Flame

I held this hand twice in the same tournament ! something like this AKQXXXX JX AXX X I opened 1S partner replay 1NT which is 5-11 semi force. The first time i bid only 3S and after being the only one off game i have bid 4S the second time. Is this a clear 4S ?

I dont like transfer opening, i think its a big mistake because reponder can rarly pass which is bad because 1.The other bids needs to include more hands. 2. Opponents can easily pass because the bidding will usually continue. 3. It takes our flexibility to make a decision whather to bid or pass which might make our system harder to defend. Beside that transfer opening give the opponents an easy double that unlike normal takeout double when the responder to the double must take out, this time responder to the double can easily pass. And last it gives the opponents and easy cue bid at low level. So I'll take anything that dont have trasnfer openings.

I like passing with 12-15 first and second hand idea, but i don't like the idea of bidding 1D with the 5M hands.

Opening 1D with 5M is something i don't like. If you like relay with strong club there are many versions available, and i believe you will like playing it just as much, however I would advice you to play some natural system for a while.

Hello, I'd like to hear your opinion on this issue. We play a strong 1♣ relay system, and response 1♦ with 0-7 neg. We had an argument to whether we should use strictly hcp or can have some judgment. For example if have 5-5 with 7 hcp would it be right to show it as 8+ ? At the actual incident i held 5-5 with a K and a J, (4 hcp). and after 1♣-1♦-1♥ desided not go give a second negative which is usually 0-4 in our system. My partner believe that we should not evaluate like this because when he relay for shape he knows i have that special shape but assumes i also got the points. I believe its beter to evaluate because it will help us in many decisions on non relay sequences, and if it happends to be a relay and he find out i got a nice shape he should assume i might be lighter on hcp. What do you think ?

This is a theoretical question. Do you think its possible to have a branch of bridge on which there should not be given pre-disclosure, meaning you will tell your opponents about the bid partner made only after she made it. Or maybe even no disclosure at all ? I think it is possible and could be interesting and fun maybe mostly for young players who suppose to have good memory and some spare time. Basically it will bring some homework into the game. What do you think ?

2♠

I don't know about you, but i do agree that begining to play bridge with a non natural system can do some damage.

I know its not popular but i think since the ♠ issue is so dramatic here, it make sense to play some kind of flanery.

im sure i wouldn't bid 2H with bad suit no matter how weak my hand is, but with a good suit like the one in the example i can see the benefit of 2H rather then 2D. Also i believe after 1NT its more sensible to hide 4m, because we are likely to be in part score or at most in game and in such showing the D suit will rarely help us.

Standard K is from KQ10 or KQJ and not asking for unblock. On K you should play Attitude. 2 = i like the lead. 10 = i don't like the lead and i can afford droping the 10 (usually means i got the 9). 9 = not an option here. (i would play the 9 with 98x to discourage) The question weather i like to encourage the lead isn't simple here. By encouraging the lead i discourage the "Obvious shift" suit. If you have specific obvious shift rules you know exactly which suit it is, if you dont you have to think and hope partner think on the same waves. Here the normal rules (from the book by granoveters) says the the ♣ suit is the obvious shift since its a suit Iv bid, this seems illogical seeing the dummy and knowing declarer have a stopper in the suit, yet playing these rules you must follow it. If you don't have rules, Id could guess ♠ are the obvious shift suit and hope partner guess the same. Now finally to the card i play. If ♣ is the Obvious shift i would play the 2 to encouraging, if ♠ are the obvious shift id play the 10 to discourage. I prefer to have the rules even if sometimes they aren't perfect.

I would not play like this. I would have made some ruffs first, for example, ruff a ♦ at trick 3, then take 2 trumps then ruff a spade draw the Q of ♦ and ruff another ♦ (didn't think of this much but the idea is to get some count on the ♦ suit. After knowing the count in ♦ ill make the decision in ♣. If i have to guess i guess that the spades breaks 7-4, the heart we know are 2-2. now after knowing the ♦ ill might have some idea about the ♣s.

only one suggestion for now. consider playing 1C with the ♠ suit and 1♦ with♥. i think it could help the 1C a lot.

don't see the problem, i double.

To me it looks obvious that 3D is invitational splinter, even if we have no agreements on the continuations its still seems like the potential from winning in game decision overweight the potential losing in a slam decision.

In 2/1 GF system what is the quality of the major suit needed for a rebid of a suit after 1H-1S 1H-1NT or 1S-1NT. When would you rather bid a 3 card side suit instead of your 6 card major ?

I wonder what is the common way to play jump shifts especially by world class players. In Israel you wont find even 1 percent of the players playing strong jump shift, but i believe this is different in other places.

I started learninng romex from a fat book i have, its nice to learn something with details. Its very different then normal system modern systems, wasting space on strong hands. How bad/good do you think it is ?

I like 1NT, it shows the value and shape of the hand and i never have a problem bidding 1NT without stopper in my LHO suit.

I think we ca make some simple rules: wheever a 2 of opener suit is avaliable like in 1H-1S-2D-P, a bid like 3C creates a GF, but when 2 of opener's suit isnt avaliable like in this post then this bid isnt creating a GF. in any case a bid above 3 of opener's suit like in 1C-1S-2H-P- 3D creates a GF.

thanks for the good news.

I admire BBO. I think adding robots was a good idea. I think adding money bridge was a good idea. But im sorry to say that the play of GIB on money bridge is a shame for BBO. The way GIB play is not suitable for real money play. I wouldnt be surprise if someone will sue BBO for letting GIB play in money. I dont believe BBO staff really know how GIB play, i think BBO staff think it play more or less sensible but its not. I will continue to play in money with it, i think its fair because its bad for everyone but i do think its something that must be changed and think BBO lose because of it since many players will not play with such a bad bridge player (not sure if its good enough for the title of bridge player). I hope BBO staff will check how gib really play, i dont believe that if they knew they would let this thing continue.

always believed that ♥ hands should be opened at the 2 level and all systems i tried to costruct and post were based on bidding the ♥s at the 2 level, im glad more ppl (especially ppl who i believe understand bidding) start working on the same idea I dont really like bidding this 2♣ with 5♥4♠. i think there could better solution to this maybe 2H=5♥4♠ This will take off the need to bid 2♦ with not strong enough hands trying not to lose a spade game, and then the responses to 2♦ could be 2♥ - 6 ♥s 2♠ - 4♣s 2NT - 4♦s 3♣ - 5♣s 3♦ - 5♦s

Yes unless its 19/20 hcp which can be 5 cards.

system notes This system looks like a system i wrote and obviouly i like it and going to convince my partner to play it. Does anyone know more about it, more detailed continuations, or maybe a similar system.