olegeorge

Yes - one can do that - it is however ridiculous to need to stay - twiddling one's thumbs for 20+ minutes - to avoid missing out on a tournament or regular paid game one is registered for. This morning there was a delay - and a tournament started 25 minutes late- while waiting minute by minute- it required me to click that I was still there. That's not the norm - but one should be able to be in a "rest" state or similar - where one isn't logged out - when signed up for a paid game or tournament.

Could someone point me to one or more references of the convention - where (usually) after 1430 response - one bids the unbid major to get partner to put us in a final contract of 5NT? Example: 1S + 2C + 2D + 2S + 4N + 5C + 5H + 5N + pass - 5H bidder can't bid 5NT -would be asking about Kings and forcing I want URL's to links that discuss this - please!?

I commonly play daily ACBL games that start at 10:00 a.m. and/or 5:10 p.m. (Eastern Time). Generally one must log on about 20+ minutes before the start time to ensure that one can get online. One CAN NOT - go to kibbitz then - else one will be dumped from the game. One can NOT do anything within BridgeBase - at least that I would want to do, while waiting to play. Because of this, I tend to do other things in other software, while waiting for the game to start. I try to check back about every 5 minutes to "do something" so I don't get logged out and need to log in again. I still get logged out at least once a week. It would seem logical - that when one logs on AND have paid for a game that is starting within 20-25 minutes, one should be able to do something - click on something - to tell BBO - that one is waiting to play in the upcoming game and SHOULD NOT be logged off. One should not have to deal with getting logged off as an issue - when one logs on to play in a tournament. Alternate solutions to this, I can not see, but would be open to. Thanks!

A pretty good player at our club has an addition he has to 2/1 - where in response to a 1♣ opening bid one (artificially) responds 1 ♦ with any 12+ point hand. Thus, any other response to a 1♣ bid shows less than 12 points. His explanation of the basics is at: www.dodofox.com . Without debating all his specifics of how to handle various bidding situations after the 1♣ bid, I'm curious as to what weaknesses (if any) one can see in this??? (Obviously, one can't show a diamond suit - at the 1 level!) I've not played this, but it seems to me to have potential. Any time the bidding goes: 1♣ + 1♦ - opponents need to be careful in making overcalls - as the opponents both are aware that they should have 24+ points between them. Thanks!

3♣ - Double - 3♠ - Pass 4♣ - Pass - ?? Does a 4 ♥ bid here show: 1.) The Ace of ♥ or 2.) The Ace or King of ♥ ? Other advice on the bidding - see below: ♠: AKQxxx, ♥ A987xx ♦: - Void, ♣: AK with partner: ♠: Jxxxx, ♥Kx, ♦: Jxxx, ♣:Qx Bidding went: 3♣ - Double - Pass - 3 ♠ Pass - 4♣ - Pass - 4 ♠ How should it have gone ? Thanks!

Peter Facinelli - p.8, March, 2011 - Bridge Bulletin - references responses to 2NT opening bids where: 2NT + 3♠ which requires opener to rebid 3NT - is used for: 1.) To play hands in 3NT, 2.) To show single suited hands with slam interest in ♣ / ♦ - 2NT + 3♠ + 3NT + 4♣ /4♦ and 3.) To show slam interest with both minor suits - bidding similar to 2.) above (over the 3NT bid) 4♥ / ♠ - shows a singleton in the suit bid and 5/5 in the minors. Can anyone explain - the bidding in this method - related to: 2NT + 3NT ??- Facinelli states: "With five spades and four hearts and game values we bid 3NT over 2NT..." It's not clear to me if the 3NT bid is reserved for this single situation - which would I guess allow one to have a bidding sequence such as - 2NT + 3♦ + 3♥ + 3♠ - if desired and agreed upon - to show 5/4 in hearts/spades - in both cases allowing opening bidder to end up in 3NT - with both 5/4 major suit situations when desired. It seems like this set of bids potentially allows responder and opener - to deal with quite a few possible not-so-common, but potentially important situations without giving up anything significant - (with regular transfers, Puppet Stayman and Gerber). Any further explanations beyond this and what Facinelli discussed in the Bridge Bulletin would be most welcome and/or other ideas related to how one could potentially use the 3NT response - which could have other meanings including being forcing (if this sequence is not already forcing). Thanks!

