WrecksVee

Well here is Rex's side of the issue. This was interesting as it shows Jay and I are unsure of our agreement about 3NT openers. I thought we were playing it as always descriptive: 7 or 8 card solid suit, a major is possible, without side stoppers. From Jay's comments he thinks it is descriptive if opposite an unpassed hand but tactical after partner passes. That is, despite being a preempt, if partner is a passed hand Opener is the captain since Responder has only a vague idea what hand Opener may hold. My hand ♠JT9x ♥xxx ♦QT9xx ♣x Based on Jay's understanding I should pass and leave partner do whatever he feels is right. Based on what I thought the agreement was partner has either ♣ or ♥ and the Opps have the AK of the three suits he does not hold. Getting out of NT is right as I think it makes it harder for the Opps to find the right strain. If I was sure partner had ♣ I would preempt to 5♣. But if he has ♥ we might still have a game (=1=8=1=3) so I think 4♣ is the right bid. And as we are white vs. red maybe I should have done that despite the slim game chance I mention. To Jay: my memory is we were playing the method suggested on Feiler's web site. You seem to think we are playing Washington Standard's treatment. So we have a decision to make. :-)

Using the methods I described in my previous post I think this is a reasonable auction for the hands that started this thread: 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠*-3♦**-3♠***-?**** * four quick tricks and six LTC is too strong for a jump to 4♠ even though the red suits are uncontrolled. ** I chose this natural call as it shows where at least twelve of openers cards are located. Certainly other methods are possible. Opener with all side suits controlled and five LTC is worth a slam try. *** Bidding only three shows interest sort of like fast arrival but it denies a heart control. **** the follow up depends on partnership tools and agreements. E.g. if 5♣ is exclusion RKCB for spades that shows one key card missing so that six can be bid. THe important thing is that the partnership had the room to exchange further information about extra strenght and controls.

"Picture bids" means to use jumps to show features about your hand. This is unlike "fast arrival" where a higher jump is used to show a weak hand. Playing 2/1 GF with Jacoby 2NT, invitational jump shifts at the three level and two tiered splinters I define these bids asa follows: 1) 1♠ - 2♣ : 2♥ - 2♠ mostly three card support for all hands not covered below 2) 1♠ - 2♣ : 2♥ - 3♠ four card support, 5+ good clubs, a mild slam try sp there should be at least one control in the unbid suits 3) 1♠ - 2♣ : 2♥ - 4♠ Minimum hand with most values in the bid suits AND no control of either unbid suit This is not my invention but is recommended in Steve Robinson's "Washington Standard". While (3) covers a lost of ground, there is a lot of room. As both partners are unlimited either could be wanting to make a slam try. By staying low there is room to handle this for either hand. Note that Hardy in "2/1 GF Revised - Expanded" also played (3) as defined above but used (2) as a more general slam try. Hardy does specifically define this as an exception to fast arrival. "Picture bids" are more complicated than fast arrival as you have to agree on what feature is shown. For example (2) could just as well be a slam try showing strong trump support or a general slam try as per Hardy.

How light do you overcall? If you are agressive partner has 8+ HCP at the one level. If that is the case a NF 2♣ seems right to me. I expect I will get to bid ♠ if I want to on the next round as the HCP seem evenly divided (17-23 at worse). Even if you overcall more soundly 2♣ still seems right to me. Aside: I know at least one expert that plays 2NT here as a cue bid showing 4+ card ♥ support. The 2♦ cue bid is reserved for 3 card ♥ support. In this competitive auction it is unclear to me what 2NT means. I do not have an agreement on this in my most regular partnership.

The point about the ♦ATxx not being good enough for slam is excellent. But if partner has =1=3=4=5 his rebid after the suggested 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ of 3♦ tells you that he has four ♦. That makes the issue of ♦ losers and wasted points in the black suits clear. So one of us should be able to make the right decision as to level and strain. I saw that if partner raised ♠ that is =4=3=1=5 or =4=3=0=6. My concern is confusion by partner in thinking that we have a 4-4 ♠ fit. Since I have both major suit kings if I bid RKCB partner has only aces to show. As I know partner has at best ♠Jxxx if he raises I think he will not correct me into the 4-4 fit if I bid the hand to 6♥. As above the distributions are made clear, so it is a question of the partnership determining if they have the right high cards. The question I asked is that if you have extra strenght with =4=5=4=0 and the auction begins 1♥-2♣ do you bid 2♦ as the cheapest descriptive call or do you show spades first with 2♠? I am in favor of the 2♠ rebid as the concern at this point in the auction is finding the best game. If I did not have extra strenght than 2♦ is clear. Note that we do not play Flannery.

