piratepete

I once had the auction: 3♦-(4♦)-5♦-(6♦); end 3♦ was a pre-empt in either major, and 5♦ was a barrage. The 6♦ bidder had the best diamond suit, and it was a reasonable guess, but didn't make.

You're not giving up anything. Hands with exactly 4♠ find their 4-4 fit by 2♣-2♠ or 2♣-2♥-2♠, hands with at least 5♠ and not 4♥ transfer, and hands with 5-5 can bid 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠. The only wrinkle is the 5-4 and 6-4: probably best to play Quest transfers for those (1NT-2♣-2♦-3♦/♥: inv+, 45/54 majors), but I guess Smolen works too.

I conveniently have a 2♠ bid here showing an opening with 5+♣ as opposed to 3♣ defensive. (Using Chris Ryall's multi-v-multi, sounds like kgr does the same) Unlike kgr, I think this hand is still a 2♠ bid even opposite a passed hand.

I voted `toy', as I have a 3♥ opening that covers weak, 5+5+ majors, and I'm not likely to lose much by using it. Without that, 1♠/1♥ according to style in limited opening system, pass in 11-20 system.

Hi, this is a system regulation question primarily about the EBU. The Orange book has lower limits on what can be opened 1x, and opening pass `cannot be used to show values'. Does this mean that something like opening pass in first/second: 0-9/10 any or 13-15 bal would be legal, as the pass doesn't usually show values, and 1x shows 9+? This method would have no fert, and would basically rely on 3/4 opening light to control the 13-15 option. Would it make a difference if it were 0-9/10 any or 10-15, 5+♣? Thanks for your time.

Aren't you actually giving up on the squeeze through this line? If the fourth ♦ isn't good, how do you get back to the ♣2? Doing exactly this but cashing only two rounds of clubs is a good try, though.

My partnerships prioritize exploring for ♠ contracts at this point, rightly or wrongly: 2NT: leb, to sign off in 3m/3♥ or invite in ♠ 3♣: range- and shape-asking 3♦: gf, asking in first instance about quality of spade suit, sets up asking bids 3♥: no agreement, must be forcing as 2♦-2♥-2♠-2NT-3♣-3♥ available 3/4♠: defensive

OK, I'll bite. This is obviously impossible if 2♦-2NT-3♣-3♦/♥/♠ are different types of asking bid with cheap responses, as in my methods, but if you don't have any system over 3♣ to work out what opener's actually got... I would probably open this 2♦ in most positions: ♠Kx ♥QJTxxx ♦Kxxx ♣x Now partner has shown at least a game-try opposite either major. Three key-cards including ♥A give you a chance, and four usually have play. Not wise, but possible. I probably wouldn't open 2♦ on: ♠x ♥QJTxxx ♦x ♣KQxxx But some people might, and now a slam try's looking nearly plausible.

Unfortunately this looks plausibly enough like RKCB for ♥ in my system, so answering the question is probably a LA. Then again, the distributional constraints for a weak-two in our multi are fairly broad, so maybe that's what it is, relying on 2NT to hold enough high-card strength to sustain 5/6♥.

Table result was 3♦X-1, NS +100. I think we scored ♠KQ ♥A ♦A ♣Q.

EBU, teams-of-eight match in a local league. [hv=pc=n&s=sq65haj8dt7caqt94&w=st92hqt7d532cj875&n=sk843h6542daqck63&e=saj7hk93dkj9864c2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d(11-15%2C%201+%21d)2d(%60Explained%27)d(11-13%2C%20nothing%20in%20particular%20to%20show)2h(E%20makes%20gesture%20of%20panic)p3dd(takeout-oriented, though opener is expected to pass with%20genuine%20%21d%20opposite)ppp]399|300[/hv] 1♦ is 11-15, 1+♦. Possible shapes are: - Real suit - 4414 - topless 6+♣ - 11-13 flat 1♦ was alerted, asked, and explained. Upon 2♦ , W announced without prompting `I'm taking that as Michaels' First double alerted, asked, and explained. Second double asked and explained. EW's system card contain the entries `Cue of natural one of a suit: Michaels' and `Defence to Short 1♣/♦: Natural', though these are the defaults for this EBU card. Adjustment? If so, to what? I know what I'd be inclined to rule, but I'll leave that for now (I was S). Thanks, all.