david_c

Fine - you do that if you like. But remember that 1. For a very large proportion of players on BBO, it will never make the slightest bit of difference whether their opponents' 1NT rebids can conceal a 4-card major or not. So a lot of these explanations would be a complete waste of time. 2. The players who are good enough to understand the difference are also good enough to know when to ask, if the answer would affect their play. 3. If there was a rule that said certain "natural" 1NT bids had to be alerted, it would be useless because hardly anyone would comply. New players on BBO aren't going to read a detailed policy on alerting.

Personally I strongly agree with scoob. I don't think that an inference about major-suit lengths should make a 1NT rebid alertable. Futhermore, it ought to be clear from the alerting regulations that all the opponents can assume from a 1NT rebid is that it shows a hand suitable for play in 1NT. Then the opponents will know that if they want more information they have to ask, rather than assuming that they know what the answer is. Similarly, as long as 1♣:1♥,1♠ promises four spades (and 1♣ was natural), it should not be alertable. If the opponents want to know whether it could be a balanced hand, then they can ask. Here it's good that we are playing online, because people can ask questions without their partner knowing they have done so. Having said that, I voted that there should be no default alerting scheme in BBO. People simply aren't interested enough in things like this - they would just go on alerting (or not alerting) in the same way as they always did.

I'd agree with this. In fact, what you describe is exactly what the face-to-face rules will be here in England, starting at the beginning of next year (if you replace 2+ by 2). I think it's going to work very well.

Let's suppose partner opens 1♥, and RHO overcalls 2NT showing the minors. Now, one thing you ought to have agreed with partner is the meanings of 3♣ or 3♦ here. But that's the easy part - there are some other things which need to be discussed, and you might not realise how important they are until they come up. So, I have some questions: 1. A double of 2NT traditionally shows interest in penalising at least one of their suits. But what does it say about the holding in the other minor? If the next player takes out into a minor, what is the minimum holding that opener is expected to double on? And if opener passes instead, is this pass forcing? Does any of this change if responder is a passed hand? 2. If responder passes over 2NT, and then doubles when 3♣ or 3♦ gets passed back round, what does this double show?

Yes! I am a big fan of the artificial 2♣ response. However, it doesn't work efficiently unless you're prepared to play a load of artificial methods over it. For example, say your bidding starts 1♠:2♣,2♥:2NT. OK, this is all fine, opener has the majors and responder has shown a balanced hand. But now how do you continue? Natural bidding here doesn't really make much sense - you're virtually forced to play some sort of relay system. So, wonderful as an artificial 2♣ is, it's only suitable for system freaks in regular partnerships. For the rest of the world, Fred's natural 2NT bid is still much better than standard 2/1.

Disagree. If you choose to explain your bid by giving the name of the convention, then your agreement has to be the same as what the generally accepted definition of that convention is. Otherwise the opponents have been misled. So, if everyone else in the world played that "Muiderberg" denied 3 cards in the other major, then an agreement to allow 3 cards in the other major would have to be properly explained to the opponents, and not doing so would be MI. But no, Muiderberg does not deny 3 cards in the other major. Having said that, you have to realise that various two-suited bids like this are becoming increasingly popular, and a lot of them seem to get given the name "Muiderberg" even though the definitions vary. So it's probably better not to use the name at all.

It doesn't look like it - they play that a 2NT response "asks for the doubleton", which seems to indicate they are expecting exactly 5-3-3-2 shape. ;) Actually it seems that the system hasn't really settled down to a "final" version yet. Maybe once there is a standard version of Moscito, it will begin to catch on. But it's not yet at the stage where you can sit down and play a version with a new partner and be confident that you will understand each other. (I've tried ...)

Well, now that you've posted the hand, I have to say your double seems a bit odd. [in fact, thinking about it, any double after this sequence would be a bit odd: isn't it likely that the opponents have had a misunderstanding? Either that or it's a complete misfit.] So I'm not surprised that the director didn't adjust. Nevertheless, this shouldn't matter as long as the director concludes that the explanation makes the difference between doubling and not doubling. If I was directing, my first instinct would be to say it doesn't make a difference, simply because I don't understand the idea behind the double, but I would give you the opportunity to explain.

