[ali quarg]

---

Spoiler

---

Spoiler

---

[P_Marlowe]

3NT

You could start with 2S, assuming you have agreed to play RONF (raise only nonforcing),
or bid 2NT as some asking bid, but absent any agreement, 3NT is simple, and will
get the job done most of the time.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Tramticket]

A 3NT response looks fine.

The problem is the 2D opening. I'm not much of a fan of weak two's in diamonds, there are much better uses for the bid. But if you are going to use this method I would want to have most of my values in diamonds, not scattered.

[apollo1201]

If partner plays it very disciplined at red and can be trusted for KQ 6th and likely a side goodie, 3NT is fine, unless this goodie is the SQ in a hand looking like Qxx (x or xxx) KQxxxx (xxx or x).

Then 2S is probably better esp playing IMPs. Or 2NT asking for extra description.

At MPs a direct 3NT will probably work as opening leader will be in the blind. Even QJ 6th and a side re entry leaves hope provided we have not pinpointed the weak suit with only one stopper during the bidding.

[Cyberyeti]

Back when I played a weak 2♦, it could be xx,xxx,xxxx,xxxx so I would start with 2♠ highly encouraging but not forcing.

(any 3 cards), KQxxxx, QJxx is also missing a slam.

Playing 5-9/6-10 6CS style I think I start with 2♠ if forcing, 2N if not, I don't like 3N, you are a bit good.

[mikeh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-April-03, 08:05, said:

Back when I played a weak 2♦, it could be xx,xxx,xxxx,xxxx so I would start with 2♠ highly encouraging but not forcing.

(any 3 cards), KQxxxx, QJxx is also missing a slam.

Playing 5-9/6-10 6CS style I think I start with 2♠ if forcing, 2N if not, I don't like 3N, you are a bit good.

Your old method looks like a purely destructive approach. I assume that’s legal where you play but (imo) it shouldn’t be nor would it be in NA. I’m not a big fan of restricting methods but outlawing purely destructive bids makes a great deal of sense to me. Most players are trying to enjoy the game and your style seems designed to destroy that enjoyment, with zero constructive purpose other than to annoy the vast majority of club and low level tournament players.

Play that against strong competition, with proper disclosure, and I’d personally have no issue (but I suspect it might still be illegal in most jurisdictions).

As for the problem, I’d bid a forcing 2S if, as is standard over here, 2S was forcing one round. I’ve know partners to hold Qxx xxx KQJxxx x, and they can splinter over 2S, getting us to slam.

We can always get to notrump after bidding 2S but I defy anyone to get to spades after bidding 3N.

[pescetom]

I don't share the urge to settle for 3NT without investigating slam. Partner has six diamonds, vulnerable and we have Axx. If 2NT is Feature (as it should be with diamonds) and elicts a suit response then I'm going to rebid a Kickback for diamonds rather than 3NT (and stop in 4NT if partner lacks KQ, otherwise 6D).

[jillybean]

I play disciplined weak 2's, Partner will have KQ 6th, I can bid 3nt with confidence.
I am more worried about it being an underbid.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[Cyberyeti]

I can't reply to Mike's post, but what I wanted to say was.

It WAS legal until this season, we played it at close to top domestic level and it worked well with proper disclosure. Now we seem to cause way more chaos with a weak only multi and ekren

[helene_t]

My first inclination was 2♠ but thinking a bit more about it, I am inclined to raise diamonds. Even if partner can raise spades, 6♦ could be better than 6♠.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2024-April-03, 14:47, said:

My first inclination was 2♠ but thinking a bit more about it, I am inclined to raise diamonds. Even if partner can raise spades, 6♦ could be better than 6♠.

My gut feeling is that showing spades is nuts, even at MP.
As for raising diamonds, if 4♦ is GF requesting a control-bid you have some chance, although asking for feature and then keycards would have been better, otherwise you are likely to regret ending up in either 5♦ making or 6♦-1.

[DavidKok]

2NT, inquiry. This keeps almost all options open, regardless of whether you play Ogust, feature, shortage or something else. I play 2♠ NF though many will prefer forcing.

