Jinksy

I'm a fan of playing transfer responses from (at least) 2N upwards after a reverse. Surely not optimal, but relatively simple, and I think a big gain over natural, and IMO a moderate one over Lebensohl.

Nobody else wanted to be the one to say it.

Sure. I just don't see why E gets this logic applied and not W, whose hand had some extra playing strength too. Either could have invited and found the hand that was actually opposite or one that went straight down. E had exactly the hand he bid, and was a point under the nominal max. I don't think an extra trump improves a balanced hand so much that it's worth an upgrade. So maybe it's the methods at fault, but a) unless you're playing several artificial bids between a 1M opening and 2m raise the 1M 2M sequence is always going to have an uncomfortably wide range, and b) it seems like the methods should drive the stronger hand to invite at the three level on a wider range than the weaker one, since the weaker one more often has an accept (and complementarily, the stronger one will invite less often). This hand is tailor made for Bergen raises. But if you're not playing them (and I would not do so freely), or anything fancy to compensate, then IMO this is the type of hand on which you should get a bad result as a consequence. I could change my mind as a result of sim data or some arguments that otherwise somehow isolated E on frequency grounds, but so far all the arguments in favour of E bidding more aggressively could as soon be targeted at W.

Looks like no blame to me. As long as we're constructing pessimal hands, give W QJx KQJxx Kx Jxx, and 3♥ is too high. Make that the AQx in ♠s, and you end up in a no-play game.

Makes sense, though it's not the hands where slam's making that I expect to show a profit from a natural XX. At what point do you switch from XX as for blood to control showing, though? My default has always been the four level.

If they can XX it and were otherwise thinking about the 6 level, sure.

Not for me. People always seem to want to upgrade mega-good hands, and it feels like an extension of the learner's desire to bid strong hands twice. If anything it seems like you should lean towards conservatism, since hands tend to play worse the more imbalanced the strength is. Here I have 7 tricks with little hope of establishing an 8th on length (unless P has 4 Hs, in which case I'm likely to finding myself in a contract needing an extra 3 tricks), and if I open 2♣, I'd certainly expect P to raise me with eg Axx xxx xxx xxxx. That said, I think playing 2N as 20-21 and 2C as 22+ is much better. Have the uncomfortably wide range come up as infrequently as possible.

It's a brave P can who double 3♠ with both opps unlimited and slamhunting on Qxxx Axxx xx xxx. There's nothing stopping the opps from having a Moyesian in my book, if the player with 4 has slam interest. On a really bad day, when both of them are slamming, they might show up with an 8 card fit.

If partner is supposed to pull with that, I'm not sure what our X is supposed to be for. Even if he knew we were exactly 1444, he'd probably still pass the X, but we have 4N for a two-suiter, so what's left? 0454 exactly? ♥s and ♦s specifically? If the latter, what would opener's 4N followed by a pull to 5♦ of 5♣ be?

I wouldn't dream of pulling the X with that. Will be interested to hear whether the stronger players disagree.

Is XYZ particularly prevalent in the US? It never would have occurred to me to mention it to UK opps, on the grounds that I've never encountered any pair who claim to play it. I guess that might be related to weak NT being prevalent over here.

I didn't pick anything randomly, I picked the weakest hand that came to mind on which 5♦ looked good. He could also have Jxx or xxxx in trumps and xx in ♥s, xxx in trumps and a stiff ♥, KQx(x) in ♣s; 5 ♥s to the J and a favourable wind, or a suitable pair of K♣; QJ ♣s with the K onside; A♠; K♠ with the A onside; doubleton trumps and doubleton ♥, and various other holdings that'd give us squeeze or endplay prospects. Then there's nige's hand, which gives us excellent odds for 6♥. I also don't see any reason to assume the opps have 20 points between them. Perhaps a lot depends on how aggressively you expect P to X over 1♠.

This seems incredibly pessimistic. We rate to make 5♦ opposite as little as xxx Qx xx xxxxxx.

Ug. 4N for me, planning to pull 5♣ to 5♦, pass 5♦, and raise 5♥ to 6. We might go down one when we have 300 our way, but I doubt we're setting this by three opposite a passed hand, and we need so little from P to make game.