I think the support bid of 2♥ shows that slam could be possible if partner has more than a min. So it is not yet a slam try. For me Jacoby 2NT and splinters handle most four card forcing raises so this does tend to be three card support. I think 1♠-2♣-2♦-4♥ shows that responder has values in clubs and hearts with no control in either spades or diamonds. 1♠-2♣-2♦-3♥ shows that responder has four card support with a good club suit as a source of tricks. This is a hand that is not as well suited to making a splinter or using Jacoby 2NT. I play this as a slam try so it has some extra. If it is too weak I would bid only 2♥ or if it qualified 4♥ as described above. This is more picture bidding than fast arrival. I do not think this is that unusual an approach. Certainly it is not original with me: see Washington Standard et al

Hello! This is Rex who seldom posts. Jay and I appreciate the input we get from posting our misadventures. It has helped us correct our system and settle disagreements using this source of objective criticism. I very much like the idea of bidding to show 12 cards if possible. But I have one concern with the 2♠ call. Partner on that auction has not denied four cards in ♠. Does the suggested 2♠ bid deny four cards? If it does not wouldn't partner raise to 3♠? At that, 1♥-2♣-2[RDI]-2♥-2♠-3♠-? I know that partner is at least =4=3=1=5. But I now think it is unclear to partner what suit is trump. Actually I think that if I had extra values with =4=5=4=0 that I should bid 2♠ instead of 2♦. Better I think to bid the majors since finding a fit for game is more important than keeping the bidding low with 2♦. If this is accepted than there is support that the suggested 2♠ does not show four cards. But unlike many here I am more concerned about showing shape. When I rebid 3♦ I was trying to learn if there was a nine card diamond fit since that might be a better strain for slam. The suggested 2♠ bid does accomplish that goal since with =1=3=4=5 partner would support the unrebid suit. I could than set hearts by bidding 3♥ or set ♦ by cue bidding. I do appreciate all the comments that even with our various misunderstandings it seemed plain that there was no diamond control so stopping in 4♥ was possible.

Jay aka Microcap and I (Rex) play that 1♥-1NT = 0-4 ♠ and 5-12 hcp; Opener rebids 1NT to show 4+ ♠ in a hand too weak to reverse. As we play a no so weak 13-16 NT we jump to 2NT with 17-18 after 1♥-1♠. So for us this treatment eliminates all rebidding problems as we have no need to ever bid a three or (ugh) two card suit. We play that 1♥-1NT shows 5+ ♠ and any strenght OR 4♠ and 13+ hcp. Sadly this is not allowed by ACBL in most local events. So we have to fall back on regular methods when playing in face-to face events.

One addendum, 3!S is NF. Assume auction went 1!H-1!S-2!D-3!S, would you accept? Rex weighs in, which is uncommon :-)

Point of interest re the Gazilli link in Italian. I just used Google to find the link and used it to translate the page into English. For non-Italian readers efen if it is a bad translation, it is likely to be more helpful.

I assume this refers to your question as to what partner's pass over the Opp's 3♣ meant? One response here assumes Responder's double would have been takeout. I have seen the idea that Responder's double here warns partner of a worthless hand. Partner can then pass for penalties sure that there is no slam. With something of value Responder passes and waits for Opener to reopen. Of course the auction could be at 5♣+ when it gets back to Opener, but that is true for either agreement. Either idea is possible depending on what the partnership agrees. In a pick up partnership on BBO etc. I have no idea what the concensus would be. Thanks for adding a point to my list to discuss with my regular partners! :)

Current players of Kaplan-Sheinwold (KS is a system based on weak NT and five card majors) around please correct me, but my memory is that 1♥-1♠-1NT showed less HCP; all other 1x-1y-1NT showed 15-17. In the major suit sequence with 15-17 balanced Opener rebid a three card major. This followed suit over suit principles used in KS and was forcing. See the Bridge World site for a detailed summary to get ideas on this solution. Currently I have a partnership that plays a "weaker" NT, good 12 to 16, which commonly includes five card majors. Following the KS lead of catchy two letter system nicknames we call it MU, Mostly Unbalanced. This referes to the fact that unless Opener has 17-20 HCP he never opens a balanced hand with one of a suit. Note we are playing sounder opening bid standards that are not to everyones' taste. We use by the book Keri. Certainly you will miss some major fits but in general Keri locates most such fits when you are in game going and some invitational situations. But as we play in US and even on BBO our NT range is anti field in any case. Note that we compound the problem using a wide range for 1NT. We gain on some hands with preemptive effect and poorer defense after 1NT-3NT. We have found that being sure Opener is unbalanced has advantages when we open yet end up on defense. Our 1NT rebid is ususally 17-18 and 2NT 19-20. We play that after 1♠-1NT(forcing) that Opener rebids 2NT(17-18) and 3NT(19-20) so that a minor rebid is never a three card suit. Over 1♥ we play Kaplan Interchange (1♠=forcing NT, 5-12 HCP with 0 to 4 ♠; 1NT=5+♠ or 4+♠ with 13+HCP). Our 1NT rebid after 1♥-1♠-1NT is conventional showing 4+♠ in a hand not worth a reverse to 2♠. Opener rebids 2NT (17-18) and 3NT(19-20) as described above. This convention lets us not rebid three card minors after opening 1♥ and also solves the forcing NT problem distribution 4=5=2=2.

