RuflRabbit

I'm not saying this isn't a reasonable interpretation, but what if knowing it might be only 2 changes the way you rebid with 2 hearts and exactly 4 clubs? (Whether it should or not is an interesting question, and I might run a simulation, but I think I know the answer.)

Gazzilli actually makes the problem a little *worse* since you can't pass 2C on the death hands. One solution, with weak responding hands, is to rebid 2S to show 3=1-(5-4), allowing opener to play in the good 4-3 spade fit on these hands.

IMO, it's fine to pass the semi-forcing notrump when you have 11-13, but if you pass with 14-15, it's too easy to miss game when pard bid a semi-forcing notrump planning to invite in notrump or hearts (with three card support). With 11-13, pass. With 14-15, bid the 2 card suit. With four clubs and a heart doubleton, pard does a little better leaving you in clubs, at least in terms of making 2C or 2H. (Pard knows that you could have 2 clubs or 3 clubs, but you'll often enough have 4+ clubs. N.b, this analysis ignores the potential penalty for not keeping the auction open when pard has a very good hand but not enough to jump shift. I'm guessing it won't make enough of a difference to favor the false preference, but it'll narrow the gap.) The worst pard can have is something like a 6-9 point 3=1=5=4 opposite your 14-15 point 4=5=2=2, and if I've run my simulation properly (caution - I'm new at it!), that'll happen about 3 times per million deals. On these, he passes 2C, and you'll even make it about 1/3 of the time.

But pard *expects* that I might have only two clubs when I rebid 2C after 1H-1NT, so if I take the quoted regulation literally, that sounds to me like it *should* be alerted.

One my pard's and my regular opps nicely set up automated explanations for their somewhat complex Fantunes auctions. They were great! However, once we switched to using the new web version, we can't see the explanations. :( Is there anything that can be done about this? Thanks! RuflRabbit

When I've updated my partnership's convention card, will the BBO software have some way to know to use the updated convention card, or might it instead use the older version that my partner has saved? Does he have to save the new version in some way? Thanks! RuflRabbit

I'm interested to read the various suggestions, but I think I still like what is very close to the Washington Standard treatment. After 1D-2C, 2M or 2NT shows more than a bare minimum (i.e., enough to accept an invitation to 3NT when responder has a hand worth ~ 11). With a bare minimum, opener rebids 2D (it can even be a 3 card suit). If responder then bids 2NT (showing the 11 count) or 3C (showing a minimum 2/1 with 6 clubs), opener can pass. 2C still promises a rebid and we can stop in 2NT when it's right and go on when that's right. Thanks to those who have pointed out that the SAYC booklet leaves a little gap here. Either way of handling the problem will work (2NT shows enough to accept and is forcing or 2NT doesn't show enough to accept and isn't forcing), but as it's written, a bare minimum opener opposite 11 would wind up in game. Maybe that was even intentional, since it says that the minimum opener is 13, but we all know most people aren't going to wait for 13 to open. :)

You can put the information about what you play into your profile. If you're playing with a human partner, you can ask that person something like "my profile OK?" If you're playing with the robots you're stuck with the robot system. The good news is that you can see an explanation for each bid the robot makes, but the robot won't know what your bids mean unless they match the robot's system. The label "2/1" just means that the system being played is one is which a game force is established when an opening suit bid is followed by a 2 level bid in a lower ranking suit. RuflRabbit

Unless you're referring to a different part than I'm reading (2/1 promising a rebid), I don't see 1M - 2X; 2NT as being so terribly difficult in SAYC. As long as responder doesn't make a 2/1 on a random 10 count and opener doesn't rebid 2NT on a bare minimum (perhaps what you're suggesting), either responder rebids their 6-bagger or responder raises 2NT to a game that's at worst something like a decent 13 opposite a decent 11. People playing 2/1 might get to the same game, after a forcing notrump. The real problem auction is 1D - 2C, but if you can point me to any 5cM strong notrump system that's solved this problem, I'm all ears. Lawrence's Workbook on 2/1 devotes several pages to a very thoughtful analysis, but IMO, it's ultimately unsatisfying. Is Adam's version available online? RuflRabbit

