mikestar13

We use Flannery as an integral part of the GCC-legal version of Real Diamond Precision and it works OK. But in saner jurisdiction (including the ACBL Mid-Chart), I much prefer Kaplan Interchange, freeing up 2♦ for preemptive use. In RDP, the version of KI we use, we bid 1♠ with 0-4 spades and 1NT shows 5+ spades. Opener rebids 1NT over the 1♠ response with the Flannery hands (we don't need it for balanced hands.)

Another possibility for those who don't mind an ambiguous 1♦: 1♦ shows either minor but not both, with or without a 4-card major. 2♣ shows a minor two-suiter and 2♦ is free for whatever you need/want. After the 1♦ opener, responder looks for a major suit fit if possible. If no major fit is found, opener will bid his minor. A minor-suit response is pass or correct.

Glad to see someone else not put off by opening 1♥ on four on a hand that happen 0.75% of the time.:rolleyes:

Amen. 3NT is obvious, though a conservative pass might work on these colors. But North's 4♠ is really poor. Assume South is balanced, and North is expecting a weak 6-2 fit with the trumps likely to split badly. This can't be wise--and 3NT doesn't guarantee a balanced hand, just the ability to make 3NT opposite some useful cards. The reason South didn't double is that he couldn't stand a spade response. On a different South hand with spade support, double stands out--it might get us to 4♥ or 4♠ when it's right, or North may have a good penalty pass.

Not necessarily. My partnerships would bid 5♦ vs. a strong club on most any hand that is a reasonable 4♦ overcall vs. a natural opener. "Preempt one level higher" is a not uncommon general rule against big clubs.

Me too, actually.:) The idea is that if you are sophisticated enough to open a three-card minor on an unbalanced hand, you don't need LOL/LOM protection. My idea was on the order of "given the ACBL wants to protect weak players from sophisticated defenses, the rule I suggest is better than theirs." I think the whole GCC is ludicrous--but if you play f2f in North America, sometimes you are stuck with it. For my own part, I really don't give a damn what defenses opponents want to use (given proper disclosure)--if the opponents are good they'll be hard to beat anyway; if not, a sophisticated artificial defense will hurt them more than it hurts us.

I don't have an answer to this but it appears to be a special case of a general question: "To what extent should negative inferences be alerted? In absence of the 2NT alternative, the second double means "I still want you to do whatever my original double asked you to do.", implying but not guaranteeing extra values (basic bridge logic). In that case, the second double would not be alertable if the first one isn't.

By the way, if I were making the rules, the "any defense allowed" rule would not apply to 1♣/1♦ which are natural (4+ cards IMHO) OR balanced.

Also the new ACBL decision to treat 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 hands as natural is relevant to their current intentions,which now appear to be: 1) Protect the (often weak) partnerships who play short club rather than convenient minor in an otherwise plain vanilla SAYC or 2/1 context* from artificial defenses. 2) Not to extend the same protection to Precision 1♦ catch-all openings. Of course, even God and the ACBL itself are often on a guess about what ACBL means, so I could well be wrong, but my experience directing at senior center games suggests this. *Please don't take offense if your partnership opens short club playing something sophisticated like T-Walsh. These partnerships tend to be quite good.

i've been trying this with a regular partner and it seems to work well. Thanks. We need some of work on 1♦ sequences, but when he have that down, it should be ready for prime time.

This is actually quite good, but others can present this better than I, as they have more experience with it. I'm presenting what has worked for me. Suggested modifications are welcome.

Point well taken some research is needed. But the 2♦ Flannery is only for ACBL General Chart games, I don't actually like it. And in those games the (admittedly non-trivial) cost is the natural weak 2♦ Most of interesting uses (Multi, etc.) are disallowed anyway.

You have some good points, but awm club won't be allowed in ACBL: the 1♥ transfer opening is illegal even at the Mid-chart level. It is legal on the Super Chart, but there are virtually no Super Chart events in North America If you aren't good enough for the Vanderbilt or the Spingold.

The NT range modifications can easily be done and many will prefer this. By the way, we do upgrade freely, so we will open many 12's but I personally dislike opening all flat 12's. Your mileage may vary. No blame to anyone for not knowing ACBL regs, no one does (especially ACBL itself). but the consensus seems to be that opening 1NT with a singleton by partnership agreement is not allowed (it's OK as bridge judgement if rare). In the rest of the world, you are quite correct.

Just like my favorite system: Real Diamond Precision. See Real Diamond Precision here.

