bd71

Your original question has been hijacked a bit here...hopefully this can return things to the OP. Whether to bid the 4-card major or ♦ is typically defined by your agreed system, so my recommendation is to follow your system (and if you don't know what is says, figure it out and then follow it) so that partner knows what to expect. For the two general systems I'm familiar with: Standard American: Typical approach would be to bid 4+ ♦ holdings first and worry about 4-card ♠ later. However, I believe a lot of partnerships playing SA will still come to a "non-standard" agreement to prefer 4-card majors over 5+ ♦. 2/1: With less than game-forcing strength, standard approach is to prefer the 4-card major over any 4+ ♦ holding. With game-forcing strength, bid 5+ ♦ holdings before a 4-card major. On your third proposed option, I would always leave room to deviate from the system based on your judgement. However, on your examples, if I'm playing 2/1 it's going to take much more than a jack-high 5-card diamond suit for me to bid ♦ before my major.

1. Not sure I understand what partner's options are for showing a ♦ stopper; are you saying that's what a jump to 3♦ should show? Why not just a 2♦ bid? Or would any return to NT by responder be showing a ♦ stopper? 2. I would not have thought that NMF is "on" here, after interference. Is this standard? Regardless of whether it's standard, is it best to play that NMF is on after this typs of interference?

Barely on-topic...but excellent thread title.

I think my questions are completely agnostic to the NT ranges you play. So for you...what do you do with 15-17 and 18-19 balanced hands when this issue comes up (assuming those are typical 1N and 2N rebids for you)?

By omission, are you suggesting that 1S/1N after 1m-1H is NOT alertable? Seems like the explanations you gave would fit perfectly here too. Or am I reading too much between the lines...

This note suggests that there are probably one or several seminal old threads on the value of LOTT... I tried searching but I wasn't able to find any. Can someone more facile in unearthing old posts point me (or others who may be interested) to any threads?

I suspect like most other players, I have treatments I prefer to play even though I don't really have the breadth of experience to be sure that they are best. For me, I have always liked a general rule that opener should rebid some level of NT with a balanced hand, regardless of whether he's bypassing a 4-card suit to do so. (Ususally, this means bypassing spades, but in theory could also be both majors after 1C-1D with a 4423 hand.) I like this treatment because: 1. We instantly know whether opener is balanced or unbalanced. 2. It brings into play asking bids (NMF, checkback) that can help us find a 5-3 fit in hearts, which is harder to do if rebidding 1S. 3. It sometimes results in opponents making the wrong lead. 4. You do not always miss 4-4 spade fits, when partner is strong enough for NMF/Checkback. 5. Sometimes NT is the best place to play even with a spade fit, especially since I primarily play matchpoints. 6. In my (limited) experience, it seems to be working on the whole when I use it. My questions for the experts here are whether they prefer to use this approach?, why/why not?, and whether I'm missing any key reasons to use (or not use) it? This was all prompted by the blog entry below, which I think makes a good case for this treatment when strong enough to rebid 2NT, but which fails to make what seems to me to be the equally strong case to use it when rebidding 1N. http://tommybridgeblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/o-captain-my-captain.html

I think "useless" is an overbid. There is at least some signal amidst the noise. I use this for quick screening of possible pickup partners for Speedball tournaments. I'm basically looking to screen out people with average matchpoint scores below a certain threshold (over what I hope is a decent sample size). I accept that, in theory, I could be erroneously screening out the regular jlall opponents. My suspicion is that these people are pretty rare. I also accept that, in theory, I could be failing to screen out really inexperienced/bad players that play almost exclusively against other really inexperienced/bad players. My suspicion is that someone who plays against worse average competition than BBO generally, which I know and can adjust for, is also pretty rare.

I would double here too (although only at matchpoints). You mention not wanting partner to get carried away; the easy solution is to make sure partner understands that you WILL balance light (and you will expect him to balance light as well), and to account for that in subsequent bidding. If a "rule" will help, tell partner that you are going to borrow a king (3 points) from his hand, so he should downgrade by that much in follow-ups.

For those not aware, the source of this data is... http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/index.php

I do not think this is a good idea. While I agree that it's much better if people have profiles, the worst-case scenario if they don't is that you randomly get paired with someone who doesn't, you play one board with them, and you leave. That is close to, if not quite, cost-free. Weigh that against a new rule and the confusion and controversy that will ensue: many will not be aware of the rule no matter how well it is publicized, people will disagree over what constitutes a "sufficient" profile to pass muster, the new users we shoudl want to attract will be the most likely violators and may never return to BBO after they've been accused of "breaking the rules", etc., etc. Just doesn't make sense to try to put this type of rule in place. Solution: establish your own rule and don't play with anyone lacking a profile, but don't impose that rule and the resulting chaos on others.

