foo

I play this as well. The assumption is that usually Opener has ~12+ and Responder has ~8-9. Thus very often we are in the middle of a partscore battle. The X'er usually has reasonable values for the auction and a= a flexible hand with at least tolerance for Overcaller. or b= a high ODR hand in the other suits (like 55's) As I've stated before, I'm firmly in agreement with the Scanians on the idea that low level Penalty X's don't work as well as Action X's and Penalty Passes.

I never said 3244 and 31(54) !never! make T/O X's of (1♥). I said Please note the provisions 1= 8+ loser hands 2= holdings like xxx in the unbid major 3= examples by justin that are IMHO better described by overcalls rather than T/O X's. In stark contrast, after (1♥) AKx.x.(KQxx.Qxxxx) is, again IMHO, better described using a T/O rather than any other call. I agree with you about 32(53)'s. PS. Just because 8+ loser or other flawed "3244 and 31(54) X's are so common these days that they wouldn't raise an eyebrow at my local club.", that does not mean they are Good Bridge... (As many mother's would say to us when we claimed "But all the other kids are doing it!" "...and if all the other kids were to run off cliffs, would you as well?")

♠ QT2 ♥ KJ93 ♦ 2 ♣ AKT82 (1♣) - pa - (pa) - 1♥; (1♠!) - ?? - 1♠ promises at least 4-4 in the black suits Which is why I'm simply bidding the game. Everything rates to be favorably placed for Us.

I'm with Frances on this. If pd has enough values for Us to actually make something, pd will not pass out (4♥) ...and I'd feel like an idiot going down in 5♣ when pd can make 4♠...

please read posts more carefully before replying. As you can see, you have misread something. I never claimed "to only use J2N when I have significant extras." I said J2N is a valuable convention in SA or 2/1 GF; and one usually adopted fairly quickly by partnerships playing either system. The "natural" use of 1M-2N showing 12-14 or 13-15 is not a treatment most SA or 2/1 GF pairs play. Many fine players, this site's founder Fred Gitelman amongst them, believe that a 2/1 should show 5+ cards in that suit whenever at all possible. See the excellent articles "Improving 2/1 GF" in the library of this site. As for "breaking promises", I've extensively answered this point in the thread "Simple enough". Bidding is not a rigid process. As Dorothy Hayden Truscott has said "Sometimes you will be forced to lie. When that happens, tell the least lie you can." That a T/O X'er should do everything possible to have 4 cards in the unbid majors is basic Bridge. That you will sometimes be endplayed into having to make calls that are not perfect representations of your hand is also basic Bridge. I suspect someone with such a good bidding record knows this (congratulations on your fine performance BTW) Lastly, please do not put words in my mouth or attempt to insult others claiming the insult is from me. There are many fine players in these forums and I have not made any statements equivalent to the insult you just tried to attribute to me about =any= of them. Disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack. It is immature to try and make it so. If you actually want to discuss Bridge, I'm happy to converse. If you are simply looking to be confrontational, please don't waste my or any other board member's time. Again, congratulations on your performance in Australian Bridge Magazine. Cheers.

A phrase I learned in NA- "Gerber is baby food. Do you need baby food?". In just about every partnership I have: Playing Strong NT's, the only auction that is Gerber is 1N-4♣ Playing Weak or less NT's, Gerber does not exist. Note that Gerber does not exist over 2N either.

URL or link please?

I play this routinely in most partnerships.

1= (and most important). Fair Enough. It looked liked some were having a bit of fun at Ken and I's expense. Having recently been reminded that "tone" in written communication can easily be misconstrued or misunderstood, I withdraw the comment and apologize for mentioning it in that manner. 2= :) :) You and I have a very different view of this part of the game. Most of your examples are not T/O X's I would teach to anyone. (...and what WC contenders do when competing against other WC contenders is not normal Bridge nor is it something that most players could do w/o getting in lot's of trouble. Those folks are pushing many things to the absolute limit. They are not playing "up the middle" Bridge while in those competitions.) I routinely pass 8+ loser hands. Especially if they have the 2nd & 3rd flaws of being flat and short in the other major. Flat hands have lower ODR. IOW, they are defensive. With your examples that include xxx in the other major, I really don't like a T/O X because a= The 43 does not rate to be a good place to play b= The lead of the other major by pd rates to be a disaster for the defense. With (xxx.x.)(Qxxx.AKQJx), I'm overcalling whichever minor has AKQJx for texture. I certainly "live" there! I certainly don't want any other lead. 4333 is the worst trick taking and most defensive shape in Bridge. I downgrade it heavily when We are the opening side. I downgrade just as heavily when We are the defending side. It doesn't magically become a higher ODR shape just because we are Defending. Quite the opposite IME. This shape gets passed a lot by me except when is has exceptional concentration of values or is suitable for a natural 1N overcall. YMMV, but I feel I am presenting sane and reasonable Bridge logic for the systemic choices I am advocating.

