f0rdy

Purely out of interest, is Mini-Roman (with no anchor suit) the only BSC allowed on the GCC?

How often does the intervening side actually get to take a penalty? I've always played something similar to what you describe, but I've rarely come up against assumed-fit methods for more than a board or two in a pairs event, and so I can't remember ever getting to the point of penalising. The combination of encountering assumed-fit fairly infrequently and (in my case) usually playing in semi-pickup partnerships means that actually I think what we've generally played is: Sit down and see they play Ekrens; entire discussion is "Same defense as Multi? Major overcalls are natural, try to penalise them?". But as nearly everyone I play with tends to agree Dixon by default as a Multi defense, that means we end up with a double for weak-ish balanced hands.

Oh, I assumed that if you wanted to play something like this (showing equal interest in either minor) it would over be a "frequently 2" 1C opening, the kind including many (443)2 and maybe 3352 hands; there I could start to see the logic. But you didn't allow overcaller to have 6 diamonds, or be unbalanced?

IME (in the same jurisdiction, but obviously there may be variation between regions/clubs), it varies with the auction; I think in a protracted auction the declaring side (at least) will leave the cards out 95+% of the time, whereas after 1NT - 3NT either 3 or 4 players will remove their cards pretty swiftly. I think it's the "minor" (as opposed to major rules like making sufficient bids and bidding in turn) rule concerning the auction followed most frequently; failing to make a 2nd or 3rd pass, ignoring the Stop card by Stopper or Stoppee, and half-pulling cards from the box are much more common.

... and actually, because of your point 2, you need a better diamond suit to safely open a Lee 2D than a natural 3D. Defenders have several more calls available to decide whether to play or defend. Same reason 2N = weak minors needs a better hand than 3C = weak minors.

False. Standard bidders can split the range 11-22 into at least three sub-ranges (eg 1D - 1X - 2C - 2D - P, 1D - 1X - 2C - 2D - 3D, 1D - 1X - 3C) But having exchanged much more information. False. 25-30% of level 2. They can't overcall 2D, but they can double, or pass then act to show marginal hands. False, at least according to your next paragraph. Well done. Making bids in a constructive auction which say nothing about your hand is only rarely a good idea... ... exactly as opposite a natural weak 2? A lie, or a fundamental misunderstanding of pretty much all system regulations (and the phrase "anchor suit")? I haven't been following this very carefully, so I don't know whether anyone has yet come up with a jurisdiction in which it would be legal to play this convention? (Slightly obscurely, if the minor two-suiters were 15+, and the weak option were single-suited clubs rather than single-suited diamonds, this would be legal in the EBU)

Doesn't online instant messaging predate online bridge? Or at least, predate most online bridge; I wasn't playing so I don't know much about what was happening with online bridge before 2001, but plenty of people were using MSN Messenger back then. And obviously other modes of online communication before that. I don't see that smartphones make much difference? If I'm sitting at a computer playing BBO, then if I want to speak to someone online for whatever reason I'm going to use one of the myriad means of doing so on my computer, not fiddle around on my phone.

I agree, but: can you imagine more than a very small percentage of the general bridge population taking any notice of an instruction to use the STOP card in competitive auctions? My impressions1 of use of the STOP card in the EBU at the moment is that perhaps 1-2% use it as directed by the regulations, and another 10-20% hold it out for 5 seconds or so at the appropriate times. Are there jurisdictions in which a STOP card regulation is followed accurately by most of the bridge players there? 1gained in either provincial club bridge, or meandering around the middle (45-65% of max VPs) of Brighton Swiss events; I don't think there's a meaningful difference in levels of compliance between the two.

Alternatively: [hv=pc=n&s=s9hdaqjt92cakq972&n=skq6hq632dk643c63&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2d(Weak M or strong m or bal)2hpp4d4h4sp6cp6dppp]266|200[/hv] We were a bit surprised that 2♦, rather than the strong 1♣, was the opening of choice for our south. After this we wondered whether anyone plays a Michaels bid after a Multi opening? We've always had 4m showing that minor and a major, but have now agreed to use 4♣ to show majors when the Multi could be a "strong" minor.

4♥ 6♠ AP at both tables for a flat board in our match... One auction had a much longer tank by responder considering 7♥, though.

My experience of playing a lot of near-pickup (a couple of emails exchanged before the game is usually about the extent of the preparation) in local leagues etc is that having fewer agreements and/or less common experience will, compared to an experienced partnership of similar standard: Reduce accuracy of bidding somewhat (at an IMP cost I don't feel I can guess very accurately) Massively increase variance of IMPs won or lost due to bidding. Possible mechanisms include: playing a poor but luckily making contract; being unsure about meanings of bids so sticking a game contract on the table, leaving an uninformative auction for defenders. I'm not sure I expect the cardplay to be particularly affected1 by a being a scratch partnership, other than in partnerships of quite unequal skill in which the better player has got used to the likely mistakes by the weaker. 1 Apart from when (having played standard count, attitude either way for the entirety of my bridge career) I agreed to play upside down count, and even after a few sessions seemed to be using 90% of my mental effort to remember to play the "wrong" card when following suit.

I'm fairly sure I'd open 1♦ and expect most of my partners to (all playing strong 2C systems, ie not limited openers). However, 2♦?! If I wanted to preempt at my first call, I'd rather open 5♦ than 2♦ or 3♦. I've been in debates here about whether opening 6-5s with a call showing only the 6 card suit is unwise, because partner will misevaluate her hand so badly, and with 6-6 it seems about a trick crazier. I don't think I count as better qualified than you, though!

I can think of at least two variants I've experienced, with near-pickup partners (but friends, so aware of each other's style): A) A cue of opponents suit in a slightly complicated auction "I'm sure it's not natural, but I'm not sure whether it's showing support or asking for a stop." B) A cue of opponents suit in a slightly complicated auction "I'm sure it's not natural, but I'm not sure whether it's showing a stop or asking for one." (And C, I've just been reading a thread where there seems to be a number of views on what 1H P 1S 2C 3C shows, including disagreement within a partnership. I'm sure none of them what ever have considered it to be natural)

Really? If this came up in one of my regular partnerships, then: a) We would not have explicitly agreed a meaning for the 3D call. b) Experience of playing with my partners would tell me that they were unlikely to introduce both of the opponent's suits as suggestions of places to play. The false apparent dichotomy you introduce seems to be a consequence of overloading the term "agreement" in bridge terminology. However, IANAD and perhaps I've misunderstood one or both of "partnership agreement" and "implicit agreement".

It does seem an interesting idea; I've played unbalanced (or nearly unbalanced eg 1D = unbalanced or 18-19 5D332) diamond systems a bit, and it seemed like one issue was that unbalanced 11-15 club hands are a 'halfway house' between the weak NT and the stronger hands. If they've been removed to a 2c opener, then a lot of competitive auctions will become cleaner; when it starts 1♣ - 1♠ - something - 2♠ - ? you can now just pass with the weak NT, and bid or double with the unbalanced 16+ or 18-19 balanced, rather than having a 1426 14 count to worry about. Obviously you give up a 2D pre-empt (and a bit of accuracy with the GF openers), but it seems a much better reason than some of the things people give up a 2m pre-empt for. Edit: Just realised I've just been making arguments for swedish club, essentially; are there good reasons either way for having the GF hands in 2D or 1C?