Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mark Bartusek
1 2 3 4 5 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Double (by partner) would show values and an interest in competing (allowing you to either pass for penalties or bid a suit). Partner probably doesn't have much though.

The actual bidding question addresses what patterns you expect partner to have and what your sides offensive / defensive prospects are.
Sept. 19
Mark Bartusek edited this comment Sept. 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would say that 5 guarantees 6+ support because you eliminate the opportunity for partner to bid a natural and non-forcing 4 over a 4 raise.

And whether you have 0, 1, or 2 s also plays a role.
Aug. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly this question generates added complexity if you’ve tacked on XYZ to this auction.

I believe what the OP is simply trying to ask is “what makes sense in a Walsh context without XYZ, where 4SF is required to force to game”?
Thus, to answer this carefully worded question, I would respond as follows citing a well-known bidding principle:

Higher bids (which take up bidding space) should show a more clearly defined hand. Thus, a jump to 2 should be game-forcing with 5+ s and 4+ .
Therefore, 1 is 4SF to allow as much bidding space as possible to figure out what the optimal contract is.

Note: in Max Hardy’s Standard Bidding for the 21st Century he addresses this auction and states:
“Since Responder may wish to bid notrump but not have a stopper in spades, one spade should be fourth suit forcing, and a jump to two spades should be a natural call, showing diamonds and spades and a hand with good values”.
Aug. 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4NT.
Then over the expected 5 call my 5 correction will be a slam try (stronger than an immediate 5 bid by me)
Aug. 23
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those partnerships on firm ground a 5 bid here would be “Super Gerber” since with s one would have either raised 3 to 4 or else bid 4 right now setting the trump suit.
Aug. 20
Mark Bartusek edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is why I dislike the invitational 3-level jump shifts unless holding shortness in partner’s major. One loses a 6-2 major suit fit too often (and sometimes a 5-3 fit when partner opens 1).

Michael Shuster even reminded us in an email a while back that in a world championship (maybe 1983?) a US pair bid 1 - 3 going down while the other team bid to 7 making.
Aug. 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play XX as showing “exactly a doubleton” in partner's suit along with decent values. I can then usually leave any follow-up action to partner, if he so desires. If holding shortness in partner’s suit then you probably would either bid another suit or trap pass.

Some players play XX is exactly Qx, Kx, or Ax in partner's suit (with or without additional values).

I’m not sure which method is better.
Aug. 20
Mark Bartusek edited this comment Aug. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As I’ve mentioned in other threads I strongly recommend
Mike Lawrence’s simple and straight-forward system:

1/1 - P - P - 1NT = 12-14 (with 15-16 you double and rebid 1NT)
1/1 - P - P - 1NT = 12-16 (with Range Stayman)

NOTE: Many years ago in The Bridge World magazine there was a study reported which analyzed a lot of World Championship hands where 4th seat balanced with 1NT. The study concluded that balancing with only 11 HCPs was a long-term losing action. So, eliminate 11 from your balancing 1NT range.
Sorry, I don't remember the specific BW back issue it was in.

…and then use Kit’s suggestion to break the responses into 3 strength ranges.
Aug. 16
Mark Bartusek edited this comment Aug. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I’m always wary of trusting the opponents bidding too much.
Leading a club is trying to defeat the contract “2 non-vul tricks”.
I’m content with down 1 and I don’t want to risk a catastrophe…
e.g.

1) North might have been ashamed of his hand or he didn’t think a jump to 5 was appropriate in his system. He might also be 3=0=2=8 or 2=0=3=8 (spade support). Note that he did try to play 6.

2) I would think that the chances of getting 2 club ruffs would be negligible since I don’t believe South is going to have more than a singleton ; so why take the risk.

JAKOB: can you tell us the whole hand in a day or two????
Aug. 14
Mark Bartusek edited this comment Aug. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
King (expecting count from partner).
I'm surprised that there are 14 leaders and only 1 other leader.

We need a trick to defeat the small slam (certainly not getting a heart trick).
I can always switch to a club at trick 2 to get the ruff. The opponents might be having a mix-up regarding a control. I'd feel terrible leading a if 2 s cashed and dummy hit with 8 clubs.
Aug. 13
Mark Bartusek edited this comment Aug. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Clearly that was not the issue I was addressing when I agreed with Fleet in favor of a 1NT-3NT auction at MPs. Obviously if you happen to have Puppet available (i.e. 1NT-3) then it couldn’t hurt to look for a 5-3 fit before bidding 3NT.