I feel that in standard bidding without discussion that this is not forcing. Perhaps this is old fashioned but checking Truscott's Bidding Dictionary written in mid 90's lists this as standard meaning and makes no mention of the forcing treatment. I feel the hand limiting arguments are correct and without further discussion the forcing idea will lead to more problems than the traditional meaning. OTOH since I learned Kaplan Sheinwold before standard (yes, I was very confused when exposed to the bulk of American tournament bridge players....but that is another story) I am used to this being a forcing bid. Anyone interested should check out the excellent summary on the Bridge World site. The KS solution is to limit Responder's hand with 1NT which is not natural but just denies more than 8 HCP. All other bids show 9+. This is a detailed system agreement in line with the style of KS.

? "(By the way, it is the Poles who invented that the cheapest step after 1X 1M 3M asks for a singleton. 2/1 needs a lot of shape-asking bids like that.)" This looks like Mathe asking bid to me. Mathe used it originally after 1S-3S(limit). But I knew people playing as attributed above to the Poles in 1969. Not saying that the Poles did not make more use of this idea, just that the idea is not recent.

I have a regular partnership playing 12+ to 16 NTs. We play Keri which helps both with the wide range and with including all five card major balanced hands in 1NT. The gain that a one bid is almost always unbalnced unless it is 17-20 bal is useful. The lack of accuracy after 1NT is not too great as it is offset by the difficulty in defense after 1NT-3NT or 1NT all pass. In general we have found this comfortable to play.

It has been a while since I have read the book. LTC is an evaluation method. Klinger does a good job explaining it. In doing so he uses bidding methods that he prefers. I suggest you find some of Klinger's other books to see what he suggests playing. I do not have it at hand but I think Klinger's "Guide to Better Duplicate Bridge" has a lot of what you are looking for. In that book Klinger proposes 11-14 1NT with 15-18 as NT rebid. This last is done so that a 2NT rebid can be 19-20 and game forcing. This does away with the need for Flint or Wolf signoff. The book also has a summary of Keri, Klinger's non Stayman response system over 1NT openers. I am currently using both the forcing 2NT rebid and Keri in one partnership. We are happy with the results. But as with all things it is a matter of taste and experience. I suggest you drop Ron Klinger an E-mail if you have questions. He has responded to my questions and was friendly and helpful. I do not have the address at hand but it is ususally in the introductions of his books.

In all cases in my only near weak NT partnership all these rebids show 17-18. We open 1NT with 12+ to 16 and include all hands with five card majors, unless the hand is so concetrated that we are willing to treat it as a one suited hand and bid and rebid the major. The NT range is obviously too wide but we find it enjoyable. SJ Simon said something like, "Better to play a bad system well then a good system badly", and we could not agree more. The idea of opening 1NT freely with five card majors is taken from suggestions in books by Ron Klinger. We also use Klinger's non Stayman system of responses know as Keri. This lets us find our 5-3 fits on many hands.

Opening Leads by R Owen is cited. I think that should be "Opening Leads" by Robert Ewen. This was the first book that showed me I was not paying enough attention to what info was available in selecting an opening lead. Highly recommended and likely out of print.

Another solution is Pavlicek/Root third and fouth suit forcing treatment. All invites go through third and fourth suit forcing. All jump bids are forcing as is all raises to three of a minor by an unpassed hand. If this seems interesting check out Pavlicek's site at http://www.rpbridge.net/ and look under systems

Comment was made that 2S shows significant extras. If so how do you check for heart support (xxx or Hx) or confirm a club stopper? I think both of these are possible needs. However as the auction then went the 3NT implies that neither of these were of interest and therefore extra strength is held. Seems like a reasonable assumption that if I was sure I could bid 3NT I must be unsure that 3NT is the right final contract. As 3NT is reached I therefore I must be wondering about slam. Of course I never seem to have sucessful implication rich auctions even with regular on line partners..... :P