In my opinion the comments on sound preempts and the negative statements about 2♦ natural are misplaced, and I find this to be a highly effective preempt.

 mikeh, on 2024-April-03, 08:17, said:

Your old method looks like a purely destructive approach. I assume that’s legal where you play but (imo) it shouldn’t be nor would it be in NA. I’m not a big fan of restricting methods but outlawing purely destructive bids makes a great deal of sense to me. Most players are trying to enjoy the game and your style seems designed to destroy that enjoyment, with zero constructive purpose other than to annoy the vast majority of club and low level tournament players.

Play that against strong competition, with proper disclosure, and I’d personally have no issue (but I suspect it might still be illegal in most jurisdictions).

As for the problem, I’d bid a forcing 2S if, as is standard over here, 2S was forcing one round. I’ve know partners to hold Qxx xxx KQJxxx x, and they can splinter over 2S, getting us to slam.

We can always get to notrump after bidding 2S but I defy anyone to get to spades after bidding 3N.

As far as I know all of this is backwards. I don't like the preempt on a literal zero count, but I think it's not purely desctructive, and as a result I think it's legal under ACBL rules.

[mw64ahw]

An interesting one, but I think I'm struggling to get past 3N regardless of whether East or West opens.
In a recent post I suggested the bidding could go:

2♦ - 2♥ Ask?
2N no side suit - 3♣ strength?
3♦ min (or possibly 3N to show 2263 if you consider opener to be max.) - 3♠ 5♠ F1
3N

If responder shows a max. 2263 then 6♦ becomes more likely

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I fail to see 12 tricks: assuming we make 6D, we have 4 add. tricks, and we need 2 add. spade tricks, which
means p should not have 3 card spade support, and since I don't believe the spade 8 will be high, we need 33,
or an add. side value. All in all slam wont be above 50% most of the time, and yes I know the actual hand,
we basically need all the magic cards.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-April-04, 03:35, said:

Hi,

I fail to see 12 tricks: assuming we make 6D, we have 4 add. tricks, and we need 2 add. spade tricks, which
means p should not have 3 card spade support, and since I don't believe the spade 8 will be high, we need 33,
or an add. side value. All in all slam wont be above 50% most of the time, and yes I know the actual hand,
we basically need all the magic cards.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Well there could be an extra trick from a heart ruff in your hand, xx, Kxx, KQxxxx, xx is pretty much cold and may make an overtrick if the spades split, that hand with KQJ10xx is not a terrible grand, needs trumps 2-2 and spades 3-3 or 4-2 or spades 3-3 and trumps not 4-0 if they lead a club and better if they don't.

[helene_t]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-03, 15:18, said:

if 4♦ is GF

This may be a regional thing (I think we have had similar discussions about raises of 3m preempts) but I would confidently pass (without even bothering to look at my hand) if partner raised my 2♦ to 4♦. The forcing raise is 2nt (or some other artificial bid, if discussed).

[P_Marlowe]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-April-04, 04:12, said:

Well there could be an extra trick from a heart ruff in your hand, xx, Kxx, KQxxxx, xx is pretty much cold and may make an overtrick if the spades split, that hand with KQJ10xx is not a terrible grand, needs trumps 2-2 and spades 3-3 or 4-2 or spades 3-3 and trumps not 4-0 if they lead a club and better if they don't.

Yes, you are right, I missed the heart ruff, ... the actual hand with his shortage duplication got into it, the heart ruff gives you a fair chance for 12.
Due to this, blasting 6D may be with the odds. I would still bid 3NT, but 6D looks ok.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2024-April-04, 04:44, said:

This may be a regional thing (I think we have had similar discussions about raises of 3m preempts) but I would confidently pass (without even bothering to look at my hand) if partner raised my 2♦ to 4♦. The forcing raise is 2nt (or some other artificial bid, if discussed).

I doubt it is a regional issue in this case, as the raise is of a preempt and not some situation where we clearly have game going strength or better.
I'm not arguing that it should be forcing here, either (a jump rebid of diamonds over 2D is undefined in my system, which is fine by me as I can't imagine any really useful meaning). Just that I can't imagine how it could help here unless it was forcing (and that even if it were so I think it would be ineffective).
For 6D to make, having KQ is not enough: we need an extra trick and a ruff in dummy, or similar side effects of a suit feature. And that means starting with 2NT.

