BillPatch

Alan Truscott frequently referred to the Anti-Lemming bid, in the NY Times,in the ACBL Encyclopedia, and in other print.

Going high. 4♥ then 5♦. Seven five, come alive.

I also vote for the correct criminal 1 NT rather than the weak jump shift. Although I note that Rubens once commented in the Bridge World that one be good to design as system where the three level weak jump shift was defined as a sub-invitational rather than the really weak hand.

Agreed, a cue shows support. One doesn't start searching for a new suit at the five level, especially with a passed hand. Over a preempt with less than 5 losers and partner had not bid might be an exception to this rule, but this is nowhere near that case. I bid 5♥, the only bid suit and the only possible trump suit.

Actually the first error was raising your partner's 2 ♥ minimum freebid answer to your takeout double. In Standard bidding all raises below game are invitational, here that would show 18-19 support points and at least 4 card support. Your 3 hearts was a considerable overbid.

After that 3♣ opening North-South will often overbid to 6♠, making when East fails to cash the A of ♦ at trick one. Left to their own devices NS will usually stop at 5. Without the overcall if East leads he will often set a slam by cashing the A at matchpoints to avoid overtrick. That is anti-percentage at IMPs so it will normally make there from either side. West will probably lead a safe ♣.

Two more reasons to eschew Stayman to search for a heart contract with responder's hand(Qx xxxx Kxx KQxx) are the relatve unattractiveness of the excess of queens, and the lack of honors in the prospective trump suit. An honorless trump suit increases the danger of a bad trump suit because you can only finesse one way or the opponent's high trumps are winners. Also, Stayman gives the defense more knowledge of opener's hand whether we play in a suit or NT, aiding the opening lead and later defense. Personally, besides preferring NT, I also would prefer to only invite with this hand rather than raise to 3 NT. But I assume my 2NT response is used for something else, so the NT invite is only available with Stayman. I choose to raise to 3 NT directly, so I, too, get to the wromg contract and go down..

More experts use the Pearson Rule, which is the same except requires 15. (also known as the casino count, or the rule of 15.) But as my good friend Edgar noted in his magazine, "It is more fun to play them."

Good rules for MP, and NV at IMPs. Vulnerable at IMPs you want to force to game with almost all 9 HCP hands, and invite with even poor 8's.. As noted by Richard Pavlicek in www.rpavlicek.net(look in index for Odds and Probability, that subindex for Optimal IMP Strategy), Vulnerable at IMPs, If NT is right, It is better to bid game with a total of 24 HCPs if you are already above one, and always bid game with 25. With the NT openers, accept a NT invite with most of the same hands(all 16s and 17s, and most good 15s). Upgrade just slightly fewer 15s(about .1 points more strength required).

Playing ACOL I would rebid 2♣ over a 1NT response. In ACOL I would not have shown 5 spades minimum until my rebid which would also show at least 4 clubs. Unless we had found an 8 card fit in spades partner would probably in a 4-4 club fit by passing or more rarely raising. Failing that partner would likely bid a five card or longer red suit. Only if the distribution is exactly 2=4=4=3 will responder usually preference back from the assumed seven card club fit to the assumed seven card 5-2 fit. Since the 1 NT response would promise 6 to 9 HCP points and the opponents not commonly 12, usually no more than 11 HCP, the 1 NT bidder usually has 9 or 8 HCP. I NT with 18 or 19 HCP is rarely a plus score. An 8 card fit improves the odds of success. In a 5 card major system which utilizes the forcing or semi-forcing NT response to an unpassed major it would be unwise to disturb the 1 NT response. Almost half of the responses are in the ten to 12 point range. with 21 to 23 HCP the declaring side will win a majority of their 1 NT contracts. Since five card mars are assumed, standard 2 over 1 systems automatically raise a major immediately with 3 or more card support, so you will have already found all your spade fits. In addition the 2 ♣ rebid only shows 3 or more(rarely 2), and it is common to bid 2 clubs with an intermediate range 6 card suit playable with 2 but not a singleton, responder will usually give a false preference with 2 cards in spades, raise to 2 NT with many other balanced hands with 2 card in spades, and only raise clubs with a 4 card support with a singleton or void in spades, and five + club support unsuitable for a 2NT rebid. Also responder will usually bid their highest 5 card red suit, usually in hearts for a 6 card fit. So the 2 club rebid only improves the contract on about half of the hands without 2 cards in spades, and 90 percent of the more common 2 card spade fits play in the 5-2 spade semi-fit with that dreadful spade suit, a 5-1 heart fit, or contract for 2NT. A 2♣ rebid usually results in a worse contract in 2/1 over 75 % of the time a opposed to passing the 1NT response.

Kaplan and Sheinwold would never systematically open this hand non-vulnerable. Vulnerable they would not open a weak NT with 12 points unless it had 2 & 1/2 or more quick tricks. They were a great partnership, until Betty left her husband Sheinwold to marry Edgar Kaplan. 11.6 points according to Kaplan(KnR points).

