glen

If only we had an expert on cuebidding who was a forum member not too under the weather to answer this.

When we played this (see DONT NO in http://www.bridgematters.com/overnt.htm), the advances, in either seat, were: Pass: lead your best major (we had great results passing the X). X: (if they bid), penalty, but if of minor, partner is to pull with weak 5-5. 2m: pass if at least partial fit, otherwise bid. 2M: (or cheapest major suit bid) to play. 2NT: asks for further description. 3m: forcing, natural. 3M: GI, good fit. 3NT: to play based on longer minor, stopper in other minor. 4m: 4♣ transfers to 4♥, 4♦ transfers to 4♠. 4M: to play. We found that the advance of 2m was useful - this could be a five card minor, and would allow us to play that suit if there was no good major fit. About "2nd seat strong balanced hand cannot double". We played "the more HCP held the less shape necessary". Eventually this meant that if holding 16+ balanced, one could double even if just 3-3 in the majors. When the strong balanced hand was 3-2/2-3/2-2 in the majors, we found that passing in 2nd seat usually did not hurt, since either responder or 4th seat would bid with one or both majors.

For example, and related to this thread, Meckwell played Multi for many years, and now do not. Having, or not having Multi, by itself, has made almost no impact on Meckwell success. Deciding which hands to open a weak two in a major, with Multi when available, or 2♥/♠ when not playing Multi, has had an impact on Meckwell success. Having a response structure, to whatever opens a weak two in major, that can find out opener's hand type, and that adapts to seat and vulnerability, has had an impact on Meckwell success. Thus a success factor has not been Multi vs. not (opening bid framework question), but how to handle and when to use a weak two in the majors.

The problem is that this is misinterpreted into the search for the holy grail of opening bid framework. This is like somebody saying the most important part of building is the construction itself, and then just focusing on the foundation as the key success factor.

The opponent held: ♠ 43 ♥ Q854 ♦ 84 ♣ AQJ84 The bidding started P-P-1♠-P;-2♣-? to the opp, and there were no alerts. Many in this event would play 2♣ as Drury. At this point the opp asked what is 2♣? Reply was "natural, non-forcing, we play a weak two in diamonds, and then by a passed hand two diamonds is Drury, not two clubs" Should the opp have asked what two clubs is, or should he have checked out the convention card, or just waited for the auction to continue?

It's wrong to play the XX to play, since it gives both opponents the chance to escape, which is especially wrong when the doubler is holding a two-suiter. Better is to play pass as showing a stopper and no good fit. Now responder will XX on most hands, and opener can pass to play.

Did you mean to say: Regular SAYC partnerships may find using this approach completely changes their minor suit openings.

Doesn't look much like that system. In book form it is like Oakley's Diamond Major, but with 1♣ the major hand. I've played against systems where the 1♣ opening promises a four card major. They usually first implemented a Montreal Relay 1♣-1♦ response, and then liked the sequences so much that they end up always opening 1♣ with a major. The competitive sequences get fun.

Congrads Justin on the win, and I look forward to the Hamall vs. Meckwell battles, as well as Blanchards vs. Levin-Weinstein. Btw this now makes at least 4 US squads that are miles (kms) ahead of anything Canada or Mexico can put forward as North American team 3.

Here are two opening hands, and two responding hands. Pick any system, assume you are vulnerable, and give the four auctions with each opening hand paired up with each of the responding hands (combinations A1, A2, B1, B2). Opening A ♠ A32 ♥ A432 ♦ A32 ♣ A32 Opening B ♠ QJT ♥ QJT2 ♦ QJ2 ♣ AQJ Responder 1 ♠ K87654 ♥ K76 ♦ 765 ♣ 7 Responder 2 ♠ K76 ♥ K76 ♦ K76 ♣ 8765 Thanks in advance!

Gee, where have we heard this captain/crew idea before? The idea that 1♦+ is limited, and that responder (aka "partner of the opening bidder", "CONTROL PARTNER", "captain" etc.) controls the auction dates back to the early big club systems. I assume that by " bidding structure is the same as standard Precision", you mean the opening bidding structure, and not the responding scheme, and it would be interesting to learn more about the Bermeister approach, unless he continues to use even more CAPS. In the recent World Championship Tarzan was swinging yet another version: Muller-Dewijs's Tarzan Precision Like the 70s show Relay Precision, the Ultimate Club, the Viking Club, and lots of others, the system takes advantage of the limited openings bids to put responder in charge of finding the landing spot.

