chasetb

For some reason, I can't find it at the moment, but this discussion has come up before. Essentially, the US people (JLall being the main one)assigned a different meaning to 3♥ here; the Europeans said it was a stopper ask (I think PaulG being one).

Very nice ken. I've been charged over $150 for beyond Calculus math books, and publishers are getting rich while putting out sub-standard books for those not mathematically-inclined. I know I am backtracking a little, but last month this thread started talking about literally versus figuratively. Only today did I catch up on this thread, and I just HAVE TO link to this comic strip that nicely covers that topic: http://xkcd.com/725/

Zel, I'm glad that we agree on most points. I do have a few replies: The method outlined doesn't allow for a natural 2NT rebid, and I don't like that at all for a standard system. It is a little different if you play some sort of strong Club/Diamond system, but I assumed we were talking standard systems. I'm pretty sure all 4 were designed to plug in holes in the Roman system (thanks to canape). They couldn't open the Major and then bid the minor, because that would be distorting the 4441 hands. They also couldn't go through 1♦ and bid the Major, because THAT would show 5+ in the Major and only 4 Diamonds. Because of the 1♣ multi-way opening, 12-16 HCP hands with 5+ of a Major and 4+ Clubs were also troublesome, so they were assigned to 2♥ and 2♠ respectively. You can use a Mini-Roman 2♦ in standard, but that is silly. From what I have read online, Weak-only multis are the best way to go. If what you say is accurate, then I am surprised that a jurisdiction would deny a weak-only multi, but would allow it if it included any super-strong 4441 into it. Of course, I belong to the ACBL, which doesn't like the Multi at all for 99% of the events. If you had to include strong hands in the Multi for it to work, then I would throw in strong 4441 hands and strong balanced hands. I know Power Precision (Sontag - Weichsel) used 2♦ as either a Weak 2♥, any 4441 16-24 HCP, or a 24-25 balanced hand with a lot of Quacks. Now we're talking! I had forgotten to mention this kind of 2♦ opening. I have my own write-up - a three-way 2♦ that encompasses a Strong 2♦, any GF (semi)-balanced hand, or any 4441 with 22+ HCP. It doesn't come up that often, but it does fill those very small holes in standard systems, and it allows me to discard the Weak 2♦. If anyone ever plays against me, don't use the Weak 2♦ opening. I get horrible results playing against it...

When your partner shows 5+ ♥, it's pretty unlikely that (s)he also have 4+ Spades. You may have an Ace, but you only have 6 HCP, and you have the worst shape in a 4333. Let's not get partner too excited, that is why I would bid 1NT then give preference via 2♥.

I am going to respond to your post bit by bit. This is disgusting. 2♣, assuming it is strong, should NEVER be opened on a 4441 hand with less than 22 HCP, and I only do it if I have a really chunky 4-card Major or will rebid 2NT. It is impossible in any casual or semi-serious partnership to show a 4441 via 2♣, and any serious partnership won't even bother with it. 3 different times in the past 2-3 years, I have opened 4441 hands with 22+ HCP at the one level. The first time, I reached 6♦ on a 5-4 fit with 29 HCP, and made it. The second time, I played in 1♣ making 4 in a 4-4 fit; I had 24 HCP, while partner was 3334 and only had the ♣J. The third time, LHO interfered, and I rebid and made 3NT after finding out partner had that suit stopped. All I can say is 'Yikes'! I would love to play against anyone who does that. It's really silly to narrow the 2NT response to just that. You are wasting that bid, and I've never had a problem with making a simple response and then usually jumping to 3NT the next round. Both Roman 2♣ and 2♦ were designed to fill a hole in the Roman system, due to canape I think. Neither bid are that good, and in fact I think it would be better to reverse the bids. In Precision Today, one of the alternative openings they suggest was in fact 2♦ showing 16-24 HCP and any 4441 shape. I was enamored when I first read about it, but quickly realized that 16-20 hands can easily be covered by opening 1♣ and then just bidding the Major, provided you had a decent response structure. It also keeps you lower than the 2♦ opening on those hands. The only hands that create problems are the (21)22+ 4441 hands, and they really don't come up. The more options you put into Multi 2♦, the weaker you make it in terms of accuracy and destructiveness. Sure, the weak 2♥ and 2♠ will still make up a majority of the hands, but then you have to account for the possibility of that any 4441 hand. Again, this fills a hole in the system. It was expanded to include (34)15 hands and 4405 hands to make it more useful and come up more often. This should have been listed right under the "jump to 2NT", though unlike that suggestion, it filled in a hole at the time. It fell into disuse as well, though if the system is very well designed I'm sure it can work.

