Flame

3NT looks best at mp, at imps i think 5C is better.

I know but we didnt promiss to play exactly syac :P

nice might try it in a new partnership one day.

Thanks Do you think with this 2NT its might be better to play 2M as non forcing now ?

Sounds interesting, can you define it more precisly, i mean after 1S-2C and i have a 6 cards spade suit, when will my bid be 2NT when 2S and when 3S ?

1M-2X-2NT like 1S-2C-2NT I think when invented sayc they ment this to show 15-17 bal and therefore made this bid forcing yet i teach my students to open 1NT with 5 card majors. "naturally" this 2NT become 12-14. This 12-14 is a bad range over sayc 2/1 since responder will be guessing if we have game with his most freqent hands. We have a paralel way to get to NT, opener rebid his major and respoder bidding 2NT to show 10-11(12) hcp, now opener can pass or bid 3NT. The benefit of bidding 2NT directly instead of this 2M-2NT is playing the hand from opener's side when its right. We could narrow down the range or change the meaning completly. What do you think is the best use for this 2NT. (and should it be forcing ?)

Can we comapare only hands where there was actually atleast one pair who lead from 4 cards and one pair who lead from 5 cards ? (if there are enough sample we can change this to more then one to avoid strange leads) I think this way we might solve this problem and get a trustable result.

I missed the part about us being quite, now this is very intresting. Is leading 3 cards is a winner in general at mp ?

I remember commenting on this idea saying that it make sense at mp but not at imp. About IMP i beieve this search is true, leading the 5 cards will take the contract down more times. (i think if the normal contract was 4NT rather then 3NT the results would have been different) About MP, i think the results of leading from 3 cards are enfluented by partner's bidding, most wouldnt lead this suit unless partner has bid it and maybe this bid is what gave them the edge (maybe their partner overcalled were its not a clear overcall) The 4/5 lead on MP is intresting and i think ill buy it until i have new information, so on my next mp turney if i have equal 4 and 5 ill lead the 4 :). Another important thing is leading from short suit, maybe we should reconsider leading partner's suit when having a doublton in it.

How can you ask for aces, you dont have a known fit, what will you bid if you find enough aces ? 6S or 6NT ?

I think you better not use 2 way, it doesnt worth it.

You are asking 2 different questions, the first what is 4NT and the answer is quentative, the second is what my pickup partner is doing and here my guess is he is answering for aces and kings.

what exactly was the thing that upseted you ? Was that "all the good players will" ? I suggest you reread and maybe even apologise to this guy cause you were really annoying him. since you allowed yourself to give him a psichological observation i'll allow myself the same, you have a real problem with your bridge level, you cant accept that you arent as good as you would like to be, on the other hand you are smart and know this isnt good so you do just the opposite you make sure everyone will know you arent good, but on the other hand you cant accept anyone else to be good either.

good idea

http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/Articles.html This is the best thing iv ever read.

How does it work when they bid 1NT ? (1♣) P (1NT) D (P) 2♣ ? and (1♣) P (P) D (1NT) 2♣ ?

My RHO open 1m i pass partner doubles/bid and later i bid 2m when will it be nat and when a cue bid ? Examples: 1. (1♣) P (P) D (1♥) 2♣ ? 2. (1♣) P (1♥) D (P) 2♣ ? 3. (1♣) P (P) 1♥ (P) 2♣ ? 4. (1♣) P (1♦) 1♥ (P) 2♣ ? If possible try to give guidlines and not approach it as 4 questions. edited: the first example wasnt good so i changed it

a reverse is one round force, but not GF yet. many uses a a response of 2NT to the reverse to show all weak hands making life eaiser when you have a good hand, playing such a system 3c or 3D or anything else at the 3 level will be GF.

http://bridgefiles.net/Meckwell/RM-PRECISION.htm http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/bradco/systems/meckwell.txt

Interesting interpretation of what most agree on......although this is what you seem to think that it should be.....and those that feel it is forcing.....are likely right but any agreement is better than no agreement and as for showing one type of hand with one bid.....its an interesting concept and is actually quite common...lol The problem with your approach is that you want to have 2 ways to show 15-18 bal. Again this has a benefit, but normal bridge logic doesnt do this, for example most players with 5332 15-17 that doesnt have NT oriented honors structure still open 1NT because the system doesnt allow them to show this hand later if they open the 5 cards suit. I cant say your way isnt better.

Thanks for the answers, i think that most agree it should be GF unlimited, which is much more flexiable then jumping to 3NT with more pnts. no need to tell partner what we have when we know what he got and its better one side know alot then both sides know little. as for the 15-16 it might be usfull but i wouldnt spend a bid for a specific hand.

Do you understand the benefits of bidding 2NT opposite to 3NT ? And about the 15-16 bal, anyone else think it should be this way ?

im thinking since its 18+ then it should be forcing. Now since its forcing maybe it better be unlimited so we can find 5-3 heart fits or any other fit for game/slam perposes.

(1♣) D (p) 2♥ (P) 2nt what does 2nt show ?

Well, equal level correction fixes this problem ;) Without ELC I probably wouldn't double. I thought over 2 openings, equal level is the std and there is no supper double.