w/w IMPs playing with chuck. Chuck deals and opens.


1D*-(p)-1H-(1S)
p-(p)-?

*11-15, 2+


A Q 8 6
A J T 9
A K T 8 6

What's the best way to get my hand to the right contract? Obv I want to get chuck's best minor, since we have to have an 8 card fit there. Not sure how to find it.

Here is what I did:

I'd bid 2S first and 3C after partner's 2NT

Might partner pass 3C though? (I think he's lucky 2NT didn't get passed — I don't think that's forcing.) I think 2S, then 4C if that's natural or 3S if it's not.

At IMPs you're probably right vulnerable and may be NV. At matchpoints, failure to bid with this hand when not vulnerable is conceding the board; vulnerable, it's not so good. But when you do overcall, sometimes you get a terrible result, but more often (at least NV) you get out unscathed and either buy the contract for a small plus or direct the defense for a good matchpoint result.

To answer your specific question: if partner bids 2S he has a good hand and a good suit — the good hand (though not enough to overcall the first time, so usually ~7 to 9 HCP) because he knows both opps are bidding and he doesn't see a fit, the good suit because of that, and because he can't have a trashy six carder else he'd have overcalled 2S at his first turn. So I don't love it, but I bid 2NT and accept whatever partner's decision is (and it will usually be pass, and we will be in decent shape, as we have the balance of HCP and most of the honors are reasonably well positioned). Maybe that will be a poor score but it won't be a disaster — the disasters come when I'm doubled for a million, or (at matchpoints) when I'm down 200 on a part score deal. And those things won't happen all that often.

sry? you think

1D*-(p)-1H-(1S)
p-(p)-2S (p) 2NT (p) 3C is passable?

Is it normal to respond 1h instead of 2c here? (Precision noob question)

I'm worried that partner might thing it is. I suppose it can't be — we should be forced to at least 3H. But it sounds to me like a dangerous auction. (Notice I didn't say it wasn't forcing, only that partner might pass. I said that 2NT on the actual auction isn't forcing.)


Not really imo, which may be part of the problem.

I would never ever EVER double in that spot. I don´t want to defend 1S when they have 9 spades and we have a very likely slam. So, yes, what brrrr said, 2S and after partner´s expected 2NT response 3C, which is GF ldo.

Not for me.

You have to have solid agreements over 1D-2C though.

We do not deny a 4cM in this sequence and reverses only show shape, not values.

In the sequence show though, I bid 2S. When partner bids 2NT, I'll bid 3C which has to be GF. Partner better bid 4C now. Partner has already shown some of his values in spades, so I'll just happily raise 4C to 6.

2C over 1D, as noted; then you don't have this problem. If LHO doesn't overcall, you get a natural bid from partner and can pattern out with 3H tne 4D over the likely 3NT, or just jam 4S down partner's throat. If LHO overcalls 2S anyway, you can still do the same thing or just dispense with the hearts.

1D - P - 2C (2S)
P - P - 3S - P
3NT - P - 4D oughta be pretty clear.

+ 1 mirrion

You guys have firm agreements about either of the following?

1) Voluntary raise to 5M
(e.g., if <blah> applies, it's X, otherwise if <blah> then it's Y, otherwise Z)
In particular, we had the auction:
1S - 2H
3H - 4C
4H - 5H

2) How to bid invitational 4=4 and invitational 4=5 major hands in an XYZ and Walsh-style context, say after 1C-1H; 1N-?

If the opps have bid one suit and we haven't cuebid it, means "bid slam unless you have 2 fast losers in their suit"; otherwise, means bid slam unless you are missing both A and K of trumps.

Once upon a time, there was a second "if": if opps haven't bid and we have bid 3 suits, means "bid slam unless you have 2 fast losers in the unbid suit". If you are playing Italian style cues, the middle meaning is probably obsolete for you (opener has already denied both DA and DK in your posted auction above) and it's asking about trumps. But no matter what kind of cues you play there usually are ways to find out about one unbid suit before reaching the level of 5M, and the need for, e.g., asking about diamonds with 1C-1H-1S-3S-5S, just is not there.

Play a form of checkback where opener gives you some useful information after 2C rather than playing 2C-forces-2D. Your latter question is one of several reasons I dislike garden variety XYZ.

ouch...

Variance: The Sunday Swiss is still tomorrow. If I lose all 7 rounds is it time to quit bridge?

What's wrong with 2-way NMF?

1C-1H
1N-

2C: All invitational hands or diamond busts, forces 2D
....2D: relay
........pass: duh
........2H: 5H inv
........2S: 4S-4H inv
........2NT: 10-12 balanced 4card H
........3D: 4H, 4+D, 10-12 (typically unbalanced)
........3H: 6H invitational

2D: GF, asks for 4 card other major or 3 card support

Opener shows the following in order of priority:

4 other major
3 card support
5 card minor
2NT shows none of the above

2NT: relay to 3C, either to play or slam try in openers minor
.....3c: forced
..........new suit shows support for openers minor and shortness in suit bid

Thought I played pretty well in the KO, but a lot of little swings, and some big swings added up. It is quite aggravating to make a 21 HCP r/w 3NT and lose 5 IMPs. Or carefully avoid a 3nt with Qx/AKQx/AKJx/xxx opposite JT/xxx/Qxxx/KQxx that makes at the other table on a spade lead...

2nd session I thought I played well until the end. Then screwed up a fairly simple hand

AQ4
87
QT9763
62

JT53
AK64
KJ
A84

Plan the play in 3nt after the 3c is lead. Presented as a problem I expect pretty much everyone here to get it right. But the last hand of the second session, **** happens. Would of barely been enough, oh well.

