Periiz

Is it possible to create just declare tournaments? If not, maybe it could be some of those descriptions, like +justdeclare+.

Just for the record, it happened more than once and all of them were absolute flat boards, so I guess this happened to everyone. https://i.ibb.co/MNzc4K9/bbo-weird.png Censoring contracts played to not spoil the fun of someone that happened to look at this post before playing it :)

I don't really know where to post this, but I was playing that Diana and Friends tournament today and the third board was all passed. This itself is a bit silly for this kind of tournament where the bidding is done by itself (although I had to bid on boards 1 and 2). The biggest issue is that not only the hand should not be a pass out, but it actually wasn't. Looking at my history, I could see the bidding actually started with 1 ♦ and then suddenly died. Here is a screen shot of BBO: https://i.ibb.co/B2FT09d/bbo-bidding-bug.png Weird!

I've played unbalanced diamond for quite some time but we recently reverted to a 4+♦ opening because we felt that this was already good enough for competing and also evaluating the hand properly without losing too much on minor hands. I never really liked the "forcing 2♣" rebid after a diamond opening (kinda like a Gazzilli), but it is a nice tool. I guess I should just learn it. But one thing that I never really decided was: After 1♦-1♠, is it more important to show 3 card support or to show 4 hearts and not enough to reverse? I've played both at 2♦ and both are helpful when come up and missed dearly when it's the other hand that appears. I think that 3 card raise ir more frequent? But having the "4 hearts less than reverse" makes the 2♦ rebid/transfer always promising 6 (good to rest in an ok partscore but specially nice to try for a thin 3NT). In the method presented here, I assume I would have to bid 1NT both with 4 clubs and 4 hearts? 1-4-5-3 // 1-3-5-4, or even some 2-4-5-2 // 2-2-5-4? Even though this solves the "promising 6 diamonds" thing, I feel a little bit unsure if it is a good ideia, because only opener knows if he is short or long in hearts/clubs. The way I see it, putting the 5♦-332 hand into 1♣ opening is simply a way to have better bids for the 1♦ opening, but it sacrifices some annoying things. In 3rd seat I think the partnership should seriously think if 1♦ should be always unbalanced or not (I think not). Recently I played some boards with a friend that likes using unbalanced diamond opening and 1♦-1M ; 1N as the "Gazzilli" strong bid (I imagined something like 16+ or minimum 6+♦). This also frees 2♦ rebid for 3 card support (or 4 hearts less than reverse), but will probably wrong side no trump when opener has a minimum diamond rebid :( . In reality, he prefers for 1NT to always be 16+, losing the specialized 2♦ bid but gaining better 16+ auctions. Those are all good things to think about. One could say that reverse flannery solves the need for a "4 hearts less than reverse" hand, but that's not entirely true, as your diamond rebid won't always promise 6 cards. Long story short, I don't think that having a true unbalanced diamond is really needed for competitive purposes. But having it is surprisingly good for constructive and uncontested auctions. This was pretty much the opposite I thought before playing it. But now that we went back to some less "extreme" framework, I kinda feel more comfortable on minor openings.

I appreciate the very detailed response, Adam. I gonna guess you are using those 2m openings denying a 4 card major? Maybe 5-4 in the minors included? Anyways, having different opening bids sure give a lot of possibilities for different set of rebids! The hands I showed would be bid by opening 1♦ and then either making a good raise (when partner shows hearts) or showing your minor (when partner shows spades), which would in turn imply 4 hearts (would it really?)? I'll definitely keep that in mind :P

I've been thinking about systems with limited openings (Precision is just one example) and I'd like to ask, what a reverse would mean on those systems? Obviously this depends on the meanings of the opening bids, but assuming a common scheme: 1♣ any shape forcing (16+?) 1♦ 2+ diamonds 1♥/♠ 5+ suit 2♣ if this shows 5 and a major or always 6 doesn't really matter much to my question, I suppose. For simplicity, assume it always shows 6 and 2♦ shows the short diamond hand What would a reverse mean? One example could be: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ They could be used for good raises (maybe only 3 card support) and that's fine, or maybe show more extreme shapes. But what do you do on hands that are almost good enough to open 1♣ but have some type of 5431 shape? Something like x KJxx AKxxx Kxx Or maybe Kxx KQxx Axxxx K The second one could make things simple with a 1NT opening if that's strong, but I'd be less happy about 1NT with the first one. Would you reverse on those playing standard? If the answer is yes, maybe you should open a strong club, but there are hands that feels like not quite eneough for 1♣ but will get lost without a rebid. Another auction, of course, would be 1♥ - 1NT 2♠ I'm not even sure if playing limited openings one should keep standard meanings for 1M - 1NT and 1M - 2m, but well, I guess that's another discussion.

