Walddk

I do not consider "narrow-minded" defamatory or abusive. If you think it is, feel free to delete my posts. I am not sensitive. However, since you seem offended, I apologise for hurting your feelings. That was never my intention. Roland

I never said that sayc and 2/1 are my beloved systems. I said that all systems have flaws, Polish Club included. I also said that that we haven't seen everything yet. However, I strongly disagree with you (and Karen McCallum for that matter) when you claim that Polish Club or some other artificial system will run over natural systems if they are not adapted to allow lighter openings. In my world it is not a must to open 8 or 9 counts just for the sake of opening. I do not agree with your "in-and-out" theory. 2/1 is a fine system, Polish Club is a fine system, and even Standard American is a fine system if handled with care. Unlike you I am not a fan of adding convention upon convention. I think it's much more important to have systems that are widely understood by the vast majority of bridge players. For that purpose I think a natural approach like 2/1 is better suited than any artificial system. The average bridge player can only grasp *that* much. It does not help their cause if you add loads of conventions and relays. What good is it if you teach them to bid "correctly", if they can't play the hand? What good is it if you have a super system, if you can't defend? I am not concerned about the tiny percentage of world championship players. They will figure out what is best for them and act accordingly. I am concerned about Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith. For a start, I think it's imperative that they play a natural system. The more artificial it is, the more complicated it gets. I am not saying that 2/1 is easy, and I am not saying it is the best. All I am saying is that it is playable, even without hundreds of gadgets. Consider yourself lucky if you can remember all of the gadgets you like to play, but be realistic and accept that this is not the case for 99% of the world's bridge players. They are much better off if only they can remember the basics. You can teach most people to bid adequately, but you can't teach anyone to declare and defend if they have no flair whatsoever. Then it doesn't matter one bit if your preferred system is sayc, 2/1, Polish Club, Precision, Acol, West Bengal Standard, Moscito or Viking Club. What matters is what you and your partner are comfortable with. Bridge is not a science, and you can't create rules for everything. That is what makes the game so exciting. Even world class players have their frequent post-mortem discussions, but these discussions are more about judgement in a particular situation rather than a system flaw. Fred is one who repeatedly has stated that the system is not really that important. Partnership understanding and judgement are the key elements. I couldn't agree more. Roland

Glad you have some hidden text there, Justin. Congratulations on becoming a World Champion playing 2/1 GF! http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files...l-greenberg.pdf Roland

Gee roland, don't you think this is somewhat unfair to me <snip> As I am not forcing my ideas on anyone, nor attacking any individual in my post, I take great person offense at your tone. I suggest if someone was narrow-minded in their view (since I allowed as there were many approaches that could work), the person not expressing views on why the system is good or bad might be the narrow-minded one. I wonder who that is? You started by stating that sayc is unplayable and 2/1 almost unplayable, did you not? That is what I call narrow-minded and totally unfair! I give every system a chance, with or without the loads of gadgets you want to add. This is what I call being generous, the direct opposite of what you are. I am happy to see that MikeH and Fred agree with me. Ben, you are a system freak and I respect you for it, but you can't just discard sayc and 2/1 as unplayable and almost unplayable. They are indeed both playable if particular partnerships prefer that system. We have no right to tell them that they must play something different in order to bid properly. That is simply not true. Roland

All systems have flaws. If there had been a flawless system, we would all be playing it! Add zillions of gadgets, and the system will still have flaws. The worst of all is of course that there is much more to forget. Give the bridge players of the world a system they can comprehend and remember, and let the remaining tiny percentage have fun with various quibbles. Roland

So Ben seems to have found the philosophers' stone. Fine, it works well for him, and he dumps other systems (sayc and 2/1) as rubbish ("unplayable" and "almost unplayable"). Ben is obviously entitled to his view, but in my opinion it's an illusion if you think that his preferred method is the only thing in the bridge world. It's narrow-minded and totally unfair. Roland

