mikestar13

The original Roth-Stone system featured four weak twos and sound but non-forcing one bids. EHAA added a 10-12 1NT and made the two bids less disciplined, then Fantunes restored disciple to weak twos in first and second seat and made the one bids forcing.

I don't doubt it. It would be flatly impossible, or at least a miracle comparable to raising the dead.

Never head of it, and using it destroys the best sequence in Precision: 1♠-4♠ and likewise in heats. This could be a preempt with five trumps, or a flattish 13 or with support but where responder knows there is no slam opposite a limited opener. Opener doesn't need to know (he's passing either way) and the opponents must guess. Even though alerted and explained properly, it will induce many error defending it.

S. J. Simon's Why You Lose at Bridge.

a) b) and c) should cue bid. If you have a fit so do they, and you won't buy it below 3♥ anyway, but show your strength so partner can bid game with a little extra. With d) bid 2NT an artificial limit raise, with hand worth a natural 2NT, you can redouble. 2NT can be used similarly in e), you penalty double with a balanced hand in this range. f) depends on exactly what suits are shown, but assuming minors, use whatever defense to two suited interference you use, in most cases you will bid 2♣ to show a limit raise. Partnership agreement is essential. If playing with a pickup partner, I would be nervous with any of these bids, and would downgrade a minimum limit raise to a single raise, and just gamble on on game with a maximum limit raise. Crude and you will miss some good games and bid some bad games, but this avoids disastrous misunderstandings. With a pickup partner known to be a good player, I'd be fairly sure he'd understand the cue bid in a) b) and c).

Yes, it is American. It's in the Urban Dictionary. Used of a police officer it means "to commit police embarrassment, presumably for fun." By analogy, in bridge a director who rules against a player on his own motion is "pigging" that player, while another player who calls the director is "pigging" that player. Assuming the erroneous attitude that director calls/rulings are harassment. The other meaning in the Urban Dictionary is completely different and not relevant to this situation.

If NS play penalty doubles here, North has a reasonable X at white vs. red and South with ♠xxx and ♥xx has no reason to disturb it. South should expect a good penalty, 800 is a bit lucky, but 500 should still be be a top or near top. But virtually everyone plays X here as takeout.

The way I've played in the past, 2♠ was natural and non forcing but not weak, it would be at least mildly invitational, bad hands pass 2♣. This is fairly normal in North America, but it is also normal to require six clubs for the 2♣ opening, so this may not be directly relevant to this case.

Exactly, ACBL is full of Walruses who only count HCP and want to force everyone to do the same.

The first reference to a "control bid" rather than "cue bid" as the shortened form of "control showing cue bid" I saw in print was in Root and Pavlicek's classic Modern Bridge Conventions, the change was presented as a deliberate attempt to alter bridge terminology for the better by removing the ambiguity in the use of "cue bid". This effort was largely but not universally successful, judging by subsequent bridge book by many authors. It's unsurprising that many players still use "cue bid" and disambiguate by context. This is logically inferior but not often misunderstood.

Nobody has mentioned Kaplan Inversion/Granviville. The version I learned: 1♥-1NT shows five+ spades, while 1♥-1♠ is a forcing no trump hand with 0-4 spades. 1♥-1♠-1NT shows 4=5 majors and less than reversing values. Opener never rebids a two-card minor or a five-card heart suit. Doesn't waste the 2♦ opener like Flannery.

Bergen vs Reverse Bergen makes no difference, just both play the same thing. In either case 3♣ has wider limits because 1M-3♣-3 diamonds can artificially ask min or max. So in Bergen, 3♣ should be 7-10 while 3♦ is 11-12,while with Reverse 3♣ should be 9-12 and 3♦ is 7-8. I know of one partnership that even played "split Bergen": 3♣ is 7-8 or 11-12 and 3♦ is 9-10. In all cases take distribution and honor quality into account as describe above.

Let me give you some general rules. During the auction, any player can call the director. During the play, dummy cannot initiate a director call (with some exceptions: in the ACBL, dummy can initiate a zero-tolerance violation director call). But if another play asks asks for the director to be called, it's OK for dummy to yell "Director, please!"