Assuming that 1♣ ought to have been alerted, then failure to alert constitutes misinformation. And if the double of 2♥ was made before the explanation came in, then it seems likely that you were damaged by the misinformation. So the director should adjust, as long as a 2♥ contract would have been better for your side. [Well, I'd want to look at the hands a bit closer, but it seems like an adjustment may be in order.] I don't believe that the alerts are actually correct, but that's irrelevant. If the opening side had announced at the start of the round that they were playing Polish Club (or something like that), then the situation would be different - you could still say that they should of alerted 1♣, but I would not allow their opponents to claim damage from an unalerted 1♣ opening. I doubt that this has happened here, but that's only because I trust the person claiming damage; if I was directing and did not know the people involved, then I would attempt to find out whether the system had in fact been pre-alerted. ["Did you say what system you were playing at the start of the round?"]

... though of course there are interesting tactical situations here as well, because the opponents will be keen not to let you play in 2♠. So maybe you should bid on in some cases even when you don't expect slam to have play. Or pass 2♠ on hands where slam is just about conceivable, but where the opponents might get into trouble if they come in ...

Oh yes, I remember this now. He started off with some general question about 5-card majors in a weak no-trump, then after a few replies said something like, "OK, you've persuaded me to open 2M with 5-3-3-2". :rolleyes: I have to say, I think if people knew that was the alternative, they wouldn't have been so happy to say they disliked opening 1NT with a 5-card major. And this makes no sense to me at all: I agree completely with the first of those two sentences, but I don't think the second follows logically from the first.

There are a couple of things that interested me in this document. First of all, the 2M opening bid to show 5-3-3-2 hand - I'm sure they must have their reasons for playing this, but it looks downright ugly to me. And secondly, it seems they're now showing the minor first with 6m-4M patterns. I'm pleased to see this, because it looks like an admission that canape 4-card majors doesn't completely solve the problem of the 2♣ opening in strong club systems. PS. [Completely off-topic] Has anyone else here in the UK noticed that the TV presenter Jimmy Carr is a perfect lookalike for this smiley: :rolleyes: (when he's laughing, that is...)

I'm sure you can think of something ... But why not use 1♣:2♦ as the inverted raise in that case. Then your structures after a 1♣ and 1♦ can be the same and you get more space elsewhere in the system.

Hmm. Despite what you say, all four of the options I described above have had some support in the poll "(non)forcing after a 2/1". I did not intend the statement "if 2/1 is GF then 3♣ should be natural and pre-emptive" to imply that I think 2/1GF is sensible in Precision. :) But since people are voting for it, we'd better consider the possibility of it being adopted.

Shouldn't this wait until the result of the "how forcing is a 2/1" poll is decided? My vote would be as follows - If 2/1 is GF: 3♣ = natural, pre-emptive If 2/1 is GF except rebid: 3♣ = fit jump with 3-card support If 2/1 is SAYC-style: 3♣ = some sort of 4-card raise If 2/1 does not promise a rebid: 3♣ = natural, strong

B) Sacrilege!

I also voted for the fifth option, but really it's more like this: 2♣ is the default bid on hands with 5 clubs and a 4-card major, but 2♦ is an option (normal, but not compulsory) for (34)15 hands; 1NT is an option for (24)25 hands; however, I will never open 1♦ on a 3-card suit in a "real diamond" system. (Note that our 1♦ opening will usually deliver a five-card suit: four cards is possible but relatively rare, so adding in some three-card suits is too far away from the expectation.)

I play this with a mini-NT when not vulnerable in the first two seats. But I'm afraid it does make the 1♦ opening much harder to handle - you have real problems with the 1♦:1NT sequence, and balanced 15- or 16-counts are a liability in competitive auctions. And I've yet to pick up a hand where it's useful that opener promises real diamonds when minimum. So we only play this way because we think the mini-NT is very effective: if you're not convinced by the mini then I'd advise you to avoid this 1♦ opening if at all possible.

I'd suggest you continue to explain your bids in the same way as you were doing before. Then everyone's happy, and you'll have an enjoyable game. Occasionally you will meet someone who doesn't tell you what they intend their bid to mean, but just says they haven't discussed it with their partner. Well, as long as that is actually true, there shouldn't be a problem - just assume it means what you think it means, and don't worry about it. As others have pointed out, the Laws say you only have to explain things which you have agreed with your partner. So this is the way things are. Personally I think this part of the Laws could be improved when self-alerting is used: in particular, I don't believe it should be possible to make a bid which is intended as conventional but then explain it as "no agreement". So, in this case, you would be entitled to assume that the 2♦ bid is natural. But the Laws do not say this [yet]. Anyway, "no agreement" may be an acceptable answer. But this doesn't stop you asking further questions if you want. For example, here it would be a good idea to ask what basic system the opponents were playing. Never forget that asking the right questions is an important part of the disclosure process. In theory the opponents should try to describe their bids as fully as possible if you ask for an explanation, but even if they give you a good explanation you shouldn't be afraid to ask if there is something else you need to know. I say this because a lot of players on BBO seem to be reluctant to ask questions, and rely far too much on their opponents' alerts.

