Gilithin

So the alternative to Stayman here is that a 2♣ response asks and Opener rebids 2♦ with no 4 card major; 2♥ with 4+ hearts; and 2♠ with 4+♠? I need to think about that one - sounds like a great idea!

There are 3 Multi defences in the ACBL standard written defences alone. When you include all of the various regional and partnership-specific variations, that number goes up considerably.

In Dixon and many other Multi defences, you bid "competitive with a minor" by passing first and bidding on the second round. This does indeed mean that some questionable overcalls have to be made sometimes. That is why I specifically mentioned the Multi-X defence, since one of the bonuses of that approach is separating out that hand type immediately.

In a vacuum, you want to Pass with 35-40% of hands, bid 1♦ or higher with 35-40% of hands and open 1♣ with the rest. Unfortunately those pesky opponents sometimes like to butt in and this changes the percentages somewhat.

As Mike has mentioned, the better solution to this sort of issue is by using relays systems. Just about every relay system would have no difficulty with #1 at all. The majority of relay systems will also handle #3, although some will reverse relay, which makes it more tricky than normal to evaluate, Also, this actually looks like an Interesting Hand in its own right on the play side. #2 is difficult to judge as there will be a wide range of openings (Pass, 1♣, 1♦ and 1NT are all possible in mainstream methods) and because parsing jacks is difficult to do reliably. Parity methods do help there and increase the number of hands where that works out. As such, if you are worried about this type of hand I would point you towards IMPrecision, which is particular strong in this class of slam hands. The main point to take away from this though, is that taking out one of the provably best innovations in slam bidding of the last 100 years and replacing it with a mechanism that has value on only a small number of hands is losing bridge. Instead look for a solution that handles the issue without creating a huge negative. Relay methods in general, and IMPrecision and others from that family in particular, are your best bet.

Tell your partner to repeat to themselves 5 times before bed every night for a month "Don't preempt over a preempt". Then have a discussion about your Multi defence. If you decide to go for a Multi-X approach, there is generally a specific call for "competitive with diamonds".

Third seat at green, I think you should have considered an opening but that ship has sailed. After an OBAR (opponents bid and raise) auction, it is nearly always right to come in with shortage and here you even have a maximum. Anything other than X from the North hand strikes me as a pretty extreme position. I doubt I would consider Pass a logical alternative if there was UI on the hand!

Bergen raises are unsound over Dutch Acol-like systems (4 card major, strong NT) because you will often preempt to the 3 level when that is simply too high. Over UK Acol-like systems (4 card majors and weak NT) Bergen is playable as Opener will have compensating honour card strength on hands where they lack shape. I recommend reading the first few chapters of Partnership Bidding at Bridge for a more advanced analysis of why this is important and how it affects system design.

I would suggest 2♦ with a-c and 1♠ with d. With e I suspect 1♠ is by far the best call but as written the only one that fits is 2♣ (I would choose to adjust the definition of 1♠ slightly). My view on systems like this that have massive complexity with little benefit is that they should be avoided for anyone below advanced level. It is far more important to improve general bridge judgement and understanding than use a large part of available concentration for remembering all of this. For advanced+ players, it might be worth it if it can be made to provide some overall positive expectation. The thing is that if one wants to play something "fancy" over 1♥ that involves using 1♠ essentially as a relay, why not just use the same structure as over the 1♠ opening, namely 1♠ = FNT, 1NT = GF with spades? It means only learning a tiny adaptation from what you are already playing rather than a completely new system. And that is quite aside from well-established methods such as KI that require a little more memorisation but still much less than the OP. If I were your bridge tutor, I would suggest to you that looking for a complex system fix at this stage is a trap that will end up stunting your bridge development. I personally love complex system stuff and really miss the contributions of posters like kenrexford, awm, Zelandahk, straube and TWO4BRIDGE but most such methods are only suitable for a small fraction of players. So my recommendation is to keep playing a natural system for the next 2 years and make a note every time you find a system hole. By that time, you will be in a far better position not only to evaluate the reward-to-cost ratio but also to implement the new method successfully and (also important!) describe it properly to the opponents.

