2011 World Teams
Bermuda Bowl; Venice Cup; Senior Bowl (bridge)
Zone | Bermuda Bowl representatives |
---|---|
Europe | Italy, Poland, Israel, Iceland, Sweden, Netherlands, Bulgaria 1st to 7th in the European championship |
North America | Canada, USA 1, USA 2 |
South America | Brazil, Chile |
Asia & Middle East | India, Pakistan |
C. America & Carib. | Guadeloupe |
Pacific Asia | China, Japan, Singapore |
South Pacific | Australia, New Zealand |
Africa | Egypt, South Africa |
—1st to 7th in the European championship[3]
Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.
Zone | Venice Cup representatives |
---|---|
Europe | France, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, England, Poland, Italy 1st to 7th in the European championship |
North America | Canada, USA 1, USA 2 |
South America | Brazil, Venezuela |
Asia & Middle East | India, Jordan |
C. America & Carib. | Trinidad & Tobago |
Pacific Asia | China, Indonesia, Japan |
South Pacific | Australia, New Zealand |
Africa | Egypt, Morocco |
—1st to 7th in the European championship[3]
Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.
Zone | Senior Bowl representatives |
---|---|
Europe | Poland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany, Bulgaria, Netherlands 1st to 7th in the European championship |
North America | Canada, USA 1, USA 2 |
South America | Argentina, Brazil |
Asia & Middle East | India, Pakistan |
C. America & Carib. | Guadeloupe |
Pacific Asia | China Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan |
South Pacific | Australia, New Zealand |
Africa | Egypt, Reunion |
Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.
prelim
QF
SF
Final (and playoff same as SF)
-- very close for ranks 6 to 11 before the final round; 5 to 14 in retrospect -- Italy leading preliminary score 409 = 19.5 average
1. 409 Italy (Europe #1; 2009 silver) 2. 390 Netherlands (host; Europe #6; 2009 5th/8th) 3. 372 USA 2 4. 355 Israel (Europe #3) 5. 340 USA 1 6. 335 Sweden (Europe #5) 7. 334 China 8. 333 Iceland (Europe #4) 9. 328 Japan 10 324 New Zealand 11 320 Australia 12 318 Bulgaria (Europe #7; 2009 bronze)
-- 12 of 22 teams scored above average -- Egypt Poland 15.0 14.9, South Africa Brazil 14.3 14.2
NED rolled in the final segment, specifically in the final deals
NED disaster defending #83, -7 instead of +5 IMPs. NED beautiful play #84, making 3N. --with 6S decent, both played dicey 3N. --making when defender declines to duck cA.
-- USA2 leading preliminary score 18.6 -- Germany leading also-ran score exceptionally high 16.4
1 391 USA2 2 389 USA1 3 384 England (Europe # 4 368 China (2009 gold) 5 365 Sweden (Europe # 6 357 Indonesia (!) 7 355 Netherlands (host; Europe # ) 8 352 France (Europe # ; 2009 bronze) 9 345 Germany (Europe # ; —poor rankings by NED, FRA, GER women's bridge powers 1990/2000s 10 338 Canada 11 330 Poland 12 323 Italy
-- 12 of 22 teams scored better than average -- plus Brazil, Japan, New Zealand just below average 14.9 14.8 14.7
Final segments of quarterfinals England 56-11, Netherlands 60-7 !
The home-team Netherlands won a close playoff for the bronze medal. --very good for bridge.
France jumped ahead 46 13 in the first segment (16 deals), extended to 126 56 by the end of the first day (48).
-- France leading preliminary score 383 exceptionally low 18.2 avg -- India leading also-ran score 341 exceptionally high 16.2 avg
1. 383 France (Europe # 2. 382 Poland (Europe # 3. 370 USA 2: including players from USA 1 Bermuda Bowl 2009 4. 368 Denmark (Europe # 5. 360 USA 1 6. 351 Indonesia (2009 bronze); tie 6th/7th, Indonesia defeated Australia 7. 351 Australia 8. 342 Germany (Europe # 9. 341 India 10 334 Hong Kong 11 321 Canada 12 317 Italy (Europe #
-- 12 of 22 teams scored better than average
England (2009 gold)
France wins on the final deal 2Dx ? comeback beginning with Poland disaster #25 —yes spectacular disaster for Poland; 2.66 carryover not quite enough
Poland routed the American champions 118 36 in a one-day playoff (48 deals) while USA2 played for the Senior Bowl. France led 89 45 after the first day but USA2 rolled 79 13 in the fourth of six segments and retained a small lead with one segment to go 141 132.
