WMSG

I've watched less than I would have liked of the first World Mind Sports Games on the Vu-Graph at BBO. But when I could, it was fun watching England do so well. The Women and Seniors had great results, but I was really rooting for the Open team. They were up against really tough opposition, and not expected to medal. But they reached the final against Italy, and refused to be blown out by the huge favorites. Every time they fell behind, they found a way to close the gap, and while they didn't catch up, they stayed within striking distance and pushed the Italians all the way. I was very impressed by Townsend-Gold. Watching some previous events on BBO, they hadn't made much impression on me. But they had a great Games, and I wasn't surprised to hear that they were voted best pair at the games by some spectators. 

Opening 2C And Responses

I have described in an older post what Agent 99 and I play. I wanted to put out another post, because there are a couple of good alternatives floating around that I would be interested in trying, and in hearing how other people get on with them.

An idea I used to like is an artificial positive set-up, perhaps similar to:
• 2D: any 0-3, or 4-7 with a 5-card or longer major
• 2H: any 8+ unbalanced or 10+ balanced
• 2S: 4-6 balanced, or 4-7 with a 5-card or longer minor
• 2NT: 7-9 balanced
The reason why I consider this sort of scheme playable is that while it seems harmful or perhaps just not useful to condense all positive replies into 2H, I have looked at hundreds of deals where a 2C opening is faced by a positive response. In virtually every case, the final contract should be a slam. So it actually makes sense to use only one bid for those hands, and use two or three responses to categorize the "semi-positive" hands.

A similar sort of philosophy gets a very different implementation as described by Martin Johnson at
http://www.freewebs.com/bobbybridge/
(some interesting stuff there). He calls it "Two, Weak, Transfer".
• 2D: A positive hand with at least an ace or 6 working points, unsuitable for any of the special higher responses. All hands of 10+ HCP and most hands with 1.5 quick tricks use this response.
• 2H: A negative response, the auction may stop at 2NT, 3 of a major or 4 of a minor
• 2S: A medium strength TWO-suited hand. Minimum strength is any hand that does not intend to stop below game, maximum of two kings or 1 quick trick.
• 2NT: A WEAK single suited hand with no side entry, and a decent suit. The bid denies two top honors, but any seven card suit qualifies as "decent".
• 3C, 3D, 3H: A good single suited hand minimum suit KQJxxx or AQ10xxx with no side king or ace, suit shown is the next higher (TRANSFER response).
Once again, there is a positive response and a negative response. But this time, the other bids are used to describe particular types of responder hands that are difficult to get across otherwise. I like this idea, because while I appreciate that the ideal auction has the opener as captain (because his hand is so strong), I also feel that standard methods provide too few mechanisms for responder to describe whatever contribution he might make. Discovering point count or controls can be done later: identifying shape, or that there is a suit without an outside entry, is both more difficult and more useful. That makes this set-up far better than, say, step responses.

For something completely different, you can go to Dr. Chris Ryall’s website
http://chrisryall.net/bridge/two/clubs.htm#responses
for his description of Paradox responses.
• 2D: Can supply a trick in support of either hearts or spades.
• 2H: Cannot supply a trick for hearts, may or may not have a trick for spades.
• 2S: Cannot supply a trick for spades, but promises a trick for hearts.
Both the 2H and 2S responses are a form of negative, bidding the suit that responder doesn’t like (hence, Paradox). They are therefore not forcing, if opener doesn’t have game in his own hand. An auction like 2C – 2H; Pass would probably make the opponents blink, but it’s perfectly logical. Suppose you open 2C on a hand that is single-suited with hearts, and you estimate 8 or 9 tricks in hand. Partner responds 2H, saying he has no help. Obviously, the thing to do is pass. Of course, that means the requirements for the 2H and 2S responses must be pretty tight – opposite a typical 2C opening, you really don’t need much to contribute a trick. But the general idea is interesting, and may be worth exploring.

