foo

psychotic or drug-induced.

Looks like 3M EW is cold ...and so is 4m NS. Proving once more that even if you hate it, don't pass pd's T/O X unless you have a clear penalty pass.

Playing 1N= 10-12 or 10-13, When opener opens 1ofasuit they have: a= more points than your 1N opening, or b= are more shapely, or c= both In this context, 1C-(1H)-2C is a clear underbid. Particularly playing this system, responder should show a LR+ by cubidding 2H. E will pass as before. S will rebid 3C to show a minimum (S is not good enough to reverse into 2S in most partnerships). W may or may not bid (3H) now given that NS are showing considerably more strength than in the original auction. If W does bid (3H), N is going to figure that a= NS have at least a 9+ card ♣ fit and b= no decent defense vs (3H) and c= the enemy values rate to be favorably placed ...and rebid 4♣ competitive. N will also plan to X 4H if EW bid it.

Well I certainly got this one wrong! LOL. Good thing I amended my 1st post to suggest the "safety play" of passing 4♦ ...and neilkaz's is 100% correct. Penalty X'ing 4♦ is (with credit to mikeh) "insane". Nice analysis of the risk factors, neilkaz.

The hand in question: ♠ KQx ♥ AKQJxx ♦ 8x ♣ Ax Let's examine the idea that this hand is not good enough to Open 2♣ more closely. 1= Let's give pd the worst shape they can reasonably have. Say something like 31(54) or =4144. No fit anywhere and 2 of those have mirror distribution in ♠'s to make things worse. In any of those shapes, give Responder any =one= of (♠A, ♦A, ♣K) and not a single additional value and 4♥'s rates to make but Responder should pass a 1♥ opening. ...and that's in a total misfit with a sub-minimum. Responder does not have to be anywhere as bad as this. 2= Another tack. Which saves more space, a= Opening 2♣ or b= Opening 1♥ and rebidding 4♥ The folks advocating a 1♥ opening are having a very hard time with the subsequent auction. Open 2♣ and these problems do not exist.

I X every day of the week and 2x on Sunday. Whether it works or not, I'm terrified that if I =don't= X, I'm seeing pd put a ♦ or a trump on the table... ...and I =know= those are Bad For Us. pd may end up doing the wrong thing anyway. The contract may be cold and my X hands Them a better score. But IMHO the only chance We have to get a good score is to X and set this.

You are wrong. It's just a bad system. 4♥ is technically the system bid with AKQ 765432 AK Ax, even though no one in their right mind would bid it. Actually, there =is= an explicit clause in SA about having a good suit for any jump rebid of that suit. 765432 isn't it. With AKQ.765432.AK.Ax, I'd have a problem. My Logical Alternatives would be to a= Open 1H and rebid 2N if H's are not supported b= Open 2N and more or less pretend I have =3532 ATT, I'd probably judge that it's closer to a flat 20 count than a flat 19 count and Open it 2N. "If you must Lie, tell the least lie."

In the old days, one would bid Stayman (of whatever type) and then rebid your m to show a single suited minor hand with slam interest. Later, I used to play that 2N-3C;3foo-4m! not only showed the minor, it was 1430 in that minor (sometimes called "Minorwood"). Using Minorwood allowed Us to play either a minor slam or 5m safely, and therefore reduced the strength requirements needed to safely show the minor opposite a 2N Opening.

IIRC, when I was introduced to French Standard it was still a canape system... I certainly don't teach 2+ level openings other than 2C and 2N in the first week. It may happen in the first month if the pace of the course is brisk enough. JS's, even SJS, tend to be after that. But certainly within the 1st 3-6 months, most SA novices will probably be exposed to both.

ROTFL! ...I've had some students like you... (...and very long ago and very far away I was told I was a similar student myself... :) ) lol

♠ KQx ♥ AKQJxx ♦ 8x ♣ Ax Excuse me, stupid counting (or typing, I'm not sure which this many hours from the mistake) error on my part. Apriori, it's 4 losers (1 ♠ + 2 ♦'s + 1 ♣). sorry. Given the difficulties the auction is having after a 1♥ opening, I still think the best solution with this hand is to open 2C. Give pd 1 good card and they might pass a 1♥ opening while We are cold for game.

Interesting. What was the base system you were taught and ~ how long did it take for you to feel "at home" with it? ...and FTR, even I won't teach Strong Twos even to novices at this point. I want novices to be able to pick up a partner at the desk of the local club or tourney as soon as possible after they start learning. While most players have at least some instinct for SJS, Strong Two's are so alien to the average player and Weak Two's so ubiquitous that there really is no point in teaching anything else. (Not all teachers agree with me on this.)