I don't know what "XIMP" scoring is, But I do know a= pd is a passed hand b= It looks like IMPs c= I want a ♦ lead more than any other. d= This one of the special opportunities in Bridge. I do not want to make more than one decision about this hand. I am either passing now, and passing forevermore, or I am making my one bid now and then passing forevermore. 2♦ by me. ...and passing forevermore. That's as much pressure as I feel safe to put on. I often alert (1♣)-2♦! as "wide ranging" because even with Negative X's, the opponents are going to have a hard time finding their major suit fit.

I vote with mikeh here.

Very few expert pairs nowadays play X's of 2 level auctions like this as penalty. Over an auction beginning (1H), I'd expect this X to show =1444. Over an auction beginning (1S), I'd expect this X to show =4144

In Bridge terms, I've always heard "promise" as "will do everything reasonably possible" and "guarantee" as "it doesn't matter how unreasonable it is, I will do this no matter what". So, as a semi-contrived example, you'll notice books like Marty Bergen's on Negative X's saying the certain auctions =promise= 4 cards in the unbid Majors, while other auction =guarantee= certain lengths in the unbid Majors. In the Bergen, Hardy, Lawrence, etc books you will often find hands that "fudge" a bit where "promise" was used with problem hands. There's no fudging where "guarantee" was used. I'll be happy to use more precise teminology if shown it. I use now what I know now. Trust me, I am as frustrated as anyone that some of these discussions seem to be bogged down in semantics rather than focusing more on Bridge. :( It also appears that some people are arguing because they like to argue. I don't see that serving any useful purpose. :huh: :angry:

This is incredible, even by the standards of your posts. It is entirely self-contradictory. At first I was amused by your arrogant, ignorant, intellectually dishonest posts. However, I have become tired of them, and will no longer respond to anything you write. Feel free to have the last word. What in the world? So in your mind, any mention of a "high price" when playing a method means that the method scores badly? I admit English can be a a bit unclear, but that's a semantic leap that I simply do not understand. I think having to bid a hand a certain way when you might like to do so in another way, especially when you know it might be wrong from the POV of that specific hand to follow system that rigidly, is a reasonable definition of "high price". Regardless of score obtained. When system tells you what to do rather than being flexible and allowing you to use it as best suits your hand, system becomes more important than judgement. At least in some eyes, that's definitely a "high price." No insult or contradiction was stated or intended. You, of course, may believe anything you choose to. Cheers,

You also can make 5 tricks if the suit is Jxx+K. Only if you magically know the layout :D Playing line "a" I gave; you only get 3 tricks. Playing line "b" I gave; you only get 4 tricks. To make 5 tricks vs this layout, you have to play specifically for this exact layout. If you can pull it off, you are going to have Them thinking you have been peeking at their cards for the rest of the time they are ATT.

Note the "!" in the sequences I gave. "!" is the normal notation for an alertable bid. In this case, J2N (Jacoby 2N for those possibly not used to the abbreviation). Everyone else seems to have understood that the sequences I posted used J2N. Now the rest of your post. Note the hands: ♠ A9xxxx ♥ K ♦ Kx ♣ KQxx + ♠ QJTxxx ♥ Axxx ♦ Qx ♣ A South opened the bidding. Since J2N shows a GF raise w/ 4+ trumps and a hand not appropriate for a splinter or a 2/1, IMHO it's a reasonable representation of N's hand. Others might disagree, that's fine. I personally strain not to make 2/1's w/o a 5+ card suit or =very= significant extras. My pd's know this and I prefer using J2N here where some might not rather than misleading pd about an inference they can usually count on. Moreover, from my POV as N I want shape information from opener ASAP. As N, I don't have to worry missing any of the side suit K's. I'm looking at them. S should have 2+ defensive tricks from the following list for their opening bid: ♠ KQ, KJ, Kx; ♥ A, AQ, AJ; ♦ A, AQ, AJ; ♣ A, AJ; The shape information will help me greatly in picturing which. Now let's look at things from S's POV. pd has bid J2N when I'm holding a 6 loser hand that has 2 A's and a 6 card Spade suit. N must have all the side suits under control or they'd have chosen a different way to bid their hand. What N is worried about is trumps. So N asks about trumps. This is an example of a mature advanced or expert SA or 2/1 GF partnership where N&S trust each other's bids to be "on system". If you aren't that mature as a partnership or as a player, or if you want to take a more conservative route, both my original post and lot's of other people's have shown alternate but equally effective ways of getting to 6♠. I hope this answers all your questions.

I would have guessed that double showed values with some lack of an obvious bid while 2♣ showed pretty much the hand given: 45 in ♥♣ and a desire to compete. ...and for me, S's hand is weak enough that they =do= "lack an obvious bid". 2C here by S should show a better hand than a soft 5 count. For =exactly= the reason that if pd is holding a good hand they might get inappropriately excited. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination ruling N blameless; but he made a mistake it was easier to make than it should have been.

Yes you did. You wrote: Exactly how does that quote of mine say =anything= about how well or poorly F-N preempts score? Regardless of how they score, F & N =are= paying a high price for using their preempt style. To play their system and style, they are forced to preempt on many hands systemically whether they want to or not. Preempting on low ODR hands is not one's preference if your goal is to get the most out of each preempt. But that is not the purpose of F-N preempts. For F-N, preempts are a place to put hands that are deemed too dangerous to pass yet not good enough to be used as constructive openings. How well or poorly they score is an irrelevancy.