Of the three methods, Martin Johnson’s “Two, Weak, Transfer” system has me the most excited at the moment. I’m going to run up some random 2C openings and try to compare possible sequences.

Misadventures In Manhattan

Slams were definitely a problem last week. Not just for us, the opponents didn’t do so well either.

E-W vul, dlr W

          ♠ J 10 9
          ♥ 9 5 3 2
          ♦ 9
          ♣ 10 8 6 3 2
♠ K Q 4 2            ♠ A 8 7 6
♥ Q 6       [ ]      ♥ A K 10 8
♦ K 10 2             ♦ A J 8 5 4
♣ K Q 7 4            ♣ -
          ♠ 5 3
          ♥ J 7 4
          ♦ Q 7 6 3
          ♣ A J 9 5

W    N    E    S
1♣   Pass 1♦   Pass
1♠   Pass 4♠   Pass
Pass Pass

This was distinctly un-enterprising from both sides of the table, but one of them has some excuse. Why West didn’t open 1NT (15-17) I have no idea. That would have made for a completely different auction, of course, but failing to make the bid seems very misleading. Certainly it seems to have fooled East, who would be worth a slam try in any sensible auction (and would probably drive to slam opposite 1NT). But having been primed to expect a minimum-ish opening with club values, she just pounded out 4♠, which West passed without a second’s thought - making all thirteen tricks after I led my singleton.

Game all, dlr S

          ♠ A Q
          ♥ 8 6
          ♦ J 10 7 6
          ♣ A K J 6 2
♠ K 8 6 3           ♠ J 10 4
♥ 10 4 3    [ ]     ♥ J 7 5 2
♦ 9 3               ♦ K 8 5
♣ Q 8 4 3           ♣ 9 7 5
          ♠ 9 7 5 2
          ♥ A K Q 9
          ♦ A Q 4 2
          ♣ 10

S    W    N    E
1♦   Pass 2♣   Pass
2NT  Pass 3NT  Pass
Pass Pass

This one isn’t really a slam, but I wanted to include it for completeness. We scored 720 for the second time in the session – I don’t remember ever doing that before.

The opening spade lead forced a finesse at trick one. Partner then crossed to the ♥A and ran the ♣10, crossed back to the ♠Q to cash clubs, and then took the diamond finesse. On the fourth round of diamonds, East (who had lost interest) discarded a heart, and that was thirteen tricks. I did give passing thought to 6♦ before bidding 3NT, but twelve tricks seemed a bit unlikely. Swap the East-West hands and declarer isn’t nearly so happy.

Against the previous pair of opponents, we’d racked up 720 on this one.

Game all, dlr E (rotated)

          ♠ Q 5 4
          ♥ A K J 3 2
          ♦ Q J 7
          ♣ A J
♠ J 8 6 3 2         ♠ 10 9 7
♥ 9 4       [ ]     ♥ Q 7 5
♦ 9 3               ♦ 6 5
♣ K 10 6 5          ♣ Q 9 7 4 3
          ♠ A K
          ♥ 10 8 6
          ♦ A K 10 8 4 2
          ♣ 8 2

E    S    W    N 
Pass 1♦   Pass 1♥
Pass 2♦   Pass 3NT
Pass Pass Pass

I didn’t think I had quite enough to jump to 3♦, even though I was impressed with my controls and partner was bidding to cover my losers. And I don’t see what else I might have rebid, so that means I have to place the blame with partner. Truthfully, he really is too good to close the auction with 3NT, and for all he knows 4♥ would be better anyway, even if there is no slam. So how about
E    S    W    N 
Pass 1♦   Pass 1♥
Pass 2♦   Pass 3♥
Pass 3♠   Pass 3NT
Pass 4♥   Pass 6♦
Pass Pass Pass

Knowing us, we would probably finish up in 6♥, but the layout is so friendly that everything makes.

In a different session, I played with Agent 99.