[mycroft]

 mikeh, on 2024-April-03, 08:17, said:

Your old method looks like a purely destructive approach. I assume that’s legal where you play but (imo) it shouldn’t be nor would it be in NA.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But no, it's legal (with a caveat) in any game your transfer Walsh system is legal. Probably because it's just as difficult to defend against.</s> Please note, anyone who takes up this style, expect *at least* two director calls per session from pairs who "know this can't be legal". From my experience playing EHAA back in the GCC days, it's also worth having a hard copy of the Charts with the relevant lines highlighted - because some of the Directors also "know what's legal".

Convention charts, Definitions, excerpts said:

"Quasi-Natural": b. Any opening bid at the two-level or higher showing 4 or more cards in the suit.
“Purely Destructive Initial Action”: An opening bid or an overcall that satisfies none of the following:
a. 4+ cards in a known suit.
g. Any Natural or Quasi-Natural opening bid.
“Range”: One more than the difference between the highest number of HCP a bid can be and the lowest.

Disallowed, Open, excerpts said:

7. An Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT;... [it's not Artificial, it's Quasi-Natural]
11. A non-Forcing 2-level opening bid in first or second seat that has a Range of greater than 9 HCP and could show less than Average Strength. [so, as long as it's marked as "0-8" and they do something else with a 9 count, or if xx xxx Qxxx xxxx is a minimum and they play "2-10"...]
12. A Purely Destructive opening bid.

Of course, they have to Pre-Alert this, just like the "clubs or balanced" people do. For the same reason. Actually, they don't. They do have to Alert the calls when made, though ("Alert any Quasi-Natural bid that is not Announced.") This one I think should be addressed (and may make a suggestion to the relevant people).

I do wish people would RTFCharts, rather than rely on their knowledge of what "real bridge" is (not aiming this *just* at you, Mike. It's amazing how many people "just know what's right" and are willing to spread their knowledge). Especially because...

Quote

I’m not a big fan of restricting methods but outlawing purely destructive bids(*) makes a great deal of sense to me. Most players are trying to enjoy the game and your style seems designed to destroy that enjoyment, with zero constructive purpose other than to annoy the vast majority of club and low level tournament players.

I don't disagree with this statement in general - in particular the Yeti's old "weak 2" agreements. I don't think it *should* be legal. But I don't think that "opening AQTxx xx xxxx xx in third seat 1♠, it's the obvious call" (**) is appropriate against "the vast majority of club and low level tournament players", either. Or a lot of other agreements that are 100% Open chart legal (including *almost all* calls starting with Responder's call, no matter how skewy they are, including "purely destructive" ones).

But they are, and the time to argue that they shouldn't be is "any time in the last 4 years". But they haven't, because frankly nobody important has had to play against them yet. And, in this case at least, because the same people arguing that this shouldn't be allowed have also argued for their first seat favourable "JTxxxx and out" 3♥ opening to be "obviously legal and, in fact, the best agreement. It's so obvious that we shouldn't have to warn our 'low level tournament opponents' about it" (never mind their "expectation" assists in the preemptive quality of the call, and avoiding some 1100s). And they can't really explain why one is "zero constructive purpose" and the other is "the obvious call".

Sam Dinkin has made a specialty of "it's legal, I don't know what your problem is" over the last decade or so; whether it's "because he can", or "to show how ludicrous the regulations are", or "to show how free the regulations actually are", or "to gain a bit of an advantage over our 30th seed opponents in the Spingold from unfamiliarity" I don't know. He also doesn't tend to play this nonsense against the rank-and-file, but the thing about the Open Chart is that the committee has decided that this is what the rank-and-file playing in the Open game should be able to play/handle.

And they've been lauded for "opening up the charts to innovation". And that laud isn't wrong (and I definitely don't want to go back!) But No Good Deed Goes unPunished...

(*) I would also ask people be careful using Defined Terms like "Purely Destructive [Initial Action]", while we're at it. For one thing, "4+cards in a known suit" (not just "4+cards in the bid suit"!) is the *first* "is not PD" qualifier in the definition.
(**) Never mind what the committee decided to do to appease the "experts", which I'm quite sure involved "[-] this, we're going to get slippery-sloped to death, we can blame the 'experts' when it backfires on them". It's legal, Open chart, to have an agreement to open xxxxx xx xxxx xx in third seat 1♠ - with no Alert or Pre-Alert. "It's on the card, it's the obvious call". Deal with it, newly out-of-the-Gold-Rush pair!