MickyB

Then you would pass, because partner's 6S bid would show that you were missing a keycard. With all the keycards and potential interest in grand, partner must bid something else, usually 5NT. 4NT would be the wrong bid too, it's very rarely right to bid blackwood with a void, as the answer won't help you. A 4C cue would be better, although I'm not sure you'd reach the grand.

Surely it's irrelevant whether EW normally do this, unless NS *know* that West normally does this? Obviously, this would be different if only one of EW had missed the double.

I believe so, yes.

At the end of the hand, it becomes apparent that EW believe they've played 3N-3, while NS believe they've defended 3N X - 3. Say you rule, influenced perhaps by the club's new red tableclothes, that the double was indeed made, just not seen by EW. Is there any provision to allow an adjusted score, on the basis that the auction hadn't finished, and that 3NT X wouldn't have been the final contract had West been aware that he still had another call? Do NS have a responsibility to inform West that he has another call?

I think it's fairly clear from the facts I listed, and from general bridge knowledge, that misbid is more likely than misexplanation, do you not agree? I was just unsure whether it was *sufficiently* more likely...

Auction - 1H-X-XX-P P-1S-X-AP The double is described as penalties, but turns out to be 2065. Opener is 4513. Declarer believes he may have taken more tricks if told the double was for takeout. Potentially relevant facts - They are a regular partnership Their convention card is silent on the meaning of the double, but explains the redouble as "9+, penalty interest" They don't play pass/double inversion anywhere Opener - the more experienced player in the partnership - is certain that double was for penalties; responder is unsure. Do you rule misbid or misexplanation?

Of the 57 pairs playing multi, 9 are playing it in conjunction with constructive weak twos. All nine of those include a strong option in their multi! This is somewhat bizarre IMO - given the junk that gets opened a multi 1st NV in these methods, being able to pass 2D is pretty huge.

Who has said that? Also - if I quote my own post and disagree with something that I didn't actually say, will I get an upvote too? :P

This is true. It is also obvious and doesn't disagree with anything I'd said!* * I guess you could interpret my post differently, but I think it's fairly clear I was saying that on {unbalanced hands with diamonds} we would rate to do less well than on other handtypes.

Perchance, did I follow up with, "because you have no way to find out at a safe level whether partner has a major on the side"? :P

We'd start - 1C:2C [nat or 17-19 NT; 5S4H 0-11] 2D:3H [iNV+ ask; 5-5 max] If responder had bid 1H to show spades [denying 4 hearts unless GF], then opener would be able to show their hand as clubs+diamonds unbal. I can't be bothered to work out how good slam is, but you can assume that I'd get there if it is a good contract but stop safely in 4H if it's not.

Yeah this was kind of my [limited] experience with 2C as GF/weak 2D. The auction 2C (2S) 5D (P); 5H (P) 6H may have been successful but it didn't feel best! Yup, although oppo will often overcall when neither of you has one of the majors. Well, their playing strength in diamonds is quite different too! Not a bad idea though. I'm still tempted by 2D = 6D/5D4C, and opening 1M on 4M5D min. I think this is over-simplistic; a bid that is either natural or 17-19 NT is by no means "usually just a balanced hand".

Yeah I'd probably do that when NV or 1st NV with some partners but didn't want to over-complicate the OP. Going this route does have downsides, you have a lot more tricky decisions on the diamond hands, playing my suggested method the diamond hands are normally happy to show extras over a NFB/transfer. This is pretty much a rehash of the Polish Club vs Millennium Club/Nightmare/Fantunes 1C argument. While I think 2m as 18-19 bal is a decent idea, I prefer opening 1D rather than 1C with weak NTs. Besides the right-siding issues already mentioned [1C-P-1H!-2H; 2S], allowing 1C-P-1H!-X isn't great - I'm not convinced the gains outweigh these losses.

Well, then I'd worry about club hands and 17-19 no-trumps instead, both of which benefit greatly from not making the same opening bid as 11-13 no-trumps. Meh. Semi-nutjob :-p

Haha. Tempting to do it just to troll Benoit. Yes that occurred to me, as did opening 1M on 4M5D to leave the 2D opening free. I kinda like that, as it stands, if they take advantage of being able to double our 2C opening, they are giving up something significant, i.e. letting us out in 2C X when opener has 5D4C.

The frequency is irrelevant unless you are actually gaining something on the hands. The best continuations over 1c (nat/weak NT) gain a lot more on the club hands than the weak no-trumps. Does Glen Ashton count as an experienced system designer?

Not precisely, I was thinking maybe those with experience playing 2C as gf/weak 2D might weigh in. 2245 is handled very well through 1C, no reason to open 1D on it. 6D322 10-13 would be happy to open 2C IMO. 2254 10-13 would tend to be treated as balanced I think. Sure, but in a different context. Transfer responses have largely superseded alternative methods over a nat/bal club.

No I disagree with most of this - there's a reason Meckwell play 2NT = 19-20, and a reason that most Precision pairs open 1D on bal 11s - but I don't disagree that we are roughly even on balanced hands overall. Yes No. I think you have an edge but it's tiny compared with my edge on club hands. I'll frequently have gains from the 2C/2D openings. No, you'll lose plenty on the 15-17 hands to counteract the gains on the 11-14 hands. Probably, but I'd need to see your continuations. No. This screws you over on the 17-19 no-trumps for very little gain. It also leads to frequent and hideous wrongsiding after transfer responses on auctions like 1C-P-1H!-2H; 2S, which I explained to you in a thread you started on transfer responses to 1D. Yeah I've tried putting 20-21 bal through 2C, it gained me a grand total of 2 imps, and cost me an (unlucky) NV game swing; the problems it caused us in contested auctions were hideous in comparison, although maybe that was down to lack of discussion/practice with the method on our part. If future responses could be on topic, i.e. comparing the two suggested systems, rather than some alternative nutjob method, that'd be appreciated, thanks.

Strongly disagree, Tyler. Freeing up 1m-1x-2nt is by no means the main advantage of the method. Compared with Precision, we are behind on 17-18 no-trumps and 1M-4M auctions, but ahead when dealt 11-15 with 5 clubs or 5d4c, and ahead with 16+ unbalanced hands when the auction is about to get competitive.

If you open all weak nts with 1D (or 1C), the worst hands for your system are minima with primary diamonds (clubs); even if your uncontested methods are good, you will be a long way behind in contested auctions. My existing opening structure is - 1c = nat/17-19nt 1d = nat/11-13nt 1M = 5 cards 1n = 14-16 2c strong 2d+ preempts How about this instead? 1d = 11-13 NT or 14+ with diamonds 2c = strong, or 10-13 with 5+d, unbal, no major 2d = 5+d,4M 10-13 Edit: It would also be quite easy to make 1c unlimited, removing gf club hands from the 2c opening.

Easy pass. IMO, the inviters are way overestimating the correlation between [partner accepting] and [partner being able to make nine tricks], and possibly also underestimating the probability of making seven or fewer tricks.

You might have bid - 1N:2D 2H:3D 3S:3N P but it's not hard to construct hands where passing with a 5-5 fit works badly.

What methods do you have available for 5H4D(31)s?

Bidding NT with no stop in lefty's suit is way more attractive than bidding NT with no stop in righty's suit.

If you don't have a mixed raise available, I like 2NT here, just so long as partner expects it - there's still room for a try.