relknes

I do this occasionally, but only on a very specific type of hand: 5 in my opened suit, 3 card support, 4 in a suit that was skipped over, and a minimum opener. I don't like it, per say, I just like it better than the alternatives (rebidding the 5 card suit, reversing without the values to do so, or bidding NT with a stiff). The rationale is actually a bit like opening a 3 card minor suit: it makes it a bit more difficult if the opponents compete over your possibly-3-card bid, but it is much easier when you opened with anything else since other bids are better defined than if you required 4 cards.

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but 6♠ doesn't seem to depend on anything but a 3-2 split in diamonds, club lead or not, unless one opponent is void in clubs. Win the opening lead, pull trump, play to the ace of diamonds, force the king out with the queen, and if they split 3-2 your hand is all winners. *edit: sorry. I see it now. 7 clubs + 2 level overcall + 1 in partner's hand = void in LHO

Depends on your agreements. If you play what my partner and I play, opening 1 of a suit with a clearly game forcing hand is a mistake. Yes. A 2♣ opener is always vulnerable to preemptive action, like any strong but vague opening bid, but that is the nature of the bid. And if he opens 1 of a suit, I will never put him one card away from a slam. With a hand like x, xxxxx, xx, xxxxx I will pass the 4♦ rebid when game in either of partner's suits is on. Although 1♠ is clearly not going to get passed out, once partner opens with it, we are never getting to slam when I have only one or two cover cards. So, again, it depends on what your agreements are. If you are in the habit of opening 1 of a suit with game forcing hands with tons of distribution, then great, do that. But if, like me, you would never open at the one level with a hand interested in slam opposite ♦Kx and out, then open strong, and if you get preempted, so be it.

That depends on what you think partner should have opened. With a 2 loser hand, I think a strong 2♣ is clear (or whatever your strong opening bid is)... but that is just me. You clearly have game in hand, regardless of the "mere" 17 high card points.

5♠x, probably down 1, against their likely to make game in 5♦.

I tend to have people I teach the game to start with "Bid better, play better," followed by Watson's "Play of the hand". If they feel they have mastered those, I have them read Lawrence's "Overcalls."

When playing rubber bridge, my partner and I play a very simple system. It is a fairly sound opening version of Standard American, but we modify it to be much more aggressive when we have a leg on. 1♣/1♦ = 13-21, 3+ 1♥1♠ = 13-21, 5+ 1N = 16-18 balanced (13-18 with a 60+ leg on) 2♣ = 22+ points 2♦ = 8-12, 6+ (5+ with a 60+ leg on) 2♥/2♠ = 8-12, 6+ (5+ with a 40+ leg on) 2N = 21-22 balanced The only conventions we use are Stayman and Jacoby transfers (both off when we have a 60+ leg on), splinters, and Blackwood. To show slam interest with a leg on, a voluntary jump past game is used (so with a 40 leg on, 1♥-3♥ would show slam interest), and a double jump past game is forcing to a small slam and thinking about a grand (so with a 40 leg on, 1♥-4♥ would be forcing to 6♥ and thinking about 7♥). Two questions: (1) Are these modifications with a leg on wise? (2) Is there a good source of information on rubber bridge bidding?

(1) Default for me is the cheapest rebid of one of their suits, which would be 3♦ here, and that is what you should bid with xx AKxxx AJxx xx or x AKxxx AJxx xxx. (2A) doubleton support (2B) 6 spades (2C) half stop (3) 3N

P - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♥ 3♦* - 3♥ 3N - 4♣ 4♦ - 4♠ 5♣ - 6♥ *4th suit forcing, agreeing to hearts and showing a hand that is worth at least 13 points including distribution (thus, must have shortness somewhere). The rest is just cue bidding, 3♥ showing 2 of the top 3 trump, 3N showing the remaining, 4♣ and 4♦ showing first or second round control, higher cue bids showing first round control. P - (1♦) - 1♠ - (5♦) X - (P) - 5♥ I would miss the slam here. I would be surprised, however, if South still raised to 5 when partner's bid was an opening 1♦ rather than an overcall. Possible, of course, but a lot less frequent than an auction such as 1♣ - (1♦) - 1♠ - (5♦) when they can count on north for a 5 card suit and the opponents likely have the balance of points.

I voted for the strong 2-suited hand, followed by cue bidding an ace. I would simply pass 1N with a weak 6♣ 4♠ hand, running to 2♣ if doubled.