Yes, N went nuts. But not w/o some provocation. we should try very hard not to provoke pd into making a mistake.

I don't see how this is playable. If you have AKx x KQxx Qxxxx you really can't X 1H? I guess this is an obvious 1N for Ken. Har-dee-har! That's not exactly balanced. I'd double, obviously. Some of these readers evidently think that "promising" 4cards in the unbid major means some sort of rigid legally binding guarantee rather than "I will do my utmost within the limits of Bridge to have as close as possible to the values and shape usually shown by my bid." The experts having fun at our expense with regards to this topic should know better. Successful bidding simply doesn't and can't involve rigid promises. Disciplined bidding means doing everything you can to stay as close as you can to whatever promises you do make; and it means making promises in the first place. Said experts are !not! doing the rest of the readership any favors by being disingenous on this topic. Even if they are having loads of giggles at the expense of those who are trying to explain concepts many developing players have difficulty with.

1= System is not "fashion". Give me many 04(54) hands over (1S), or 40(54) hands over (1H) with 8+ HCP and I'll be making a T/O X as well. Those hands evaluate to 13 playing points in support of any of the unbid suits. Edgar Kaplan was innovative for his time, not suicidal. 2= Some Italians use T/O X's to show hands with values that are a problem for the rest of their System. They have a fine traditon of doing this that goes all the way back to the 1950's. Any SA pair can do the same if they wish. There's even a checkbox on the ACBL CC for the purpose :) However, that is not how mainstream T/O X's are taught on that side of The Atlantic. If you look at The Italians 3 suited T/O X's, they would look quite similar to many other expert players 3 suited T/O X's. 3= In the Goren era, tools like PLOBs and systems like 2/1 GF were not as wide spread as they are now. I don't even think Goren wrote any book for the general public on 2/1 GF. Except for a book considered poor on Blue Team Club, his writing on bidding systems was all about basic SA of the time. 4= If you have been following my posts in these forums, you have seen that I say Qxx is 2 3/4 losers unless pd shows values and 2 1/2 losers unless pd specifically shows values in that suit. In contrast, Axx is always only 2 losers. You also should have seen plenty of posts by me regarding the concept of being control rich or not, and the related concept of Defensive AKA Quick AKA Honor tricks. "Bridge is the game of A's and K's". 5= OF COURSE Meckwell X's 1C w/ =4432 and 1D w/ =4423. We all do. With hands of the appropriate playing strength. 6= The rest of your post I will treat as misc for now.

You are incorrect on both (or is it 3?) counts. Mike Lawerence =does= write on 2/1, but his books on Balancing, Overcalls, Takeout X's, etc. Are !not! about 2/1. They are useful for any system where 2C is your forcing bid; and they were and are quite important books on SA. In SA, w/o agreements to the contrary one does not take extra bids in competition just for the heck of it. Basic SA is not built around _To Bid or Not To Bid_ or any other book on the LOTT. In SA, if you take extra action you do not have to, you have extras. Period. Those extras can take many forms, but you are supposed to have something that most would agree are extras. More trumps and less losers certainly qualifies just as much as more HCP.

Stop being disingenuous. You well know that one often has to shoehorn bids into boxes that do not fit them exactly. Please note that when I'm lying about shape in your derived examples I have significant extras in term of values as compensation. Give me a borderline or minimum T/O double that is flawed as to shape and I'll pass, in tempo, every time. =That's= when pass is the least lie IMHO.

You expect South to pass, really? In the passout seat? Playing MP? He already said, that he was broke, nothing changes the first message he sent out, he is just looking for a partial or hoping that he pushed the opponents a level higher. I would say, that pass is not an option. With kind regards Marlowe No, I said S should X in the pass out seat. I also agree that S should not have been put in the position of whether or not to pass out 1♠. N is certainly strong enough to take further action directly over 1♠. S's bidding evidently convinced N that S was at the top of their previously shown ~0-9 HCP range. Quick, you hold 18 and pd is showing 7+. What level do you want to play? Answer: Game. S does not have that hand. Therefore they should take less aggressive calls. A balancing X would keep the auction alive w/o as much risk of N getting too excited.

A bit late in this discussion tnx to an entertaining discussion about 2-suited preempts. Fantunes do NOT open 2♠ on Jxxxx-Kxxx-AKQ-x. They open 1♠ when they have both Majors... However, the point is still valid for hands like Jxxxx-x-Kxxx-AKQ :) Yep. I remember the 1st time I saw that on vugraph :) F & N have evidently decided that the major purpose of preempts is to deal with problem hands that they do not want in their constructive bidding structure. ...and they "put their bidding where their beliefs are". I consider this an innovation in preempt theory. Time will tell how well it works out in the long run. (and contrary to Peter's claims, I've never taken any stance as to how well or poorly F-N preempts score. I frankly don't care because they do not seem to. How they score is not the point of why F & N are using their preempt style.)