Assume: Matchpoints - common 2/1 - opponents only bid - to a final contract of 2♠ , 3♠ , or 4♠ with a direct bidding sequence that gives you little information about others suits (only other suit bid might be a minor suit opener + 1♠ + further spade bids if opener didn't open 1♠. (This question does not relate to non-standard lead practices, fluke situations, weird exceptions or the like - e.g. "normal") Assume that your hand has: about 5-8 points including: QJx of one minor suit, ♠ = xx, and 4/4 in hearts and the other minor suit. What factors would make you make an opening lead of: 1.) the Queen of the QJ sequence in the minor suit? 2.) a trump? 3.) one of the other 2 suits - and if so how to choose which one? Please assume that the opponents are reasonably normal, experienced players and your own partnership is similar. Thanks!

Sorry - I messed up the original posting. Obviously - after 3 passes the auction would have been passed out - before the final bidder doubled him/herself. Please- re-read it and respond - if you are willing/wanting to. Thanks!

NV vs. V - Matchpoints - Both partnerships playing Basic 2/1 P - 1♥ - P - 1N - P - 2♦ - P -2♥ - P - P - D - P ? 1. What approximate distribution(s) should - bidder believe partner (doubler) is likely to have? 2. What does a 2NT bid mean? 3. Assume that you have: 4-3-3-3 distribution with 4 diamonds - what should you bid ? 4. Assume that a 2NT bid was made and then - double? - what should you (partner of original doubler) bid? : a. Pass? b. Bid 3♣? c. Bid 3♠? 5. Anything else?

Pass, Pass, Pass, and I had: ♠ AKQJ3 ♥ Void ♦A ♣AQJ9853 I opened 2♣ and partner responded 2♦ - waiting only (2♥ would have been negative) How should I have bid the hand - to show my 2 long suits? We were lucky - and got a next to top as follows: 2♣ 2♦ 3♣ 3♥ 6♣ 7 NT - which was cold. The only issues on the hand are - IF NT - partner needs (of course) to have the A♥ and the K♣ One guy said: 2♣, 2♦, 2♠, (whatever), and then 6♣ Thanks!

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=s86543hdkq6caqj103&w=sa107h9652dj8432c8&e=skq92hakqj1087dck2&s=sjh43da10975c97654]399|300|Scoring: MP After S and W pass - how should the bidding progress here in 2/1 ?[/hv]

Watching a BridgeBase game online - the simple acceptance of a Jacoby Transfer of: 1NT + 2♥ + 2♠ - the latter bid showed that the bidder had either at least 3 spades or 2 with a stopper. I'm guessing that 2NT - would have shown 2 spades with no stopper. Can anyone explain this variation of Jacoby please (including how one responds to a 1NT +2♦ +♥ sequence[does 2♠ or NT deny the support or is it more complex]) ? I'd guess that one might well end up in 2NT - when one plays Garbage Transfers and had a combination of hands such as: ♠94, ♥AQ73, ♦KQ82, ♣AJ5 opposite ♠Q8642, ♥42, ♦753, ♣97 with 1NT + 2♥ + 2NT + pass vs. without it 1NT + 2♥ + 2♠ + pass (assuming one chose not to pass 1NT). as well as having similar bidding with the responder having a hand such as: ♠KQ853, ♥8, ♦J53, ♣7642 together with hands where responder might push to game at least either in the transferred to suit or NT It would seem like this variation might be helpful in keeping a partnership out of some shaky games and slams as well as possibly having some downsides - e.g. - if responder has a hand such as: ♠9876543, ♥742, ♦3,♣63 - opener's ♠J2 - would be fine for playing the hand in 2♠, rather than 2NT or 3♠

