Acesfull

Definitely. This is just a structure that's fun because it's frequent, but it has plenty of risks especially when vulnerable. You can always make adjustments like 2♠ shows 5+ spades and 4+ diamonds, or even 5-5, and the same for the 2nt bid.

I suppose you are correct. I think generally the stat is that 60 some percent of the time, partner can choose an 8 card fit when you show a specific 4-4. So yes, every bid can be passed by responder.

How about: 2♣: 4-4 clubs and a major, (2♦ asks) 2♦: 4-4 diamonds and hearts 2♥: 4-4 hearts and spades 2♠: 4-4 spades and diamonds 2nt: 4-4 clubs and diamonds I like it because every bid except 2nt can be passed by responder, putting more pressure on the opponents.

In terms of opening balanced hands, I believe the person who invented Zar points advocates not using them in those situations. From http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/TheNeverMiss.html: KQx KQxx QJx Qxx As for your other points, I have to agree.

Ok, I'm no expert, and I hesitate to call myself advanced, but I'm wondering why more people aren't in game on hand 1. Switch a low club with a diamond in the South hand and game is much better, yet the bidding would be the same. If you aren't in game on that hand, I think you are underbidding.

I was recently reading Fred's Improving 2/1 Game Force articles, and I like the idea of using a natural 2NT response to a major suit opening. Fred suggests using the cheapest jumpshift (1♥-2♠ and 1♠-3♣) to show a forcing raise. This sounds reasonable enough; my only concern is giving up the invitational 3♣ response to 1♠. I don't think I've actually used the bid ever and was wondering if anyone had any experience or suggestions regarding Fred's structure. Thanks. http://www.bridgebase.com/articles/fg/2over1.html http://www.bridgebase.com/articles/fg/2over12.html http://www.bridgebase.com/articles/fg/2over13.html