Bidding methods develop all the time, and we are not even close to having seen everything yet. Through my long career I have tried most anything, and I don't think it's fair to say that this system is second to none and that system is awful. You don't become a better bridge player by changing your system as often as you change your socks, but it's no doubt a good idea to try different methods to see what you are more comfortable with. There is no right and there is no wrong in my opinion. The simplest of system may be superior to some, because the risk of a major disaster is bigger the more complicated your system is. You can bid to the right contract by using simplified methods too. Judgement is very often the key word as far as bidding is concerned, drawing inferences and good technique are some of the important keys to declarer play and defence. 2/1, Standard American, Acol, Precision, Polish Club, Standard French, Magic Diamond, whatever. Anything could work for a particular partnership if you spend enough time on going through every possible sequence. Isn't that the whole issue? You use a system, try it out, spend hundreds of hours at and away from the table and you will be well placed. No one can cover everything, and no system will ever be able to cover all aspects of the game. There will always be room for improvisation, and most importantly again: judgement. You can't buy that for money! Roland

A. 1NT does not promise stoppers anywhere with no interference, but it does if RHO overcalls and you make a free NT bid. That is basic, but feel free to change it if you like. B. No, 2♦ is not a good bid if it's forcing. You don't have the values for it. Pass is a good bid, or a negative double if you prefer, then correct 2♣ to 2♦. That is non-forcing since you didn't bid 2♦ first time around. C. Ax is not ideal but might be good enough opposite Jxx and KQ with overcaller. The auction would have been completely different if responder had passed over 1♠. East supports to 2♠, opener doubles to show extras, and now North could jump to 4♦ to show hand with long diamonds but not enough to bid 2♦ on his first turn. That would most likely get you to 5♦. D. Some upgrade the hand and open 2NT because of the nice 5-card heart suit. I don't, 1♥ is fine with me. Roland

I. I don't mind 1♦. II. I don't mind 2♣, but 1NT showing 15-16 would have been ok too. III. No, 3♣ would not have been better, because it's non-forcing. I fancy my (partner's) chances in 5♣. IV. No sympathy here. 6♣ is a punt. Partner did not make a slam try. He could have gone through 4th suit, then support clubs later if he was slammy. It is no shock for partner that you have a 16 count. With six clubs in dummy no sensible player would play the king from Kx if you lead towards dummy (why didn't he ruff a red card in dummy in order to take the club finesse, he would ask himself). And no one would cover from Kx either if you advance the queen from dummy. Roland

No, you should not assume that partner has a singleton spade. He could even have three spades for all you know. Most people would end up in 3NT and go down. Be happy that you reached 5♦. Roland

No, there is no reason why pass is forcing. Pass should only be forcing if it's clear that the opponents are saving. Do we know that here? No! Generally speaking, there are way too many forcing pass ghosts around. They should be very few and far between. Roland

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sa92hj9864d832c63&w=sk63hk53dakj1075c5&e=sq104h72d6cakj9872&s=sj875haq10dq94cq104]399|300|Scoring: IMP 3NT by West Lead: H6[/hv] 3NT by West. Lead: ♥6 to South's queen and West's king. Here is the full deal. It was a push board in the match when both declarers finessed ♣J without testing diamonds first and went 2 down. Third best line it seems. My learned colleagues have concluded that it's slightly better to cash ♣AK, and if no queen appears then rely on the diamond finesse. That would lead to 9 tricks on this layout. The theme (somewhat simplified) is actually well known if you think about it. - 1. Go for the drop in the suit where you have 8 cards between you. - 2. If no luck, finesse in the suit where you have 7 cards. Roland

[hv=d=w&v=b&w=sk63hk53dakj1075c5&e=sq104h72d6cakj9872]266|100|Scoring: IMP 3NT by West. Lead: H6[/hv] Team match on BBO. Bidding: 1♦ - 2♣ 2♦ - 3♣ 3NT - p Lead: ♥6 to the queen and your king. How do you tackle the minors? I think both declarers got it wrong. Roland

I suspect that many will open 1♠ with that hand, but it's also quite common to open it a weak two (either Multi or 2♠), especially vulnerable. The issue is whether weak two's should be constructive or destructive. If a weak two can be both, it's virtually impossible for responder to judge. If on the other hand you can distinguish between the constructive and destructive type, you will be much better off, and that is why many top pairs in Europe in recent years have adopted both. They let 2MA be constructive and 2♦ Multi be destructive (including a 5-card suit). I have tried this method on a few occasions with some partners and haven't been disappointed yet. Another advantage is that 1♥ and 1♠ will now be a sound opening if the subsequent auction reveals that opener has a 6-card suit. Roland

