BillPatch

Of the three authorities I cited Marty Bergen, although his opening strength style is currently middle of the road, his preemptive style is eccentricly weaker than EHAA and he retired from active bridge competition about eight years ago when his regular partner Larry Cohen decide to try another partner. So he's not going to be an old, bold, active bridge player.

I was trained as an engineer and my calculations in my previous post indicates that approx. 55% of time we will go plus if I open 1♠ even if system dictates a pass if partner doesn't raise. See previous post in this thread. On the other hand we have good intermediates, and 2 1/2 quick tricks, above average for a minimum opening bid in first position. Marty Bergen rates the hand an opening according to the rule of 20 after adding 1 point for the two tens in 3 card or longer suits with higher honors. Kaplan rated it a 13.10 on his Kaplan and Rubens points, the equivalent of about 14 goren points. Since it has 1/2 quick trick more than the minimum 2 QT he might upgrade this one point to the minimum 14 required for one of a minor in KS. I don't think it's worth another point upgrade for the spade suit because the spade suit is horrid. According to Ron Klinger even without the good intermediates this is an opening bid--at equal vulnerability he opens according to the rule of 21 1/2 with 10 hcp + 9 cards in two longest suits + 2 1/2 QTs. According to modern styles these authorities are not light openers. Marty Bergen probably opens about 1/10 of a point below traditional BWS standards, Klinger .6 point. By the way I play Walsh so if partner responds 1♦ he promises either reversing values or no biddable 4 card major. My rebid of one spade promises an unbalanced hand with at least 5 clubs. If we are unlucky partner will have a balanced hand with 11 hcp and a ♥ stopper and jump to 2NT, if he has 12 HCPs it is less likely we are too high at 2NT. Similarly if he rebids one NT with 8 or 9 hcp we are slightly outgunned, only if he has 10 hcp do we have the strength advantage 20-20 hcp but we have at least 3 connected tens in longish suits. If partner responds 1♥ with partner's expected value of 10 hcp and our 10 hcp and the majority of the trumps and 95% chance of a ruffing trick in the short hand we have a very good chance of a plus score if they leave us in that contract, even if we end up in a 4-3 fit at this level. Even if we miss 4-4 spades we will still beat pass out if we're plus. If they intervene with a TO double we can explore the spade fit at the one level. More likely they will balance in diamonds, to which we will raise to 2♥ which is still likely plus, If they go to three diamonds responder will look at his lengths and values in the red suits and be able to make an informed decision based on opener's first round pass. The extra 1/2 quick trick should compensate for the diamond shortness in opener. If partner responds 1♠ we can again pass if they fail to interfere, with even higher assurance of a plus score. By the law of total tricks we are legal to at least the 2 level if responder has 4, unless there are extra trumps, we again can defend at the three level, with high chance of a plus score. If partner responds 1NT we know he lacks a biddable major suit and presumably lacks 5 card minor, thus a 99% chance of an 8 card club fit. Opener's rebid of 2 clubs is automatic. Responder again is captain, although if they try spades opener can suggest a penalty double at the 2 level. If responder shows LR strength, no biddable majors, and 4 clubs by a 2♣ raise and they fail to compete we have reached a good part score with a low chance of game and again will pass. We have at least a 9 card fit so we should tend to bid to the three level and defend at the three level if they overcall the level. A penalty double at the three level is very possible. If responder makes a weak jump raise, we can hope to make it. Despite the 10 trump if they interfere it may be best to defend. If responder makes a 2NT response it is probably best to retreat to the implied club fit. Opening in first or second seat with such an unbalanced hand raises more complex issues. Since we have minimum values for NT we again maybe understrength if he raises in NT, and again if he has a minimum we may be slightly an underdog. Since a possible pass out is unlikely on the duplicated boards, an absolute plus or minus doesn't matter, just the relative scores. Since we must respect the forces if responder is unlimited there is a much better chance we will get too high when responder has a limit NT response or rebid, we have slightly more than a minimum if we find an 8 card fit in spades, hearts, or clubs. Our singleton means that we have a probable game if partner also has a 7 losing trick count. Unless partner has three spade honors, the spade game will not usually make if spades do not split 3-2 if we have exactly a 4-4 fit. Another way of winning is if the defending bidders play in NT. Opening leader will know that opener's better minor is probably clubs, and that he probably has no 5 card suit other than clubs. This will often stop a opening diamond lead, and provide key info for later in the defense when dummy is visible.

More seriously, since there are 31 HCP out, so dealer should have enough points to overcall with a passed hand if he has a biddable five card red suit, and with my shortness and weakness in both red suits he should act about half of the time. So, with 7 spades outstanding, I expect we will have 3+ support about 34% of the time and expect to usually make 9 tricks, often playing in two after a single raise or Drury. Another 33% of the time, dealer will intervene, usually with an overcall, and we rate to have 8 tricks in our suit because we will usually have the 6-2 fit in the boss suit. I expect that we will have a plus score at least 90% of the 34% when partner has support, plus 65% of the time RHO enters the bidding, and 55% of the 2% when 3rd hand intervenes over partner's 1NT response. Since partner rates to have on average 10-11 points if RHO passes, I expect partner to make 1NT or two of a red suit 10% of the time for the remaining 30%. Since calculating the sum we are plus slightly over 56%, so 1♠ is percentage over pass out. Sometimes in the 30% of the time partner plays the contract he will listen to the logic in the post mortem. Other times we will recover on the other boards, and partner tends to forget my cruelty on this board. Otherwise, maybe I can find a stranger at the partnership desk.