I think this is not the most helpful comparison. Less helpful comparison: Prohibited black market (A) vs. legalized/regulated market (B) More helpful comparison: Legalized/regulated market (B) vs. legalized/unregulated market (C ) Arguing that B>A does not mean that B>C. I'm not taking a position, but since I suspect that most here will agree that A is the worst scenario, the debate should be between B and C.

Playing with an infrequent intermediate partner, and say our agreements aren't any more complex than 2/1 and a few specific conventions discussed. Playing against VERY inexperienced opponents, who don't really know anything beyond very basic Standard American. What do I do if partner makes a non-alertable bid that we have never discussed and I'm asked what it means? Is my correct answer "undiscussed", or do I tell them what I think the (undiscussed) system definition is, risking UI if partner somehow had a different take? Basically, I'm having a hard time reconciling 2 different principles I believe I should be following: 1. If you haven't discussed something with your partner, best way to avoid UI is to say "undiscussed." Corrollary: NEVER tell the opponents how you are "taking" partner's bid. 2. Opponents have a right to know what we know about partner's hand. Bottom line...do the inexperienced opponents ever end up victimized by their lack of awareness of basic bidding? Does your answer matter depending on whether it's a common/simple system detail, a less-common detail where there are some disagreements out there over the best approach, or if it's an esoteric detail? Just some specific examples that occur to me, although I'm most interested in the generic answer: 1. 1H-2D (game-forcing with 5+ diamonds). What do I say if I'm asked what 2D means? 2. 1H-1N-2C-2H (weak responding hand, likely only 2 hearts). What do I say if I'm asked what 2H means? 3. 1S-1N-2C-3S (3-card limit raise). What do I say if I'm asked what 3S means? 4. 1S-1N-2S. What do I say if I'm asked how many spades 2S shows? 5. 1S-2C-2S. What do I say if I'm asked how many spades 2S shows? (Here I think I definitely say undiscussed since different people play 5 or 6.) 6. 1S-2S-3C. (Here you haven't discussed help-suit game tries, but you know that ALL local intermediates play them so you're 100% confident that's what partner is doing.) What do I say if I'm asked what 3C means?

Bermuda 1-USA 2 2-Italy 3/4-USA 1, China 5/8-Bulgaria, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden Venice 1-China 2-USA 1 3/4-USA 2, Germany 5/8-France, Netherlands, Sweden, Egypt Senior 1-USA 1 2-Poland 3/4-Canada, France 5/8-Italy, USA 2, Brazil, Indonesia Virtually random, but gives a rooting interest...

So the timing worked out strange here; I was drafting my response as Ben made his...I promise I wasn't cheating. Having said that, doesn't leading a trump lead to an extra trick for us by preventing a club ruff? (Edited to correct an obvious error.)

I'm actually going to lead a ♠, taking a small risk of costing us a trick in this suit. But I do think the risk is small: partner would need either ♠Q or ♠J, and that means South bid 2♠ with AQxxx(x) or AJxxx(X) with his strength underneath mine. I also think there are two affirmative reasons to lead a ♠: 1. I might need ♦ later as exit cards. 2. We may need to start drawing dummy's trump now to prevent a ♣ ruff if partner has the ♣K. I think it's much more likely partner has K♣ than a ♠ honor.

Yes, good point...I was neglecting the ♦ count signal. So at least I wasn't saying I was convinced that declarer WAS 5341 before, I was just trying to ID a layout where it mattered whether we took A♥ first. Now, considering the ♦ count, I think South is 6331 or 5332. I guess I'm still reluctant to lead ♥A for fear that it gives South an extra discard on the K♥ (assuming he has the ♥Q). Maybe he won't need that discard, but maybe I'm not seeing all options. I have a hard time doing this just on general principles when I can't see clearly why I must do it. So I will admit a potential blind spot and lead a low ♥ right away anyway. Can this hurt? Have to admit that I'm not following all of your possible endplay scenarios, so can't judge whether you are saying it does or doesn't.

I'm worried we might be missing something by leading the A♥ first. I have a very hard time imagining South with less than 3♥ for his re-opening double, so we can give partner a ruff right away. At the same time, I am having a somewhat difficult time constructing a hand where leading the ♥A first hurts. The only thing I'm coming up with is that if South is 5341, he will over-ruff me on the 2nd ♣, and by leading the ♥A first I have given him a way to discard his loser ♦ (assuming he started with AKxx♦). In this case, why didn't he try to ruff a low ♦ in dummy? Maybe he's worried about partner ruffing in on the 3rd trick, forcing the J♠...or even ruffing on the 2nd ♦ trick. So...do I think it more likely that: 1. South made his re-opening X with only 2♥, OR 2. That he is 5341 and decided against ruffing his ♦ loser in dummy. In this scenario, partner also only bid 3♣ with 8 of them...perhaps a bit strange but we are vul. While 2 seems unlikely, I think 1 is LESS likely. So I'm leading a low ♥ right away and hoping we win ♠A, ♠ruff, 2♥, and a ♦.