That is not what Simon says (read it again), and even if he did, I wouldn't trust my opponents one bit. They are my enemies at the bridge table, and they want to hurt me as much as they can. These days people open 8-9 counts and respond on 3 hcp. Should I assume that they have at least 18 hcp between them and forget about game our way if I have a good hand? Feel free to do that, but I won't. That is exactly why one should play 1NT as natural on this auction: 1♣ (p) 1♥ (1NT) It is much more dangerous to come in later. As a general rule, I recommend that you trust your partner 100% and take the opponents' action with a grain of salt. Roland

Wrong, hoggie. Maybe in australia people play like that, but in some countries in Europe 1S 2C 2H 2S = honest support, invitational 1S 2C 2H 3S = gf support, slam try 1S 2C 2H 4S = gf but not interested in slam Incidently, the hand you showed rebids 2NT. You might not like the rebid, but that's how we play around here, some world champions included. Yes, we have had this discussion before, and 2NT is arguably the worst bid I have seen (read about) since January 21, 1936. xx KJx xxx AQxxx 1♠ - 2♣ 2♥ - 2NT!?? Scary. They will probably never lead diamonds against NT, unless they have been paying attention to the auction of course. Roland

Another example of how EW tried to claim damage for their poor judgement. The failure to alert did not damage EW, and they will not get an adjustment if I am the TD. If that ruling came before an Appeals Committee, I am convinced that it will be deemed "an appeal without merit" and deposit forfeited. We don't have an AC on BBO (a thread I started a few months ago), and maybe it's a good thing that we haven't if an appeal involves no risk ($). In real life frivolous appeals are pretty rare, but I predict that we would get hundreds of those if we were to create an AC here. Roland

Good description of your hand. You do indeed have 3 hearts. I would double, although I normally bid my 5-card major with 5-3. Not this time though, because the spade suit is too weak. I know, I may end up in a 3-3 fit and violate Burn's Law of Total Trumps. Life goes on, as David would say. Roland

2♣ is fine with me if you don't play USP. If you do, 2♣ would show diamonds. Transfer advances allow you to do both. Roland

Fortunately, I never pick up that hand. :angry: Maybe not, Winston, but maybe you should consider bidding 1NT followed by 3♦ on 6 J4 AJ108764 Q72 Then you have 2♦ followed by 3♦ available as game forcing. The whole idea of 2/1: you don't have to jump around all the time and ruin it for your side when you finally get the good cards. 2♦ is game forcing! Roland

I know that some play that a rebid of own suit by responder is non-forcing. I don't subscribe to that theory. I might be able to stop in 4mi, but not in 3. If 3♦ is non-forcing after 1♠ - 2♦ 2♥ - 3♦ I don't know how to bid this hand: Q4 A AQJ10843 K84 If you don't think you are strong enough to force to game, do not bid 2/1, bid 1NT. Quite simple. Roland

This is becoming quite irritating. Earlier I had to agree with him, and now he seems to agree with me. Keep it up Mike, and agree to the fact that the rocks have always and will always be ours! Roland

2♦ is what I would bid at the table. The question I ask myself is: would you open the hand? The answer is a clear "yes". Now, partner opened the bidding in fornt of me. I am not going to pretend that I don't have an opener any more; that would be a contradiction. If I respond 1NT (forcing for one round), there is no way I can show my hand later. I am fully aware of the looming misfit when I bid 2♦, and I must live with that risk. I have gone down before, and I will go down again. Roland

2♥ for me, sound raise to (at least) 2♠, as I would have done even over a pass by RHO. I play transfer advances, also known as USP (Useful Space Principle). I would have bid 2♠ without the ♦K. It actually takes very little to raise spades to the 2-level when you have a sound advance available. Since 2♥ is not an option in the poll, I shall have to go for "other". Roland

Why should we assume that the opponents have their bids? I don't trust them at all, but I do trust my partner. 4♥ tells him that I have a very fine hand with a heart shortage. Then he will take it from there. Roland