Chamaco

I bid 2D (1R force) and later 3H (4sf). Sure, in some cases, when pard shows H stopper with Axx and we stop in 3NT, we might lose a perfect-fit miracle 25 hcp slam in a minor, but in view of the spedaes misfit this should not occur too often.

Ditto. Natural in balance seat, distributional takeout in direct seat. When there are 3 unbid suits, the shape of the takeout depends from the specific suits promised by Micahel's cuebid, and Unusual 2NT: once these are precisely defined (e.g. Michaels = highest unbid suits, U2NT = lowest), the the remaining 2-suits (in this case, top-bottom) are included into 1NT.

Without other agreements I would consider it a splinter, but the way I play, 2D would be forcing 1R. So, if 2D is forcing (either 1R or GF), it makes sense IMO to use 3D as splinter; if 2D is NF, then it does make sense to use it as natural GF.

Rather than changing the position of the button, I think it might make sense to show a "Bidding preview dialog box": "Are you sure your bid is xxx ?" with the Yes/NO Buttons.

I think this is the most commonsense approach: webpages with all the required info seem the most practical way to go. :rolleyes:

If after the takeout double, opener's side shuts up, then doubler's raise shows serious game interest opposite a maximum response. However, the example you show here has a FUNDAMENTAL difference, which changes everything. In your example, opps rebid, and in such cases (opps get busy), we must get busy too, and bid lighter, not for game, but to contest partscore. In that light, the doubler should be able to communicate a good fit to pard, even if he has not interest in game. There has been a thread about such sequences a few months ago (Link to the thread), and quite a few players suggested that, if opener's side bids on, doubler's rebid DOES show a better than minimum opening, BUT, it does not guarantee a hand interested in game.

I believe in the system, REDOUBLE shows 10+ but tends to deny a major (or -if holding a major, a REALLY flat 4333 hand), whereas bidding 1♥/♠ shows 4+ cards and, say 6/7+ hcp, UNLIMITED (e.g. a 10+ hcp hand with 4+ in major will not redouble but bid the major instead). I know some play that with ANY 10+, including a 4+ card major, will redouble first, but I think this is not what the BBO-advanced system assumes.

hehe :P

Ditto. The fact that 3S forces to game does not seem enough to earn a full 100 (in my opinion, it is barely enough to avoid ZERO points, and if "NOT LOSING GAME" is the only criterion, then a 5C pass or correct is worth the same award since it does not miss game either.... but I am no expert :D ).

Hi all ! :) I know many players play a "thrump" ("THRee notrUMP") double over opps preempts in various situations. Under the thrump agrement, the double is primarily stop ask in the following sequences: 1x-(3y)-Dbl The double asks to bid 3NT with a stopper in the preemptor's suit, and is NOT looking for majors. I have read that some players have extended the use of the Thrump double even when our side does not open, and opps peempt. E.g. (3D)-X-(p)-? (3H)-X-(p)-? Under such agreement, now the main priority is NOT to show a major but to bid NT if possible ("Hamman's Law"?? :) ). Anyway, I am a little worried by this use of the Thrump double, and I'll try to explain with an example. Suppose bidding goes: (3H)-X-(p)-? you hold AKxx-432-Kxx-Jxx No stoper here, s 3Nt is not an option; but pard did not guarantee a spade fit with this double, so should you bid 4S even in a possible misfit with pard ? Or leave the double in and find out that a slam in spades was laydown ? Similar doubts arise in my mind in the sequences where opps preempt with 3C or 3D, pard doubles (not guaranteeing a major), and we lack a stopper but we have 4-2 in the majors. E.g. (3D)-X-(p)-? you hold Qxxx-32-432-AKxx

Minimum (assumes no wastage)= - 9 hcp if A+K+Q - 8 hcp if A+A - you might prefer to define the above as 10 points counting an Ace as 5. - minimum openers always guarantee 7- losers. 8 losers hand with 11- hcp are not opened. [bTW: we count Qxx(xx) and Kxx(xx) as 2.5 losers, not 2 losers, unless some J or Ten are there to "help" the unsuported honor] The basic idea is to setup some minimum standards for marginal openers: - offensive strength of distributional hands (losers) - defensive strength if opps buy the contract (defensive tricks). Having such agreements restricts a bit the hand types 1st/2nd seat might open, but help better responder to decide in competitive auctions. ------------ Of course I do not mean the above as absolute statement; it's just my own pship agreement (I assumed that the question was obviously intended as "what's YOUR minimum to open").

I think Mike was joking and was simpathizing with Hannie :-)

Ben, don't you think that the System notes to refer to for the Bidding Polls should be in a separate PINNED post ? I mean, if you leave those notes into this thread, this thread is likely to get buried by the dozens of threads on the various hands to discuss ? B)

Another interesting scale (and in my case and play level better suited than Garozzo-Belladonna and various champs) could be: Australopithecus Pithecanthropus erectus Java man Neanderthal man Cro-magnon man Homo sapiens sapiens ... and.. of course... BENNIEST ! B)

Is there a way to ask pard to bid the slam if he does not have 2 quick losers in opps suit ?

You can bid 1NT with such a hand even if it's not forcing. I think the TD ruling was a big mistake. Of couse I assume it was a non-pay tourney: if such a ruling occurred in a pay tourney, it would be REALLY bad (pay tourney should guarantee directors who know the rules), but in a free tourney I assume we should be more tolerant towards the mistakes of volunteers.

I know this thread is not about system, but it seems to me that the 3S cue is more useful as a forcing raise of the only known suit (hearts here), with hands interested in slam (e.g. that want to show heart suport without signing off in 4M nor risking that 3M gets passed out). Minor-oriented hands can go via 2NT to clarify first which is the suit held.

A question to all the folks here (I am always fond of Forcing pass questions !! :) ). What is wrong with pass and accepting any pard decision ? Pass should show an offensive hand which is unsure to make 6, so why doesn't this hand qualify ? I understand that this hand is way too weak for pass then pull double, but what about pass and pass pard's double (if he has the right cards to double) ? Thanks all!!! :-)

1NT if it's natural (15-18). Passing this hand at first round is a risk: we have wrong shape to bid, but it seems to me an illusion to hope that pard will take any action if he has the right shape, because he will be short of hcp. And, even if we get a second chance to bid ourselves, that might happen at the 2-3 level.

Well done ! Thanks very much to Ben, Elianna and all the panelists ! :-)

I do not like bidding any number of NT here: if pard has nothing in spades, the hand will pay 2+ tricks better in any suit. Double is ok, if it shows "cards" , but to me it seems more like penalty in this sequence, so I would be really hesitant for such a bid, if it can be interpreted as pure penalty rather than cooperative. Therefore, if I am afraid of doubling, little is left, because I believe any bid of 3 of minor would be an underbid. With 2 Aces oposite an opener and a moderate fit in minors, I want to try game though, so I decided to cue 3S to ask for stopper: if pard has something, our Ax will be appreciated :-) If not, I'll play 4 of a minor: a silly contract, but Ax stopper vs pard's xxx or xx rates to be an even worse 3NT contract.

I passed. I think it's borderline between double and pass.

2NT = positive relay= I wanna know your minor p. Pard has bid Michaels at unfavourable, he rates to have a VERY good hand. Slam is not unlikely. Bidding directly (e.g. without going via 2NT) any number of a minor suit would be pass/correct, usually with weaker hand, and pard would passout even with a god hand.

I psyched 1H.