Quarter-finals | Semi-finals | Final | ||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
France won the 2011 d'Orsi Bowl by 165 to 160 IMP in a two-day final match against USA 2, [1] the second of two qualifiers from the United States. [a]
USA 2 | 6+ |
8 | 11 | 20 | 45+ |
79 | 17 | 19 | 160+ | |||
France | 0 |
45 | 21 | 23 | 89 |
13 | 30 | 33 | 165 |
The Americans started with 6.33 IMP carryover from the 16-deal round-robin match, meaning France must score at least 7 IMP better on the 96 deals of the final. France yielded almost nothing during the first three segments, to lead overnight by 89 to 45+ including carryover. The Americans posted a huge fourth set, 79 IMP on 16 deals to regain the lead, but France again yielded almost nothing in the last two segments, and only 75 IMP on 80 deals in the five good segments.
France won the 2011 Venice Cup by 196 to 103 IMP in a two-day final match against Indonesia [2]
Indonesia | 0 | 13 | 24 | 19 | =56 | 38 | 9 | — | 103 | |||
France | 0+ | 46 | 41 | 39 | =126 | 32 | 38 | — | 198+ |
France started with one-third IMP carryover from the 16-deal round-robin match, meaning Indonesia must score at least one IMP better on the 96 deals of the final. France scored consistently well during the first three segments, to lead overnight by 126+ to 56, and Indonesia conceded after two of three segments scheduled for the next day.
Netherlands won the 2011 Bermuda Bowl by 300 to 255 IMP in a two-day final match against USA 2, [2] the second of two entries from the United States. [a]
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 108 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 189 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 130 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 244 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
The home team started with one IMP carryover from their 16-deal round-robin match, meaning the Americans must score at least two IMP better on the 128 deals of the final in order to win outright, or score one IMP better to force a playoff. With a strong third segment, Netherlands surged to lead 133–108 after one day, and extended the difference to 60 during the fourth of eight segments next morning. After seven segments the margin was 76 IMP, nearly decisive with 16 deals to play. The Americans yielded almost nothing more but only once scored more than seven themselves, "too small" gains with time running out. [3]
— as revised by
User:Newwhist minutes later
Team | Carryover | Day 1 Segments | Day 2 Segments | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— — Newwhist, round two, or Labels Amok
Carryover |
Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— a la Newwhist (round one), corrected and adapted by P64
carryover |
Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— further adaptation
c/o | day 1 | day 2 | day 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— compromise
c/o | day 1 | day 2 | day 3 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | =108 | 16 | 32 | 33 | =189 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | =130 | 54 | 37 | 23 | =244 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— one radical alternative
c/o | day 1 | day 2 | day 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— simple (
Bridge at the 1st World Mind Sports Games)
USA 2 0 - 44 43 21 - 16 32 33 - 26 40 - 255
Netherlands 1 - 31 35 63 - 54 37 23 - 47 9 - 300
Taking the "Suck" out of Suction
extended Piltch (another modified suction)
C >D; S at any level confirms D, shows DS
D >H; C at any level is HC
H >S; D at any level is SD
S >C; H at any level is CH
C >D; H at any level is HS
C >D; C at any level is HSC (bid and rebid the top of three touching suits, unfortunately)
C >D; D at any level is DHS (transfer to and rebid the bottom of three touching suits)
C >D; NT at any level confirms D only
Some of these bids should be off in competition.
The overcall is forcing and tends to deny the suit bid; the only exception is top of three touching suits, necessarily rare.
Improvement is possible, although not improvement everywhere. For example improvement in constructive bidding, rebid the short suit:
These then are the cheapest ways to show three-suiters over 1N (without use of dbl):
This is so inefficient that it must be preferable to rebid NT.
C (nonforcing) shows CD or M
Wendt: C shows five touching (xx54+ or 4xx5) or transfer only (xx6x) or the usual two (44xx)
WUCTION
1. NON-TOUCHING SUITS: xfer to one and rebid the other (or perhaps NT); that is, intervene between them.
2. SPADES: spade bids are natural; NT is xfer to C
3a. (simple) nanchor suit is one step up; always 4+ except the two next cheapest suits, shown by the next strain at any level. The three costly rebids (steps 2,3,4 where 5 is the natural re-raise) show at least two suits including nanchor. With touching suits rebid the other, which is either spades (NT...S) or the intervention suit (X...X). With non-touching suits rebid the longer (where nanchor is shorter) or notrump (where nanchor is longer and notrump saves a level, ie longer major after red intervention because NT/C unavailable). Don't use NT rebids otherwise (ie where red intervention enables xfer to 4-card Major nanchor).