Love all, dlr N

          ♠ A Q 6
          ♥ A Q J
          ♦ A J 8
          ♣ K 7 6 3
♠ K 8               ♠ 9 7 3
♥ 9 5       [ ]     ♥ 10 8 7 6 3 2
♦ K 7 6 5 4 2       ♦ 10 9 3
♣ 9 8 5             ♣ J
          ♠ J 10 5 4 2
          ♥ K 4
          ♦ Q
          ♣ A Q 10 4 2

N    E    S    W
2NT  Pass 3♥   Pass
3♠   Pass 4♣   Pass
4♦   Pass 4♥   Pass
4♠   Pass 4NT  Pass
6♣   Pass 6♠   Pass
Pass Pass

This finished in a reasonable contract, but with much confusion. I intended 4♦ as Redwood 1430, agreeing clubs. Agent 99 wasn’t sure what suit I was interested in, and treated it as a cuebid. So I thought 4♥ showed the ♣A, and 4♠ asked about the ♣Q (I was thinking 7♣ on a 4-4 fit might have play that 7♠ didn’t), and then I wasn’t sure what she meant by 4NT. Agent 99 thought 4♦ and 4♥ were cuebids, and was happy to hear 4♠ because she figured that set trumps. So then she proceeded with 1430, and didn’t know what to make of my answer.

In the event, everything depended on the spade finesse, and that was right, so the top score went to a pair that punted 7NT. But 6♠ is actually a very reasonable spot.

But what should our auction have been? Should 4♦ be treated as Redwood? I’m still inclined to think so, because if I want to press forward in clubs, it’s my only chance to use the convention. What if I prefer spades? Am I only allowed to bid 4♠, and rely on partner to make a move for slam if advisable? Perhaps so, and make sure to super-accept the initial transfer somehow if I really, really like spades. That sort of rationale would also work for spades and diamonds, or hearts and clubs, but it looks like we’re screwed if responder has hearts and diamonds. I’ll have to think on it some more.

Redeal

A quick update about the computer-dealt hands at the Manhattan.

At this time, the hands (or at least, the vast majority of them) are indeed being dealt by the computer as "random". (In fact, a lot of the "grunt work" of setting up the boards is being done by non-bridge-playing workers). So the complaints about computer-dealt hands are back in fashion, but my suspicions about hands being "adjusted" are out of play now.

So some people are bothered, but I'm actually happier.

Shuffling

As I’ve mentioned before, I play most of my bridge at the Manhattan Bridge Club. In response to customer requests for hand records after tournaments, the club has recently acquired a dealing machine. This is actually a pretty cool piece of equipment, when it’s working well. It’s hooked up to the PC, and the computer tells the machine which cards belong in which hand. An ordinary deck of cards is loaded in, and the dealing machine scans the face of each card, recognizes it, and feeds it into the correct (north, south, east or west) pile. You can either (manually) take the hands from the machine and put them in the board, or (this is the really cool way), if you have special boards that open up, you can put the board in the machine and then it deals the cards straight into the board. You just take out the board, close the lid, and move on to the next hand. Since the computer knows all the cards, it can produce the hand records, including double-dummy analysis by Deep Finesse.

So much to the good. But the introduction of this machine caused an immediate backlash against “computer-dealt” hands. The customer is always right, even when he’s wrong, so the management made a change to appease the new bunch of complainers. The hands are now shuffled and dealt by hand, so there is no basis for the “computer-dealt” complaint. The results of the manual shuffle are entered into the computer, and so (using one deck of cards really) a full set of 36 hand layouts are generated that can then be used by the dealing machine. Everybody is happy now, yes?

Well I’m not. Over the past few sessions, I’ve noticed a marked increase in the number of “interesting” deals. Misfits, slams on low point-count hands, singleton kings offside, etc suddenly seem to be cropping up all over the place. I have no evidence, of course, but it seems clear to me that at least one of the people doing the shuffling and dealing isn’t just entering whatever hand comes up. He is selecting for interesting or challenging hands, perhaps even adjusting things by moving a card or two around. This is understandable, in the sense of being a very human thing to do, when you are stuck with the tedious task of dealing and entering into the computer a set of thirty six hands. But I don’t need my games to be like a scenario from one of Hugh Kelsey’s books. I would be much happier with computer-dealt (ie truly random) hands.

