My preference would be to see a checkbox for frequent very light responses, like the existing checkboxes for very light openings and overcalls.

When does is quit being a psych/deviation/whatever, and become part of your system? When your partner starts to expect it and cater to it. I know a number of people who have an agreement to always respond when holding an ace. Some of them have an additional agreement -- that responder is allowed to pass allegedly forcing rebids like 1D-p-1H-p-3C if he has responded on only-an-ace, and has no chance of contributing the two winners opener expects. Sure, passing forcing bids is a common way of exposing pyschs, in other auctions; but here we are in a situation where if opener is looking at a 19 count, responder is going to have 4 or less quite often. That 3C bid might be being passed as often as 25% of the time that it comes up, and your opponent who is waiting patiently to double 3NT or 5m might want to know that. I think a nonforcing jump shift by opener is solidly into the unusual-and-unexpected territory that calls for an alert.

One of the few clues you can look for on an opponent's convention card is Wolff Signoff. Stopping in a partscore with 18 opposite 6 is a very narrow target, and people who are big fans of this convention are nearly certain to be responding on a lot of 4s (and perhaps jumping to 2NT on upgraded 16s and 17s).

I have no problem with honest psyching, and indulge in it more often than most others in my area do. But you learn within one or two sessions with a new partner if he habitually responds light.

fmk's three example responding hands: yes, I think a large majority of people would bid on all three of these, sincerely valuing them "as good as Kxxx xxx Kxxx xx". Just past fmk's last example is where things get really interesting. Somewhere around QT9xx Jxxx xxx x is where I start to feel aggrieved. By the time you get to Kxxxx xxx xxx xx you've lost all semblence of having almost-a-response or having two good places to play to offer partner.

I don't know anyone who does against standard 1m-p-1M auctions either, but I suspect that is because of a) lack of disclosure, and b) in a lot of fields either "everybody" is sound or "everybody" is light. But we both know a lot of people who treat 1C(Precision)-p-1H-1NT differently from 1C(Standard)-p-1H-1NT.

Related to disclosure ... for several months, I actually had the agreement with a regular partner that 1m-X-1M(Forcing)-X was a desire to compete while 1m-X-1M(NF)-X was values in responder's major. We gave it up after we discovered that the most common answer to "is 1M forcing?" in club games and sectionals was "I don't know." (Which of the two is a good agreement depends not just on whether 1M is forcing but on how prone to cuteness your opps are-- my point is just that the mixed counter-strategy was hard to implement because of opponents not knowing their system, not that it is necessary a good place to vary your system.)

I actually WOULD seriously consider "Sandwich NT unless the opponents play Wolff or 2nd-round transfers over 1m-1M-2N," as something that is likely to be on the cc's of the people who are most likely to respond light.

---

The 15-17 vs 14+ to 17 item is a prime example, where the defenders will very often be able to place a key card based on knowing declarer can't have 14. I am happy to say that as upgrading has become more popular, so too has disclosure of it on cards.

i don't think either a) or b) are even in the ballpark for why people don't play this treatment tbh.

Do you mean that you don't believe there is such a thing as a game where you can afford to give up a natural 1NT here? Or do you believe that it's sensible to play natural in some fields and sandwich in other fields, but have another reason in mind why a changing-based-on-their-system method is bad?

No, fmk, responding at the one level with a zero count is not alertable. And I don't know that this specific auction is a big offender because I don't even recall a place on the CC card where it should be noted. But the point I'm making, and i think Sieg is too, is that any action that one takes routinely becomes part of the partnership methods and therefore should be disclosed in whatever manner is appropriate for that particular agreement, which may be an alert, a convention card notation, or just an answer to a question if asked, depending on what the action is. I picked upgrades to notrump in my post because that one clearly has a place on the CC, a place that I believe a majority of advanced players fill in incorrectly, as a majority open 1NT more widely, particularly in the downward direction, than they claim.

(And wyman is right that that particular issue comes up mostly on defense, though certainly a lot of players play different defensive bidding schemes versus an opening notrump depending on its range, and presumably that's for a reason.)

This is why stripsqueez's response is inapt — neither I nor Sieg is talking about psyches, because anything that a player does routinely (as brrrr implied in the origibal comment on responding with a zero count) is no longer a psyche, it's part of the methods. We're talking about failure properly to disclose those methods.

To your first question I think both natural and sandwich are fine and playable in this spot. I have a slight preference for natural but obviously you run more risk of getting a bad score, though I think the pros outweigh the cons. To your second, I've never switched treatments or conventions based on my perception of the field, to be honest, so the event has nothing to do with it.

I just don't think it's practical to try to define when sandwich would apply and when natural would apply if you played a variable thing. As Justin posted, assuming your opponents do give you full disclosure and define their 1M response as "usually 6+ when balanced but sometimes less if unbalanced and sometimes as few as 0 with a void or singleton in the opening suit" then you'd presumably have no idea if you should treat this as the 6+ or 0+ unless you nit it up and have the opponents define "sometimes" and "usually".

Which raises another point: if you played this variable NT thing, do you intend to ask about their 1M response every time it comes up or only when it affects your decision? Because the former sucks and the latter can be bordering on that c-word.

Drifting a bit from the original topic, it certainly is frustrating how often "I don't know" can affect one's system. The one that comes to my mind: Pard and I used to play a 10–13 notrump white, 11–14 red, with a moderately elaborate system of runouts from a direct double which, when I initially designed them, depended on the meaning of the double: one system for penalty and penalty-oriented doubles, another for conventional and takeout-oriented doubles. Simples, right — after all, who wouldn't know the meaning of his partnership's (1NT) X?

