MickyB

I think 6♦3♣ rebids 2♦. 1♦:1♥, 1NT seems fine, but if 1♦:1♠, 1NT can be 2245 or 2452 then that will cause problems. I don't understand Fluffy's objection to XYZ - If you want to play in 2♦ then, like Roudi, you can, but you have two sets of checkback continuations, compared to Roudi's one.

I understand you running from 3NT. It contradicts conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom doesn't take into account your 4♦ opening being conventional! Under the conditions I would open 5♦. What hand would bid 4♥ that would also bid 3NT over 3♦? I think it has got to be natural - 5 weakish hearts, 5 solid clubs, a diamond honour and the A or K of spades? 6 Solid hearts and a small singleton diamond? I pass.

You can change the cardspeed in the options. I normally use hand diagrams so I can't say whether the speed has increased in 3.9.9, but I can certainly set it much slower than anyone could want it!

Are you sure your opponent wasn't asking about the particulars of odd/even discards? There is nothing to prevent you from asking what Polish Club or UDCA is if you are unsure. I understand your not wanting to rely on HCP for evaluating your hand, but for ease of explaining your agreements it would be useful to understand the method. Alternatively, something like 'may have 5♥ and no high cards; If only 3♥ then three queens or one ace would be a minimum' would provide excellent disclosure, but would obviously slow the game down. This assumes you are playing with a partner who will know what hands you will raise on, either due to discussion or experience; If not, your opponent is not entitled to this information. Not that many people on BBO realise this, of course. I know of no alert regulations that require a raise that could be on 0 HCP to be alerted.

What do you think the 3♠ opening bid is for?

Isn't it an improvement to invert 2♦ and 2♥? Or maybe just add strong types into 2♦... immediate jump rebid shows 5-5, 2♦ then a minor shows 6-4?

1. If you play 1NT as 5+♠, then 1♠ is unlimited unless you find another bid for a strong 4♠333. In a Precision context I played 1♠ as including balanced game forces, then 2♣ and 2♦ were GF with a 5 card suit. 2. Same as after a forcing NT - 2NT is bal invitational, 2♠ is a strong raise of partner's minor. It is generally a sound method, but sometimes loses out when the correct lead is found due to a lead directing double of 1♠, or even when a spade lead is successfully avoided due to the lack of a double.

It is what partner says when he realises how good your hand is. At least, that's what I thought at first. I then realised/remembered it probably stood for Good One Suited Hand.

EricK's profile says he is in England, so I doubt he is EOK.

Even better, a breakdown by the call made in first seat.

I can't find any reference to the hand now, and my memory of it is very hazy, but IIRC...In a world championship, a Pole rebid 5♣ on this sequence on a black 2 suiter (6-5 or 7-5); This resulted in 1400, when 4♠ would have gone for 300.

Why not open 1D with this hand? Because the alternative is it showing 5-5 minors weak! Anything to escape that...

I'd say it's only half true that 1♣ can be safely taken as natural. The fact that 1♣ includes 20+ hands doesn't make life any harder for responder at his first turn. The problem comes later when opener makes a strong rebid - it's difficult to distinguish the 20+ hands from shapely hands with clubs. This is not correct. Polish Club has been in existence for over 30 years and has bid this way with no difficulties. What Whereagles is proposing is nothing more than Polish Club - see Hrothgar's post above. 1♣-(1♥)-P-(4♥) Isn't 4♠ now 20+ with no implication of a club holding, so with a wildly distributional 15 you need to bid something else?

Probably no help whatsoever, but a couple of England Juniors played 1♣ as natural or any 20+ and 1♦ as natural or balanced. 1♣ then 1NT rebid showed the 20+ type.

Also carlritner.com, the ACBL Library's book sale. $15.95 plus P+P. It is well worth a look for those outside the US as well, particularly with the current exchange rates.

Sorry, missed that. Unless it is on your partner's profile, to describe your bid as '10-12 bal' or similar is misinformation; You have no agreement, so that is what you should say.

You have to explain agreements, whether explicit - you have discussed it; Or implicit - you have not discussed it, but you know the meaning that your opps won't - eg you are playing against someone new to BBO who knows nothing about SAYC. Were you confident that your partner would take 2NT as 10/11-12? Why? If you were just guessing, you should say 'no agreement'. If you had an agreement, the bid had come up before, or you had (for example) agreed Acol as a basic system, then you should describe it as a balanced invite (if your agreement is not based on HCP then you need not mention them). Some people use 'no explanation available' to mean natural, some to mean no agreement, making the use of the term unacceptable. Your opponent was perfectly entitled to call the TD, and your attitude afterwards got you thrown out IMO. Disappointingly, both abuse@ and the director in question do nothing to refute the widely held belief that you should always describe your hand, not just your agreements.

I've wondered about this...is the lack of a natural NF 1NT response made up for by lots of natural NF 2/1s? Or would you advocate a 2♣ response as an artificial invite?

Orange Book 13.2.2 "Power responses: 2♣ or 2♦ is an artificial game-try" It may not be a "Power" response, but 2♦ as INV+ with ♥ is both artificial and a game-try. Might be able to squeeze it through? 1♠:3♥ preemptive? If that's too simple, how about either a game invite based on a heart singleton or a slam-probe based on an outside void? I'm sure there are some hands left unbiddable by your agreement that the 2♣ relay denies a void in partner's suit. Why not relay then decide whether to break to natural bidding on the next round? That would give you your non-forcing 1NT response back.

And here is where I wanted to land. You are bypassing 200 vs 100, and much very important 100 vs 500 and 200 vs 800. Including 200 vs 100 actually reduces the required odds for bidding game. Instead of losing 6 IMPs for bidding game going down, you only lose 3 IMPs in this situation. 200 vs 800, of course, is a different matter, but based on frequency I suspect the required odds for game should be less than 37.5%, not more.

No way it should be 2 points lighter. Thomas Andrew's research can be read here; His double dummy analysis showed that, using the fifths count (4 - 2.8 - 1.8 - 1 - 0.4), 3NT will make >50% of the time with 24.4 points or more, and >40% of the time with 23.8 or more.

I'd had no problems before this version, but while kibitzing 3.96 crashed - when I switched user I found that BBO wasn't responding and the window went white, then it came up with an IE error. Have deleted db now.

The URL for David Stevenson's page on defences to 1NT is now http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/def_1nt01.htm

You crossed to dummy, led the J♠ which was covered from Hx, crossed back in trumps, led small to the K♦ and ducked a diamond to RHO's ace, then claimed an overtrick hoping opps didn't notice you were a card short :)

What do you do with flat 17s? I think you should play a 14-17 NT, or maybe a 17-19 2♦ opener.