all loomis

p is painful, but might be right. 2s with that suit does not appeal. 1n or even 2c if you must bid.

briggida has blessed you with an easy answer: 1d. then 1s over 1h. but there is nothing wrong with p. 4th chair may rescue, or pd may have 6 c tricks.

you deserve one another. x 2d, for starters. if xx is 10+hcp, then w must at least raise 3n to 4. nothing wrong with 3c, e is presumably short in diamonds [no x] c's might be the best spot. but then he wants to play nt. at this point you wish you had bid 2n over 2s, because clearly e is clueless. lesson 1: playing with strangers, bid nt first. lesson 2: be humble, passing 3n is also clueless.

start by playing a 1c forcing system. precision is good enough.

2c followed by 2s seems natural and effective. i train my partners to pass 2s with dbltn and min.

just bid 6 s's. bidding 7 in a competitive action with singles everywhere does not pay.

4 s is probably the right spot, as a practical bid. some hands are just too hard, and this is one, for me. anything from 10 to 13 tricks possible, so take the money with a sour smile.

both, as usual. 1st mistake was using 2/1. 2nd mistake was 1 s. after immediate 2 c response, even 2/1 players will often get to right contract.

of course. 1s response is a nonsense.

if 2c is forcing, the obvious first bid. if not, 1d.

fp had a brief period of popularity in the 1980's, in sydney. very quickly became evident that opps were benefited more than users, as they could bid natural shape hands, up to 15 points, and rely on fp to give them a delayed second bid with 16+, which can't be good for fp. coping with the light openings required some thought, but even there starting off with more high cards tended to work out better for opps. there is only so much information you can squeeze out of the bid sequence, and telling the opps how to defend is not a good idea either. there is room for science, but keep an idea on the prize of getting to the right spot while telling as little as possible.

there are not enough bids for every hand where action might work. save x for those hands. 2d if you must.

don't sneer at the x, cc wei took taiwan to the runner-up spot in bb with 16 pt x's. for that matter, the blue team never paid any visible attention to t-o shape.

since 4c ruins openers hand, a return to 4h seems obvious. it sends the message that d lead may be more exciting than desired.

since the dq and c a will produce a slam, responder must not make a game bid. i like 4d over 3n- no c control. resp can sign off in 4h or 5d with no quick c winner.

x will prompt a 2d bid from a 1345 12 count, unless a s raise prompts a 3d bid. inconvenient, but that's the kind of pard in modern life. so, 1n. not the end of the auction, just a way-station.

useful survey. it's this kind of discussion that creates precision players.

i played a precision variant for a few years, with roman 2c and 2d. 1d was unbal with length in either minor. worked very well, so long as you are willing to play a 12-15 nt. 1c rebids also benefited from extracting strong 3x4 hands.

is 1 club out of the question?

1c-1d ? 2c is any 6 card suit, responder calls 2d[unless 9+] 1h is 4 card red suit, with any 5 card suit. responder relays: now, 2c, 2d, 2s is 5 card suit, with 4 h's, 2h is 5 card suit with 4 c's. and 1n is 4 d's, with any 5c suit. 1s is 4 card suit, with any 5 card suit. this depends on using roman 2c and 2d, but if you can cope with that it packs a lot of information into the first two bids. also, i recommend 1c-1d to show either 0-5, or 9+, make natural response with 6-8.