Below - is a combination of Adam Meyerson's responses to Dan Romm's - writing - and Dan's (personal) response to Adam's statements. I'd be happy to hear Constructive Responses to either one's ideas. I find it Not Helpful to hear ridicule of Dan or his ideas - as opposed to dealing with Specifics in his ideas as Adam did. Thanks! George - Seattle. --------------- Dan Romm - "Tell your panel to wait for the next issue where pros and cons are treated. As for the objections below:" Adam - (1) It becomes very difficult to bid responder's game-forcing two-suiters. For example, if responder is 5-5 in hearts and a minor, regular 2/1 lets you bid 1♠-2♥-2♠/2NT-3m and pattern out. In these methods you will get 1♠-2♣-2♠/2NT-3♥ and you are well behind in showing shape. Dan - (1) This disadvantage, noted in the upcoming issue, is offset by the fact that opener has more room to describe HIS hand. If Opener has a 2-suiter in the other two suits it is not important for responder to "pattern out". He need only bid his major and opener will raise with 3. If opener doesn't raise then it is unnecessary for responder to show his second suit (a minor) since NT is clearly the better spot. Also, many times responder will have MORE room, not less, to describe 2-suiters in my method. Example: opener has 5 S's and 4 or 5 D's. Responder is 5-5 in H's and C's. In 2/1 the auction goes 1S - 2H - 3D (now what? - does responder bid 4C?). In my method it goes 1S - 2C - 2D - 2H - 2NT and responder can bid 3C. (2) Responder cannot show a hand with a fit and a strong side suit. In regular 2/1 this hand type is easy (bid the side suit, then raise opener's major). But in these methods the only game force is 2♣, and you may see an auction starting 1♠-2♣-2♥ where responder must choose to show his fit (losing the strong minor) or show his side suit (but fit will often not be shown until four-level). (2) Irrelevant. If responder has slam aspirations with a strong side suit then HE not opener should become captain of the auction. He will be pleased that opener can usually start further describing his hand at the 2-level rather than the 3-level as in 2/1. Example: In 2/1 the auction goes, say, 1S - 2H - 3D - 3S whereas in my system it goes 1S - 2C - 2D - 2S. If proper Q-bidding methods are employed, my system will prove to be at least as effective as 2/1. (3) You potentially reach some silly contracts when responder is balanced and invitational. For example, suppose that opener has a 5422 hand. The auction starts 1♠-2NT. Does opener bid his hearts? Note that 3♥ is non-forcing, so a hand that's accepting the the invite can't bid it. On the other hand, responder could easily be 2344 or 22(45) shape, so if you bid 3♥ on a minimum or 4♥ on a maximum you end up playing in a seven-card fit at the three or four level for no particular reason. Of course, if you pass or bid 3NT you could miss even a nine card heart fit since 2NT is the response with a 2533 invite (unless the hearts are amazingly strong). None of this is a problem in regular 2/1 where the auction goes 1♠-1NT(F)-2♥ and responder raises with a fit or bids 2NT without. This potentially also causes problems in slam bidding when opener has a big hand and responder is invitational. (3) You are less likely to reach a silly contract that in 2/1. I point out difficulties with 2/1 when the auction goes 1S - 1NT in the upcoming article, so I will focus on the supposed shortcoming of my system mentioned by AWM. If opener is 5422 with a minimum, yes, he merely bids 3H (as said in the article). Many duplicate players are unwisely reluctant to play 4-3 major suit fits and are not experienced with them. When opener is 5422 and responder is 2344 the 4-3 fit is usually the best spot since responder's minor suit holdings should preclude immediate taps and the ability to set up opener's 5 card suit with one or no losers by ruffing in dummy is huge. What to do with 5422 and extras is also covered in the article and is further discussed in the next Bidding Lab. (4) You can no longer distinguish between three and four card limit raises. You also have no "slow raise" of the major with less than constructive values. And being forced to respond 2♣ game forcing on hands with a big fit (no jacoby 2NT) can muddle some auctions especially if opponents interfere (more likely when you have a big fit than otherwise). (4) What is the importance of distinguishing between 3 and 4 card LR's? How often does anyone base the decision on where to play the final contract on this relatively unimportant detail? I presume a "slow raise" means starting with 1NT and then raising. Aside from my introductory remarks at the beginning of this paragraph, isn't it much easier for O's to compete over 1NT than an immediate 3H or 3S (a concern expressed in the next sentence of AWM's (4)). As for competing over 2C, it is much more difficult, not to mention dangerous) to compete at ANY level when responder's shape is completely unknown rather than when he reveals his suit. The danger of competing over 2C (as well as 2NT) is again discussed in the next bidding lab, as is the inferiority of Jacoby 2NT). (5) Invitational two-suiters are simply unbiddable. For example, partner opens 1♠ and you hold a 1255 invite (usually 10-11 points opposite a "normal" opening range). If you jump shift in one of the minors you lose the other minor forever. Neither 2♦ nor 1NT is supposed to show a hand this good (and either could lead to a silly partial). And 2NT could be awful if opener passes it too (or if he bids 3♥ on a minimum 5-4, bleh). In regular 2/1 you can start with 1NT and find any nine-card minor fit that exists, or an eight-card club fit in many circumstances, or bid 2NT over opener's 2♥ rebid. (5) Can one seriously think that 1255 hands can be bid better in 2/1 than in my system? Example, in 2/1 it goes 1S - 1NT - 2H (or 2S). Then what? How does responder show both his suits? On these hands NT is usually the best spot (unless there is a 4-3 heart fit (see above) and in my method you can stop in 2NT. The main win from the approach in this article is the non-forcing 2/1 bids and 1NT. But the issues above are an awfully high price to pay. I don't think it's worth it. If I wanted to make a playable system out of this, I would consider adding a forcing or semi-forcing notrump (solves a lot of the invitational hand problems), using 2NT as a limit raise or better, installing some sort of relay structure after 1M-2♣, and using some of the freed-up 2/1 calls as transfers (for example 1♠-2♦ showing hearts and 1♠-2♥ showing a constructive-to-limit three card spade raise). -------------------- Adam W. Meyerson a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit" I have played 2/1 for more than 40 years (in fact, I had a hand in its original development) and have also been playing my new method for over a year. It has held up admirably and has proven to be better than 2/1 so far (very few "silly contracts" have been reached, As I say in my book, the only way to truly ascertain a method's effectiveness or lack thereof is by putting it to the test. I shared some of AWM's concerns at first, but am now satisfied that the new method (although certainly not perfect) is superior to 2/1. P,s,. I am happy to respond to your questions or any of the panel's (feel free to give them my Email). Feedback is gratefully received, and I am sure to get some excellent ideas on how to improve the system. (Dan Romm <rommbus@hotmail.com>) All of what is above besides the opening - is statements you've made (Adam Meyerson) or that Dan Romm has made - in response. I think that the dialogue is helpful (at least for me.)

