WrecksVee

This is more of a bridge history question. Does anyone have any info as to when the term "mixed raise" came into use? Where did it start and who popularized it would be nice also. Thanks! PS: local bridge journal had a expert forum on Bergen Raises which got me curious about the background of this term.

The misadventures of Jay and Rex have used an idea from Kent Feiler's website fro several years. We play 2NT as Ogust. New suits ask Opener to bid NT with a stopper or show lenght by steps without a stopper. Check out Feiler's site if this seems interesting for his original idea. Kent Feiler

On the actual hand I went with the idea of ruffing a ♠ and two ♥ in dummy. I overlooked the auction forgetting that LHO overcalled 1♠. As ♠ were 5-2 and RHO had the ♦T. So I needed to try any other line. :rolleyes:

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sa94h4d9865cat743&s=sk76hakj6dkqj42cj]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After RHO passed I opened as South 1♦. LHO overcalled 1♠. Partner showed invite plus support for ♦ by cue bidding 2♠. I bid 4NT RKCB and we got to 6♦ with the Opps silent. If this seems aggressive we were down 18 IMPs and this was the last board. Playing standard leads LHO leads the ♠Q. What is the best line to make the contract? I will now pass some time awaiting helpful input at the Internet Chess Club where I can see ahead far more moves than I can tricks. Thanks in advance for any and all analysis and advice. PS: this is not a Rex and Jay Misadventure as, sadly, declarer play is a solo activity.

As to pattern showing or cue bidding after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ I decided to see what I could find in bridge literature. Bridge World Standard did not address this as far as my quick scan could determine. Kokish and Kraft's "Modern American Bidding" falls in the pattern camp. But the suggested method is conventional. Opener rebids either third suit at the three level to show shortness. Rebids of 2NT, 3♥,3♠ and 4♠ were reserved for =5=4=2=2 with specific definitions. Steve Robinson's "Washington Standard" 2nd ed. uses cue bidding. Anyone else have any books that have a view on this?

I am Rex, the other half of the misadventure. Jay made a slighgt error in stating what 1♦ might show. We would open 4441 hands 1♦ if there is a ♣ or ♠ singleton. So it is know he has 4♥ if he has only 4♦ and an unbalanced hand. It seems to me that this might not change the general discussion that favors 2♦. I still think I would double if I chose to bid. Partly that is because I think 2♦ is a one round force and as I did not double it would deny a four card major. I realize not everyone will think these are the right methods. It is not clear Jay and I are on the same page about that. Thanks to everyone who replied. It is a help to Jay and me in tinkering with our agreements.

I can not count 13 tricks. If I was sure that partner had 5-5 ♥ and ♦ I would bid 7♦. In my main partnership I would know that and this would not be a problem. I agree there are a lot of values that will make this work out. But I am discliplined or wimpy and will just bid 6♦. Perhaps denying the ♣K will help partner decide to bid 7.

Good Day! I just tried to view hands played yesterday. But when I opened a file there were no cards or auction displayed. Can someone tell me what to do to be able to use the viewer Thanks!

If by SAYC you actually mean "Standard American Yellow Card" as defined by the ACBL then 1♠ is FSF and may be artificial. It is not forcing to game. A jump to 2♠ should be game forcing as it is a jump shift by Responder. Per the SAYC booklet, which is vague, this may also be artificial. For me, this should be the limit of the agreement in a casual partnership. Using SAYC with a casual partner should stick to the agreeement as laid down. It is not optimum but it saves a lot of confusion and error among casual partners. If you are using SAYC as the base for a regular partnership then adding conventions and defining treatments as seems best to you is the way to go. In the DC area a well known 2/1 system is Washington Stardard. It uses 1♠ as natural or FSF to game. The jump to 2♠ is natural showing 15+ HCP with 4+♠ and 4+♦; the ♦ would be equal or longer than the ♠ since WS using up-the-line responses. In my most practiced partnership we play 1♠ as natural and forcing for one round. 2♠ is FSF to game. I do not think this is best but it was agreed as a matter of partnership harmony. This is an area which depends on personal agreements and tastes. I think the important thing to ask a new partner is whether they prefer FSF as forcing for one round or as forcing to game. THe latter is easier to play but will lead to some unbiddable hands. OTOH you may be too high but you should be in the right strain.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skjhakqt862d8ct87]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You deal and pick up this hand. Is it best to bid 1♥, 4♥, or something else? Comments on standard bidding and personal theories welcome. PS: this would be a "misadventure" of Rex and Jay but we gained IMPs on the board. Rather we are asking this to resolve a personal system issue. Thanks! WrecksVee

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skj75ha865d43cqj5]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Is this hand worth a takeout double after East opens 1♦?

Concerning basic bidding I would suggest Frank Stewart's "Becoming a Bridge Expert". I have not looked at this book in years but am now re-reading it. The sections on constructive bidding will help anyone looking for some discussion of basics. His explanation and examples of why he does not care for 2/1 should be of interest to everyone. The old classic "How to Win at Duplicate Bridge" by Marshall Miles has much interesting pre-gadget ideas though it is focused on duplicate.