Indeed it is loaded enough that police forces stopped using it and replaced it with the code IC5. But if I witnessed a crime I would be much more likely to say Oriental than IC5, in just the same way as describing a North European as white or caucasian rather than IC1. The trouble here is that American (and Italian) does not describe an ethnic origin but rather a nationality. If the description was 4 orientals, 1 mid-easterner, 2 latinos and 1 south european, it would clearly be using outdated terminology but at least it would be internally consistent. If, as is more common, oriental is used to separate out children from East-Asian immigrant families out from children of European immigrant families, it is usually (but not always) done for racist purposes. Context matters. It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that all 8 of the described individuals are actually American nationals. That would make usage of the term "Americans" particularly noteworthy and difficult to contextualise. I genuinely find it difficult to explain other than my definition #1 (native American context) or #3 (racist terminology). If Chas again refuses to answer, BBF readers will just have to make up their own minds as to which explanation is the more likely.

So were these two people American nationals of North European origin, Canucks, non-white American nationals, or something else?

Oriental is a term that can be used in the same way as Caucasian. Maybe Chas never spoke to them and did not discover their true nationalities. It can be used in a racist way but it does not need to be. "Americans" on the other hand is nebulous. The obvious meaning would be a US subject who is not a Native American, someone like Chas himself. Given that we have 8 people for a bridge match, it is perfectly possible that Chas is one of the 2 "Americans". A second possible meaning is akin to the use of 'mid-Easterner'. Maybe the 2 "American" individuals are from the American continent but not US nationals, Canucks perhaps. And of course, terms like "American" are frequently used in racist circles for US nationals that the writer does not consider to be a true American. It just seems logical to clarify what is actually meant here.

What does "Americans" mean?

If the thread is meant to talk GIBish then it should be moved to the appropriate forum. As long as it is in Natural Systems, it is appropriate to discuss bidding system options in general.

I addressed the matter of up-the-line bidding system in the section immediately following this that you conveniently chose to cut.

Consider the German system then, where you have a certain number of Representatives based around physical areas/seats and a top up pool that can be fine-tuned to make sure that each party winning at least 5% of the vote ends up with a number of seats proportional to their vote share. The result is more or less the best of both FPTP and PR systems in one tidy package. Probably the best nation-building the US has ever implemented in its entire history.

I suspect there was some misunderstanding there. In standard natural bidding, it has always been the case that a reverse shows not only extra values but also specific shape features. It is not unusual for a reverse to be faked with a (4441) hand but I know of no completely natural system that routinely does this with 5-5 in the minors. That said, there is a method that some pairs use where a 2♦ rebid after a 1♣ opening is artificial and does not promise diamonds. In that scheme, typically a strong club one-suiter (BWDH) gets bundled in and is identified by Opener bidding 3♣ after Responder relays. There is also space for one further hand type. Most pairs using this seem to choose a big balanced hand here, thus freeing up their 2NT rebid for a raise of Responder's major, but you could use it to show a reverse strength 5-5 hand if you preferred, thus saving you 1 step (2NT vs 3♣) over standard bidding. So yes, it can be done but the gains versus losses are questionable and as a convention it certainly has no place in the N/B forum.

I agree with this completely but my experience has been that if you teach it to beginners too early, they end up abusing the idea and overuse it. "When to break the rules" is a lesson I think best saved for upper intermediate level players. You have to know the rules first before you can work out whether your current hand is better off doing something different.

East is third seat - West opened. You moved the thread on from the OP with post #28.