I'm curious of reactions anyone may have to Dan Romm's "The Best of Both Worlds - Part I" - column from the September, 2009 Bridge Bulletin. Briefly summarizing the beginning of what Dan talked of in a modified 2/1 relating to response to a first/second seat 1♥/♠ opening bid: 1.) Besides Splinter bids 2♣ is the only (it's artificial) game force bid, 2.) 1NT and non-jump 2 level responses-natural, non-forcing, -10 pts - usually less than 3 card support in openers suit 3.) 2NT = 10/11 pts (could have 5 card major) - usually with less than 3 card support in openers suit 4.) JS = invitational bid with an excellent 5 card or a 6 card suit and fewer than 3 card support in openers suit 5.) Simple raises and limit raises (may have 3 card support) - unchanged from standard bidding. 6.) 1♠ over 1♥ is natural, non-forcing with fewer than 10 pts or 10-11 pts with a 4 card suit (use 4.above with 10-11 pts and 5 card suit) In private correspondence Dan indicated to me that a suit like: KQxxx is Not strong enough for a JS (2NT response generally with an invitational response hand) One would need to read Dan's full writing - to get to rebids, etc. Amongst those who've read the article, could you please tell me what advantages and disadvantages you see with such modifications???? My sense is that his ideas may work very well at allowing 1NT and 2NT contracts with misfit hands opened in major suits and that responder's - 2/1 response (e.g. 2♣,♦,♥ (over 1♠) - with the possible exception of the latter - H over S response - don't generally give that much info - e.g. a 2♦ response over 1♠ - while denying a Jacoby 2NT response, otherwise says relatively little about one's distribution and diamond strength. Obviously - there are weaknesses which I'm not fully seeing now. Reactions ??????

One of my weak points is choosing to lead or not lead a trump in a suit contract. Assuming that partner hasn't bid a suit and one doesn't have a holding like: Kx in the trump suit I've been taught not to lead a singleton trump, but is that always a good idea? (when it looks like a 4/4/4/1 trump split for example?) Guessing at: 5/4, 5/3, 4/4 fits - is this helpful and if so how? 1S + 2S + all pass - good? 1C + 1S + 2S + all pass - good? 1S + 2S + 3C + 4S? 1S + 2NT + (3NT or not) + 4S ? When declarer appears to be: 5/5 or 5/4 - in 2 suits? Are 5/4 fits (e.g. Jacoby 2NT responses for example) a good time not to lead trump? It seems obvious to me that hands with a ruffing trick in dummy or dummy reversals are often good for trump leads, but how does one pick that up from the bidding? Ax or Axx - in trump - good leading the Ace and a small spade - when or when not? One online source says don't from Axx - why? Any and all suggestions are most welcome. While I'm no "expert" - I'm not a novice and play 2/1 normally.

