DozyDom

I can't imagine your play being worse than a robot's, surely?

I think I swoop in with 4S, but I don't understand how to miss 4S on these cards. Surely N supported to 3S? How can S justify not bidding 4? What does the trump queen have to do with anything anyway - do you mean the trump king, the only relevant card in the suit for S?

4M5m is certainly how most people play it if they play the double as anything but penalties. Should you give up the penalty double? Yes, you should - it never comes up and you rarely get to penalise anyone. Should you give it up against the weak NT? Yes, for the same reason. Same again when playing against 10-12 NT. As for responses, 2C POC, 2D asking for the major, 2NT asking for the minor and all other suit bids natural wanting to play in your own suit are standard... I think? They certainly haven't gone wrong yet.

It's effective against their cold grand doubled as well, for that matter!

...Who? Even the poor misguided souls playing NFB here know that it isn't standard.

I think double is a decent bid if you haven't got 4NT in your arsenal as two-suited, but it's still worse than 5C. If partner has hearts and can't leave the double in, you're in too much trouble to justify making the bid. As it is, your partner took the double as pure penalty (only explanation for passing, I'm sure we agree) and missed a slam that's not hard to get to.

I think double is a decent bid if you haven't got 4NT in your arsenal as two-suited, but it's still worse than 5C. If partner has hearts and can't leave the double in, you're in too much trouble to justify making the bid. As it is, your partner took the double as pure penalty (only explanation for passing, I'm sure we agree) and missed a slam that's not hard to get to.

I'll admit, I am a very pessimistic person, but my weakness in diamonds seems dangerous.

1C-(1D)-P-(1NT) to start off with... then you get to make a decision with the S hand. X seems dumb, but it has a hidden logic to it - if they're making 6 diamonds, two aces, and another club, that's 9 tricks, and 1NTX+2 is only 380 rather than 400 for the game. Surprisingly, I don't think it's the right course to aim for. I think with mostly hard values, and the smallish doubleton in diamonds, 2C is a fair rebid by the S hand. After that W gets to think about penalty doubling. Partner's promised a stop, you have Atx, another A, you've got no interest in suit play... what could go wrong? On the other hand, your hand is total garbage. Pass feels like the only option (though it's closer at mps than imps, of course); same for N. E now gets to think for a while but doesn't really have a bid? So yeah, I think 2C by S is a pretty reasonable final contract.

Yep! Your pal is probably just misinformed. This probably sounds facetious, but opener knows which one it is because you make agreements about what bids mean before the auction begins. Hence why I know whether 1C-1H is a transfer or natural with each of my partners. Anyway, a bit of thought will tell you the conflict has nothing to do with Flannery - showing a spade stop is no more and no less desirable in the auction 1H-1NT-2m-? when playing flannery than when not. Just stick with what you were originally playing and you'll be much less likely to forget.

1 isn't quite accurate. The "there's no wiggle room" advice has been misunderstood by whoever advised you; the rule is that due to the inanity of ACBL regulations you can't routinely open it on a 9-count. Even then I believe if it isn't routine it's acceptable - upgrading truly exceptional 9-counts is fine, though it's hard to think of one unless you allow 6 hearts in the opening. Certainly 10 points is as legal as anything (though if you've put 11-15 on your convention card and you open it with all 10-counts that is illegal). I don't believe there's any upper limit on strength at all so long as they're accurately declared on your card - it just isn't effective to have a hugely wide range, so no one does. 2... if you require 17 points to reverse, you play Flannery as 11-16, openly disclosed as always. Like I say, your adviser has been talking too much about things they don't know enough about. 3, I'm not someone who plays impossible two spades particularly. But I can't think of it as useful to play 2♠ there as natural even when you can have 4 spades. You know your partner has no fit for you, so you're forcing the bidding to the three level without telling partner anything important about your hand. I'd just play it as whatever you used to. I don't play Flannery with any of my regular partners right now, but I did for a good while. It gets a lot of hate, some of which is justified, but it does make life simpler. Hope I've been of some helps.

S being unable to open without a 5-cm wouldn't make the overcall any better; I would choose to believe that E's misbidding wouldn't be affected by the possibility. As for not running from the double... who plays that double as anything but penalty?

The vast majority of pairs don't play any form of puppet. Some of those will be people who just can't be bothered to remember it - others because they really don't see the benefit. Both make compelling points. But further to that, I don't understand the question. Puppet stayman was designed to be better than stayman. Using both insults both.

No need to be balanced or have guards in remaining suits, I should think?

Looks like my minor stayman-less engine has lost out here. Still, 6NT hopefully won't be worse than what we can make in diamonds. Hopefully.

