MickyB

Talking of being "beaten to it", where did you first hear of this? Wondering if I need to renounce my claim to have invented it :blink: This was in the context of 1D including both minors either way, so the 1NT bid was useful for overcoming the problem of not wanting to give false preference.

Hang on - how many points are the yanks expecting for 2♠? On this side of the pond, "weak" means 4-7 or 5-8 in this position, over which I wouldn't have considered 2NT. If it is 0-5 then sure, I'd probably bid 2NT. Or do you think 2NT is right over any of these ranges?

Keycard, I'm afraid :D What agreements do you have in your partnerships that might be more useful?

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s86hakj864daqct95]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥-(1♠)-2♠-(4♠) P-(P)-?? 2♠ is limit-plus with 3+hearts, the pass over 4♠ is non-forcing.[/hv]

I'd sooner bid vul at imps than pass love-all at pairs. It will be right to bid a massive percentage of the time that it's a part-score hand. Surely if we pass the first two times we have to bid 4H the third?

Dunno - presume dbl is undiscussed? Guess it might be intended as 4-6, or as some kind of 5-5 unsuitable for action initially - maybe 6-5 with fewer points? Just guessing...

Something I quite like by a passed hand, and isn't demonstrably worse than transfers by an unpassed hand - 1M (X) 2M-1 = constructive raise 1M (X) 1NT = 5+cards in the suit below ours Nice to be able to get your five-card heart suits into the auction without losing minor-suit fits. If you are playing a weak 2♦, then playing 2♦ by a passed hand as a good raise in competition is hardly ridiculous - sure, there will be times you wish you weren't, but they won't be frequent. Guess it depends on your style of preempts.

Han's simulation shows it to be pretty much an average 16-count. Surely this wouldn't fit into the top-third for upgrading purposes? It's somewhat system dependent too - I suspect that, of the pairs not playing strong club, 14-16ers upgrade much less frequently than 15-17ers, because they don't want to have to take another action in competition (or, if applicable, jump to 2NT) on a "good 16 count".

Definitely a 1♦ opener with a NT rebid ;) You mean you are downgrading to 11-13? Bit excessive IMO

Feels pretty close to a double-downgrade, no strong feelings. Did you miss game? ;)

Pass with 5C4H, XX with 4C5H is an option

Odd - I thought that playing 3♥ here as "any game-try" was close to standard. Agree with the ruling given.

Most hands with 5M and no game interest should pass IMO, I've scored +80 here a few times, no need to go running around just because they might protect. Guess you might bid again with 5M4C or 4S5H if you can offer a choice of part-score - e.g. with methods like - 1S puppets 1NT then checkback structure applies 1NT shows 4S4H NF 2C is 5H4C NF etc

Today, I'll be playing 1C = Natural/17-19 balanced 1D = 11-13 balanced/14+natural 1M = 4M5D or 4-4-4-1 11-13, or 5+cards 1NT = 14-16 2C = Strong 2D = 9-13, 6 cards or 5♦4♣ All point ranges up one in 3rd/4th Basically this is to make non-forcing free bids work opposite the 11-13 balanced type. Transfers over 1C as before, but not over 1D as I don't want to have to change it by a passed hand. 2254 would be treated as balanced rather than opening 2D unless the diamonds are strong. 1M:3D shows a 3-card limit raise. The 4M5D 11-13 is to pass this :D

Sadly I seemed to pick up diamonds+spades more often than diamonds and hearts :D Advantages of major inversion - 5-5 majors misses neither fit without using responder's (reverse) flannery Right-siding If you decide to use Responder's Normal Flannery, you also solve the issue of 5H4S opposite a no-trump rebid that could contain four spades. Disadvantages - You can't really pass after 1D:1H, 1S You can't pass after P:1D, 1M. This will be more important if you are opening 1D on weak no-trumps. Suspect it is best to play them only by an unpassed hand.