So your students will have no problem beating up on Justin and mikeh. ROFLSHWMP. Peter Justin and mikeh aren't under discussion here. If one persists in being illogical in their approach to Bridge; then yes, more logical novices are going to catch up to them and ultimately surpass them. That's one of the reasons why some people never get any better past a certain point.

I agree that 2♥ is non-forcing here. Really surprised there can be discussion about this. What is less clear to me is if 2♥ is a clear sign-off or if opener is allowed to make a game try with a suitable hand. Here, beginners used to be taught that the 1N rebid shows 13-14 so there is no need for invitational sequences. I suppose you can use 2N as a general force, then, but have never seen that mentioned. It is probably not something you'd like to teach beginners. A raise of 1N to 2N is invitational in other situations so it should be so here as well. ...and I'm just as surprised in the reverse. One of the things this thread is really driving home to me is how unused to playing "natural" SA most players are. Gadgets get added so fast and played so exclusively that people evidently forget what their true overall effect is on SA. When teaching beginners (at anything), it is important to make things as logically consistent as possible and to have as few exceptions or contradictions to overall principles as possible. Thus we teach Responder's that their hands are "worth 1 bid if a minimum; worth 2 bids if invitational; and worth whatever it takes if GF". A minimum Responder gets to suggest =a= suit, or bid 1N if they can't suggest a suit at the one level. After that, a minimum Responder's only options are a= passing if We are in a reasonable spot, or b= choosing one of the other strains already suggested by the partnership. c= making their one suit suggestion at the 2 level if they've limited their hand by bidding 1N first. (when I teach Lebensohl and Good/Bad 2N to more advanced players than novices, I come back to this as an underlying principle) Playing natural SA, once novices learn the above, they do not have to memorize any sequences, they know exactly what to do with a minimum response no matter what Opener does when Opener does not make forcing bids. The other way of teaching each sequence as a "stand alone" that needs to be memorized is horrible to contemplate. Not to mention the typical novice's reaction to sequences that would be murky if 1m-1M;1N-2lower was nf. Between the two issues, novices would drop out of Bridge at an even greater rate than they already do. Besides the flaws in logic of the other approach that I've already pointed out, and despite the documentation contradicting the other approach I've already pointed out, here's another thing that is wrong with the idea that 1m-1M;1N-2lower natural is nf: *If Responder's 2nd round jumps are GF and Stephen's POV is true, then We risk missing game more often than having 1m-1M;1N-2lower being forcing would.* Minimum's just want to find a decent spot. Any decent spot. It doesn't have to be perfect. OTOH, Invitational hands care much more about how well the hands fit because if they do, then We might belong in Game. Remember We teach SA novices not to add non HCP assets to the value of the Dummy hand until =after= a fit has been found. Allowing a minimum hand more sequences to find a good spot at the expense of reducing the number of sequences an Invitational hand has available to probe for game is nonsensical. (...and I'm well aware of the MP theory that says never invite, just decide and "pass or blast". Even if one agrees with it, that is not even close to appropriate as a teaching model for beginners.) In SA, novices are taught to Open and Respond Longest Suit First and Up The Line w/ 44. Therefore the above Responders are 54 or 55 in the 2 suits shown. ...oh, and in SA, opener's 1N rebid shows 12-14 balanced or 12-15 unbalanced (and misfitting). This is in keeping with the SA teaching that it takes a= 26 playing points w/o a fit, or b= 25 playing points w/ a fit for 4M or 3N to be odds on; and c= ~27-28 playing points with a fit for 5m to be odds on

Rightly or wrongly, SJS is what we teach novices when they are first starting out. If we are going to teach something at all, we may as well do it correctly.

I think if we are discussing the play of "Jack off dummy", the more "appropriate" question is not =how= can I claim, but =what= I can claim... You really must be a hoot in your law practice. B) What kind of attorney are you? (I could go look it up, but I'm being lazy.)

I see I'm not the only one who subjects the opponents to a "compression blame squeeze" every now and then... B)

Some SJS examples from p183 of the 1938 edition of Culbertson's _Contract Bridge Complete: the new gold book_. All are 1H-?? 1H-2S; AK9xx.Kxx.AQ8x.x AQJ8.QJx.AKxx.KT AKJxxx.x.KQ8.Axx 1H-3C; xx.QT9x.Ax.AKQxx 1H-3D; Ax.Q8x.AK8x.KQxx -.Q9xx.AKQxxx.KQx They all look remarkably familar even ~70 years later.

