chasetb

Most people I know would never dream of doubling on the first round with that hand; personally I approve of 2♣. North should have both suits, so let's show the Diamonds fit.

I know that the ACBL is generally criticized for being way too conservative and disallowing some stuff that while isn't difficult, is artificial. While looking over the GCC, I noticed a great deal of 'insanity'. While there are too many things to list, these 5 are, in my opinion, needed to be changed IMMEDIATELY. They aren't ranked, but if I were to rank them, the list would stay the same, going from least important to me to most important. 1.) GCC - 2♣ and 2♦ opening bids showing at least 5-4 in the minors, any strength (Alertable). If the range includes 9 (or less) HCP, then it also falls under the “Weak 2 bids” as outlined under Rule 7 in “Disallowed”. These bids are not hard to understand or explain, nor are they difficult to defend against in my opinion. 2.) GCC - Any response to an Opening Bid that promises Invitational or better values. This includes 1NT, but over a 1NT that guaranteed Invitational or better values, 2♣ by opener MUST show Clubs. By Invitational, any hand with 11+ HCP, good 10 HCP hands, 9 HCP (A + K) where the suit shown must be at least KQ10xx with an outside A or KJ in the same suit, and 8 HCP where the suit shown must be at least AKJxxx. You generally don't need to bid when the opposition have shown 23+ HCP, and the rule also gives greater definition to what qualifies as an “Invitational hand”. 3.) GCC – Any response to an Opening Bid that shows at least 6 points (NOT HCP) and 3-card support or better for the suit opened (Alertable). An example would be 1♠ - (2♦ or 2♥) showing 8-10 HCP and exactly 3-card support. Again, this is not difficult to defend against, and it allows the opponents to interfere at a lower level than before, whether to compete or just to lead-direct. 4.) GCC – A response of 1♠ to a 1♥ Opening showing 4 or less Spades, Forcing, and a response of 1NT to a 1♥ Opening showing (4)5+ Spades, and also Forcing (known to many as Kaplan Inversion/Interchange, KI for short, and Alertable). This allows the opponents to show Spades at the one level when Spades have been denied, and very rarely will you want to show Spades after Responder has promised (4)5+ as in the sequence 1♥ - 1♠. 5.) SuperChart (but only for USBF qualifiers, the Vanderbilt, and the Spingold (unlimited) ) – Allow Forcing Pass systems. In any seat, a 1♣ or 1♦ fert bid (a bid showing 0-7 HCP) is allowed. In 3rd and 4th seats ONLY, a 1♥ fert bid is allowed. The final suggestion will not affect over 99% of the membership, but I feel very strongly about it. It's a compromise in that those who do not want it in any way will hate the fact that it is legal and those who want it will hate having to possibly their system, but at major International events a few partnerships do play this. Only the very top players/partnerships will be affected, and it will be a positive change, giving experience that otherwise is impossible to gain otherwise. * I only have 98 masterpoints, but I intend to regularly compete in future NABCs, and the Bermuda Bowl as well. I plan on joining Zia in the 'guys who started learning bridge in their 20s but still managed to be the best' group.

Sorry mate, but I have to agree with the Hog. As Benito Garozzo said, distribution is at least as important, if not MORE IMPORTANT, than points. Heck, I've bid quite a few 15-18 HCP games that made, and 20-22 HCP slams; it's technically possible to make a 5 HCP Grand Slam in a suit. Points are important, don't get me wrong, but once you get below 15 HCP, it's distribution, distribution, distribution and fit, fit, fit! That's why nobody at the top level uses the Roman system and hasn't for years - it just isn't nearly as effective as Precision, or I daresay even 2/1. People love to pre-empt strong openings, and love to mess with weird non-specific openings as well (this was a major factor in the Roman system, where 1♣ was extremely vulnerable). Your 1♥, 1♠, and 1NT bids are garbage. You aren't showing distribution, so can't find slim games with a 9+ card fit, good part-scores, and I can easily imagine you going for a great deal of telephone numbers. I do think the 1♣ and 1♦ openings could work, but you have to go pretty radical as in a Weak NT, 4-card Majors, 5-card minors at the 2-level, and basically write (or do plenty of research and rip off) your own responses. You also would need to lower the 1♣ and 1♦ bids by a point, and distribution hands with good/great suits would need to be upgraded, otherwise 1♣ would never be opened. I highly suggest you just learn a basic Precision, one that uses the Unusual Positive, maybe even the Super Unusual Positive. The Impossible Negative is more complicated, not to mention less effective. If you are hell-bent on playing the system I mentioned in the second paragraph, learn all about Zar points, AFTER YOU LEARN A BASIC PRECISION.

http://tinyurl.com/7fqaad7 While it's infrequent, why can't GIB bid 2♠ on the second round? I never denied 4♠.

http://tinyurl.com/6wdyv32

http://tinyurl.com/7yys2hw My 5♦ bid should be a sign-off. If I have a really big hand here, I should cuebid at one point. A second point is if I had bid 4♣ instead of 5♦, it would have promised a Club stopper???

http://tinyurl.com/75vubco I always thought once partner has made a penalty double, that all further doubles by the partnership are PENALTY! The description even correctly had what my bidding said I had.