If partner can't respond over our 1♣, then we likely don't have anything. We also have zero problems with rebidding out hand after 1♣.

I don't follow very many rules, but an easy one is the Rule of 7. Partner expects us to have 7 average HCP when (s)he bids over a preempt. We do have 8 HCP and 3 controls, but only 2-card support, no ruffing value, and no spots in our suit. They could have cuebid 4♦ with a really good hand, and the preempt makes it more likely Hearts can be stacked against us, so I pass.

Partner and I had a 70.5% game sitting N-S. On Board 4, he passed as North (said he was getting vibes to, as he loves opening all 12s and a lot of 11s), and they ended up in 2NT-2. I loved Board 8, making 3♦ X , and then we had the exact auction shown on Board 9, making 920 (I almost rebid 2NT)

Neither :blink: ... Just kidding, play for the drop. This is a perfect hand to pull off a basic squeeze, thank you GIB for rectifying the count! Picking up from your description, play to the Q♦ and back to the K♦ and A♦. Then lead the 6♠. Whether or not GIB covers, play your Ace and follow with the King. If the Jack hasn't fallen, run your Clubs. On a side note - if GIB doesn't cover with the Jack, I can almost guarantee that it doesn't have the Jack. This line wins any time LHO has 2 or 3 Spades to the Jack, or when either opponent has the Jack as well as the Club length. It loses the overtrick if LHO has 4 or more Spades to the Jack, but at least the contract is guaranteed.

It would be nice to know what the lower limit of 1♠ here is. I will treat it like Precision, and therefore I will bid 3♠ as showing 6-7 HCP, 4-5 card support, and no shortness. I can't jump to 4♠ because not only does that kill cuebidding opportunities, I defined it in my system as a max, but a 6322 or 7222 hand.

I would make a takeout double with all 3 hands, I must admit. 1.) While the shape isn't perfect, we have 12 HCP outside of Clubs, and we need to fight for that part-score. Besides, partner can easily have 4 Hearts, or we find a 5-3 fit in Diamonds or Spades. 2.) With a good partner, I wouldn't expect him to bid 2♣ without at least 5 of them, so I don't mind only having 2. Even with most of my other partners, I will get to the Major-suit contract, or rarely a NT contract when partner has 2 stops. 3.) Perfect shape + two Tens = Let's Go (I like the nightlife baby)

I used to love dogs and really only love dogs. Then, the couple across the street bought a little lap dog bitch, and she barks at me all the time; she's terrified of me and I have never done a single thing to that dog. Around the same time, a female cat randomly showed up outside our door and apparently decided to adopt us after we gave her food. She has claws, and chases/kills mice and birds as offerings. Anyway, I still love dogs, but only dogs that have some use (hunting, seeing, seizure, helpful, etc.). Cats have moved way up, but only cats that don't meow a lot, and hunt.

I'm probably in the minority, but I've been beaten far too many times for my liking by opening a strong 1NT (Precision) when 1M would have done a LOT better. Of course, in Standard I am bidding 1NT (strong), I pretty much have to.

The only question I have is if o.p. plays Inverted Minors, because then we might need to be competing in a minor suit. Otherwise, partner passing is a bad omen, so I am just going to be quiet.

[hv=pc=n&e=sjt98hd964cjt9542&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1h4sppp]133|200[/hv]

If partner can't overcall or bid 3♥ to a pretty good hand despite the initial pass, and bid 4♥ missing 3 of top 4 honors, why should we be making a move? Let's give partner 9 Hearts, and we STILL might not be able to make it. I pass, it's not close.