Reviewing the Montreal Relay System I have one question with its rules. I see no reason why responder need bid 1♦ in response to 1♣ when a better bid might be in NT or 2♣ (inverted minors) - both denying a 4 card major. My sense is that a most problematic situation with this type of system would be where one has a 4/4 major suit fit - and the opponent after the 1♦ response might overcall 2♥/♠ making it unnecessarily awkward to differentiate between 4/4 major suit fits with other situations where one might have even a 4/2 fit. (From the excellent questions above) 1. Is a diamond "rebid" (1♣-P-1♦-P-1NT-P-2♦) a "new suit" and thus forcing or is it a weak call, as if it were a true rebid? (Should be the latter, IMO, because the rebid "proves" the first bid as actually based on a real suit. Treat diamond rebids as if the first diamond bid was natural.) * What you say makes perfect sense. 2. Does 1NT directly show something different than 1♦...1NT? Or, does a 1♦...1NT say something about the "other major?" For example, 1♣-P-1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT? I prefer that range be the key, whether 1NT directly shows 8-10 and a delayed implies less, or, I liked a mini-1NT at one point, where 1♣-P-1NT showed 2-5 HCP (the more vulnerable, the more minor shape required). * I'd suggest that one's preference be to bid 1NT where possible to make clear the lack of a potential 4/4 major suit fit. I would think that this would make it easier for opener to avoid problems similar to what I alluded to above. Your ideas are also worth considering. 3. What do you play if 1♣-P-1♦-interference? The usual "solution" is to have Opener use "negative doubles" sort of "as if" Opener were responding to a 1♦ opening. For example, after 1♣-P-1♦-1♠, Opener would double to show hearts. * I agree - the problem as alluded to above (before your statements/questions) is when the overcall is particularly 2♠ If you start using MR, a common theme is to then use a "real diamonds" opening (5+, or 4+ but unbalanced, or just promising 4-card) because you "want" to open 1♣ a lot more. You then may want a 2♦ rebid to sometimes be canape. Strange, but I have played that you open 1♣ with 5332 and five diamonds if you would have opened a weak 1NT (1♦ promises unbalanced). In that event, a sequence like 1♣-P-1NT-P-2♦ typically shows just that hand and is not a reverse. * I prefer in "normal" play to have 1♦ openers - promise 4 diamonds except for with 4-4-3-2 distribution. It would seem to make sense here - for the latter situation to be a 1♣ opener. In general - it seems to me to not be necessary to bid reverses (1♣ with 2♦ rebids - except to show things like 1-2-4-6 distribution with strength, so that 1♦ - can be opened with distributions such as: 2-2-5-4, while one might choose to open 1♣ with most: 3-3-4-3 hands to seek the 3/5 fit before moving towards NT. More feedback would be most welcome!

Can any of you explain big weaknesses in making a 1D response to a 1C opener - being a denial of a 5+ card major suit (could be short in diamonds) as in: 1C + 1D - with: ♠-KQxx, ♥-Qxx, ♦-Jxx, ♣-xxx vs 1C + 1S - with: ♠-KQxxx, ♥-Qxx ♦-Jxx, ♣♣-xx It seems misleading with a hand with: 4-4-1-4 distribution, where one might need to respond 1D - with a singleton, particularly where opener was going to do a reverse (1C, rebid 2D) - though - one could still do that: 1C + 1D + 2D - to show a reverse. Rarely one might end up with a 1/2/3 NT contract - with a weird distribution combo such as: 3-3-2-5 (1C opener) with: 4-4-1-4 (1D response) - 1/2/3 NT rebid - showing no 4 card major, however without the 1 diamond bid in S/A or 2/1 - the bidding would then go: 1C + 1H + 1/2/3NT most likely ending up in the same difficult situation. With situations where one had 4,5,6, or 7 diamonds - one's rebid - would clarify - diamond and major suit status - NT rebids with 4-5 diamonds and sometimes rebidding diamonds with 6-7 of them. With interference from the opponents nothing really ends up that different from more traditional bidding as it would get more difficult to show length - though often a negative double might show 4 cards vs. a 1S or 2H bid - would show 5 in the major suit. I've never heard of anyone playing anything like this, but wonder - if it makes sense?? Feedback would be most welcome!