I am hoping very hard that partner can raise, or LHO will intervene; because, heaven help me, I will pass 1NT. There, report me to the Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Partners. You can see why I frequent the partnership desk, and it's lonely.

I would open the first hand 1♠, I prefer to promise more for the fourth hand weak 2, and if a misfit 1 is high enough. Also, it meets the rule of 15, and like Edgar Kaplan, I like to play them. So, before he got this dummy, did my partner. The second hand is a 1♣, WTP?, in all seats.

I agree that it's right to pass 5♥, partner could bid with less with a higher Offense Defense Ratio, and might have found a bid others would not find, in which case bidding the slam would gain few imps or MPs.

A good reason for those lower ranked Life Masters in the less urbanized areas of the country to go to Nationals to play Regionals; to find suitable partners at partnership desk. For example: playing in the Detroit Regional I have about 500 MP. Only available matchup 20MP. Played in bottom 0-1000 MP strata of the only pair game for which we qualified. Only lower pair game was for NLM. Was there for week, partnership desk was able to find partners only by long distance, one partner was from Sarnia, Ontario, over 30 miles away. Eventually I only missed 1/2 day that week. Partnership desks at Regionals in here in Ohio are not much better. But at NABCs the odds are much better at finding partners: even in the eastern Great Lakes. By the way Columbus, Ohio is having a NABC in the near future probably in 2017. I will be at the partnership desk. By the way, before I moved to the Columbus Unit and before I was a Life Master the Columbus partnership desk matched for one session with the noted expert now living in Florida Mr. Rajahasami(sp). Since then he qualified in the US Team Trials for the Bermuda Bowl, but there his team placed second. He had me keep score. Big mistake! We won a telephone number on defense, and I scored it on the wrong side. Only because he reviewed the scores did we win a section top. I understand that a Florida tourney has topped that by pairing Garozzo. But I bet he got at least a Life Master.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I will write more here in this forum in the future, and try to keep the discussion shorter and more open-ended to attract more replies.

I am considering writing a review on new ideas on Takeout Doubles in Mike Lawrence's various writings. Since this covers more than one work, I should either split the post into separate threads or make the post under "General Bridge Discussions."

Yes, BBO has a serious problem with theblarge number of lesser world class players describing themselves as intermediates.

Normally I would tend to avoid upgrading 2nd position over a weak 2, because the 15-18 range for 2NT already large enough. But the actual AKx in opps suit is a better stopper than AK, and one of the two tens is well placed with a higher honor in a five card suit. (While the AKx is not a plus for a suit contract, if partner does have a hand to consider playing ♥, the most likely suit contract, 2NT certainly does not overstate the hand for that contract. I prefer 2NT to 3C, and 3C to pass.

I don't see the ambiguity. responder's 3♦ was unlikely to improve TO doubler's hand into a game try. If he wanted to make a game try he had a clear 3♥ bid for that purpose. I see no reason to override the presumption that any double by a natural NT bidder is penalty.

Ran a simulation of 20 as an imp match on Jack. Subsequent bidding and opening leads by Jack, remainder of play Double Dummy. The 5♥ overcall won by 105-25, an average win of 4 imps per board. Jack did not select the overcall, which should be no surprise. Assumed methods on bot sides BWS2001. Some stats: pass over 4 ♠ always ended auction, and 4♠ made 75%. The overcaller played in 5♥ 25%, 5♥ doubled 10%, 6♥ 5%. The preemptors took insurance against 6♥ 20% (probably phantom in each case). In the remaining hands the contract was 5♠ or 5♠ doubled. Edit: Did not see partner's hand given before running sim.

Without discussion partner might consider 4 of a minor a fragment, or even natural, but I think this 6-5 with longer spades is more useful, even if rarer.

While I like 5♥ surely I would consider the type of scoring, state of the match, skill level of opponents, and their preempting style before I could commit to avoiding a timely pass. At a minimum, matchpoints or other, and pairs or teams should be specified on these questions. if the opponents were vulnerable I would be willing to trust the surety of their game and commit to 5 ♥.

