nullve

Can I also systemically open 1♠ on ♠765432 ♥5432 ♦32 ♣K and not be playing a HUM? (I'm using 3 hcp + 2 suit length points + 3 shortage points = 8 points > 7 points = a king below average strength.)

Pineapple and pen on the other hand:

I agree that 2♣ over a F1 1N response is not so bad at IMPs. But playing 3♣ on a 5-2 fit at MPs is asking for a zero in my part of the world, since everyone else will be playing either 1N (after 1♥-1N; P or 1N-P) or 2♥ (after 1♥-1N; 2♥). This hand type (good MIN, 4522) isn't a problem for me personally (and I do open 1♥ in my system), but I wonder how other flanneryphobic gazzilliphiles deal with it, especially if they play 1♥-1N as F1 (which I don't).

2♣ (finally!)

deleted nonsense

2♣ is the book bid, but I would have opened 1N.

[hv=pc=n&n=s8hakj7d763c98542&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1d1sp]133|200[/hv]

True. :( I take 1N back and reserve it for 1st, 2nd and 3rd seat.

I try to save space and energy by using * 'T' instead of '10' (bonus: all rank symbols will then have the same width) * 'N' instead of 'NT' (bonus: all denomination symbols will then have the same width) * '(abcd)' and 'abcd' instead of 'a-b-c-d' and 'a=b=c=d', respectively.

What's the worst hand with 6412 shape you'd overcall 2♠ on?

Playing with GiB (at least): no.

No. Thinking only one move ahead (1♠) is terrible bridge.

In my case it does, because my 1-level suit overcalls are defined just so they can be weaker versions of my 1-level suit openings. I can also imagine, but have no evidence to suggest, that 1) strong clubbers prefer narrower overcall ranges vs. standard openings than standard players; 2) strong clubbers tend to overcall strong 1C openings more/less aggressively than standard players. Thoughts?

Not sure anything went wrong.

Then what does 1♠ over 1♣-1♥ show in your system?

I've re-read the whole thread several times and I still have no idea why 32519 opens 2♦ (Lee) instead of 1M with this hand type. But I also don't know what his 1M openings look like, so maybe he's including this hand type in 2♦ to fill a hole.

Very easy in my system, where 1♣ = "nat. or bal.", incl. 4144, excl. 1444 ...1♦ = "4+ H" ......1♠ = "S" (incl. 4144) ...1♥ = "4+ S" 1♦ = "nat. unbal.", incl. 1444, excl. 4144 ...1♥ = "4+ S" ......1♠ = "H" (incl. 1444) ...1♠ = "4+ H", but also in (hypothetical) systems where 1♣ = "nat. or bal.", incl. 1444, excl. 4144 ...1♦ = "4+ S" ......1♠ = "H" (incl. 1444) ...1♥ = "4+ H" 1♦ = "nat. unbal.", incl. 4144, excl. 1444 ...1♥ = "4+ H" ......1♠ = "S" (incl. 4144) ...1♠ = "4+ S". I don't know how to solve the problem entirely if both 1444 and 4144 are in 1♦, as in Swedish/Polish Club, but I've seen some nice suggestions on this forum, such as straube's 3-suited 2♣ rebid over 1♦-1♠.

I just discovered by accident that the diagrams are easily readable (in the editor window) if you click on the 'Reply' button on his post.

♥Q (Rodwell's "Chinese high card promotion")

The passers are less likely to find partner with a major suit fit?

I voted 75 % East, although it's hard to answer with confidence without knowing more about EW's style.

My very unimaginative plan is just to knock out the ♣A before playing on spades, preserving entries to the ♣J if the spade finesse is working. I'll play the ♦8 from dummy at trick 1, hopefully creating a third diamond stopper should I need it.

If partner rejects the splinter with ♥KJT, then I think we're likely to have a diamond loser.

I came up with ♠AJxx ♥x ♦AQrxx ♣Jxx, r<8. But partner might have played the 9 from 98xx.

I'll enter dummy with the ♣A and play a small diamond towards my hand at trick 3, playing W and E for the ♥A and ♦K, respectively, and hoping that East will either play low or continue with a non-heart.