The answer: A lot of people, because of the unusual range. We tried various approaches, including trying to get advancer to say either the word "penalty" or "takeout" depending on what system we preferred to use (and yes, this is unethical too, so we stopped pretty quickly), before finally giving up and settling on a single treatment, as we were having to choose, once a session it seemed like, between guessing (and hoping to be on the same wavelength as partner) and calling the director (which never helped anyway).

Looking back on it, I'm not sure why we didn't just use one system for an unambiguous "Takeout/conventional" answer, another for penalty and "I don't know".

Edit: Now I remember why: Because even those who claimed to be playing it as conventional, wound up floating it more often than not, so we decided to treat all direct doubles as penalty even when told that's not what they meant.

I play a 9-14 1nt in all seats - its normal for someone to make a conventional double of a weak 1nt and it gets left in so I treat all doubles the same - in any event I reckon you are doing it wrong if your plan is to find the best way to run when a weak 1nt gets hit - you should show them a bigger knife and play an immediate XX to play

re psyching and/or not disclosing - human nature means that you simply can't expect good disclosure all the time - I have done the cost/benefit analysis and worked out to leave it alone - except - I became so incensed about one of these positions about 10 years ago now that I keep a record when it comes up which is about twice a year so that if it happens again with the same opponents I can't be told its a psyche or its the first time it has happened - its when they get caught in 1nt hit and the weak hand bids his shortage natural and then redoubles for rescue - apparently that is just bridge...

Yes, it's normal for a conventional double to be left in; that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about what advancer is expected to do with an uninteresting hand. It changes the probabilities, and I'd prefer to get it right as often as possible.

The methods involved, among many other things, responder's pass of 1NT (X) forcing opener to redouble; this could be left in for business, and frequently was.

(fwiw, 9–14 isn't allowed in North American tournaments, because it's both too wide and too weak. I envy you that — I'd like to play 8–11 in some situations.)

Teams - Vul All

5
Q9xxx
KTxx
KQJ

x here is any card below 7




2 passes to you, your move?

1H WTP?

I might pass that in 4th seat, but every other seat is an auto open

especially in 3rd seat

Seems like a totally standard 1H in all positions and vulnerabilities.

I open 1 heart but I don't feel good about it - I don't particularly want a heart lead when we defend and my opponents likely have a spade fit

I play a system where partner would of opened with 4+ spades and not a 4333 or say some 0-3 4432's - I am obsessed with spades... - I wouldn't pass but I don't think I open 1 heart either

I open my opening bid (I'd feel slightly guilty in 1st or 2nd seat but I'd still open), and wonder what prompts the question.

We could easily have a game: xxxx KJxx Ax xxx looks pretty chilly. Not that we're going to bid game opposite that, but, yeah.

He probably ran into a partner with a 5044 0 count and LHO holding AKJxxx of hearts. 1H floated around to RHO who doubled with his 4243 shape and 1H got slaughtered.

Even if this worst case scenario happened, 1H is automatic here.

I'm sure you can end up in 2D in that spot

sure with a reasonable partner no problem

Weaken it a bit (a tiny bit), and you can open 2H. As presented, 1H is clear. The opening lead issue arises occasionally but is much less important than looking for the best possible fit, and either that's hearts and the way to get to them is to bid them, or it's a minor and the best (though not only) way to get there is with some sequence of you opening hearts and someone reopening with a double.

Pass is correct only if the hand is going to be passed out, in which case the damage at teams is going to be low regardless and you'll wind up ahead a moderate amount of the time anyway, or if you later get to make a takeout double of spades, opps win the auction, and pard now judges his opening lead better. These are narrow targets; correctly judging the best suit for competition and the best level to which to do it is much more important.

Gabe is right of course, and planning one's auction around the expectation that partner will screw up is not a recipe for happiness.

Actually, if I could open 2H Muiderberg, it is a valid option. The suit bothers me of course, but taking away an entire level of bidding might compensate for the potential disasters.

everyone passed

at the other table:

dealer opened an 11 point hand with (exact distribution unknown except that it had one suit with an ace, another with ak, and was relatively flattish)



i still think pass is probably defensible theoretically but i can see how events like this occuring make it mandatory from that point forward

If it was AK, A... well, that's why you open those hands

If it was A, A, K scattered in some 4333 hand with no spots, I don't mind passing.

That 4H makes is probably a bit of a fluke, and getting there almost certainly is is (I'll wager a small sum that the guy with AAK decided to game force after passing, which is obviously ******ed on principles)

but hey, even +170 vs. a passout is win 5

broken record here, but this type of hand is reason #4682 to play precision. the hand with AAK is a clear opener and, as a rule, responder won't do anything crazy unless there is a good fit usually.

somehow i left out of my previous post (but at least implied that)

at the other table the AAK opened and it was then my hand that forced to game, 4H making

Some seasonal bridge humor:

The North Pole Duplicate Bridge Club wasn't a zero-tolerance club.

All of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names.
They never let poor Rudolph join in any reindeer games.



Stuffed animals are handmade by my girlfriend, she sells them at craft fairs locally and over the internet. Sleigh team organized into two tables of bridge by me.

If you think it is cute, high-resolution PDFs suitable for printing out as 11x17 posters and hanging on bridge club walls are available, vertical or horizontal format.