If partner bid slam over 5♦ with that, I don't think he's been listening to the auction. Why not cue/Last Train 5♥, confirming something in ♣s, and possibly showing the a stiff A or ♥ void depending on partnership agreements and leave the final decision to me? We've already had a revealing enough auction that I doubt the opps are going to find the wrong lead.

I think a good charitable principle that gets overlooked (inc by me) too often is that almost every gain for System A over System B must have a contrastable loss. If we communicate more in one auction, it typically means that in another we've communicated less in another (eg we've said more in XYZ after 1x 1y / 1N than in the alternative, more in our style after 1x 1y / 1z). Even the benefits themselves on any given auction are often irregular verbs: I find a better contract, you reveal more info to the defence; I find thin games, you bid dodgy games; I find a better denomation, you give them room to compete. All else being equal, I pay attention to system arguments to the extent that their authors are scrupulous about acknowledging the trade-offs (and then explaining why they're worthwhile in expectation).

The most likely hand for P to have to make a robust slam must be something like Kxxx x (QJx)xx AK(QJx)xx - ie with one or two of the minor suit quacks to make up his points. A cue of 5♦ would probably get me into slam most of the time it's right, and keep me out when P has Kxxx x KJx AQxxx. Whether I choose that or RKCB seems like a state of the match thing - do I want to generate swings, or stay out of 50% slams? It's hard to imagine passing, though.

I regret nothing! I lived as few men dare dream!

When opener's shown weakness and nothing else, odds are good that responder has a long suit rather than a tonne of HCP. Leading a ♠ looks like it (approx) gains when the opps have 11 tricks and S the ♠Q or when P has the ♠K over the ace and an outside entry. Leading a ♣ looks like it gains (approx) when they have no ♣ first or second-round control, or when P has the Q♠ and an outside entry. The latter looks more likely to me.

As far as I can see, virtually no top pairs play a forcing pass over a penalty double. 1Nx is too often the best spot for you, or the best spot you'll be able to find with >50% probability (for eg when deciding whether 4333 is one-suited or two suited, and if the latter, which is your second 4-card suit). 'Safe'?! The opps are going to be able to axe your 5-3 fits at the three level after this auction whenever it's right to do so, which will be a lot of the time. If responder has no shortage, even a 5-4 fit might go for several hundred against a part score.

What's so disciplined about this? Its ODR is nowhere near the ideal for a weak 2.

Right, because most parterships have time to do this for every single sequence, and all are aiming to be world champions :rolleyes:

It seems like any system which doesn't allow you a NF pass or nat redouble is a loser. That basically leaves you with natural or some form of Stavely wriggle. I'm a big fan of the latter, which let you show any 2-suiter excluding ♣s, with some extra precision in the majors. Its only real downside that I can see is that opener can't make preemptive raises of a potentially nonexistent suit, but I haven't seen that come up much. It also lets opener pull more safely, since responder's pass is usually made on a balanced hand. Here's our full system: Responder's calls: 2♣ = ♣s or any other two-suiter (Next call by responder after they X) - XX = ♦s and ♥s - 2♦ = ♦s and ♠s - 2♥ = ♥s and ♠s* 2♦ = ♦s or ♥s and ♠s (Next call by responder after they X) - XX = ♥s and ♠s with (equal or*) better ♥s - 2♥ = ♥s and ♠s with better ♠s 2♥♠ = nat * NV we play showing the majors via 2♣ as better ♥s, vul we just bid the better minor to reduce the risk of playing undoubled in your 3-1 fit. If opener passes he usually has a mid-strength balanced or semibalanced hand. Opener then has all the same options, plus XX to show whatever 2-suiter(s) you prefer (presumably ♣s and at least one other), which responder can also use after passing to a double by LHO. Side benefit: it's a lot more fun than other wriggles ;)

I didn't give him a chance to win the diamond. If I had, the foreseeable D ruff would have killed the contract much quicker.

I agree that it's the obvious call. That said, I wasn't mega-surprised given the running suit and stop in theirs that 3N is a much better game than 4H (laydown if P can play it), so I was wondering if anyone could offer a reason to find it. Also, 85% seems very optimistic to me. I have 5 losers that I need P to cover 2+ of. The KD opposite is very unlikely, and any outstanding aces are likely to be with RHO, so my best chances of a good game are finding P with two bullets, or a stiff D and three trumps, or a bullet, stiff D and two trumps. None seem that likely, though I'd be surprised if they didn't easily sum to enough for it to be a good teams bid.