The reason why people don’t like random deals is, as everyone knows, that they are used to seeing human-dealt hands that haven’t been shuffled properly. That typically results in hands that are noticeably too balanced, on average. So when they get a truly random set, where 4-3-3-3 is a rare hand pattern and most hands have a 5-card suit, they feel that things are “wild”. They aren’t: the usual hands are too tame.

Almost everyone uses some form of riffle shuffle. That is OK, as far as it goes, but most people shuffle three or four times and start dealing. If you really want to use a riffle shuffle, you should do it at least seven or eight times to get something approaching randomization. When’s the last time you saw anyone do that?

Many moons ago, when I was starting my duplicate career, there was a magazine article that outlined a very simple yet very random shuffle. You actually deal the cards, into a random number of piles, in a random order. To help avoid any unconscious bias, you can have someone else specify (occasionally) which pile a card should go onto, or whether it should start a new pile. (The piles don’t have to be the same size: if one has two cards and another fifteen, it doesn’t matter). I usually finish up with six or seven piles. These are then picked up in random order (and again, someone else can have input as to which pile goes on top next). The end result is a thoroughly randomized deck. And statistical analysis had been done to prove that the results are indeed more random than typical common shuffling techniques produce.

No particular skill is needed, because all you do is deal, mechanically speaking. This makes it a good method for children who haven’t mastered the necessary dexterity for other shuffles. The chief complaint I’ve heard (once I explained what I was doing) is that it takes too long. I think this complaint is bogus. For one thing, it doesn’t actually take all that long to do. For another thing, the complaint mostly comes from the people who don’t shuffle properly themselves. If they riffled nine times instead of three, they might rethink whether dealing the deck out takes too long.

This method gained some adherents back in the 1970s, but never became really widespread. I think that’s a shame, and if I could, I would try and make it better known.

Run-outs from 1NT Doubled

The only significant problem with opening a weak no-trump is the danger of getting caught for a penalty. Going for a large number really doesn’t happen very often at all, but if you are vulnerable, getting hit for 200 or 500 on what is essentially a part-score deal is a real possibility. But we don’t have to sit still for 1NT doubled if a suit fit looks to be better.

I am not suggesting that running is always the best policy. If responder has 6-8hcp in a more-or-less balanced hand, the points are split roughly equally between the two sides. The best choice will usually be to stand your ground and trust partner to bring home 1NT. If you are not vulnerable, even when very weak, responder may do best just to sit: if declarer can escape for one or two down, you may find that they have a good part-score or even game the other way.

But then there are the times when we need to escape. There are numerous methods for escaping from 1NT doubled. For better or worse, we have decided to go with Moscow run-outs, which are among the simplest methods. The advantages that I see are that the run-outs are easy to remember, and our constructive bidding doesn’t get damaged too much when the opponents are being silly. The biggest disadvantage is that we often lose the ability to play in 1NT doubled: we can play redoubled, but not doubled. That raises the stakes to an uncomfortable level when assets appear to be roughly equally divided. But to be fair, that’s a blade that cuts both ways. (For a much bigger discussion of the philosophy of competing over 1NT and different methods for competing and escaping, see Chris Ryall’s website:

http://chrisryall.net/bridge/1nt-complex.htm

I’m not saying I agree with everything he says, but I think I agree with most of it).

There are two basic situations, 1NT – Double and 1NT – Pass – Pass - Double.

