MickyB

Quite honestly, I'd need to see a complete system description to be sure, however, my experience is that suppressing support cause all sorts of nasty effects, regardless of the base of the system. Sure, there will be problems if opener suppresses support, but more so when responder has five spades.

Is your comment aimed at majors first systems Richard? Luke is referring to true canape, ie a 2♦ rebid would show 4+♥, longer ♦, so a weakish 4225 can pass quite happily playing limited openers.

Yes, you have a choice - either make 3 card raises on hands with far too little playing strength, or rebid your suit on hands screaming out for a raise like Justin's. I'm not sure which method I prefer. It is changing the system quite a bit, but I'd probably put all the balanced hands into 1♣ and all the minor 2 suiters into 1♦. Now 1♦:1M, 2♣ shows longer ♦ and 1♦:1M, 1NT shows longer ♣ or equal length. 1♣:1M, 2♦ shows either a 3 card 12-14 raise or various strong hands that you might feel like putting in. Transfer responses to 1♣ could open up a similar bid over a 1♦ response showing hearts (1♣:1♦, 1♥ = minor 2 suiter with longer clubs).

I led a top ♥, thinking that with dummy broke it didn't even need partner to have an honour to not cost. I now agree with the club leaders, the chance to develop tricks in the suit is too great. As it was, partner had Kx in clubs and declarer had QTx.

"Good hand for 2♦ transfer" Particularly if they still bid 2♥ over it. I'd quite like to find out if partner is max or not. Lacking the ability to do that, I think I'll make do with 3NT.

I've been there Helene - for the 18 months after I started playing, I was in a partnership that never used the same convention card twice! I think it would be best to restart with a basic system, a lot of general principles and few conventions. Anything not agreed as a convention is natural. It probably will take a few sessions before you are having less misunderstandings than you do currently, but you will get there. A 1NT overcall needs discussion IMO - either system on, or system off (i.e. 2bids are natural NF, 3bids are natural forcing, and a cuebid is staymanic).

I don't understand what the page is trying to do - it is possible that the method is sound, and it takes into account the rating of opps, partner, etc. The problem would be lack of data, particularly if, for example, a group of 10 stars have only ever played amongst themselves. Some of them would have to have a below average rating, because there is no evidence in their stats that this group as a whole are good players or bad players.

Declarer had a heart void so 3♦ made.

Six of your minor, three of partner's major, strength to jump rebid your minor I believe.

I think the links to the updates to v 4.1.5 are dead.

3♠ is right IMO, but 4♠ could work - swap partner's ♣ and ♥ and a 3♠ bid would miss game. It is just against the odds when your singleton only has two trumps to go with it.

If you are playing a 13-16 NT, you might want to play a 1NT rebid as 17-19 and a 2NT rebid as the Death Hand (6m3M jump rebid strength). You can probably fit some other hand types in there too. After reverses, Blackout makes sense - weak hands all bid the cheaper of 4SF and 2NT which is lebensohl style, any other rebid by responder (with the possible exception of rebidding his suit) is GF.

"If my pass was right, then her double wasn't" That doesn't follow - you can't always make the right decision between you, there doesn't always have to be blame. Looking at your two hands, you would expect a heart, a spade and 3 diamonds. However, there is a problem here - partner has 4 card support for your 5 card suit. This makes it too likely that a double will backfire. I would probably double if the opps were vul at MPs, otherwise it isn't worth it.

North made a dodgy overcall, but it isn't as bad as South's subsequent jumping around. West showed a balanced hand when he was 5-5, then tried to catch up when he found a fit... awful! A 4NT bid doesn't exist on that sequence. East didn't do anything wrong, his hand would be more interesting if he had to decide between bidding his 2nd suit and showing his number of aces on the 2nd round!

Pass. You showed 5-5 by not making a reopening double and your honours are looking defensive. There's a good chance partner was hoping to penalise 2♦.

Playing online at MPs, red vul. RHO deals and opens 2NT, which is passed out. What do you lead from... KT83 QJ74 void AJ954

Your bidding isn't inconsistent - if partner had rebid 2♦, you wouldn't have been so enthralled with your hand.

Maybe not: Fantunes do have a forcing opening bid, ANY 1-of a suit opening in natural and forcing 1 round, promising 14+ hcp unlimited, and lumping minimum openers together with weak hands into the 2-level openings. I was replying to Hrothgar's statement on the undisciplined 2 openings. Sorry, I should have quoted.

Was this in a partnership with a history of psyching Mark? (Translation - had you played with him before?)

Pass is not a field of the psyche. Pass is to put the ball back in your partners court. You already showed your values with your redl. I would interpret pass as decide partner, 4♥ or 3NTX... A side benefit is if partner did psyche, he can pass 3NT. Your pass over 3NT does not end teh auciton. And here was me thinking that pass here exposed your psychic redouble...

In the EBU, 1 level openings must promise Rule of 18/19; In WBF, it is 8 HCP. If you bid taking into account that partner might have less than that, then you are fielding.

Yes, I reached the same conclusion Richard. Fantoni-Nunes seem to disagree, obviously. Cut down version of my reply to this post on RGB - I responded on 4-5 points, played 2♣ as 4-5♣, 4 major, and my guess is it worked slightly better at IMPs than MPs.

For online bridge to fall into line with F2F bridge, undos must be allowed only for mechanical errors during bidding - i.e. misclicks, not changes of mind, and any card played cannot be changed. However this would seem to be illogical for online bridge - why allow changes of misclicks for bidding but not cardplay? If practical, my preference would be for the undo button to ask the TD for permission. This would reduce bad feeling between players, although possibly not towards TDs! It could also produce a fairer game than could otherwise be achieved - no stupid misclicks, redress if the misclicker takes advantage of the next card played, etc. If you accept that staffing this would be impractical, how about undo-reject-undo calls the TD? Another option would be to have undos recorded in the hand record or the TD notified, so that redress is available for any UI, gains from the next call made or card played and changes of mind. Whatever happens, assuming undos aren't done away with - I think players should be educated on the matter, so they know that they should allow undos for misclicks, and shouldn't ask for undos if they just change their mind about what to bid.

It has just been pointed out to me that RRF deals with 5♠4♥ hands, so I'm not actually sure what it has to do with this topic.

Weak NTers will always bypass a suit to rebid 1NT, because it is important to get the strength of the hand across. For strong NTers the decision is closer; My preference is to still rebid 1NT. IIRC I've seen the Reverse Flannery hands resolved by transfer checkback - 2♦ shows ♥, 2♥ shows 5♥4♠. Slightly away from the point that you have asked, but I prefer WJS at the 2 level, 5-8 or so - then auctions like 1♦:1♥, 2♣:2♥ are invitational, and a 3♥ rebid would be game forcing. This makes it easier to show slam interest through 4SF, as well as bringing benefits on weaker hands.