Ok, well... I am going to try this with transfers over 1C and the majors swapped over 1D. Completing the transfer at the one-level shows the suit partner just bid - e.g. 1C:1D, 1H = unbalanced with C+D. - Over 1C, this greatly reduces the frequency/potential issues with having to rebid 5-card minors/off-shape no-trumps - Over 1D, you save a step with 5-5, finding a 5-4 fit in either major without using Responder's (Reverse) Flannery, although there seems some logic in now playing 1D:2H as 5-6H4S - Rates to be good for right-siding overall Wondering if it would be better to have the responses to 1C as 1D = S, 1H = natural, 1S = D. Rebidding 1S would show clubs and diamonds and again we could use Responder's Flannery :) As well as finding nearly all fits when opener is unbalanced, this would also solve 5H4S weak opposite a weak NT rebid without sticking it through the checkback structure. The 1C:1D, 1H auction would be nice too - it could be passed on occasion, a 1S rebid could be natural and weak, and a 2S rebid natural and constructive. I guess this doesn't have *that* much relevance to the initial opening structure - just that, if you only have one balanced range to show, you are more likely to appreciate the transfer completions, rather than playing complete = 11-13, 1NT = 17-19. I have more thoughts on taking this further, but they are perhaps a little "out there". Yes, that's right, I consider what I have written so far to be "in there" :P

Are you meaning that both balanced ranges go through 1C? Or that there is some reason that you think it would be better to have 11-13 go through 1D and 17-19 through 1C? I was intending to use transfers, but I was going to wait for initial thoughts before launching into my own ideas. And yes, I was only suggesting that the Inv Minor should be forcing to 3m/game for the minor that is natural/17-19 balanced.

I've been putting some thought into opening structures along the lines of - 1C = natural/11-13 balanced 1D = natural/17-19 balanced 1NT = 14-16 Probably with all ranges moved up one point in 3rd/4th. I've played a fair amount with both balanced ranges going through 1C, and thought that obviously superior at the time, but this seems to have some benefits that weren't immediately apparent to me. For example, if partner opens 1D and there is an overcall on your right, it is much easier to act light if partner has denied holding a weak no-trump - which will make life much easier when partner turns out to hold 17-19 balanced. Any thoughts, or resources to suggest? I am sure there are existing threads on BBF but I couldn't think how to search for them. I know this is the preferred system of Phil King (coach of the pair generally considered to be the best in the UK), if anyone knows how he plays it I'd be delighted to hear. All I can remember is that 1D:2D is forcing but doesn't promise a good hand, on the basis that you can safely play in 3D or game. Thanks

There are a gazillion threads on this, I'm sure. I don't find Polish and Precision to have that much in common as systems, it is easier to compare Polish with a short club IMO. But here we go - Weak NTs do better in Polish Unbalanced with diamonds does better in Polish Majors are *slightly* better in Precision For strong hands, Precision does better given the same opposing actions, be they passing or bidding; but the opening definition encourages preemption, as opener is known to be strong.

Seems that's true of modern tests, but IME the most commonly referenced figure for entry to Mensa (top 2%) is 148, which would be based on a scale with a SD of 22.5 or thereabouts.

When I was very inexperienced, but rapidly becoming a system freak, I attended lessons with a maverick teacher. He used to take a suit, deal a few cards at random then discuss the suit combination with us. One time it was QJx opposite Axx; My initial reaction was to play the queen. As a result of this, he informed me I'd never be a good player! While I know I'll never be a world-class declarer, I'd like to think I've done my bit to prove him wrong :( When I had been playing about four years, I went through some level five bridge master hands with a ladies international and my housemate, who had been playing for three months. It was slightly disturbing to discover that he was the best of the three of us! When I last played with him, he was decent for the most part, with the odd absurdity, but it seems clear that he has missed out on discussion with top players.

That's odd, I'm sure I saw the director brandishing a law book when correcting an earlier ruling at my table part-way through the second session. Why should declarer be allowed to assume that a defender with a low spade and a winner shouldn't risk her one trick in return for two in this scenario? Edit: Sorry, didn't read mrdct's post in full - I agree, except I'd check with declarer away from the table that he wasn't just being overly diplomatic in not disputing the version of events presented by the charming young lady on his left :( With regard to dummy's level of experience - if it is the pair that I think it is, while dummy does not frequent the duplicates, he does frequently host in the £5 per hundred game which includes several internationals - is this relevant?

lol pass

4♦, Like, Duh, Obviously.

Obviously it's about trade-offs - if you can dedicate 1M:3♣ to showing 4-card limit then the loss on the non-GF hands is less than if you need it for something else. For a while, I played 1M:2N as balanced INV+, asking for shortage, with 1M:2N, 3X:3M to play - that's obviously pretty good for judgement on games, if expensive in terms of information divulged. 1M:3X was a mini-splinter - you don't need a mini-splinter in spades playing 5cM because you can just punt 4H on those hands, maybe that's true even playing Acol. Disagree with wanting opener to be in charge on these auctions - responder is usually balanced, opener is often unbalanced, so it's best for opener to describe and responder to see how his honours fit with partner's shape.