I think that using 2M as the negative is ok, but it would have to be a true negative. We bid 2♦ negative with fairly strong hands and the positive are a good start for slams, actually. I mean, I couldn't bid the 2M with a 14 count, probably (is this really an issue?). Well, it's true that it's definitely better for hearts, maybe using a different system for heart or spade opener makes sense here.

--- WARNING: Here comes a wall of text --- Ok so I've been playing for quite some time that a 2♣ response over 1M could be short, ensuring 5+ diamonds for the 1M - 2♦ sequence, and that seems alright. Also, we've included 3 card limit raises on the 2♣ and used a 2♦ by opener now as a not strong hand (but not denying game over limit) and everything else pretty natural with good hand (like 15/16+). Apart from the 2♦ negative (this is quite nice) I never really thought it was a good set of bids for the opener, specially if you have to jump to level 3 with minors, but the responder's bids have also made me sick. After a simple auction: 1♠ - 2♣ 2♦ - ? 2♠ now shows the limit 3 card raise and is passable. That means that responder had to bid 3♠ to show a FG hand with spade support, could be as short as 2 clubs but it also could have a good long suit. Of course, since the 2♦ is negative, this is less of an issue, but a hand that did not want to simply bid game is at least mild slam invitational (or maybe it thinks that 3N could be best?), so distributional trick taking potential is even more important since we're talking about a possibly "low count slam". But if the opener showed a positive hand... 1♠ - 2♣ 2N (positive balancedish as we play now) Responder could still have 3 different hand types and opener is quite unlimited. Having to bid 3♠ after responder showed a positive with either AKxxx or Qx of clubs cannot be a good thing. Since our goal was to make 1M - 2♦ show diamonds, I think we should have a way to show clubs as well. Because of that, I started thinking of a better overall structure and after looking the internet for some ideias (basically bridgewinner's comment section) I found this: 1M - 2♣, now what? 2♦ negative 2♥ positive but without 4 of the other major nor 6+M (so it is either balanced or 5M 4m hands) 2♠ positive with 4 of the other major 2NT positive with 6+M (wrong siding issues?*) 3 level for special 5-5 positive hands or some crazy distributions That seems quite nice. Opener shows if he is minimum or not. If positive, he shows his major suit holdings, or some freakish shape, otherwise bids the nebulous 2♥ in response of the nebulous 2♣. This also reminds me of the (I believe it was?) carrot responses to strong 1♣, where there would be a "positive but not really interesting hand" bid, usually 1♥ or 1♠ (Magic Diamond also has it, of course), showing no 5M, no 5-5, no 6m. This seems like a good principle, not showing side minors unless asked or really distributional. *Maybe 6+M hands could also hide in the catch-all 2♥ and 2N be only with stoppers? Or maybe with 6+ really good cards, probably a shortage, meaning something like "I'd rather not play no trumps... Really". I never felt happy bidding 2NT with 6+M, and I'm still not, but I will be considering that this is the system for now. I would think that after the 2♥ bid, responder clarify. My main concern here is differentiate club hands and balanced hands, with or without support, and thus I am asking for ideas. Bidding 3♣ to show clubs seems bad since I cannot raise under 3NT, but I could live with that (could I really?). Opener denied 4 of the other major, so this should help. The first idea was something like: 1M - 2♣ 2♥ - ? 2♠ single suited clubs (could it be 5332? 5C-3M-32?) 2N bal (could have 3 card supp?) 3M support with 5+ clubs (could it be 5332?) 3N is kinda weird, we could dump the 3 card limit raise here so opener doesn't get too excited with his strong hand (better than bidding 4M, since opener could be really strong). Other 3 level bids could be naturalish? Showing the other major would imply 5, since opener denied 4? I think these are ok (not perfect, but ok) 3 level bids in a transfering fashion, showing clubs and next, is also interesting. The other part of the structure, the negative opener: 1M - 2♣ 2♦ - ? 