3b. To distinguish 64/55/46, meaning no preference or preference either way, three versions of each touching two-suiter. Use NT rebid (or perhaps raise) with non-touching suits. There is no "nanchor": Intervention X shows either next suit alone or in non-touching (C with D, perhaps DS); or the two suits above that (C shows Majors); or X with shorter touching suit (C with D or S, xx46 or 4xx6).
3c. To indicate three-suiters, most often 5431, occasionally 4441 5440 5530 6430. Now intervention X shows either the suit above (X+1) or the two suits below (X-1, X-2) where the latter may be two of a three-suiter.
X will be the top of three touching suits. Over 1C*, this method uses rebids C...2C=4414, D...2D=4144, H...2H=1444, NT...2S=4441; showing only 7 of 12 suits available for 2-level preference.
Swillner?
Responder:
Suppose responder forces to game with a "rule of 20" opening bid, for the best chance to describe a hand that is almost worth that.
In other words, force with a flat 13 (thus minimum 25 HCP), 12 and a doubleton or three-suiter, 11 if 5431/22 or six card suit, 10 if 55 or 64.
If the invitational auctions need a six-card suit or HCP to invite 3N on power (minimum 11) then there will be no unbalanced 5-card or 64 invitations. 1N-2C* invitational Stayman opposite weak notrump will deliver
There may be scope for slack with a six-card suit, such as 8-9 HCP with two top honors --analogous to 5-6 HCP with KQxxxx or better opposite 15-17.
If this is normal in all four suits, hearts being crucial, then 1N 2C 2S 3H = 8-10 HCP, six hearts. And responder must rebid 2N with 11 and five, concealing the fifth heart. Opener may check back with a maximum 1N 2C 2S 2N 3H = three H and 14 flat or 13 and doubleton?
If rule of 22 opposite the mini 10-13, then the strongest hands which do not force will be mandatory Goren opening bids, ultra sound: 1N signoff, pass, or invitational 2C
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
2011 World Teams
Bermuda Bowl; Venice Cup; Senior Bowl (bridge)
Zone | Bermuda Bowl representatives |
---|---|
Europe | Italy, Poland, Israel, Iceland, Sweden, Netherlands, Bulgaria 1st to 7th in the European championship |
North America | Canada, USA 1, USA 2 |
South America | Brazil, Chile |
Asia & Middle East | India, Pakistan |
C. America & Carib. | Guadeloupe |
Pacific Asia | China, Japan, Singapore |
South Pacific | Australia, New Zealand |
Africa | Egypt, South Africa |
—1st to 7th in the European championship[3]
Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.
Zone | Venice Cup representatives |
---|---|
Europe | France, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, England, Poland, Italy 1st to 7th in the European championship |
North America | Canada, USA 1, USA 2 |
South America | Brazil, Venezuela |
Asia & Middle East | India, Jordan |
C. America & Carib. | Trinidad & Tobago |
Pacific Asia | China, Indonesia, Japan |
South Pacific | Australia, New Zealand |
Africa | Egypt, Morocco |
—1st to 7th in the European championship[3]
Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.
Zone | Senior Bowl representatives |
---|---|
Europe | Poland, Denmark, Italy, France, Germany, Bulgaria, Netherlands 1st to 7th in the European championship |
North America | Canada, USA 1, USA 2 |
South America | Argentina, Brazil |
Asia & Middle East | India, Pakistan |
C. America & Carib. | Guadeloupe |
Pacific Asia | China Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan |
South Pacific | Australia, New Zealand |
Africa | Egypt, Reunion |
Bold marks quarterfinalists, the eight leaders of the preliminary round-robin.
prelim
QF
SF
Final (and playoff same as SF)
-- very close for ranks 6 to 11 before the final round; 5 to 14 in retrospect -- Italy leading preliminary score 409 = 19.5 average
1. 409 Italy (Europe #1; 2009 silver) 2. 390 Netherlands (host; Europe #6; 2009 5th/8th) 3. 372 USA 2 4. 355 Israel (Europe #3) 5. 340 USA 1 6. 335 Sweden (Europe #5) 7. 334 China 8. 333 Iceland (Europe #4) 9. 328 Japan 10 324 New Zealand 11 320 Australia 12 318 Bulgaria (Europe #7; 2009 bronze)
-- 12 of 22 teams scored above average -- Egypt Poland 15.0 14.9, South Africa Brazil 14.3 14.2
NED rolled in the final segment, specifically in the final deals
NED disaster defending #83, -7 instead of +5 IMPs. NED beautiful play #84, making 3N. --with 6S decent, both played dicey 3N. --making when defender declines to duck cA.