Perhaps your experience differs, but in my experience most players who play *2/1* play inverted minors. Most who claim to play SAYC or "Standard American" don't. RuflRabbit

Pescetom, you're saying there are a lot who are playing 2/1 without inverted minors? For reasons that should probably be introduced in a separate thread, I'm interested to know how this is working for them, and whether they have found they have to make any other adjustments to make that work well. RuflRabbit

Yes, this was my point in saying, "it doesn't mean they're going to be on same page for which conventions and treatments they'll be playing as part of the system." But I also think there's some extra risk in a beginner sitting down and saying "2/1" when playing opposite a more experienced player. There are certain things that are typically played by those who play 2/1 and more experienced players sometimes assume that anyone playing 2/1 plays them. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said "For those who are fans of starting beginners with some form of 2/1, is there an accessible, relatively complete summary of your favored version such as the type of summary that the ACBL provides for SAYC?" RuflRabbit

If it were truly locally popular on BBO, there might be an argument for it. But in my experience, it's not. And just to check my sense of it, I checked the profiles of 100 people playing in casual games. 11 listed 2/1 as one of the systems they played. A beginner, especially, is just not going to sit down at BBO and expect that most partners will be playing 2/1. And even if a beginner who has started learning 2/1 sits with a pard who plays 2/1, it doesn't mean they're going to be on same page for which conventions and treatments they'll be playing as part of the system. I'm not sure exactly where the disagreements are, but just to be clear: I don't think it really matters whether beginners start by learning that a 2/1 call shows a game force or not. Either can work while the fundamentals are being learned. But I do not think it's good for them to be overburdened with conventions at the outset, and in my opinion, GIB 2/1 does that. For those who are fans of starting beginners with 2/1, is there an accessible, relatively complete system summary of the type that the ACBL provides for SAYC? RuflRabbit

Unfortunately, the robots don't play a "basic" system. IMO, the GIB 2/1 system has far too many conventions for a beginner. That's not to say it's not useful to play against the bots - it's enormously valuable - but it's important to have a grounding in something that's more basic, such as SAYC. Rufl Rabbit

Please tell me what part you found confusing and I will be happy to clarify. :) RuflRabbit

Hi, there. My advice: google and read the SAYC pamphlet and commit it to memory. It has more conventions than you will need at first but it is otherwise an excellent starting point for what two strangers can play without discussion. Post in your profile either that you play full SAYC (probably more than you want to play right now) or that you play Standard American and list the conventions you play. E.g., Standard American, stayman, major suit transfers only, regular blackwood (A lot of people only play the major suit transfers after notrump openings. If you haven't been playing the major suit transfers, I urge you to do so, but if you don't play them, list "no transfers" in your profile.) Have fun! And be prepared to let some water run off the duck's back. There are some rude people, but also many nice ones. :) RuflRabbit

FWIW, a little googling shows that sites such as Larry Cohen's include transfers and that systems on was the plurality choice in a bridgewinners poll, but I don't think either of those sources is assuming that the notrumper is likely to have a void. How do you see the auction unfolding after your general cuebid? (Maybe you could give some examples.) How will you tell partner that you don't want to play in their (likely) 6 card major, and can you do it at a reasonable level? Could you get out just as soon by rejecting the transfer, if you agreed on what that means? RuflRabbit

If you're going to play transfers, you can use 4S ace-asking. 4C can be pick-a-major, asking 4 card suits up the line (my preference), or slam interest in whatever minor wasn't opened. IMO, if you're going to spend the time to discuss this, it's worth talking about how you'd play it after a balancing 3NT. Here, the transfer principle may be key to protecting the notrumper from the opening lead. If you're playing option 3 above, you'd probably want to swap the 4C and 4D replies so that 4C transfers to hearts and 4D shows clubs. RuflRabbit

Yep. Me, too. I thought it must have been my computer, so I did all sorts of things to clear up memory, to no effect. I don't seem to have any problems with the flash version. RuflRabbit