Thinking of balancing over 1♣ with diamonds reminds me of the story in his book on balancing reported that he had balanced with an intermediate 2♦ overcall(minimum opening bid strength with a good 6+ card suit), the opponents found their major fit, bid slam, made 7, and debated in the post mortem who was responsible for not bidding the grand. While the spade ace in this hand is probably good enough to set a grand, an opposing slam is possible, an opposing game is only slightly rare, a switch from a losing part score contract to a better result common, and also your partner may overbid. I would pass. Incidentally, Lawrence's jump overcall was quite proper.

At Imps I'll take the Probable +300at IMPS. Assuming that we are playing standard lebensohl (direct denies), I'll show the stopper for 3NT by bidding 2NT first. By the way, the scrambling 2NT is quite different than lebensohl, so I am unsure about what we are supposed to have agreed upon reading the 2NT part of the question.

If you were sure that partner knew that you were playing 3♦ as a Soloway or a K-S jump shift, that would help the partnership clarify the bidding. GIB has dropped the Soloway jump shift at the 3 level. I assume this reflects a change in BBO Standard made because it had dropped in popularity among the 2/1 bridge community.

Wouldn't a hand with ♠QJxxx and ♦AJx and the same cards in the other suits have the same 14 total points and thus qualify as a likely hand meeting the GIB criteria? So if the spade ace often would not cash the less frequent diamond ace would be the better choice for an entry target according to GIB. Incidentally, I would never make a takeout double at the one level with a 5 card spade suit containing more than 2 HCP. Lawrence in The Complete Book on Takeout Doubles explains this treatment, which I believe is standard among better players in the ACBL. So, if you cannot read the takeout doubler's signal, the spade is clearly the better choice.

I imagine that GIB sees that the honest count lead has a reasonable probability of setting 4 ♠ , but false cards, against 3 ♠, either because it might produce an extra trick to set 3 ♠/

If all lines of defense are useless, GIB gives up. So the miss-definition is fatal. If you were aware of the miss-definition from the description, you should have taken your A of before returning for the setting ruff.

With rebiddable clubs, and non-rebiddable hearts, I would try 5♣. If partner cannot tolerate clubs, I will then be able to trust his choice or red suits.

Double promises about 5 more HCPs, and only 3+ spades. Risks a double vulnerable game swing + 170 for double. Assuming competent opponents, I would expect an opening bid with more finesse if they had this strength and less than a 7+ ♥ suit. I would risk the 4♠ overcall.

A human player would also be able to understand, that since 9-12 hearts are out, and opener presumably has 2 quick tricks, that bidding 1 ♦ now and 5 ♥ on the next round is natural suggesting playing at 5 or more hearts rather than exclusion or a cue bid forcing to 6♦. Why would the opponents fail to bid a 5 card suit at one level, if they had it? Why would I start with a non-forcing bid and then force to slam? By bridge logic, we do not have enough to force to slam or 5NT, and the only logical place we could play below slam is our major suit. Also, since we bid diamonds and hearts, any K in those suits will give a play for slam, and also the diamond Q with adequate trump support for either suit.

Isn't 7♥ cold if opener has both the two aces and any two kings. (Even though opener would not show the singleton K of ♠)

GIB 2/1 regularly gives false preference back to the first suit in certain auctions. Your first sequence is of the form 1 of major-forcing, semi-forcing, or passed hand 1 NT response-2 of minor opener's rebid. On this sequence all forms of 2/1 I have read use the false preference back to the major with a doubleton with a minimum response. This allows opener with an intermediate opener with a 6 card major which will not play well opposite a singleton offer the choice of the minor if there is no 8 card major fit. In the diagramed hand GIB correctly gave a false preference according to its system. The alert of the 4 ♣ bid was misleading. While only a 5=0=4=4 technically meets the criteria for the bid, GIB will bid a 5=0=5=3 the same way up to that point. As the 5-5 hand does not meet any defined criteria it simulates the results of bids that that have criteria with a one card different and simulates those against a pass. On the next round the defined criteria for the 4 ♦ bid checks back for a 5-3 fit. If you check back on the alert for your 5 ♦ bid it has a 5 card ♦ suit requirement. The correct final bid according to this treatment for your hand was 5 ♣. With a true preference for ♦ GIB would correct the contract to that suit instead of passing.

Over partner's 3♣ you then may rebid 3♥ as originally planned after your TO double.

Their double dummy analysis is more nuanced than that. Only when the bidding clearly favors majors, such as when the auction goes directly to 3 NT without Stayman does one favor the lead from QJxx, JTxx, T9xx, or longer.

Good job Cyber! Another reason for the rarity of fourth best from QJxx Kxxx Jxxxxx - is that Byrd & Anthias correctly would recommend the high ♠ rather than low on this auction.