Other than the initial subminimum opener I agree with the first 5 calls made by our four contestants. If the defenders are unfamiliar with Lawrence's new treatment of the cue bid rebid by the TO doubler primarily to cover this intermediate three card raise predominantly in addition to the real strong hands I prefer either a 3 heart raise or a 2 heart raise. (The lack of the forth trump makes the underbid more palatable.) The explanation that makes the most sense for responder's rebids in partner's suit is that in their system opens 1 club on all balanced hands without five of a suit. Otherwise, responder needs bridge lessons. I think advancer should probably rebid 4♥ rather than 2. My second choice here is 3♥ (limit). (I think a 3♦ cue unambiguously shows the 5 card heart choice of games(except of course a 2♠ reverse would offer the choice of spades, which I am not offering.) (Perhaps I am overcomplicating this.) Opener's subsequent passes are sound. The initial TO Doubler probably should have raised next to support with support even with his minimum NT rebid. After responder's 3♦ advancer surely should have rebid 4♥. 3♥ is a distant second choice. The actual pass causes me to shudder. The final penalty double could only have been caused because the doubler was attempting to double the man and the doubler knows how poorly the opponents bid. A good bridge maxim, but if he looked at his cards he should have realized that if he had reevaluted his hand according to the bidding, another bridge maxim, he had a minimum hand for defending, poor trump, and a good fit for partner he had not shown. 3♥ is the indicated rebid here. Finally advancer should the opportunity to remove the penalty double. From the joy of the poster at achieving a 30 points better result from the penalty double, I deduce the game was matchpoints, in the novice room, and it was Miss Scarlet with the candlestick. In the future please indicate the scoring conditions. Some of us like to know what sort of game we're kibitzing.

That is one principle In Kantar's evolving series on KCB. Last edition, Roman Key Card: the Final Word: Another principle was that a partnership should adopt it in stages: 1. 4NT and direct responses to it and subsequent 5NT, 2. trump queen ask, 3. Other asks rebid after using 4NT. Further steps were used for various lower asks with minor suit agreement, and higher asks when asker shows a void(Voidwood). I am quite familiar with the first 3, and KC Voidwood, which occur in the Bridge World "Master Solvers Club", with the older 0314 responses. in the system Bridge World Standard. As you noted Kantar uses dual responses where the partnership assigns a strong man and a weak man in choosing responses to the non-Voidwood Key Card Asks. The strong man(usually the opening bidder)uses 1430, the weak hand uses 0314. Voidwood uses 0314. Kantar presents a complicated set of agreements to set the key card ask when a minor suit is agreed: sometimes 4 of the minor, sometimes 4 of the other minor, and other times 4N. The reviewer at Bridge World stated that this was as complex as Kickback.

I agree with Z, minor suit overcalls with severely limited Unassuming Cue Bids seem to make bidding stronger responding hands awkward. Over a major overcall 2NT is available for the stronger raises, which frees the jump cue and jump raises for weaker unbalanced hands. The lowest bid available over a minor overcall under Jinksey's methods for a LR is a jump cue bid. For the three level to be playable a one diamond overcall must be approximately a full opener, and two level overcall's a K higher. While I am from non-acol ACBL land, I doubt these methods are suitable in any flavor of acol. Even with the methods I am familiar with I greatly prefer double or one NT over the minor suit overcall for the ease in finding 5-3 major fits. Bird in his new work on matchpoints notes that that scoring tends to favor NT over 5-3 major fits, but with only a single stopper in opener's suit and its high card points in control cards the double is slightly superior 1NT because this hand screams suit play. Because it discourages major suit exploration and I am unsure how the system works after the 1♦ overcall, it is a weak third choice.

1♣ is systemic in BWS, which plays inverted minors without crisscross promising 4 card support. This finds any more minor suit slams on non-pancake hands, and at least 95% of the time pancake hands play better at NT above the partscore level opposite a hand with an ordinary distribution such as this dummy. As noted above, at least 1♣ may impede the club lead. If your intermediate or intermediate+ raises in diamonds typically deliver 5 card support the 1♦ opener works better on average, particularly when not playing MPs, where the penalty for playing in the lower scoring minor is usually severe when both contracts make at the same level. Mike777's suggestions seem to work well for the 3 level limit raises. Similar bidding one level lower works with the intermediate+ single raise, and you can return to 3NT after investigating the other contracts which might be optimal at imps if responder were to have one more club,

I agree that West call deserves 100% blame. But East call is worse. Bidding a grand slam when partner has promised zero support. 110% blame!

Agree with everything but that last sentence. With any rational partner E should make a penalty double. But maybe E has seen similar bids from this partner before?

Two other possibilities: partner can't see all the hearts and needs an optometrist, or partner went to Harvard and cannot count. Comment in Cambridge, Mass. when a student goes to the 10 items or less aisle with too many items: "Do you go to Harvard and can't count, or MIT, and can't read?" PS: I went to Obama's other Ivy League school.

PS: I saw the first hand before I answered the second.

South's problem 2NT intending to cue bid the spade void if partner makes a weak pref. Sure, we will often end up in wrong minor. After making this choice, I peek and see that opposite this advancer we end up in a good club slam. I actually chose it without peaking! North's problem: pass: WTP? I can't guess a possible missbid here. Actually, my partner has seen my unusuals at this vulnerability, might end up in game. Still, a NV game swing for us!

While S has 11 HCP, the upper range of 8-11 HCP that the direct 3♥ promises according to Lawrence, S also has a singleton and a good 5 card side suit so an upgrade is in order demanding the heart game if partner has the very common minimum TO with 4 hearts. As noted in my second post, Lawrence recommends the delayed cue after lebensohl to show this S hand type. (gf with 4 hearts) With either distributional feature I would game force with this 11 hcp. With both I would gf with 10.