I was trying to differentiate between broad categories, basically those that use both Pass and XX as forcing vs Pass as natural and XX as forcing vs those who use both Pass and XX as natural. I was probably too specific with the pass as forcing system, but I wanted to give some sort of example. Is there some other broad category that I missed? I don't know of anyone who plays Pass as forcing and XX as natural, so I didn't include it, but I suppose anything is possible...

I realize that there are a lot more than the ones listed, but these three seem to represent the basic styles that people prefer, so pick the one that most closely resembles what you think of as the best structure. My current thoughts are in the spoiler text below.

I consider the original takeout double an acceptable minimum. However, I don't think west is strong enough to double here, in spite of their distribution. The QJ of clubs is almost certainly wasted, so 3♠ is their bid, in my opinion.

There are a ton of different schemes for escaping after partner opens 1N and RHO doubles. Does the following convention already exist, and is it playable? I couldn't find any references to it, which makes me think it might be fundamentally inferior to SWINE etc. 1N - (x): P = forces redouble. Either wants to play 1Nxx or has 2 suits with spades. xx = two suits without spades. Opener bids 2♣ with club tolerance or 2♦ if they prefer both hearts and diamonds to clubs. 2x = weak 5+, to play

Just for fun, I would like to try something like 2x showing either 6+ in the suit bid or 5/5+ in the suit below and one of the two suits above (for instance, 2♠ showing spades or hearts and a minor)

I actually don't mind the original redouble. The "standard" meaning where I play is that redoubling the opponent's takeout double shows 10/11+ points. Partner's double is suggesting a penalty, but I would certainly take it out and bid 2♠ here, with a good 6 card suit and a partial fit for partner. Partner shouldn't read that sequence as showing anything in particular in hearts, in my opinion (redouble does not show takeout shape for anyone I have played with, though I suppose someone might play it as 4-4 majors or some such).

First blame goes to South for 2♠. I would probably have cue bid 3♦ to show a stronger raise.

end in 7♦, and when the opponents bid 7♥ or 7♠, sacrifice in 8♣.

2♠ is the standout, forcing for one round in my mind. I can see the case for NF, I suppose, but it just seems to take up too much space in a contested auction to have to jump to force. I like to make descriptive bids when they are available, reserving a double in situations like this for hands with less clear direction, and 2♠ seems like a good description of the hand.

I personally like symmetry in my systems, and would consider extending whatever system you use over a weak 2. If that is a "First step response is an artificial game force" then great, the continuations shouldn't be hard to adjust. If you use Ogust over a weak 2, then you might consider using something of a similar spirit where 2N is the artificial ask, unless you are really attached to the 2♥ as an artificial GF. It might look like: 2♦-2N: 3♣ = minimum with 4 clubs (or minimum with a weak suit, if you prefer) 3♦ = minimum without 4 clubs (or minimum with a good suit, if you prefer) 3♥ = max with heart stopper, but no spade stopper 3♠ = max with spade stopper, but no heart stopper 3N = max with both majors stopped Or something... Anyways, just a thought, since your bid is essentially a weak 2 + about 5 points.

I have played with some similar ideas, in a context where 1♣-1♦ was either 0-7 or a hand that could force to game opposite 11-13 balanced. After 1♣-1♦: 1♥ = 11-13 balanced -------P/1♠/2m = to play -------1N = pick a minor -------2M = 4 or 5 card suit, GF -------2N = long minor suit, debating between 3N and 5m -------3x = sets trump absolutely, GF -------etc... 1♠ = a hand that would open 2♣ in a standard system but doesn't qualify for a 3x jump or a NT bid -------1N = waiting. Any hand that doesn't qualify for a 2x bid -------2x = at least KQxxx or Kxxxxx 1N = 17-19 balanced 2x = 17-21(22), natural. Partner may pass with 0-2(3) points 2N = 22-23 balanced 3x = single suited, game in hand, sets trump absolutely 20-21 balanced would have opened 2N.

With Stayman and a decent runout system in place, I don't see the point of transferring into a 4 card major. The runout covers the weak hands and Stayman covers the inv+ hands, so why is there a need?

3♠ for me, then pass out 4♦.

3♥ is clear. Next, pass is also clear. Partner may have considered bidding 4♥, given their 6 loser hand, but you have shown your hand and your support. The ball was in partner's court, and they passed, so you need something special to bid again, and your 9 loser hand doesn't qualify.

Pass. If you were going to bid 4♣ the time to do it was your first call (assuming that's preemptive in your system).