Add another person to 1♥ in both direct and balancing seat. We have too much defense for 2♥ in direct, and we need another 3-4 HCP for balancing seat - after 1 any - Pass - Pass, Intermediate Jump Overcalls showing roughly 14-16 points and a 6+ card suit should be used.

Another thing that I'm surprised that none of the ACBL members has mentioned is that 1♥-1♠ showing a Forcing NT and denying (4)5+ Spades is Midchart and not GCC, so for most tourneys it is illegal. This sequence makes it a tad challenging to show the kinds of hands Flannery easily cover. I don't play it with anybody, but I highly prefer it to Weak 2♦.

I generally bid 5-card Majors, 7-card minors. I open all 5♥-6♦ hands 1♥ unless the suit is so weak and Diamonds are so strong that I would rather treat it as a 4-6 hand. By weak, I mean 8 high (yes, I have opened A 9xxxx AQxxxx K 1♥)

http://tinyurl.com/84xvmql I know my bidding isn't the best (especially passing 4♥, but I had hope basic GIB might finally be able to penalty double). I average over +1 IMP/board against the robots anyways. B-) The questions are about the 3♦ bid - shouldn't I promise at least 5 on this sequence? What would 2NT or 3♣ have meant instead of 3♦, let alone 3♥? Thanks for the helpful input.

Yeah, Grall wasn't to last, even though they make a kick-ass partnership. Joe himself said that Curtis Cheek (who was USA 2's coach for the BB) is his partner (probably for eternity). Next on the list would be John Kranyak (from Juniors), and I bet Justin is easily 3rd. The real question is what bidding system they will use. I know this won't happen, but I would recommend the Black Club or the Green Club. :D EDIT - I had forgotten about Orange Club, let alone HamWay Club. :lol:

gwnn, I recently came across the Caroline Club, and there's a few things I don't like about it (or your system). 15+ seems too low for me, 2♣ is CRAZY, and I have been smacked enough times in 2♥ or 2♠ with the Majors to greatly dislike your 2NT (though Symmetric a la Andrei Sharko uses it). I haven't gotten to the nitty-gritty and I admit to having little experience with canape, but here's what mine would look like: 1♣ = 16+ 1♦ = 4+ ♦, includes single-suited (6+), or at least 5-4 in the minors, or a 4441 hand with 4 diamonds, or 4+ ♦ and 5+ ♠ 1♥ = 4+ ♥, includes single-suited (6+), 4+ with longer ♦ (unless 4414), or 5+ ♥ and 4+ ♣ 1♠ = 4+ ♠, includes single-suited (6+), 4+ with a longer red suit, or 5+ ♠ and 4+ ♣ 1NT = 12-15, usually denies a 5-card Major 2♣ = 10-15, either 6+ ♣ or 5 with a 4-card Major 2♦ = 10-15, 5+ ♥ and 4+ ♦ 2♥ = 10-15, 4+ ♥ and 5+ ♠ (deals well with Anti-Flannery and the Majors... I hope). Similar to Truscott's Symmetric Relay. 2♠ = Weak 2 2NT = what you want, 19-20(21) like Meckwell would work

I have to agree with masse24 above, I am bidding 3♣ followed by 4♥ to show limit raise values but a hand that won't stop short of game. The hand is too strong to jump to 4♥ and not nearly strong enough to splinter, especially with a stiff King. On the hand, are you saying that West had the K♣, or had a ♦ void and wasn't able to get to partner's hand, or didn't lead a singleton ♦?

Quartic, the hand you put up looks similar to a hand that opened 1♣ against me - just switch the black suits. I had a hand similar to South, and luckily was playing with a really weak partner who played 3NT = 25-27, so I just bid it. Ended up making 6 when partner had (♦KJxxxx + ♠Kxx), and just lost the A♥. Even without the agreement, South should just bid it. Either East is lying, or East has most of the points, in which case I bet we can endplay him/her. If we don't make it, that's just bad luck.