I really dislike having to pass balanced 12-counts. If you are going to play a system where you pass some hands with opening values, it's much better to choose an unbalanced type for this (such as the Precision 2♣). Then at least you are likely to have a safe way back into the auction later, normally with a take-out double. Whereas, if you pass with minimum balanced hands, you're committing yourself to passing throughout unless partner can take a free bid. This problem is made worse by the fact that you know everyone else will have opened with your hand. Hence I've voted for a 14-16 no-trump. Yes, a nebulous 1♦ is a handicap when you have a hand with real diamonds, but it's really a very good descriptive bid for balanced hands in the 11-13 range. Having said that, a 12+ -15 no-trump has the advantage of simplicity, so I wouldn't really mind being forced to play it in a pick-up partnership.

IMHO a "standard" Precision system should involve a 5-card 2♣ opening, simply because that's how everyone learns it. So if you're looking for a standard, I'd vote for the system from Barry Rigal's book (14-16 NT, standard Precision 2♣/2♦, 1♦ promises at least doubleton). Having said that, I actually think Gerben's suggestion is a better system.

Because bidding 2♣ or 2♦ would be insufficient? B) But seriously, the reason people play Capp rather than DONT is so that they can double for penalties. Once you've decided to do that (for better or worse) then clearly you can no longer describe all your 1- and 2-suiters at the two-level.

Yup, I like this too. Not only does it make it safer for responder to bid over 2♣, it also means you can improve your system of responses. (For example, you'll hardly ever want to play in 2NT after this 2♣ opening, so you can give 2♣:2♦,2M:2NT an artificial meaning.) But it does mean you have to be disciplined and pass a lot of 12-counts. It helps if you have ways of showing this hand type later in the auction - for example you can use a double by a passed hand to show 5♣-4M.

I don't see this hand as being too much of a problem opposite a Precision 2♣. Even if you don't have a heart fit, you might still have enough strength for game (most likely 3NT). So passing 2♣ is not an option, whatever you think the chances of a major-suit fit are. And the field is going to in at least 2NT anyway. IMO the real killer hands responding to a Precision 2♣ are those with about 8 points and a good five-card major suit. For instance, I've just dealt myself ♠8 ♥KJT98 ♦AT532 ♣74. Yuk. This situation doesn't improve much even if 2♣ promises six cards, if opener could still have four hearts. But anyway, if you're playing a limited 4-card 1♠ opening, then it does indeed seem like a good idea to put 5♣-4♠ hands in there, so that 2♣ can have hearts but not spades. I'm not so keen on the idea of putting them into a "strong" 1♣ - that gives you a 1♣ opening which is even nastier than AUC. However, if you're playing Polish Club, then I think there's a lot to be said for pretending that minimum 5♣-4M hands are balanced. (So you open 1♣, but don't intend to show a club suit later.) You will miss a few club fits that way, but I suspect it will still turn out better on average than opening 2♣.

I prefer to bid 2♦ with this hand. One reason is that I don't think it's a good idea to be bidding an asptro 2♣ on any pile of rubbish with 4 hearts and 5 clubs: if I bid 2♣ and then correct to clubs I'll nearly always have six of them. [in fact I would probably pass with example hand (3) from the site Mike referred to: ♠xx ♥AQJx ♦xx ♣KJTxx, even at nil vul. If you want to be able to bid on hands like this then I would say you should try some other system - asptro is supposed to be constructive, and one effect of this is that you can't take a bid on all the hands you might like to.] The same goes for hands with spades+diamonds or spades+clubs. But 4 hearts and 5 diamonds is OK of course, intending to pass partner's 2♦ ask. Incidentally, I like to use a "lebensohl" (1NT):2♣:2♦,2NT or (1NT):2♦:2♥,2NT to show the hands with a 4-card major and longer minor. This frees up a 3m bid to show a good 5-5 hand. (Weaker 5-5s rebid 2M.)