MickyB

King, for the same reasons as Beatrix gave. And yes, find an easier game - find an opp who will cover the ten of diamonds!

I have no clue of what EHAA is, but if you are suggesting that a system can wrok better than another specifically against another one this is simply baseless: How do I defend against specific systems is completelly independant from what system do I play, I would clearly overcall 1♥ with a 4card suit against a natural 1♦ opening with 14 HCP and unbalanced hand regardless of what system do I play. It changes nothing. Sam applies to how do I handle a precision 2♣ opening, or a ultra weak 3♠ preemptive, my system has nothing to do with that. EHAA is - 1N 10-12 2 bids 6(?)-12 any 5 card suit 1 bids 4+ cards, 13+ points I disagree with your argument. An example - If your opps are playing a 16+ club, conventional wisdom suggests that their limited openings should gain over natural systems, and that they lose out with 16+ hands. If you have a four count in first seat, the chances that LHO will have to open a strong club (rather than a limited opening) are proportionally greater than if you have a nine or ten count. Therefore, there is more reason to make a marginal bid (either 1 level or preempt) when you have a ten count to stop LHO from using his limited openers, and less reason to preempt on a four count, in comparison to when your opponents are playing a natural system. Obviously the effect of this is pretty small.

I'm thinking about a strong club system where a 1M (and possibly 1♦) opener is usually 4 cards or 6 cards - something like 10-12 bal or 10-15 either single suited or two suited canape. I'm wondering about 2M openers showing 5M4+♣, anyone know if there are any similar systems? I believe those 2M openers were used in old Italian system and I'm told they were used by a pair on vugraph recently, anyone know any more? TIA

I agree Matt. I spent a lot of time on system when I first started, expecting it to improve my results. Of course, it didn't, but it kept me interested in bridge at a time when I had no patience for books on cardplay. Also, I got to blame any bad results on our forgetting the constantly changing system :D When I'm asked about system by members of our uni club, I usually mention that they should play Asptro or whatever because they want to, not because it will improve their results drastically. That's when I'm not getting ranting on about my own pet theories...

Lol, brilliant Justin! Asptro and its predecessors are totally dominant in the UK among tournament players. There are a few people who play Capp under the name of Pottage, but not many as David says. It is unaffectionately known as Porridge by some!

Their 2♦ was ♦+major as well

Two problems - How will you bid as responder when you have five card support? I forsee auctions where you lose your five-five fit because you are both worried that pard only has three of them. Obviously you still have problems with high level interference. For these reasons, I'd rather put both bal ranges into 1♣ and play transfer responses to sort out the ranges. A flat 14 shouldn't be bidding again after 1♣:2♣, in fact a flat 15 probably shouldn't be either. For the same reason, it wouldn't work to play this with a strong NT Matt.

2C can also be (41)35 in Mark's system.

Agree with Justin, except that I've never had the feeling that I'm playing good bridge. Well, maybe two years ago when I didn't know how little I knew...Anyway, yes, matchpoints doesn't feel like proper bridge to me, and for me one of the great things about BBO is that it is nearly all IMPs.

Agreed, I prefer 2N as either minor

Have a look at the WJ05 document. The responses are something like this... 2D Inv+ enquiry, GF single suiters bid their suit at the next turn 2M Nat constructive NF 2N puppet to 3C, either weak raise or GF 2 suiter all 3 level bids natural inv

I'd just like to add that I think a 4♠ opener is absolutely disgusting, lol. On a bad day you'll get forced and your second suit will land up worthless - and the chances of it being a bad day aren't small! Pass is reasonable IMO, if you pass now you'll probably be able to bid lots later to get your shape across without getting partner too excited.

I'd probably open 1S, just. BTW, you seem to have more than four clubs!

She wasn't - Her husband plays for Welland, they won the other match

And I went to bed when they had just a few boards to play :P Can't believe they were that close over 120 boards, makes me feel better about losing a huge (for me) match by 2 IMPs! And now we get the final the kibitzers wanted, Fred vs Zia, awesome!

People who play it as natural usually play it as 17-19 I think.

No, they won, but thought Turkey was too dangerous at the time. Yup, they beat Welland by 100 IMPs in the final IIRC, so Welland went to Istanbul

1♦ showed 2+, and I would say preemptive as well. Not quite sure what Michael intended it as, any ideas?

IMO "slow shows" is superior because with a stop, you are less worried about further intereference; However, I play "fast shows" in all of my partnerships because the small theoretical gain isn't worth the memory strain of having a direct 3N bid mean anything other than "to play".

Stephen has already given several combinations where leading the jack does work, eg ATx with LHO. Even if declarer didn't have the eight, Suitplay says that leading the jack would be the best line for 3 tricks or max tricks (but not for 4 tricks).

Cheers dude. Anyone know if this is starting to take over from WJ2000 on BBO?

Your dream (nightmare) means that is better to avoid reading Chamaco's post (expecially :huh: ) before going to bed! ;) Yes, in this respect Chamaco bears a lot of similarities to cheese.

Good job I'm passing then, otherwise I'd be going for 1700

Person A picks up balance 18, opens 1NT and says "16-18" Picks up balance 17, opens 1NT with "15-17" Picks up balance 16, opens 1NT with 14-16 Picks up balance 15, opens 1NT with 13-15, you get the idea, but it gets worse I think "explained 'automatically'" is meant to mean 'by the software'.

:( Dunno. Possibly because the only decent solutions to this problem aren't allowed in EBU competitions until next year. Go on then David, elaborate ;)