But, I stand by my contention that the OP auction is typically a slam try containing extra values at MPs (and the above hand clearly isn’t worth a slam try). Since 3NT is usually the best contract at MPs and the contract (and overtricks) often depend upon a blind opening lead guess, then giving the least amount of information to the opponents is essential.
Aug. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would also have bid an immediate 3NT opposite the presumed 15-17 HCPs, but admittedly the above sequence might work out better in a small percentage of cases. The general concepts that I, my partners, and most people I’ve discussed this with adhere to are:

1) At Matchpoints this sequence guarantees sufficient values to be categorized as a slam try (because we rarely want to end up playing 5 at this form of scoring)
2) At IMPs we can bid this way without extra values to ensure that we get to the safest game.
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
All I can say is that the ACBL is very clear in the OLD GCC which is in effect until our November Nationals (when the new charts take effect).

9. OPENING THREE NO TRUMP BID indicating one of
a) a solid suit.
b) a minor one-suiter.

http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/Convention-Chart.pdf
Aug. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
ED:
Can you run your software and calculate what the odds are for an 8-9 trick hand with “either a solid or a 1-loser” suit suitable for a Namyats bid??

i.e. compare how frequent that is compared to the solid major version

thanx…mark
Aug. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Romex Namyats is legal per the GCC because it uses a 4 bid to show and a 4 bid to show just like the regular Namyats convention.
There is no mandate by the ACBL for a solid suit if your call shows a specific suit (whereas a 3NT call does not specify which major is being shown).

http://www.bridgeguys.com/RGlossary/RomexNamyats.html
Aug. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kantar 3NT guarantees a solid suit…….

because a “non-solid suit” (which I explained above in my two higher posts) is illegal in the ACBL for GCC (but will be legal after November Nationals).

That's why some people call it reverse Namyats (being a non-solid suit)
see
http://www.vcbridge.org/Savage%20Conventions/Namyats.pdf
Aug. 7
Mark Bartusek edited this comment Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg: a misunderstanding exists…

Reverse Namyats keeps 4 and 4 as regular minor suit preempts…
It only uses 3NT for the major suit hand……

Read my 2 posts above for details…with reasons why Reverse Namyats is better (and definitely with at most a 1-loser suit in order to increase frequency and to be less revealing to opponents)
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
1) I don’t want to give up the effective 4 or 4 preempt (a majority of voters agree).
2) 3NT opening bid substitutes as the Namyats-like 8-9 trick major suit hand (but occurs much more often since a solid suit is not required).

Simplistic basic responses are:
3NT - 4 asks partner to transfer to their major
3NT - 4 asks partner to bid their major

Two other threads that have relevant comments concerning opening 3NT are:
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-3nt-opening/
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/is-namyats-3nt-a-super-chart-convention-in-acbl/
Aug. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I believe a strong 2-suiter (not being both minors) would either start with some conventional 2-level suit bid or bid 2NT. The bridge literature already contains multiple references to using 2NT as either both minors or some other strong 2-suiter.

Thus, to start with 4NT doesn’t make sense when one presumably wants to leave open the option of playing 4 of one’s major. To specifically utilize 4NT for such a hand would not only be exceedingly rare, fly in the face of conventional interpretation, but also ignore the conventional 2NT option.
Aug. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This involves the same bidding concept that I use when “an opponent opens 3NT” showing either one or both minors. If playing this defense then I’d assume that partner would work out that it also applies in the above OP auction.
4 shows both majors with equal or longer
4 shows both majors with longer

Thus, just like Jyri stated above, 5 now followed by bidding 6 over either 5 or 5 (showing “at least” 1 extra heart after a 5 bid) seems the proper course of action. Admittedly an immediate 6 bid is a practical alternative, but usually wrong if partner is 4=2.

Note 1: you really can’t define 5 as specifically longer (or better) since the bid must include equal length in the two suits.
Note 2: bidding 5NT now is problematic since you’ll end up playing an 8-card fit instead of a 9-card fit. Additionally, if you do bid 5NT are you on solid ground whether a minor suit bid by partner shows equal length in the majors (or is it a cuebid)?
Aug. 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
.

Bottom Home Top