Rebound

I in no way agree with opening the first hand in first seat unless you have a 2-suit showing bid. The number of times you end up in phantom sacs (or doubled contracts making, their way) is greater than the number of times you don't get to bid with this hand if you pass the first time. On the other one, 3NT is as good a bid as any.

A very light style at any time seems to be the rule on BBO, but personally, I favor fairly disciplined preempts except in 3rd seat where it's totally down to personal taste. So, I would say, vul, at least 2 of the top 3 honors and non-vul 2 of the top 4, not incl QJ. At least with this agreement your partner can count on a certain minimum strength in the bid suit. I hate it when I have no idea whether to lead my partner's suit against 3NT.

This is probably wrong, but I would try this: play a heart to the A, cash the A of ♦, and lead the Q of ♠.

I'm going to win the spade in hand and play a club at the king right away. Let's say the king loses to the ace and they return a trump. I win in dummy and lead a club to the jack.

First, cheers to Free, Smolen is the way to go for 2-suited major hands over 1NT opening. Second, I want to recommend Roman Keycard Blackwood - Slam Bidding in the 21st Century by Eddie Kantar. I couldn't imagine a more concise and complete description of RKB as it applies to both minor and major suit auctions. In particular, he suggests that after minor-suit agreement, a 4-level bid in the agreed suit is RKB, however, if there is no agreement it is natural and invitational. In that case, to ask for keycards, it is necessary to find another bid, usually the other minor or 4♥. Just my $0.02 :) p.s. Of course, I don't believe this applies in any way to a stayman response to nt.

This discussion led me to read a description of Bergen ( I had no prior knowledge of it ) and it seems like it could be pretty useful. When playing with one of my normal partners, we play v vs. nv and in 4th seat at equal vul, 2-level bids are intermediate, 1 level openings are disciplined. Nv vs. v, Bergen could be used. What do you folks think?

I fail to understand how you can state there is no way to miss game, and i think you underestimate the value of a transfer over a weak nt. I'd be curious to know your reasons for these beliefs.

I second the excellent notion that when requesting subs, the rnds/hands remaining should be mentioned. TD's who are concerned they may not get subs if they admit there's only one round left should consider those who may not have much time and are unwilling to sub unless the tournament or team game is near completion. I, for one, also sympathize with the pain of having your partner go red just before the last round and am willing to sub in such situations anytime I'm not already playing. Back to the topic, I recently saw a sub volunteer to give up his seat for a returning partner and the TD refused. To me, that was rediculous. However, I believe subs should not be replaced without their consent.

To me it is automatic except when vul vs. nv. At that vulnerability it's a pass to me. No one ever got shot for passing a poor hand. I would prefer a partner to be more aggressive than to pass with that hand at the stated vulnerability.

How about 1♦ - 2♦ inverted, forcing ? But I guess my answer would be to bid 4nt right over 2 diamonds, quantitative.

I'm going for running the diamond 9 right away.

Please note that I did not say I agreed with the 2♣ bid. :-)

Put me in the 1♦ camp. The general principle: a stronger hand should open the longer suit regardless of rank, a weaker hand should open the higher suit. This assumes we are talking about at least 5-5 distribution. In this case, I think the hand qualifies for a reverse. P.S. On the auction above, After 1♦ 2♣ 2♥ I would bid 3NT. South now has the option of shooting it out in 3NT or going to 4 or 5 diamonds, depending on style.

For the sake of argument, I agree that 3♠ here shows spades and not hearts. Nevertheless, I will still bid 4♣ with this trashcan if the reverse is understood to be true.

I agree that it would be nice, not a big deal, but nice, if the folder containing hand records was sub-divided by type.

I confess I didn't know what o/e discards were until now. They seem pretty straightforward. However, I have always enjoyed great success with udca and lavinthal together and I'm sticking to 'em :P

Actually, I thought the contstraints of the problem were such that the line had to be 100% on any distribution of the minors. I was under the impression this did not apply to major suit dist.

Like I said, forgive me if it was just dumb :-)

I'm with Fluffy. It's so much easier to just open a 5-card major than to try and convince partner you have one later.

Forgive me if this is just dumb, but what happens if you win A, ruff a heart high, play 2 rounds of trump (need to assume 2-2 break), then play a diamond to the king, ruff a heart, and play a low club.

Thanks for the input. It was just a thought really. Since it seems I may have your attention, Free, may I ask, regarding your own topic about designing a precision system: what are your thoughts about the apparent slide in the minimum value for a 1 club opening which went from 17 (Shenken) to 16 (Blue, Wei et al), and now with your proposed system, 15+? How much lower do you think it will/can go? (No sarcasm intended.)

I'm sure this is not a new idea, but I am just curious about what you folks think about it. Let's say I've decided to treat club opening bids as a sort of extra notrump call. E.g. 1 ♣ = 10-12 balanced 1NT = 13-15 " 2♣ = 16-18 " 2NT = 19-21 3NT = 22- whatever, balanced Now, with all the balanced hands covered at the get-go so to speak, is there a viable structure for the rest? A strong 1♦ perhaps? I was also wondering whether it was possible to lower the ranges by a point or 2 each (that's where the "is this legal" part comes from. In other words, is this even worth while bothering with? I understand the polish club is a 2-way balanced 12-14 or strong (16+ I think) so it sounds similar but that is all I know of the system. Anyway, your thoughts are welcome.

I dunno, maybe I am just lazy. But in order to play options 3, 4 or 5, additional structures have to be added, increasing complexity. I admit I haven't really tried any of the other methods to determine their effectiveness, so I don't claim my opinion is based upon experience. But many partners I have encountered on bbo have enough problems dealing with the conventions they already play without adding more to the mix. It might be different with a regular partner.

It occurred to me that perhaps providing members with a reminder of the existing definitions of each catagory might influence them to adjust their ratings to a more suitable category. I don't know how many would take the hint, but it seems worth a try. Of course, a significant number would likely continue to overrate themselves causing the situation to return eventually, but it might provide a nice break from this annoyance.

As do I. Of course, the cost-benefit ratio of a given convention to a particular partnership depends as much on how well it fits with exisiting methods and treatments being used by the partnership, as it does on what it actually does and how well. A trap many find themselves in is to adopt a particular convention because it answers a particular need without giving thought to its impact on the rest of their bidding structure. That having been said, I see nothing wrong with favoring a particular method and espousing it in public, hopefully for the benefit of others. It's no different than posting on board elsewhere about the great movie you saw. No two film buffs will have the same "top 10 of all time list." But most knowledgeable movie addicts will agree on general quality.