Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kurt Schneider
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Partnership agreement. Forcing - we play this as asking for a heart stopper. Opener has a long club suit. 3N or else 4
Feb. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't see this as penalty - I have too many spades. And I have absolutely no defense. 3N might be passed out for a big minus. 4 is our safest landing spot.
Feb. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The only time I would consider under-leading an Ace in a trump contract is when I have a very strong belief that: a) the K is with LHO (perhaps s/he opened a strong 1N, 2N or 2C and RHO is declarer; or RHO pre-empted), I have AQJ(x…), and am confident that partner has a doubleton; or b) a very strong belief that partner has Kx.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dreadful in IMPs perhaps, but in MP, making 8 tricks in notrump beats making 8 tricks in spades. It’s critical that dummy have outside entries, hence my comment on spade quality. Crappy spades, then notrump plays better…
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Experience.

I had virtually the same hand yesterday (except I had a spade void) - made 3N and the room goes down in 4. Notrump plays remarkably well with singletons opposite each other, provided you have good communication in the other two suits. This is what I remember:

ATxxxx
x
Jxx
AJx

-
AQxxx
AQxx
Kxxx

Auction went 1-1; 2-2; 2N-3N

Move a club into spades in my hand, and the result would have been the same. There were 3 spade losers and a diamond loser in a spade contract.

It really comes down to the quality of the spade suit - and the 2N bid by me allows responder to reflect on that and rebid 3 with a quality suit.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Damn iPhone, can’t correct misfingering. Meant 2N, expecting partner to bid 3N with 10.
Jan. 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard - I must disagree with you on 1M-1N ART GF being illegal. See my post above. My interpretation of the GCC was simply that 1N was not allowed to be GI+ - as opposed to GF. Since ANY ART GF was specifically allowed, we were allowed to play 1N as a GF provided we bid naturally (or pseudo-naturally, splinters, etc.) thereafter to conform to the Relay system ban.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Randy - Either way, they don't resemble ‘standard’ Meckwell, particularly philosophically.
Jan. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AFAIK, Meckwell (NOT lite) uses the following structure to 1:
1 = 0-7
1 = either 8+, 5+, or 11-13 balanced
1 = 8+, 5+
1N = 8+, 5+ clubs unbalanced
2 = 8+, 5+ diamonds unbalanced
2 = 8-10 balanced
2 = 14+ balanced
2 and higher, predominantly 3suiters

A rebid of 2 over 1 or 1 shows length in the artificial suit used for the major.

This is significantly different than the Meckwell Lite I have seen, where 1 = 8-11 ANY, and 1 through 2 are natural 5+ suits, and 1N = 17-19.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As an example, check out Paul Marston's Moscito 2007, which has 1 as GF, 1 as GI, and 1 as Weak.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For a great discussion on what a Relay System entails, check this out:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/relay-system-tell-me-more-under-midchart/
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If you truly want to maximize space utilization, why do you not use a Precision version that uses 1D as the ONLY GF - with all others limited to 0-8? There are a number of these versions described online.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a 40 year+ player of Precision (or more accurately, Strong Club Systems), I have experimented with most versions. To answer your two questions:

1) Symmetric Relay was specifically banned, using the “Relay Systems” clause under DISALLOWED. However, it is important to look at the definition of “Relay Systems”.

“Relay: A bid which does not guarantee any specific suit; partner is requested to bid the next higher step or make another descriptive bid. (e.g., a bid which usually shows but, in some cases, may not have ). A sequence of relay bids is defined as a relay system if, after opening one of a suit, it is started prior to opener’s rebid.”

Anytime we used ART GF bids (whether over 1M or 1C), we circumvented the Relay System definition by showing that the first response to the GF bid was natural - and did not partake of the “space utilization” concepts associated with true Relay Systems (the artificiality of which is the actual intent of the ban).

2) In talking to Jeff and Eric 15 years ago, they made it clear that shape was far more important a criteria than strength - for example, do they not play a continuous range Michaels? It is for this reason that I've always played a shape-based (reversed majors) version of a Strong Club (similar to full Meckwell). Meckwell Light is misnamed - it does not resemble Meckwell at all.
Jan. 28
Kurt Schneider edited this comment Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A conventional 1N response to 1M was always allowed to be one of the following:
1) a simple force that must include some version of a non-invitational hand (to conform with the “could not guarantee game invitational or better values” clause).
2) GF - this was always allowed under the “conventional responses which guarantee GF+” clause. This is no different than using 2C as an Art GF.