I guess I see more significant downsides for these psyches than the example, at least for the second example. Let's say I have Kxx KQJxxx x xxx and open 2♥, and you respond 4♠. I might strongly suspect a psyche, but have to act as if partner has a strong game-going hand with excellent spades. After 4♠ and then a X by the opps, if my partner escapes to 5♥, don't I have to correct to 5♠ despite my psyche suspicions?

Have heard the phrase "McCabe" but didn't know details...anyway, assume it is alertable. There was no alert at the table, and I think this opposing pair is upstanding enough that they would have corrected at the end of the hand. I'm confident in saying that this was a psyche.

Easy for you maybe, but neither my partner nor I thought it was penalty in that situation. What general rule or meta-rule would you apply here to tell you this is penalty and not takeout-ish?

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt4hkj875dkqjc2&w=sq98hqt942dcat975&n=sk76ha63da987542c&e=s532hdt63ckqj8643&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=3cd3d]399|300[/hv] I have little experience in dealing with (or making) psyche's, but faced this hand as North recently. A number of questions I'd like to ask from different directions here: 1. I recognize this as perhaps a "perfect psyche" in a number of regards: (a) partner is not likely to go crazy having already described his hand, (b) they have a perfectly safe way to escape if doubled, and © favorable vulnerability. So seems like this psyche is virtually all upside and no downside. Does that sound right to folks, or am I missing something? 2. Are there many other types of psyche's that are similarly perfect with such little downside risk? I now have this type labeled in my mind as "Big fit for partners pre-empt suit, void where opps will have game/slam, psyche the void"...are there other types of "perfect psyche" I can review to either recognize or use myself down the road? 3. What would you have bid ATT as NOrth? I suspected a psyche, but wasn't certain. And not sure I had methods to penalize it if I was sure; X here would likely NOT be interpreted as penalty by partner (although we don't have specific agreements). I doubled hoping partner had a 5-card major to bid; I got lucky that he did, he got unlucky with the 5-0 trump break but was able to manage. 4. I have no problem with psyches generally or in this specific instance, but just from a process perspective should we have called the director to "register" that there had been a psyche? Does location/setting matter here (this was in two-session open pairs at ACBL regional). 5. Now that East has seen his partner make this psyche, does he have any obligations for the future? That is, the next time he pre-empts at the 3-level and his partner respondes over a TO X with a new suit, is there any alert required like "partner has psyched in this situation in the past"? This seems unlikely because I would think the vast majority of similar situatinos (from East's perspective) would NoT be psyches. But I have heard that this type of alert is required in some situations...so when and under what situations would that be? 6. For resulters, the psyche worked reasonably well for them here. We got around 35% in 4H=, losing to folks making 6D= and 5D+1. We did beat a couple of pairs in 6D-1, and presumably some tables who were in 7CX-3.

Haven't read the others responses...and am not sure I've "got" this one, but here goes. Unless South is crazy, he's got all (maybe minus one jack) of the outstanding HCP (besides partner's ♠QJ). He can also place virtually all of the HCP he doesn't have with me and my 1NT bid. This hand probably relies on keeping dummy off lead to maximize our ♥ and ♦ tricks. If we can do that, we probably will take 1♥, 1♦, 1♣, and then either a ♦/♠ depending on South's distribution. In ♣, partner is either playing from J9, 9x, J98x, or 98xx...leaving declarer with Q8xx, QJ8x, Qx, or QJ. I doubt declarer would play this way from the 1st holding, so he should have one of the other three. He's likely trying to establish a transportation to dummy to finesse my ♥H. So I will duck the ♣A on this and any further club trick until dummy's ♣K is played, and I will use the ♠K and then lower ♠ as exit cards if I do get in. Not sure exactly what I will keep if he gives me the ♥K and then starts running ♥, but I'm going down to stiff ♣A before giving up my last ♠ exit.

I pass at teams, as it seems a game is very unlikely. Very little reward for the risk. But I X in pairs. They have a 9-10 card fit, so at worst we've got one 8-card fit and possibly two. Worst-case scenario is that partner is 2263 with better spades and we end up in the inferior spade fit, but I think that will be rare. I just can't see letting them play comfortably in a big fit at 3♣ when we can likely play comfortably at the 3-level as well.

Thanks Art. I have played in Solomon the last two years...we won Flight C both times. Still evaluating whether I'll be able to be on a team this year. Will let you know.