1NT – Double

In this situation, we want to play “systems on”, so that our constructive bidding isn’t disrupted too much when the opponents are being silly. The escape bids are Pass, Redouble, and 2NT, all alertable.
Redouble requires opener to bid 2C. Responder can Pass with clubs, or bid 2D with diamonds.
2NT over the double shows both minors (pre-emptive), 5-5 or better.
Pass requires opener to redouble. Responder can then pass (to play in 1NT redoubled) or bid his lowest suit holding any two suits 4-4 or better. Opener passes with 3-card support or better, or bids the next suit up if he has a doubleton in responder’s first suit. Responder then passes or corrects to his second suit. We should therefore finish up in at worst a 4-3 fit at the two level. The opponents may find that harder to double.

1NT – Pass – Pass – Double – Pass – Pass

Note that with a very weak hand, after 1NT – Pass, as responder you should often try and bid something. The best hand at the table is on your left, and if you pass it will most likely double, announcing the situation to the world. If you can transfer to a suit or use garbage Stayman, you start to confuse the issue. A weak minor two-suiter can be handled by bidding 2S and either passing 3C from opener, or if he bids 2NT, correcting to 3D. That all being said, sometimes you pass, and a double comes back around to you.

In this situation, presumably responder either has enough to pass (which is how we can occasionally still play 1NT doubled), or has a one-suit run-out to a minor via redouble (same as above) or we’re in trouble. In the latter case, if responder has two suits at least 4-4, he bids the lower one. Opener passes with 3-card support or better, or bids the next suit up if he has a doubleton in responder’s first suit. Responder then passes or corrects to his second suit. As after the pass and compulsory redouble, we should therefore finish up in at worst a 4-3 fit at the two level. Since this means we can move to a suit contract, after 1NT – Pass, a responder looking at any weak hand with a mild two-suiter can elect to pass first and run later, if staying in 1NT looks plausible unless they double.

System Summary

A long time ago (it seems), I said I would post information about the bidding system I was playing with Agent 99. Well, there have been a few posts about specific topics, but generally I’ve been neglectful of that idea. We’ve been playing together for long enough now that the system has stabilized somewhat, so I’ve no real excuse not to write about it. Here’s a quick overview.

We play a Standard American natural system, with 2C as the artificial strong opening and a few gadgets. The basic framework is as suggested for Flint-Pender, described by Jeremy Flint about forty years ago. Key features include:
• 5-card majors with 1NT response forcing
• weak no-trump with three-suit transfer responses
• 1NT rebid has extended range, 13-17
This relatively simple basis allows for some accurate bidding, and easily accommodates some gadgets for fun and profit. Key conventions we employ include:
• 4th suit forcing
• Inverted minor suit raises
• Roman Key Card Blackwood, 1430 version
• Redwood 1430 when a minor suit has been agreed

1NT Rebid

The Flint-Pender formulation is that after 1plum – 1grape; 1NT shows 13-17hcp. Per the ACBL, this range has to be announced, since it is “non-standard” but overlaps what they consider to be standard.

Responses

Regardless of what suits have been bid, responder always has two artificial inquiries available.

2C – range inquiry. Opener bids 2D with 13-14hcp, 2NT with 17hcp, with 15-16hcp he bids two of responder’s major holding 3-card support, or two of the other major when lacking support. (If the bidding started 1C-1D, he bids two of his better major.)

2D – checkback Stayman, forcing to game. Responder is looking for a 4-card major that opener hasn’t mentioned, or for 3-card support for responder’s major.


1 Minor Opening

1 minor is natural, 3+ cards. We generally open the better minor, 1D holding 4-4 in the minors or 1C holding 3-3. Opener should have 11-20hcp in an unbalanced hand, or 15-20 balanced.

Responses

1major response may be weak (5+hcp) 4-card suit. With a balanced hand, opener will generally rebid 1NT (13-17) or 2NT (18-20), relying on subsequent inquiry mechanisms to return to a major suit if that is advisable.

1NT response to 1C shows about 8-10hcp. Holding 5-7hcp, responder may have to improvise a response in a 3-card suit to keep the auction open below 1NT.