I don't know about Singapore, but I know for the ACBL that it states directly in the 2012 Convention Chart : OPENING BIDS 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points. http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Convention-Chart.pdf Also, directly on the World Bridge Federation's website, there is nothing wrong with a 1♦ opening that could be as short as 0, because it DOES NOT DEFINE LENGTH IN ANY PARTICULAR SUIT. Going on to 1♣ and 1♦ as showing and denying 4M respectively, it looks to me to be HUM according to the link below, but it's something that I'm sure would be allowed because it doesn't look destructive (of course, if you open 1♦ on a 2227, I'd be pissed). http://worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp

I would rule the result as stands, because if West isn't intelligent enough to make some sort of noise over 1♣ (yes, even Vul) and if East doesn't keep the auction open in the balancing seat (though it's close), they deserve that result. As is, just because 4 of a Major makes, doesn't mean they will make it (though it is more than likely, I open all balanced 11s and quite a few balanced 10s at favorable vulnerability in 1st seat 1♦ so partner has plenty of room).

Even with a 1♦ (2+), the average is just over 3.5, so expecting 4 and bidding at the 3-level isn't too far off. If it means that much, just set 3♣ as 5+ Diamonds and 4+ Clubs and occasionally "forget" which way it goes... 6. JUMP RESPONSES TO AN OPENING BID OF ONE IN A SUIT that show one known suit with a minimum of five cards and one other known suit with a minimum of four cards. I haven't had an opponent yet worry whether I was 5-4 or 4-5, and if they do, I'll just say I expect longer Diamonds than Clubs. I think that Rule 5 applies more than Rule 6, but either way since you aren't going past the 3-level (except on freakish double-fits), it doesn't matter.

I'm bidding 2♦. If partner pulls 2♦ to 2♥, then it's because (s)he has 2 Hearts and 1-3 Diamonds, so I pass that (partner will have wasted values in Clubs a majority of the time).

I transfer because the field is transferring, and because of a Larry Cohen study of a million deals --> when a 1NT overcall is the final contract, it averages 45% at MPs. I bet this is probably because most people overcall 1NT on 1.5 stoppers, maybe not even having that half a stopper. Regardless, passing 1NT is a losing proposition.

Ok Roger and/or Justin, what do you guys use for 1♣ - 3♣ and higher ? On the Grue-Lall card (BB 2011), it lists 1♣ - 3♥ as a 1-suited hand with Hearts. Assuming that is correct, what kinds of criteria do you use for it? On a related tangent, I want to switch my Precision partnership to 1♣ - 2♥ as 14+ balanced, but again after looking at the Grue-Lall card, it uses 1♣ - 2♥ ; 2NT as a 2-suited hand with Hearts. Extrapolating, I'm assuming that you use 1♣ - 2♥ ; 3♥ as a single-suited hand. Why can't I just put any hand with 5+ Hearts into 2NT, and use the 3♥ rebid as a hand with primary Clubs? Anyone who has any experience with these responses can chime in, I'm just asking for Roger and Justin's advise because they posted above and I know they have tons of experience with this stuff. Thanks for any and all help!

I pass as well. Jump shifts show at least 5-5, and we have such an easy takeout X of 2♣ or 3♣.

YES! This might be my last week to play JEC on a Saturday, so let's go.

YES! Precision is relatively similar to Neapolitan / BTC , so it wasn't like people were (or should have been) unfamiliar with defending against it. What made it better was that it was simpler than both, and it used a basic tenet of bidding theory that the others didn't that shape is at least as important, if not more important, than strength. Being able to set an immediate GF was also very nice. In fact, when the Blue Team came out of retirement, ALL 3 PAIRS PLAYED PRECISION! Of course, we now know that Precision has an advantage over 2/1, but if you spend enough time on your system, most/all of those gaps can be plugged up and the difference is minute. Back in the 60's and 70's, bidding was still pretty bad; they were just beginning to understand how to build better systems. Precision was simple, streamlined, and yes, probably frustrating to deal with. After looking at the Fantunes system and watching it be played, I don't think their system is that great. What helps it is the fact that THEY know their system (except they occasionally forget whether a bid in competition is a FSJ or a splinter), other people don't have experience in defending against it, and the system has a tendency to grind opponents down, especially non-WC opponents. Even WC opponents can get run over by the Fantunes system.