Clearly, West thought East was about to be endplayed (swap the 2 for the K). The real culprit is the discarding as well as the horrific defense.

While I play Precision with my partner, we do use Kickback. The one big rule we use is: "Set trump before using Kickback". A corollary to that is "If it could be natural (or a splinter), it is". Here 4♥ is a weak distributional hand, to play IMO. Just set trump with 3♦ (hopefully playing Ingberman or lebensohl over reverses), and then 4♥ is Kickback. A partnership agreement that also helps is after trump is set, we save 4x+1 for Kickback use only, so it can never be misconstrued as a cuebid, even though we rarely cuebid.

A good way to play XYZ is in the link below. I am in the process of slightly modifying it for my partnership where we play Precision. 2♣ is in effect, a 'tell me more'. As long as you bid after the relay, you are asking partner to 'tell you more'. However, if you shudder at 2♣ as a forced relay, then you might not like 2NT as a 2nd forced relay as well. The idea is that with more ways to describe your hand, the better a chance you have of finding those slim slams, or even those hard-to-find grands with distribution. 2♣ hosts mostly invitational hands if you bid over 2♦. 2♦ sets up an immediate GF, and helps find 5-3 fits as well as minor-suit slams. Jump-shifts by Responder on the 2nd round are GF as well, and show at least 5-5 in the bid suits. http://inquiry2over1.blogspot.com/2005/06/xyz-convention.html

Before I talk about the subject, I would like to end the debate in that Jassem-Martens play Precision @ NV and Polish @ Vul. There is a difference between both in that the Precision is always strong (15-17 NT or 17+) whereas Polish you have the weak NT thrown in. It is fundamentally different enough to defend against. Here's the link to the CCs: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/docdefault.asp?page=Poland&start=c%3A\inetpub\wwwroot\ecatsbridge\documents\files\ConventionCards%2F2011Veldhoven%2FBermudaBowl I like most of your system, but the 2♦ bid I don't agree with. It seems that if you are weak with both Majors and little to no Diamond support or have an invitational hand, you pre-empt yourself with the bid. I would go the Bertheau-Nystrom route, and make 2♦ either a great 5♦-bad 4♣ or 6+ ♦, denies a 4-card Major, 10-15 (A hand you wouldn't want to jump with). I have a write-up of my version of that, but it's on a friend's computer and she's in Vegas playing in their sectional with a few of her friends. If you wanted to deviate more, just scrap the natural bid and make 2♦ the mini-Multi with one of the Majors. No matter which way you go, take the other hands that used to open 2♦ and open them 1♦.

Make it 4 for 4 on leading the K♥.

My first option, like Owen, is 1♥. I play 1M could only be in 3rd/4th seat, and that suit is awesome. With the opponents likely to be bidding Spades, it's easier to find a fit; partner shouldn't bury us as a passed hand. 2nd option is 1NT, we can run to Diamonds if they try doubling for penalty.

And my vote for 3♣ makes 5.

That's not the only think you didn't notice. Regardless of playing lebensohl or Ingberman or just 'natural' over reverses, North has a clear bid in my book - 4♥! GIB has 11 prime points, 5 controls (6 counting the singleton), and 5-card support when partner has shown at least 16/17, and 5♣-4♦. So let's show the support via a splinter. If GIB presumes that 4♥ is natural, then that explains a lot. I will say though that I agree on the Precision comment you made earlier, though that really has no bearing on the bidding sequence.

I don't see any "information leaks" by leading low from AKxx, I have done it more than a few times and I'm not WC. However, underleading AKxx at NT has been the best thing for me more often than not. You also don't necessarily have to throw off a Spade. You decide either that the ♦K is onsides and you will finesse it, or that it is off and so you are trying to drop the ♠Q. There's even a chance that someone has ♣Txx, in which case there might be a squeeze on.

I first saw this poll last night, and waffled between Pass, 3♠, and 3NT. While MrAce's description of 3♠ is best, undiscussed I think partner would think we have 5. I also had a feeling (before seeing 3NT getting X'ed) that this time 3NT wasn't good. Ultimately I pass, this hand has some similarities to a hand I had at my recent NAP qualifier. You are Vul, and the auction starts (2♦) - 2NT - (3♦). You have ♠KT985 ♥K84 ♦6 ♣QJ93. I chose 4♠, and went down when partner put down a hand with 14 of 15 HCP in the minors and no 8-card fit. 3NT makes double dummy, but you have to finesse the 8♥ missing the AQ9! Sorry, but since I brought it up I'm putting in a shameless plug for some hands I want people to give responses to: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49060-4-hands-an-atb/