-- USA2 leading preliminary score 18.6 -- Germany leading also-ran score exceptionally high 16.4
1 391 USA2 2 389 USA1 3 384 England (Europe # 4 368 China (2009 gold) 5 365 Sweden (Europe # 6 357 Indonesia (!) 7 355 Netherlands (host; Europe # ) 8 352 France (Europe # ; 2009 bronze) 9 345 Germany (Europe # ; —poor rankings by NED, FRA, GER women's bridge powers 1990/2000s 10 338 Canada 11 330 Poland 12 323 Italy
-- 12 of 22 teams scored better than average -- plus Brazil, Japan, New Zealand just below average 14.9 14.8 14.7
Final segments of quarterfinals England 56-11, Netherlands 60-7 !
The home-team Netherlands won a close playoff for the bronze medal. --very good for bridge.
France jumped ahead 46 13 in the first segment (16 deals), extended to 126 56 by the end of the first day (48).
-- France leading preliminary score 383 exceptionally low 18.2 avg -- India leading also-ran score 341 exceptionally high 16.2 avg
1. 383 France (Europe # 2. 382 Poland (Europe # 3. 370 USA 2: including players from USA 1 Bermuda Bowl 2009 4. 368 Denmark (Europe # 5. 360 USA 1 6. 351 Indonesia (2009 bronze); tie 6th/7th, Indonesia defeated Australia 7. 351 Australia 8. 342 Germany (Europe # 9. 341 India 10 334 Hong Kong 11 321 Canada 12 317 Italy (Europe #
-- 12 of 22 teams scored better than average
England (2009 gold)
France wins on the final deal 2Dx ? comeback beginning with Poland disaster #25 —yes spectacular disaster for Poland; 2.66 carryover not quite enough
Poland routed the American champions 118 36 in a one-day playoff (48 deals) while USA2 played for the Senior Bowl. France led 89 45 after the first day but USA2 rolled 79 13 in the fourth of six segments and retained a small lead with one segment to go 141 132.
Quarter-finals | Semi-finals | Final | ||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
![]() | ||||||||||
France won the 2011 d'Orsi Bowl by 165 to 160 IMP in a two-day final match against USA 2, [1] the second of two qualifiers from the United States. [a]
USA 2 | 6+ |
8 | 11 | 20 | 45+ |
79 | 17 | 19 | 160+ | |||
France | 0 |
45 | 21 | 23 | 89 |
13 | 30 | 33 | 165 |
The Americans started with 6.33 IMP carryover from the 16-deal round-robin match, meaning France must score at least 7 IMP better on the 96 deals of the final. France yielded almost nothing during the first three segments, to lead overnight by 89 to 45+ including carryover. The Americans posted a huge fourth set, 79 IMP on 16 deals to regain the lead, but France again yielded almost nothing in the last two segments, and only 75 IMP on 80 deals in the five good segments.
France won the 2011 Venice Cup by 196 to 103 IMP in a two-day final match against Indonesia [2]
Indonesia | 0 | 13 | 24 | 19 | =56 | 38 | 9 | — | 103 | |||
France | 0+ | 46 | 41 | 39 | =126 | 32 | 38 | — | 198+ |
France started with one-third IMP carryover from the 16-deal round-robin match, meaning Indonesia must score at least one IMP better on the 96 deals of the final. France scored consistently well during the first three segments, to lead overnight by 126+ to 56, and Indonesia conceded after two of three segments scheduled for the next day.