Is the FD CC being used in ACBL and other BBO tournaments? It does not seem so to me. I do not get the convention card received box nor do bids display when made as they should. I do see that in ACBL old style CC for SAYC seem to be the posted default.

I just noticed that the FD CC for Bridge Base Standard defines one of a minor - two no-trump as 11-12. ACDL SAYC booklet, the BBO online system summary and old style CC all show the 2NT response to one of a minor as 13-15 GF. No big deal but I had thought that Bridge Base Standard followed SAYC.

I must add that if you make any changes or additions it is no longer SAYC. SAYC is a specific set of agreements that the ACBL put together to make a common CC in some tournaments. No reason it can not be used as a base on which things are added: SAYC plus... or SAYC except for... I assume "full SAYC" means something along these lines. As this thread pointed out there are some poor methods in SAYC. But if you fix them with one partner how does the next casual partner know? The point of SAYC is to be the classic set of "bad agreements" that are better than no agreement.

I just played in ACBL FD CC were available but mostly unused. I suspect the events I am having trouble with are BBO Land or others.

I should add that there is no problem using the FD CC for matches or playing in the main club.

Is there a problem using FD CC in tournaments? Since New Years I can not get an FD CC to open when playing in a tournament.

For overcalls above 3♣ I have been using Bergen's thrump double. This double shows HCP and asks partner if he can bid 3NT. It at least avoids bringing spades into the picture and aims at 3NT as the most likely contract in a jammed auction. I play this X with 10+ HCP. Opener knowing I lack ♥ strenght can assume 23+ working points. With honors in both ♦ and ♠ he knows I am not hiding a running side suit as the reason for seeking a ♥ stopper. So if there is some minimal ♣ support 5♣ is a good contract. OTOH Responder could be =4351. So there is still some work to do as Opener needs to show ♥ control and long ♣ or Responder needs to show extra strenght. But at this level I am not sure we will communicate clearly.

As 2♣ is a relay and 3♦ showed =4414 are all three bids available as such splinters? If so I suggest trying submarine splinters, one under the short suit. This idea is proposed by Ron Klinger in "Bid Better, Much Better Over One Notrump". Klinger's idea is that the hand opposite the splinter can rebid three of the splinter suit to show a hand with little waste. This would depend on your NT range. Klinger used 13 working points writing from the viewpoint of a 12-14 NT. After that you agree on a fit and cue bid if extras are held. A rebid of 3NT shows a double stop in the short suit and suggests playing there. Any other bid setting a trump suit denies 13+ (or what ever is agreed). Klinger suggests using this for any some what three suited hand (4441, 5440, 5431 without a five card major OR any single minor suited hand for which xx is enough support).

Of the ideas I have seen I agree with the immediate response of 5♥. I think 4♥ is the right idea but I am bothered by the extra trick due to the nine card suit. So I try to tell partner and see if he can bid six if it is there. About 4NT I understand the impulse. I would take it as regular Blackwood. I prefer not to use RKCB unless a suit is actually agreed. That is easy enough to do when you fit Opener by making whatever forcing raise you have (Jacoby 2NT or inverted minor for me). To get RKCB for ♥ I would need to find a way to set them as trump. But as I am only interested in aces on this hand regular Blackwood would be fine. BTW I think 1♣-1♥-any-4♥ sends the wrong message. For me this shows a suit that needs no support but it also implies I have some defense outside ♥. Else I would just bid 4 or 5 ♥ immediately. The hand can not be too strong else I would have made a strong jump shift if available.

Add another suggestion to get Ken Rexford's book "Cuebidding at Bridge: a modern approach". Note in the above posts Rexford was modest and did not mention it. My wife gave it to me for Christmas. I started reading it yesterday on my daily commute. Even if you do not agree with his approach it is interesting theoretically. And who could resist wanting to play "Yummy Toes" asking bids. ;) See Ken Rexford's second post above where he describes a part of his method. If that is intriguing then you will want to read this book. I suspect my current partner's taste's will not run to this idea (SIGH :lol: ). One downside is that both partners need to do some serious study to learn a new bridge dialect. But from what I have read so far, a third or so, the book will give you excellent ideas and spur discussion of your methods.

Is there a problem with the hand viewer or the supporting database. I just tried to look at my hands from the last few days. It pulled them up but all the fiels when opened show a blank table with out cards or auction thanks for any help with this WrecksVee

The previous argument re MP vs IMPs swings me to pass at matchpoints. Playing with Jay (I am Rex, part of the misadventurers that my partner often posts about) and assuming it is IMPs or I decide to bid anyway: I would bid 3♣ asking. This is a treatment/convention that we found on Kent Feiler's website. Partner is expected to bid NT with a stopper (3NT then tells me he has the K) or show how many cards are in ♣. Of course the 3NT response may have just wrong sided the NT but at least we are there when partner has the K. If he lacks the ♣K I will retreat to 4♣ unless I get luck and find three ♣ when I may consider 3NT. Sadly if was really lucky and he had four ♣ the response is 4♣ taking us by 3NT. Then I would try 5♣.

I can not find where I saved the test files that discuss GIB. Is it in the library? My cursory search did not find it. Thanks!