It is important to draw the distinction between “GI”, “GI+” and “GF” - they are completely different animals. Too many folks mis-parsed the offending phrase to mean: either GI or GF. Not correct, it is GI+, making GF an acceptable usage.

For many years I used 1N as a Art GF over 1M. Since we played 4cM, we did not utilize the standard 1N forcing concept. Other than announcing that we were in a GF auction, and making all other natural 2level responses non-forcing, it was not part of a “Relay System”.

Like Mr Yates mentioned earlier - the ban was “Relay Systems”, where a system must start with a Relay bid by responder - and continue with “tell me more” relays.
Jan. 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have - and I disagree with the 1st step being the minimum. Note the follow-up of simply bidding 3M whenever responder is invitational. 3C is a wasted bid in that case (at least 75% of time). Also I agree with the Swedish reference - 2N does not need to be used only on 4trump (opposite a 5cM opener), but also on 3card support as well.

For example, we play 4card majors with a strong club and use 2M+1 as our LR+ with 4 or more trump in support.

Responses:
2M+2 = four spades, max with singleton - then 3M-2 = optional Symmetric Relay to find shape; 3M-1 = SI, control ask; 3M = SI, trump suit ask; 3N = CoG; 3S/4m/4H = SI; length in bid suit; 4M = to play; 4M+1 = RKCB

3M-2 = max without shortness - then 3M-1 = Relay; 3M = SI, trump suit ask, 3N = CoG; etc.

3M-1 = max with void in other major - then 3M = Relay

3M = weak - then 3M+1 = GF Relay

3M+1 = max with void minor

3N/4m/4H = max with six trump and singleton or void in bid suit (3N = spades)

4M = six trump minimum
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Responder assumes that opener has Weak NT. Then Rubensohl - 2M to play, all others are invitational or better transfers showing one or two places to play. Transfer into overcalled suit is GF Stayman.

Opener BREAKS transfer to show strong option - or moves off of a 2M response.
Jan. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perfect for Rubensohl.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I disagree with the ‘logic’ of using the first step to show a minimum hand - espoused by most of the contributors in the cited link. Once you add invitational hands to responder's options, responder's strength distribution becomes heavily front-end loaded in the 10-12 DP range, relegating actual GF hands to a minority. Coupling this with the already low frequency of opener having the requisite strength to ‘accept’ the invitation, and the information given to the opponents on the shape of the declarer's hand, it seems best to jump to 3M as the weakest option.

So it comes down to the best use of the other three bids - looking for game or looking for slam - and which option needs to have the most room.

Assuming that responder is most likely to be in the 10-12 DP range, and game is our objective, the most room for exploration should be afforded to an opener that is ‘on the cusp’ of being in game opposite an invitation.

This is where system plays an important role. In 2/1 or SA where opener can have as many as 21 HCP, the ‘cusp’ hand is in the 13-14 range, not the strongest, so in the context of these systems the first step (2M+2) should relate to this range, with higher steps guaranteeing game. So perhaps something like this after 2S-2N: 3C = 13-14 GAME EXPLORE, 3D = 15-17 GAME FORCE, 3H = 18-21 SLAM EXPLORE, 3S = 10-12 YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.

However, in a Strong club context, opener is limited to 15 (or 14), making the logic of jumping to 3M quickly even more sensible - and using the other bids in inverted order of strength. Another reason why the use of 2M+1 as “invitational or better” after a 1M opener is more prevalent in strong club systems.

Too many people in North America, having used Jacoby in the past, want to graft that rebid structure onto a INVITATIONAL OR BETTER response. There is no comparison between the two concepts.
Jan. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We play 2M+1 as limit raise or better to maintain symmetry over each major. I find that reversing your bids - 3M = min, please pass unless you have a GF, 3M-1 = something better, etc. works best. So 3C after 2S-2N would be GF and show a singleton, 3D would be GF without shortness, etc. I won't bore you with the details.
Jan. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Unless you can look into your opponent's hands and determine whether each of them has a singleton minor, you are at a guess. The cost of not bidding 6C is expensive if they do.
Jan. 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.

Bottom Home Top