Netherlands won the 2011 Bermuda Bowl by 300 to 255 IMP in a two-day final match against USA 2, [2] the second of two entries from the United States. [a]
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 108 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 189 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 130 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 244 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
The home team started with one IMP carryover from their 16-deal round-robin match, meaning the Americans must score at least two IMP better on the 128 deals of the final in order to win outright, or score one IMP better to force a playoff. With a strong third segment, Netherlands surged to lead 133–108 after one day, and extended the difference to 60 during the fourth of eight segments next morning. After seven segments the margin was 76 IMP, nearly decisive with 16 deals to play. The Americans yielded almost nothing more but only once scored more than seven themselves, "too small" gains with time running out. [3]
— as revised by
User:Newwhist minutes later
Team | Carryover | Day 1 Segments | Day 2 Segments | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— — Newwhist, round two, or Labels Amok
Carryover |
Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— a la Newwhist (round one), corrected and adapted by P64
carryover |
Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Total | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— further adaptation
c/o | day 1 | day 2 | day 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— compromise
c/o | day 1 | day 2 | day 3 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | =108 | 16 | 32 | 33 | =189 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | =130 | 54 | 37 | 23 | =244 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— one radical alternative
c/o | day 1 | day 2 | day 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA 2 | 0 | 44 | 43 | 21 | 16 | 32 | 33 | 26 | 40 | 255 |
Netherlands | 1 | 31 | 35 | 63 | 54 | 37 | 23 | 47 | 9 | 300 |
— simple (
Bridge at the 1st World Mind Sports Games)
USA 2 0 - 44 43 21 - 16 32 33 - 26 40 - 255
Netherlands 1 - 31 35 63 - 54 37 23 - 47 9 - 300
Taking the "Suck" out of Suction
extended Piltch (another modified suction)
C >D; S at any level confirms D, shows DS
D >H; C at any level is HC
H >S; D at any level is SD
S >C; H at any level is CH
C >D; H at any level is HS
C >D; C at any level is HSC (bid and rebid the top of three touching suits, unfortunately)
C >D; D at any level is DHS (transfer to and rebid the bottom of three touching suits)
C >D; NT at any level confirms D only
Some of these bids should be off in competition.
The overcall is forcing and tends to deny the suit bid; the only exception is top of three touching suits, necessarily rare.
Improvement is possible, although not improvement everywhere. For example improvement in constructive bidding, rebid the short suit:
These then are the cheapest ways to show three-suiters over 1N (without use of dbl):
This is so inefficient that it must be preferable to rebid NT.
C (nonforcing) shows CD or M
Wendt: C shows five touching (xx54+ or 4xx5) or transfer only (xx6x) or the usual two (44xx)
WUCTION
1. NON-TOUCHING SUITS: xfer to one and rebid the other (or perhaps NT); that is, intervene between them.
2. SPADES: spade bids are natural; NT is xfer to C
3a. (simple) nanchor suit is one step up; always 4+ except the two next cheapest suits, shown by the next strain at any level. The three costly rebids (steps 2,3,4 where 5 is the natural re-raise) show at least two suits including nanchor. With touching suits rebid the other, which is either spades (NT...S) or the intervention suit (X...X). With non-touching suits rebid the longer (where nanchor is shorter) or notrump (where nanchor is longer and notrump saves a level, ie longer major after red intervention because NT/C unavailable). Don't use NT rebids otherwise (ie where red intervention enables xfer to 4-card Major nanchor).
3b. To distinguish 64/55/46, meaning no preference or preference either way, three versions of each touching two-suiter. Use NT rebid (or perhaps raise) with non-touching suits. There is no "nanchor": Intervention X shows either next suit alone or in non-touching (C with D, perhaps DS); or the two suits above that (C shows Majors); or X with shorter touching suit (C with D or S, xx46 or 4xx6).
3c. To indicate three-suiters, most often 5431, occasionally 4441 5440 5530 6430. Now intervention X shows either the suit above (X+1) or the two suits below (X-1, X-2) where the latter may be two of a three-suiter.
X will be the top of three touching suits. Over 1C*, this method uses rebids C...2C=4414, D...2D=4144, H...2H=1444, NT...2S=4441; showing only 7 of 12 suits available for 2-level preference.
Swillner?
Responder:
Suppose responder forces to game with a "rule of 20" opening bid, for the best chance to describe a hand that is almost worth that.
In other words, force with a flat 13 (thus minimum 25 HCP), 12 and a doubleton or three-suiter, 11 if 5431/22 or six card suit, 10 if 55 or 64.
If the invitational auctions need a six-card suit or HCP to invite 3N on power (minimum 11) then there will be no unbalanced 5-card or 64 invitations. 1N-2C* invitational Stayman opposite weak notrump will deliver
There may be scope for slack with a six-card suit, such as 8-9 HCP with two top honors --analogous to 5-6 HCP with KQxxxx or better opposite 15-17.
If this is normal in all four suits, hearts being crucial, then 1N 2C 2S 3H = 8-10 HCP, six hearts. And responder must rebid 2N with 11 and five, concealing the fifth heart. Opener may check back with a maximum 1N 2C 2S 2N 3H = three H and 14 flat or 13 and doubleton?
If rule of 22 opposite the mini 10-13, then the strongest hands which do not force will be mandatory Goren opening bids, ultra sound: 1N signoff, pass, or invitational 2C
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).