2M has to be passable, showing the 3 card limit raise. The whole ideia was being able to play at the level 2 and not 3 2oM could show a balanced hand, and everything else would show clubs. I liked this, I think it has the "rightsiding notrump" in mind and only biding it with some stoppers. But I also see that "if we don't tell them what to lead, they won't know that 3NT can fail", so I wouldn't mind having the balanced hand bid 2N and the club hand bid the other major. Might even be easier for the memory, right? 3M FG with support? The thing is... Could it be balanced? Should it show clubs and support? Since opener is limited, is it that important to show the side suit now? Ok, these things all seems nice, and I started a teaching table at BBO with my very self on each seat and started bidding (I have this habit of spending quite some time bidding with myself after theorizing some bidding conventions and ideias). I made some code to generate 1M openers only and 2♣ responses only (mostly), which is nice. At first I was using the 2oM showing "balanced could have support aproach" and the main problem arised when the responder had 4 of the other major after the 2♦ negative. I mean, we could very well be playing on the 4-4 fit major game as everyone else is. Bidding could get quite cramped like 1♠ - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♥ to show balanced What is opener supposed to do? Bid 2♠ whenever he has 4oM? (This looks ok) 2N with stoppers? And with 6 Cards he bids 3♠ since fit is guaranteed? Maybe responder was interested in hearing about any 4 card minor opener might have with a super strong balanced hand? Ok, we could use some switch or artificiality at the 3 level after responder showed a balanced hand. What about a Lissabon approach? 3♣ = 4 hearts, 3♦ = 6 spades, 3♥ = 4 clubs, 3♠ = 4 diamonds, this would also maybe show too much for a responder that only wanted to give a choice of games. There's also the "leave 2oM to clubs and 2N for balanced" thing, which doesn't change these problems much. I think that even with 5-3 major fit it is VERY important to be able to suggest 3N, so I wouldn't like the bidding to go 2♥/N-3N without ever telling opener we had fit. Or maybe the issue is that I'm just asking too much, and having the 3 card limit raise together with everything is costing me some space after the 2♦ negative? What are your ideias for the nebulous 2♣? I liked the also nebulous but actually quite descriptive positive 2♥ bid. So much 2♥ and 2♠ artificial bids may cause some memory issues, but that's on me :P Also, leaving some random artificial 2♠ to be doubled all over the place when we have hearts could be annoying, but I don't really care that much. This article has some neat ideas but it wouldn't work with the limit raise option merged into 2♣. Playing on 2M is a really nice thing from time to time.

So I recently read about the Zirconia convention to help on 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ auctions. Summary of the convention rebids 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ 1NT = 4+ diamonds or exactly 2-5-3-3 2 ♦ = 3 card spade support Other bids denying 3 card spade support So, what about the point range of the 2 ♦? I think it makes sense for it to be unlimited (or at least very wide-ranging), since opener can make a next move if the responder tries to sign-off (similar to the unbalanced 1 ♦ opening with transfer rebids). But could it be a 3-5-(32) hand on the 18-19 count? Also, one could add a Gazzilli feel to the 1NT rebid, making it something like 4+ diamonds or 2-5-3-3 or "any" 16+ hand. Now then, would that limit the 2 ♦ rebid to something like 11-15? Would you bid the Gazzilli with 16-17 or even 18+ points and 3 card spade support? Does it make sense to make the 2 ♦ rebid unbalanced if strong, otherwise go through Gazzilli (or the opposite)? Or would you rather make the 1NT rebid deny 3 card spade even if strong? If you choose to play a Gazzilli style, what happens on this auction? 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ 1NT - 2 ♥ (less than 8 points) 2 ♠ is this forcing? Or just a good ~17-18 but passable? This last question may just be a general Gazzilli doubt I have. Lots of questions here... :unsure: Cheers