5H7DKDQD2HKS8S9D8D4HQH8HADTHJ]480|360[/hv] I opened 1♦, LHO made a "takeout double" and RHO responded 1♠. I felt it unacceptable to play in 1♠, and jumped to 3♦, and attracted a penalty double. Partner pulled it to 3NT, and I was happy to play in it, thinking that partner had some stoppers in ♠. However, LHO again made a penalty double. I realised that LHO's initial takeout double was a strong one (18+ HCPs), and decided to pull it out of fear to 4♥, hoping to find a 4-4 fit in ♥s. LHO made a penalty double again (the 4th double!), and partner, realising that we had found our fit, put a redouble directly. I was very happy then because we would probably make the game. But LHO, having a void in ♥s, pull it out of fear to 4♠ and partner finally put our penalty double. The deal went down one, but others got 10 or 11 tricks. DD result also showed that 4SX made. That was very interesting. Were there any signs shows that the "mistake" in the declarer was caused by the bidding? Or were any E-W calls not good? (The initial takeout double by South was certainly wrong) Or was this a good example on destructive bidding?