Compare: 2♦: either major (multi, but not weak) to 2♦: transfer to ♥s 2♥: transfer to ♠s Scheme 1 (2♦=1M) frees up the use of 2♥ for other meanings, at not that much cost compared to the transfers of Scheme 2.

We found it is better to flip: 1C-1x-1NT = 15-17 1D-1x-1NT = 12-14

If you want to have fun, bid 4♣ showing a singleton/void in ♣s. This should have ♠ support of course, but here when partner cuebids 4♥ you will pass.

Indictment of just 3NT-Pass, not the complete convention - it seemed to me that it was a "gambling pass", and should not have been in the article.

You don't actually physically hold the hands when using deal software, but you do have them, although spot cards in the long major hand were not exact since I was copying the previous hand to save time.

JLogic really was on the cover, in fact "Kantar 3NT" is just about at his knee level. Perhaps this has something to do with language, but calling people "liars" without understanding a post makes no sense to me.

I'm having trouble with the Kantar 3NT opening, as described in the ACBL July 2011 Bulletin (the one where the cover model is JLogic). An example given was: ♠ 76 ♥ AKQ9543 ♦ 5 ♣ 876 ♠ 8542 ♥ 8 ♦ A976 ♣ A954 and the bidding given was 3NT-Pass! As it turns out, I had the exact same responding hand on these: ♠ AKQ9763 ♥ 76 ♦ 5 ♣ 876 ♠ 8542 ♥ 8 ♦ A976 ♣ A954 3NT was not a success ♠ --- ♥ AKQ9543 ♦ K4 ♣ T876 ♠ 8542 ♥ 8 ♦ A976 ♣ A954 again 3NT was not a success ♠ -- ♥ AKQ97543 ♦ 4 ♣ QJT8 ♠ 8542 ♥ 8 ♦ A976 ♣ A954 3NT would not be 3NT! but 3NT??????? Now Kantar tell us he has been playing this for nearly 40 years, so should I just discard these results?

Lauria-Versace 07: 1♣ Opening Bid: 1♣ --- 1♥ --- 2♦ = 16 up 5+♣ & 4♦ 0-2♥, or 16 up 6+♣ 0-2♥; 1♣ --- 1♥ --- 2♠ = 16 up 4+♣ & 3+♥; 1♣ --- 1♥ --- 2NT = 16 to 18 hcp one-suited ♣; It would seem 4-5♣s, 4♠s and 0-2♥s rebids 1♠ even if very strong for the opening bid

Congratulations to Horton, Rodwell, and Master Point Press for book of the year!

This was a swing in both BB SF: ♠ T7 ♥ AK9743 ♦ 7 ♣ K852 ♠ AK86 ♥ QJ65 ♦ AQ3 ♣ T7 The auction is uncontested, and the 16 count opens in 2nd seat. What should be the contract?

At top levels, one has to question whether a weak two in a major is necessary. For example the second pair in the Bermuda Bowl Butlers (after 21 rounds) do not play a weak two in a major when not vulnerable. For Fantunes, they have no weak two, and for transnational teammates Meckwell, the opening one bids are so light that the weak two does not get bid that much. Certainly the weak two can get a partnership quickly to 4M, but it can also get the opponents into 3NT playing double dummy. For further on my opinions on this, please see page 3 of: http://www.bridgematters.com/6mia.pdf

He uses a second round transfer: 1NT - 2C; 2H - 3C = diamonds 1NT - 2C; 2S - 3C = diamonds imo, just extra info but not "lots of info"

Perhaps one can make the "psyche" a non-psyche legal bid. Such as (in the ACBL): 1NT is 15-17 bal, or if both minor 7s can be 10-11 bal 1♠ is 11-21 5+♠s or if both major 7s can be exactly 4♠s and 8-10

If you want a structure influenced by the Italian methods, please see page 12 of: polar.pdf