Third session dad just offered to pay for me to try to finish off the LM. It didn't really go well at all.

@DC -- yeah that's what XYZ is (when Z=1N) and what Siegmund dislikes. I was curious what people did with 4-4 inv (in your scheme, you bid 2C-2D; 2S) and 4=5 inv hands, which your scheme didn't address. You might bid 2S directly, which sounds GF, but I could understand it not being so.

So this is fine and all, but what I don't understand is what the hell partner has here.

We play ERKC so he has options (4S/5C/5D) over 3H. If all he cared about was trump quality, he had 5H available over 3H. And he had 4N RKC over 4H. Seems like he can find out about my trump holding in a variety of other ways. But he chose to cuebid 4C. Basically I want to know if his not bidding 5H over 3H means we're in a 5H=quantitative situation now.

One of my partners feels particularly strongly about this. I'm not sure I do, and I think we can address it (this concern) by playing 2S: 4-5 inv (at least it gets the shape right), 2C-2D-2S = 4-4 inv.

But I'm interested in your other comments on why XYZ sucks.

I'm sure it is possible to plug at least some of the weaknesses in XYZ. Some of it even is just a mindset realignment: after 1m-1M-1N-2C-2D it's very much a "responder shows, opener decides" model. This feels to me like the less-informed person is being forced to make the decisions. As responder I feel lost in a lot of XYZ auctions, where I am accustomed to asking partner a question with checkback and then making the decision myself. Maybe you can get used to it and survive it. Shrug.

Some specific complaints I have:

1) You lose all your cooperative weak auctions. Playing one-way checkback you lose only half of them. Remember that weak hands are more frequent than invitational ones. An auction like 1m-1M-1N-2m(natural and weak) leaves opener in the picture to correct back to 2M when he has 3-card support. 1m-1M-1N-2C-2D-Pass doesn't. You are either going to miss a lot of good 5-3 major fits on weak hands, or you are going to be forced into routinely rebidding 2M with only 5 on the weak hands (I admit sims do say 2M on 5 is better than passing 1NT, though less good than returning to opener's minor and giving him a choice; and I admit I rebid 1NT with a singleton in responder's major routinely and many people don't.)

2) You get to 3M rather than 2M on a lot of the rejected invitations.

The scheme dc posted requires responder to jump to 3H anytime he has six. Playing something like 2D=min denying 3 hearts, 2H=min promising 3 hearts, 2S=max promising 3 hearts, 2N=max denying 3 hearts over the 2C inquiry, it can go 1m-1M-1N-2C-2D-2M or 1m-1M-1N-2C-2M-Pass when opener is minimum and responder is inv.

Related to the above,
3) When you are headed for a contract in responder's major, you expose information about responder's hand unnecessarily - in particular, whether he has 5 or 6 hearts.
"Its just a tradeoff, playing the asking-bid way you expose information about opener's hand when you wind up playing in NT or his minor," you might say -- but opener's length in responder's major is usually exposes anyway, if responder shows 5 and opener retreats to 2N or 3m.

4) You have fewer chances to use sensible game tries rather than just min/max decisions. After 1m-1H-1N-2C-2H I played responder's 2S/3m rebids as game tries in hearts. I guess in dc's scheme, after 1m-1H-1N-2C-2D-2H opener probably doesn't need 2S or 3 of the other minor for anything but game tries. But if responder jumps to 3M, same story.

---

I guess the best way I can put it is, there is only a reason to use XYZ / 2-way NMF if you are having trouble finding ways to sort out all the problem hands with a one-way scheme. Maybe you are; I was always very happy with putting all the invitations plus some of the 5CM GF hands through 2C, and having 2 of a suit weak and 3 of a suit strong.
If you really do feel you need more strong sequences, it may be worth trying to keep more weak ones in play by using more transfers: for instance, have one bid promising invitational strength over which opener shows major length and min/max, and four other bids as transfers, either weak or strong. But I can't imagine how it can be right to put the weak hand with diamonds in with the invitations. Ugh.

I see no real problem with this. Opener has promised 2 with his NT rebid, and you have invitational strength and a fit. Being at the 3 level here is fine with me.

Granted, I like this style MUCH better with a weak NT system, where the 1NT rebid is showing 15-17, but it works just as well in a 12-14 1NT rebid.

Thanks for the thoughts. I've got ideas related to how to address some of your concerns but not others. Obviously there's no panacea, and several times I've had good results in 2M= when the field is in 3M-1 (perhaps my favorite feature of XYZ), but there's a lot to think about.

1. We just have that one be "go on good trumps", for sake of simplicity. It's probably not 100% optimal, but it's probably about 85-90% optimal and 100% unmistakable, so that's a plus.

2. Don't play Walsh style, and my partners will be boring and have bid up the line instead of bidding 1NT, so... no.

Doh. You'll get 'em tomorrow. If you don't, you can have the random 2.6 silver I picked up yesterday. The always exciting 63.3% - 49.8% two session pair game was good enough for fifth overall in a 12 table game.

Highlights:

1. Rolling up a +570 after restraining myself to open only 2H in third seat none vul on xx AKQTxx xxxx x -- and yes, that's a half matchpoint better than +530 in 3Hx

2. Picking up Q9xx Axx - AKQJxx, hearing partner open 1S, and eventually GSFing -- and it's a good thing the spades split 2-2 opposite partner's A5432 of trump.

3. Managing to screw up basically every conventional agreement we discussed during the 1 hour car ride over.