Raises are inverted. Simple raise shows 10+hcp, 4-card support, and subsequent bidding revolves around stoppers for no-trump, unless or until one partner bypasses 3NT. Double raises are pre-emptive, 4-6hcp and often 5-card support.

Major-suit jump-shift responses are pre-emptive, based on a 6-card (or longer) suit and 0-5hcp. Jump-shifts to the other minor are pre-emptive raises of the opened minor, showing 7-9hcp and often 5-card support.

2NT response is natural and invitational, 11-12hcp. 3NT response is natural, 13-15hcp. In practice, both of these responses are very rare, and may be given an alternative (conventional) use if we find one we like.

1 Major Opening

1major opening is natural, 5+ cards, 11-20hcp usually.

Responses

1S over 1H may be weak (5+hcp) 4-card suit. With a balanced hand, opener will generally rebid 1NT (13-17) or 2NT (18-20), relying on subsequent inquiry mechanisms to return to a major suit if that is advisable.

2-over-1 suit responses are “meaty but not game-forcing”. In practice, most auctions will go to game, but it is possible to stop below game when responder is minimum (about 11hcp) and opener shows a minimum opening.

1NT response to 1major is forcing for one round, and handles many balanced responding hands plus unbalanced hands that are too weak for a 2-over-1 response. But part of the power of 1NT forcing is that it can handle some stronger responding hands. Responder can bid 1NT and then 2NT to indicate a 10-12hcp invitational hand, or 1NT and then 3NT to show 13-15hcp. 1NT and a jump to 3 of opener’s major would be a limit raise with 3-card support. And 1NT and then 4 of opener’s major, would show 3-3-3-4 distribution and game-going high-card strength, sometimes called a “pudding” raise.

Direct raises are standard limit raises.

Double-jump-shift responses, including 1H-3S and 1S-4H, are splinter raises, indicating a raise to game that includes 4+card support and a (bid) singleton.

Jump-shift responses are pre-emptive, based on a 6-card (or longer) suit and 0-5hcp.

The 2NT response is Jacoby-Roman, 12+hcp and 3+card support.

The 3NT response is currently undefined.

Other sequences

We don’t play Drury. However, 2-over-1 responses from a passed hand imply some support for opener’s suit (on the grounds that without that fit, no passed hand can be strong enough to give a 2-over-1), and if opener retreats to 2major, responder should realize that the opening bid is dead minimum or sub-minimum. By implication, opener should not simply rebid 2major when he is full value and doesn’t want to stop there.


1NT Opening

1NT opening is natural, 12-14hcp. Opener will very rarely have a 5-card major, but can have a 5-card minor in a 5-3-3-2 distribution. Rarely, 1NT may be opened with an off-shape hand, 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 where the long suit is a minor. Occasionally, opener might upgrade an 11-count with a 5-card suit.
Responses

2C is Stayman, generally either weak or strong, promises a 4-card major. New suits by responder at the two level are weak, at the three level are strong.

2D, 2H are major-suit transfers. Transfer then second suit is invitational+, forcing for one round. Transfer and single raise is 6-card suit, forcing to game, strong slam try.

2S is transfer to clubs. Opener completes the transfer with 3+ clubs, bids 2NT with a doubleton. Responder may pass 3C or bid 3D as weak takeout which opener must pass. Transfer followed by 3major is a splinter, game forcing, implying a strong 6-card minor suit (unspecified). Transfer followed by 3NT is game-forcing 5-5 with both minors.

2NT is natural and invitational, 11-12hcp.

3C, 3D are weakly invitational with a broken 6-card suit. Opener should only accept with good support.

3H, 3S are splinters, game forcing, with strong 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors.

3NT is natural, 13-18 balanced.

4C is Gerber.

4D, 4H are Texas transfers.

4S is unused.

4NT is natural, invitational to 6NT. If opener decides to accept, he may show aces as per Blackwood, and if responder then bids 5NT he must pass. Or opener may jump to 6minor to show a 5-card suit, offering a choice of slams.

5NT is forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT.