First of all, if your average in the Acol Club is -0.16IMPs/bd, you should probably not be complaining about the general standard. I had a quick look and on the very first hand I opened, you bid Ordinary Blackwood with 2 aces, received a response showing 2 aces and then signed off in 5♠. This does not fill me with confidence. My suggestion (quite strongly) would be for you to learn some basics of how to bid at a reasonable level before you start playing around with Forcing Pass systems. You can listen or not but I think you underestimate just how much of the game you have yet to uncover.

It does in most modern natural bidding systems. It does not in up-the-line systems, which I addressed in the part of my post that you chose to cut.

It is not really a fake agreement if partner has 5+ and you have 3. According to the official sources, the way of signing off in 5NT after minor suit agreement is bidding 5♠. Not too many at club level know that though. The vast majority of expert plays use either 4♣ or 4♦ as their ask after 3 level agreement in clubs, so 5♦ would not be the queen ask. This is a solution I can recommend providing you and your partner are clear in when it applies. Bidding has come a fair way since Culbertson's day. Ely did not believe in cue bidding and strongly preferred his complex asking bid scheme. These days, with many systems allowing for game forcing suit agreements to be created at the 3 level, there are more ways of using the extra bidding space to make slam investigations easier.

Quite so, I much prefer 2♠ opposite a passed hand. Missing a 19hcp slam in a jammed auction is completely normal.

I think this will cover most situations. Simplified Bidding Ladder for 5-5 minors: min - open 1♦, rebid 2♣, pass a minimum (2♦, 2 of original major) response inv - open 1♦, rebid 2♣, bid 3♣ over a minimum response gf - open 1♦, rebid 3♣ Simplified Bidding Ladder for 5-4 minors: min - open 1♦, rebid 2♣, pass a minimum (2♦, 2 of original major) response inv - open 1♦, rebid 2♣, bid 2NT/something else over a minimum response gf - open 1♦, rebid 3♣ Simplified Bidding Ladder for 4-5 minors: min - open 1♣, rebid 2♣/1NT inv - open 1♣, rebid 2♦, respect partner's sign off gf - open 1♣, rebid 2♦, do not respect partner's sign off Simplified Bidding Ladder for 4-4 minors, with (23) majors: min - open whichever minor your system dictates (default 1♦), rebid NT inv - open 1NT gf - open whichever minor your system dictates (default 1♦), jump rebid NT Simplified Bidding Ladder for 4144: min - open 1♦, rebid 1♠ over 1♥, pass a minimum (1NT, 2♦♥ response but be ready to upgrade the hand after a fit inv - open 1♦, rebid 1♠ over 1♥, continue with 2NT unless partner shows a fit gf - open 1♦, rebid 2♠ over 1♥ Simplified Bidding Ladder for 1444: min - open 1♦, rebid 1NT/2♣ over 1♠ inv - open 1♦, rebid 2♣ over 1♠, continue with 2NT (Note: this is the most common shape for faking a reverse, so opening 1m and rebidding 2♥ can also de considered an option for inv and gf hands) gf - open 1♦, rebid 2NT/3♣ over 1♠

But you do know that Opener has 5 clubs, since the 1♠ rebid announces an unbalanced hand and the 2♥ call rules out the minute chance of the wrong minor having been opened from 4144. So if your main concern is finding out about the club situation, it seems like an easy process to bid 3♣, follow up with some cues and eventually bid whichever of 4♣, 4♦ or 4NT is your ask. If you are instead playing an up-the-line system, such that partner might still have a 4333 hand after 2♥, partner must surely not bid 3♥ over 2NT with that, in which case you might have to fall back on minor agreement at the 4 level system - not ideal but the price you pay for not defining your hand type earlier. Finally, there is a method that allows you to jump with this type of hand without giving up all of the jumps to rare beasts, sometimes called Condensed Solloway Jump Shifts. In that convention, a response of 2♦ followed by a 2NT rebid shows a big balanced hand. Most players do not think it is worth it but if you discover that your methods have a hole here, giving up one uncommon response to cover it (and a few other awkward hand types) is a relatively small price to pay.