Actually, one of the stated advantages of playing something like NMF to handle all Major suit(s) oriented hands of Invitational+ strength is that then, and only then, 1m-1S;1N-2H can be bid with a minimum responding hand with 54 or 55 in the Majors. Without something like NMF, 1m-1S;1N-2H can only be bid by Invitational+ responders. If this was not true, then an Opener who was a minimum =2245 or =2254 and decided (reasonably) to Open 1m and rebid 1N would be in a bit of a pickle opposite a minimum Responder who bid both Majors.

I have one partnership that plays "Walsh" (Which Edgar Kaplan was playing in KS long before Richard Walsh played Bridge...) in the original "any responder less than GF by passes ♦'s to show a Major." In this Partnership I'd be expected to respond 1♠ rather than 1♦ even with 4 ♠'s and 6 ♦'s unless I held a GF responding hand. (Note that what consititutes a GF hand is very different with a 64 or 74 hand than it is with a 4432 or 4441 !) I have another partnership that plays what I've come to call "Invitational Walsh" In this style, I only by pass ♦'s to show a Major if I have a minimum responding hand. (Same shape considerations.) IMHO, and this =is= just my personal opinion, Inivitational Walsh is superior to the original GF Walsh. this was not my question or the issue here. I am not discussing g/f or inv walsh, please reread what I did exactly ask, ty. I thought I had answered: I never ignore HCP in my bidding decisions. Playing GF Walsh, I will bypass 4 D's to show a 4cM unless I am GF Playing Invitational Walsh, I will bypass 4 D's to show a 4cM only with a minimum. What part of that was unclear?

♠ KQx ♥ AKQJxx ♦ 8x ♣ Ax Is certainly strong enough in my world to Open 2C: 4 losers, 6 controls, a trump suit that will play for no losers opposite x; looks pretty good to me. Personally, this hand fits my psychological criteria for opening 2C: If I open 1H and the hand gets passed out, would I be sick to my stomach with the thought that We had just missed a game? If the answer is "yes", it's time to Open 2C. If you don't open this 8 - 8 1/2 trick 19 count 2C, then the SA rebid after 1H-1S;?? is 4H (see a recent Bramley and Lazard board for something similar)

I'm late to this, and I'm going to go out of my way not to read the whole thread so that I hopefully don't see the DD answer. EDIT: "Lack of interest" to me implies the LHO's suit is 8, 8x, 8xx, ?8x, or ?8xx Seeing as I'm looking at the 8, 9, T, K, and A; J8xx or Q8xx seems unlikely. Since a 3:4 break fits the odds and lead best, that's my 1st view. I'm going to learn everything I can about the opponent's defensive methods before I choose my plan of play. This may seem silly, but I'm strongly considering Ducking the ♥T and letting RHO win this trick. I've got 2 ♥'s + 1 ♦ + 5 ♣'s = 8 tricks. My expectation is 9 tricks and I'm in the normal spot for the board, so I have to take 10 tricks to get a good MP score. LHO is the Danger Hand, not RHO. So having RHO on lead is best if They are in. If RHO returns a ♣ (highly unlikely), I'm no worse off than I was before. If RHO returns anything else, including a ♥, they risk helping me get my 9th trick. In addition, RHO's return will tell me more about the hand and helps tighten up the position, AKA rectify the count, for any squeezes I may later want to try.

You have a point. I did not consider the implications of System if we are playing something that expects Us to open most 10 counts (Kamikaze NT for instance. Although anyone who uses the KNT when Red is really asking for trouble IMHO). If you are playing a system where pd's initial pass tends strongly to deny 10+ points, the odds of game being on Our way drop considerably.

I have one partnership that plays "Walsh" (Which Edgar Kaplan was playing in KS long before Richard Walsh played Bridge...) in the original "any responder less than GF by passes ♦'s to show a Major." In this Partnership I'd be expected to respond 1♠ rather than 1♦ even with 4 ♠'s and 6 ♦'s unless I held a GF responding hand. (Note that what consititutes a GF hand is very different with a 64 or 74 hand than it is with a 4432 or 4441 !) I have another partnership that plays what I've come to call "Invitational Walsh" In this style, I only by pass ♦'s to show a Major if I have a minimum responding hand. (Same shape considerations.) IMHO, and this =is= just my personal opinion, Inivitational Walsh is superior to the original GF Walsh.

Why? Because you say so? You're *anonymous*... No, because logic and expert references say otherwise. In this case because the =American= Contract Bridge League defines Standard =American=. I stay anonymous for exactly the reason that I want any statements or arguments to stand or fall on their own merits. Not based on perceived merits or flaws of the person posting. ...and of course, there's always the fact that some around here are volatile enough that I'm _very_ glad to not have to risk personally confronting them.