6NT and 7NT are natural.

2NT Opening

2NT opening is natural, 20-22hcp. Opener may have a 5-card major, and occasionally 2NT may be opened with an off-shape hand, 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2 where the long suit is a minor. With 20hcp, opener has a choice between opening 1minor and rebidding 2NT or opening 2NT. Generally, responder will treat the 2NT rebid as 18-19 and the 2NT opening as 21-22, trusting opener to downgrade or upgrade 20-counts appropriately.
Responses

3C is Stayman.
 
3D, 3H are major suit transfers.

3S is a relay indicating a minor-suit hand.

3NT is natural

4C is Gerber

4D, 4H are transfers

4S is unused.

4NT is natural, invitational to 6NT.
 
5NT is forcing to 6NT, invitational to 7NT.

6NT and 7NT are natural.

2C Opening

The 2C opening is artificial and forcing to game in almost all sequences. Opener should have 23+hcp balanced, or 22+hcp unbalanced, or 18+hcp unbalanced in a hand that is within one trick of game. These unbalanced hands will have at most 4 losers, and usually 3 or less.
Responses

2H, 2S, 3C, 3D are natural positives showing 8+hcp and a suit of at least 5 cards headed by two top honors. 2NT is a natural positive showing 7-9+hcp balanced. Bidding continues naturally, and should almost always finish in a slam.

2D is a relay, negative or waiting, indicating that responder is unable to make one of the above positive responses. Opener’s rebids are essentially natural, with a couple of exceptions.

After 2C-2D, opener rebids:
• 2NT is 23-24hcp balanced
• 3NT is 27-28hcp balanced
• 2H is Kokish, either game forcing with hearts or game forcing balanced.
• Responder will normally relay with 2S, when 2NT shows 25-26hcp balanced, 3NT shows 29-30 balanced, and a suit bid is a natural second suit indicating that the 2H bid showed hearts.
• Responder can break the relay over 2H only with a very weak (0-3hcp) minor suit hand and no tolerance for hearts. Bidding 3C or 3D shows a 7+card suit headed by at best the queen.
• 2S, 3C, 3D are natural (5+cards)
• 3H, 3S show a 4-card suit with longer diamonds. This is a gadget to make sure that a 4-4 major fit doesn’t get lost when opener’s longest suit is diamonds.
After opener rebids 2NT, responder bids as after a 2NT opening. After opener rebids 3NT, 4C is Stayman, 4D, 4H are transfers.


2D, 2H, 2S Opening

We play standard weak 2s, a 6-card suit headed by two of the top three honors or three of the top five. Strength is 5-9hcp not vulnerable, 6-10hcp vulnerable.


Higher Openings

We play fairly sound standard pre-empts, plus the Gambling 3NT.





Competitive Bidding

We are playing overcalls as pretty standard. Simple overcalls are generally around 8-16hcp with a 5-card suit. Jump overcalls are weak with 6+cards, similar to a weak 2 opening. 1NT overcall is 15+-18hcp, systems on, in direct seat, about a king less in balancing seat.

We play Michaels cue-bids and the Unusual No-trump. Opponents’ minor openings showing 3+cards are treated as natural, and the UNT then shows the two lowest unbid suits. If the opponent’s minor suit may be two cards or less, the UNT shows both minors. Note that cue-bids are Michaels in both 2nd and 4th seats, but 2NT is generally Unusual only in 2nd seat, being natural and strong (about the same as a 2NT opening) in 4th seat.

We also play Leaping Michaels over opponents’ natural (not strong) 2-bids.

Our defence to 1NT is Landy.

When the opponents intervene in our auctions, we play in simple and fairly standard fashion. Doubles are negative through 3S, responsive through 2S. We don’t play support doubles or maximal doubles. Over an opponent’s takeout double, we play Jordan 2NT. Redouble usually shows 10-14hcp and a desire to penalize the opponents.

When the opponents intervene over 1NT, we play Lebensohl with slow denies.