You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(Preamble: For a change-of-pace for the brain cells, I've just started playing a 12-14 weak notrump with a favorite partner at club games. With that, and added to our existing souped-up 2/1 card, we've also changed – in part for grins – to traditional sound 1-level suit openings, complemented with intermediate 2-bids in diamonds, hearts and spades that show 10-14 counts, either 5 or 6 card suits, that are often opened at the 1-level by others. It's been a real kick – although we haven't yet taken our act out on the road! And maybe we shouldn't :>.)

The comments in this thread regarding the weak 1N indicate that it can be a challenge to work out a cohesive, integrated structure to follow sequences that begin with 1m-1M. We aim to overcome that problem.

A given: 1m is 15-17 balanced OR 12-13 unbalanced with distributional values OR any stronger hand. It will be shown as 15-17 balanced after a 1D response to 1C (Walsh) or after 1H or 1S which is not immediately supported by (a rebid of 1NT).

Out of comp, Key Bids – e.g, assume 1C-1S:

- 1S is natural

- 1N rebid is 15-17 balanced with 2 spades; 2C is 5+ clubs unbalanced; 2D/2H are 16-17+ reverses

- 2S rebid is 15-17 balanced with 4 spades, or 3 spades with
12-13 plus and distributional values

- 2N rebid to 1S is natural 18-19 (less than 4 spades; check backs can follow)

- 2N rebid by responder after a 2S rebid by opener is an INQUIRY:

——->3C = 3 spades, no shortness
——->3D = 3 spades, shortness in diamonds
—— >3H = 3 spades, shortness in hearts
——->3S = 4 spades, no shortness
——->3N = flat hand with 3 spades
——->4D and 4H = splinters, 4 spades

After 1C-1S, 3S = 17+ to 19, 4-card support, 4x = splinter

Other stuff like TWCB and handling weak 4-6 hands fold in as agreed.

Parallel bridge logic sequences apply for the other 1m-1M sequences (1C-1H, 1D-1H, 1D-1S).

I am newbie to this weak notrump business. The above seems playable. Comments welcomed.
Sept. 12
Ed Judy edited this comment Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly (at least prior to the news charts), a pair can play different systems/agreements based on colors and seating and, presumably against differing pairs.

I recall that then and now, a partnership can not have a specific conventional 2-way agreement; for example, 2D as Flannery by one, as weak or whatever by another.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Ray. Hope to hear from others. I suspect highly diverse responses. My own recent experience was with the multi.

My request was nixed 2-1 by a committee of 3 (president, club manager and a board member). (There is no policy in place.)

This is a member-owned club whose sizeable membership is virtually all “older” and one that does well in giving members what they want and is mildly progressive in most matters.
Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't quite get it (with a different holding).

If you know all is well and that you have at least a 10-card fit with both A and K of trump, aren't you going to bid the slam (or perhaps the grand when indicated) and not wimp out.
Sept. 11
Ed Judy edited this comment Sept. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tough break. Isn't it analogous to a 10-card fit with Qxx behind the AK?
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray and others, would your club be likely to approve a request to practice a 2D weak multi (4-7 hcpts, a 5-6 card suit, either hearts or spades)?

The purpose of doing so would be to gain experience for open+ chart tournament events where permitted. Obviously, appropriate details and suggested counter-defenses would be presented at the table.
Sept. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“we normally raise 1M to 3M with strong NT and support (it denies shortness)”

I guess so but I don't get it. Why do you willingly play 3M on as little as an 8-card fit and 20-21 hcpts balanced both hands?
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Many famous quotes, song titles, documents, et al are misunderstood by layman. We could compile quite a list.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I missed any two commentators who posted they had quit because they can't play multi. I suspect hyperbole; if not, who needs them and good riddance. If bridge is not enjoyable for them because of no multi, the something that is wrong is them.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, pls chill down. (Btw, I'm not aware of anyone in acbland that is silly enough to say that I'm quitting bridge because the multi is illegal; if so, they don't count.)

Perhaps you should elucidate as to your point, which may well be relevant :)
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike, I think the point that you're not against the Multi isn't relevant. Of course, it's not “the” convention and what “wannabees” may think or not is not pertinent.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Barry, talk to the man in charge of that refusal.
Sept. 7
Ed Judy edited this comment Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When in doubt or unless believing that opponents aren't entitled to know our methods, how can it be wrong to over-alert rather than under-alert?

The alert procedures are a drain on our game and clear, understandable statements that are in sync with the new charts have yet to be issued. Not that the new chart language is all that clear – it needs a much more descriptive presentation.

And will we ever get to a comprehensive 2-page presentation of a convention card that is exchanged with the opponents at the start of a regionally-rated+ session.

Perhaps best to save what is currently in place for socially but reasonably competitive club and 1-session tournament games.
Sept. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm with Richard and others in a minority. 4H, the BW expert plurality, seems a trifle wimpy. Tough problem.
Sept. 3
Ed Judy edited this comment Sept. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks. Indeed, it does seem to be an uncomfortable situation.

Other questions if playing a weak 1nt: If holding a good hand (with extras such as a strong 1nt with 4-card support for partner's major) must you bid 3M? Does a cue (3C in this case) ostensibly show a good 17-19?
Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why wouldn't a double show 3-card support for hearts after 1D-(Pass)-1H-(2C)?
Or do 12-14 1nt openers not play support doubles?
(clearly, I haven't played a weak 1nt)
Sept. 2
Ed Judy edited this comment Sept. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am I correct in thinking – if you play a 12-14 opening 1NT - that 2NT would show a good 15-17 with something in the 2x bid?
If not, what do the weak one notrumpers do? Pass?
Sept. 1
Ed Judy edited this comment Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For many players who have worrisome fears of their health status, there nothing available that comes close to the 3-4 break that a stimulating session of bridge can provide.
Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my view, Paul's comment is pertinent but not relevant to the given problem. (See http://rpbridge.net/3s00.htm and scroll down to Bidding Five in a Major for RP's modern day elaborations.)

But this is not relevant because there has been no suit agreement. Ergo – per Richard F. – 5H sets suit and asks partner to evaluate his hand and pass or bid 6H. (I do not know if Richard P. would concur.)

If these experienced OP players had discussed the short strokes of “Exclusion” I favor a 5D call (asking for number of aces).

PS: To be clear, I mean 2-way Exclusion:

(1) With no agreed suit, 5x asking for number of aces: first step 0, etc)
(2) With agreed suit, 5X asking for number of Key Cards (01122 replies. i.e. –
1st step, 0 key cards
2nd step, 1 key card, no Q
3rd step, 1 key card, with Q
4th step, 2 key cards, no Q
5th step, 2 key cards, with Q
(5N can be a step)
Sept. 1
Ed Judy edited this comment Sept. 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
5H per Richard, or 5D, EXC BW, with an experienced player if you feel your new partner can work it out.
Aug. 31
.

Bottom Home Top