This thread has got me interested in sharing about Real Diamond Precision, a system I have developed over time with a couple of regular partners. This post will describe the basics and more will follow if there is interest. The openings: Of course, 1♣ is 16+ (17+ if balanced). 1♦ is the key system bid: 10-15, four+ diamonds, not balanced. It will be five+ unless .holding 4-4-4-1 or a five-card club suit. 1♥: 10-15, five+ hearts, not balanced. May be 4=4=1=4 exactly (rare). 1♠: 10-15, five+ spades, not balanced. 1NT: 13-16, balanced (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2). Open 1NT with a five-card major unless the suit is so strong you are willing to treat it as a six-carder. 2♣: 10-15, six+ clubs or five+ clubs and a four-card major. 2♦: 10-15, four spades and five hearts, insufficient playing strength for a reverse, no void. (see below before you F******y-haters comment). 2NT: 21-22 balanced. Other openings to taste. The openings above are designed to be 100% ACBL GCC-legal. For ACBL Mid-chart games, or most any game in the more enlightened jurisdictions, use Kaplan Inversion in response to 1♥ and fold the F******y hands back into 1♥, freeing 2♦ to be used as desired. Using this structure, your opening natural suit bids are guaranteed not balanced and show a real suit. The rebid of a new suit is always four+ cards. Opener's no trump rebids can be used artificially to solve various problems.. More details later, or devise your own uses. The shape guarantees do not apply to tactical third- and fourth-hand openers. Pros (vs. other Precision methods): Excellent definition of shape. No nebulous 1♦ begging to be preempted. Accurate 1♦ sequences, even in competition. Cons: You have to pass balanced 12's in first and second seats. (I don't mind this a bit, others will find this a fatal flaw.) 2♣ is harder to handle when you don't guarantee six.

Weird, on this one the ACBL is actually more liberal about a convention than WBF: 3(any)=Solid Suit is in the defense database for Mid-chart, legal in 2 board or longer segments.

Don't know, but my guess is that so the weaker pairs who use short club rather than convenient minor is an otherwise vanilla SAYC framework won't be subject to the conventional defenses that would be allowed over a conventional 1♣ opening. Advanced pairs who use T-Walsh or the like don't care if the enemy want's to use something like a midchart 1NT defense over thier 1♣--but it would drive an average ACBL LOL/LOM nuts. I'm not saying this is a sensible decision, but I would be unsurprised at this sort of action from ACBL.

7♥ for me. It will make a very healthy percentage of the time and saves the wear a tear on the grey matter. Also, if you don't tip the lead by investigating, it may make when it shouldn't.

No. LAW 38 BID OF MORE THAN SEVEN A. No Play Permissible No play of a contract of more than seven is ever permissible. B. Bid and Subsequent Calls Canceled A bid of more than seven is canceled together with any subsequent calls. C. Offending Side Must Pass A pass must be substituted, the auction continues unless completed and each member of the offending side must pass whenever it is his turn to call. This is the current law (2008) which is copied word for word from the 1997 Laws, copied from the 1987 Laws, copied from ... the 1928 Laws promulgated by the Whist Club. These in turn are copied from the Laws of Auction Bridge. A bid of more than seven has never been legal. I've encountered this particular urban legend many times.

2♣ for me (assuming it's weak). There just isn't enough playing strength for 3♣, so if 2♣ systemically indicates a strong raise, I will pass. 2♣ won't push them to the 3 level but may allow partner to do so if he has real clubs.

1) 4♦. 5♦ is a bit rich for my blood at these colors. OTOH, 3♦ with seven sure tricks and no defense apart from the dubious ♦A just doesn't cut it. 2) Depends on the meaning of partner's pass. In my partnerships, it would deny a heart stopper--and a partial heart stop would be shown by following up with 3♥ rather than 3♠. So no trump is out--♥Q10 won't stop the suit and there is a fine chance they will lead hearts. Partner has a good 4 card spade suit, looking for 4♠ if you have suitable 3 card support (you can't have 4 or more spades on this auction). So I will chance 4♠. With two fast heart losers, 5♦ is out of the question--partner would need a perfecto, and if he does have it, 4♠ may also make and outscore it. 4♦ might be the safe choice, but with this much strength, go for the game bonus. 3) Agree with 1♠ although it is on the strong side in the passout seat. Maybe better to double planning a spade rebid if your minimum balance is weak enough. On the actual auction, I will pass 2♥. A sixth spade or a fourth club would lead to a different decision with this strength. 4) I try 2♠--shows what you have, I don't think your hand is quite good enough for a penalty double. 5) You guess is a good a mine.

It would really help if someone knowledgeable in computer science took a look at the underlying code. If the code, for example, uses the standard C library random number generator, these complaints are likely valid--it is a very poor random number generator intended for quick "randomish" values for testing--no one should use it for serious simulations (such as bridge dealing) where a good approach to randomness is desirable. If the code, on the other hand, uses a good random number generator such as the Mersenne Twister, I suspect we are seeing artifact of selective memories. By the way, I am not a math major, but I have a degree in Computer Science and Programming.

Perhaps the hand is too strong for a splinter and a direct 5♣ is not Exclusion in this partnership? Then I can see J2NT to set trumps followed by taking over. Totally agree with the hog that a pass of 7♥ is in order--partner is too likely to need ruffs even though you have ♣A.

By the way this is also relevant to ACBL members who also play in other venues, such as Europe, Australia, or for that matter on line. When in Rome might it not pay to be able to counter what the Romans do?