Huh, rare to have those kinds of restrictions. But it does mean there's less to think about here. 3D is forcing and describes my shape... but do I care? No one likes slow bidding sequences - I'll blast 6NT. What could go wrong?

Peeeeennnnaaaaallllltttttyyyyy. If by opener you mean the original passer, then bids are normally whatever your escape from 1NTX would be. Obvs strictly there should probably be some differences since if opener has promised 5 cards you won't want to play in that suit, but I don't know anyone who actually incorporates any differences - it's too much memory strain for a fairly rare consideration.

If I'm in second seat, I'm holding a hand where I can see my opponents' cards. 4th seat, my partner has just nudged me under the table to tell me he forgot we weren't playing a forcing pass system. First seat, the match has to be in an absolutely awful position and my partner had better be a conservative bidder (and have a good sense of humour besides). Third seat... whatever I feel like, to be honest. Could be just a fairly bad hand and a good feeling, could be absolutely nothing, could be lead-directing with just the ace of spades or something. Either way, it's rare.

This isn't a robot thing, it's an RKCB thing. It is standard to show the queen of trumps even without it, so long as you can guarantee a 10-card fit. It is standard to say "5S shows the queen of trumps and two keycards" when asked about it at the table. Everything about the bid and description is standard except the fact that GIB has bypassed showing the heart void.

It does require some good judgement to bid the grand here. Obviously not on your auction - both hands are excellent for slam - but after the sequence 1S - (P) - 2H - (5D) - 5H - (6D), which I hope would happen, it feels like a normal S will settle for a plus score in 6H rather than risk everything by bidding the grand.

I regret to say this, Wayne, but I was literally 4 years old the last time anyone posted to this thread. All but one general election in my lifetime happened after the last comment. The housing bubble has popped. The UK has a Supreme Court now. The US's first black President came and went. I'm sorry... but the world has moved on.

There is no such hand as that. But hands slightly weaker than that - especially with the spade suit, which makes a passout more likely - are the problem with the highly wide-ranging opening bids in 2/1, SAYC, and Acol as it's played today. You'll survive - jump rebids and reverses get the message of your strong hand across. And remember that partner isn't actively trying to make live harder for you - they will push themselves to respond, for exactly this reason. Incidentally, hrothgar, do you swear at people down at your local club? I know I don't, no matter that I think my opponents are muppets. Perhaps manners are different in your area. By the way, telling someone both that their questions are moronic and not worth asking, and that they are too good to be a novice, seems contradictory at best. If you play for thirty years and learn nothing, you're still a beginner as far as I am concerned.

I would argue those breakages of the rules are more like Cicero executing the Cataline conspirators without trial - unpleasant and unbecoming, but not actually integral to the system. Being able to look through every played trick is closer to allowing revokes than to playing on after a claim.

I'm opening 2♣. Why should I assume 1♠ won't be passed out? I have a 19-count and I'm opening in spades, why assume ops will compete whenever p can't respond? Game is good opposite the queen of hearts and a singleton support - I'm not going to risk playing at the one level. If I open 4♠ third seat, no matter the vulnerability, and my partner looks for slam with two aces, I'll push him off a bridge. KQ to 8 spades is enough for a 4!S open, any vulnerability (some might disagree unfavourable, but not me). Thanks for you two aces p, but I'll need to find another trick from somewhere to make 4. Oh, you've put me in 5? Gee, thanks. We've been doubled? Gosh, that sure is a shame. Edit: huh, as nige1 points out, there are 14 cards in this hand. So that's why we have 10 winners but an eventual 4 losers opposite just the QH. If there's one less spade, I'm back to just opening 1!S. One less trick means enough that I'm not interested in forcing to game. If there's one less heart, I think I might stick with 2♣? The same hand opposite gets me game - the queen of hearts and out.

That isn't the sole advantage - in the sequence 1m - 1M, 2NT rebids can now be used for the bridge world death hand and its associates - that is, a good hand with 6m3M. That can be quite the useful tool to have on hand. Competitively I'm told it can be good to know opener doesn't have 18-19 balanced as well, though I've never played this in an otherwise standard system and don't know how often that purported benefit comes up. The original Mexican 2!D, though it changed a fair bit, was practically essential for Romex to function - the system was comprehensively designed to have limited 1-level suit openings, after all, and its unnatural 1NT open meant that without the 2♦ open to take off the slack balanced hands might be difficult to efficiently bid. In more standard systems it's a bit of a bolt-on, even if it isn't one without merit. As for whether it has enough merit to be worth playing... eh. Lauria-Versace played (play?) it, I recall that. Bocchi uses 2♣ as 18-19 balanced, which seems a far more effective opening to use for it than 2♦, even if it means normal 2♣ openers have less space. With the responses above? It's garbage, alas.