Not playing weak jump shifts, I would pass 1♣ but having bid 1♥ I would honor the force. Had a hand once ♠AKQxxx♥AKQxxx♦A♣-- and all I needed was some kind of major suit fit. I opened 1♣ (Strong, artificial and forcing), and partner holding ♠Jxx♥x♦xx♣xxxxxxx judged to violate system and pass. (Not saying I chose the best opening, but I was new then.) I can make a case for passing a forcing but limited bid, but not 2♠ in OP's auction.

2♣, intending to pass 2♦ This is worse than passing 1NT if partner is exactly 3-3-2-5 and they let you play it and don't let you play unboubled when they would have set you in 1NT. So pretty unlikely. I 'd bid this way in imps though when 1NT-2♣-2♦-P does go wrong, it can go badly wrong. I'd be more enthusiastic about my choice at matchpoints.

There is no immediate alert, but there will be a delayed alert after the bidding unless the bid is 4♣ or 4NT asking for aces or key cards

Steve correctly states the alert regs, but what are the situations you use Baby Blackwood. To me it seems worse than 4♣ Gerber, which is pretty bad in many sequences. You are even more likely to need 3NT natural than 4♣ natural. Baby Blackwood is a usable if your side has a nine-card major suit fit, but there are better convention uses for 3NT even then. Let's say we are at three spades and we have agreed a nine card spade fit. 3NT Baby Blackwood is harmless, but 4NT works just as well if you are using it properly: we have twelve tricks if we aren't missing two keycards. One possibility for bids over 3♠: 3NT= minimum but good cards for slam, partner can bid a control to try for slam or 4NT Blackwood or sign off in 4♠. 4♣/4♦/4♥= Control in the bid suit trying for slam. 4♠ = minimum and bad cards for slam. 4NT = Blackwood.

Steve correctly states the alert regs, but what are the situations you use Baby Blackwood. To me it seems worse than 4♣ Gerber, which is pretty bad in many sequences. You are even more likely to need 3NT natural than 4♣ natural. Baby Blackwood is a usable if your side has a nine-card major suit fit, but there are better convention uses for 3NT even then. Let's say we are at three spades and we have agreed a nine card spade fit. 3NT Baby Blackwood is harmless, but 4NT works just as well if you are using it properly: we have twelve tricks if we aren't missing two keycards. One possibility for bids over 3♠: 3NT= minimum but good cards for slam, partner can bid a control to try for slam or 4NT Blackwood or sign off in 4♠. 4♣/4♦/4♥= Control in the bid suit trying for slam. 4♠ = minimum and bad cards for slam. 4NT = Blackwood.

Nothing is likely to be frequent enough to be worth the memory work. Are you sure you don't need 4NT/5NT quantitative? Do you play 2♠ range ask?

Ah, the Magi Convention. It appears in several places in Don Varvel's An Unassuming Club notes. Actually as good a use as any for a notrump bid that should normally never be made.

The way I learned XYZ (from a Granovetter's book), opener assumes responder has a diamond signoff and bids accordingly, so in any sequence where Z is not 1NT, 2♣ is a puppet, not a marionette. And in the sequence 1x-1y-1NT-2♣, I have bid 3♦ with a max 1NT and very good diamonds.

I generally prefer Richard Pavlicek's recommendations for countering two-suited interference: http://www.rpbridge.net/7g71.htm

The Law plainly says when calling cards from dummy, declarer is to name both rank and suit. Just go ahead and do that. Small inarguable exceptions are reasonable such as naming the rank only when following suit or saying "low spade" holding ♠A532. But don't ever say "play anything", I've played for forty years and haven't done that.

For me a clear opening, but if playing a weak NT, 1NT > 1♠

Well did they get it wrong? After the first trick, no matter what the rest of the hand is, the bots should "know" the spade position and cash five tricks. But did GIB = Ginsberg's Idiotic Bridgeplayer actually get this wrong? The only way humans could go wrong after a spade lead is if they are so unskilled they block the spade suit. Maybe bots are better than humans...at screwing up.