glen

Note that book sales of new fangled systems, regardless of the target market (novices, intermediates, advanced, experts, or everybody) are almost always very poor. The only exceptions have been systems that have had notable successes at the top levels, and this involved bridge professionals/bridge business people playing the systems. For example while the Precision books sold very well, C.C. Wei's expenses for the bridge pros to play versions of the system were far more than the revenue streams. Abandon all hope of making any money from bridge book sales.

The 2♦ and 2♥ responses to 2♠ would require more than mid chart.

This is actually a convention, and not GCC legal. The 2♦ bid shows 3+♦s and 3 in the major, and it becomes a convention when you promise length in a suit not bid. A GCC legal treatment would 2♦ as a simple raise with 3+♦s or a shapely slam try with 5+♦s that wants to show hand type to opener. Instead have the simple raise short ♦ hands mostly bid 2M, the exception is that any 4432 with 2♦s bids 1NT (or 1♠ over 1♥). Thus 1M-2M is either a constructive raise, or a simple raise with short ♦s and some shape values. Over this, play a bid such as 3♦ as asking responder to bid 3M with the simple raise, and 4M on all constructive raises. You will rarely hit the bad scenario when opener has enough to invite opposite the constructive raise, but gets to 3M down opposite the simple raise, since 80% of the time the simple raise will bid 1M-2♦, and otherwise the simple raise will be shapely enough to provide ruffing options.

Actually my recommendation was to use 1NT semi-forcing with GI balanced, which finds the second suit fits

see above

You really can't play 2♦ as nf, since what hands are going to pass this 3♦ showing bid? - hands with 4+♦s only, but then they risk finding opener with good 6+♦s or a shapely 5-5+. You get more value out of the bid by including other hand types, and not having opener show 4♥s, such as: 1♠-2♦: 3+ ♦s, GI+, various -- 2♥ asks: ---- 2♠: GI 3♠s (I suggest that balanced without 3♠s start with a semi-forcing 1NT, but if you wish this can show the GI 2♠s balanced hand type even though getting to 2♠ instead of 2NT on GI hands produces just random swings, often based on the opponents distribution). ---- 2NT: 6+♦s and 4 of a rounded suit, GI. 3♣ asks, 3♦ showing ♣s ---- 3♣: 5-5+ minors, GI ---- 3♦: good 6+♦s, no second suit, GI ---- 3♥+: various GF and/or slam tries -- 2♠: 6+♠s, no extras -- 2NT: 6+♠s, establishes GF opposite all GI, asks hand description.

No, making 2♣ 3+ does not allow relays. Please see the GCC chart and under disallowed "5. Relay (tell me more) systems.". You need to make 2♣ a game force ask.

correct

I never thought Moscito was a pass oriented system

Charts: Nothing there about forcing. Note that since pass-or-correct responses are disallowed, the sequences available to the system will be far less than optimal.

Legal, but you would not be able to play artificial responses over these bids, except for: 1) any GF 2) 1D (over 1C) if forcing 3) jumps that show 5+ in a known suit and 4+ in another know suit

Thanks for the discussion, very good points raised. Here's another question, and since this forum has its own set of posters it will just be added on to this thread. Say you are playing a modified Polish ♣ system where 1♣ is 12-14 bal (includes 5-4-2-2s with 5♣s), three suiter short ♦ (4-4-1-4/4-4-0-5/4-3-1-5/3-4-1-5), ♣s 16+ or any 18+ (same issue in Tarzan Precision where 1♣ 16+, 1NT 12-15, 2♦ three suiter short ♦, 1♦ unbal ♦s, 2♣ natural ♣s). Which would you like: 1) 1♦: 4+♦s unbalanced, -- 2♣: 6+♣s or 4-1-3-5/1-4-3-5 2) 1♦: 4+♦s unbalanced or 4-1-3-5/1-4-3-5 (only 3♦s with 5♣s), -- 2♣: 6+♣s That is which opening do you make less than perfect, 1♦ as 3+ (instead of 4+) or 2♣ as 5+ (instead of 6+) Btw a mod Polish ♣ system I would like to see is one with 2♦ as 18-19 bal. The reason for this is that the 18-19 bal can be stuck if the opps compete and responder has to assume the frequent 12-14 bal opening.

Since this forum has been quiet lately, here’s a theory/best use question on whether to restrict more on points or hand types. Playing a big club system if you have a choice of these two 1♦ openings, which would you pick and why: 1) 11-13, any shape without a five card or longer major 2) 11-15, if balanced 11-13, otherwise with ♦s unbalanced or a 5-4-3-1 with 3♦s and 5♣s Thanks in advance!

Easy clue: color+rank of card = Vegas game

confusing hint: the card Fred is wearing foretells his move to where he lives now

no, and even though Fred was young, not the 7 of diamonds

Did you want to guess, or should I tell you - its on page 17 of the pdf you can download by clicking on the links from the article page

Micky

Fred gets Globe and Mail, and Brad gets Fortune/CNN: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/07/how-a-bridge-champ-beats-the-market/

Gambling 3NT is still very popular, but there are a set that require no outside stopper and another group that require one outside stopper. Top level experts are starting to prefer better uses of the 3NT opening, such as world champ Fred who plays "3NT Opening bid in 1st/2nd is a preempt with at least 6-5 in the majors." Some have tried 3NT with a solid/semi-solid major, the idea being 3NT would not be the final landing place. My fav is a version of 3NT "to play", which produced a very long BBO thread some years ago - HNY all!

Since it is Legal Moscito, combine the two words to get Lescito

At least the next post connected some dots: "... so are eligible to play for their new country ..." Here's a question: for what country did Becky Hammon play for in the 2008 Olympics? The answer is here: NY Times Citizenship Flexibility Think about a quote from that article: Think about Fantoni-Nunes. See some correlation now?

Chicago Blackhawks are the latest NHL champs - everybody from around Chicago? SF Giants latest World Series champs - everybody SF/Oakland? LA Lakers latest NBA champs - all raised in LA? New Orleans Saints latest NFL champs - Reggie Bush is from New Orleans? Chelsea F.C latest English Premier League champs - do they play in Chelsea? How many Chelsea players do they have? How many English players do they have?

For example, from when the Italians had supplementary sheets with their cc's, see Lauria-Versace's 07 cc, page 2 for 1M-2NT and supplementary sheet #1 for special responses: ecatsbridge - lauria-versace.pdf

One consideration is this: when we (my pds and I) looked at 1M-1NT semi-forcing, we found that if opener had a hand that would pass 1NT and responder had a limit raise with 3 trumps, if there was no singleton/void with the raise, then 1NT would be, over a set of hands, as least as good as the 3M or 4M contact reached by 1NT forcing. A second consideration is this: the US top partnerships, including Meckwell, are late-to-the-game of 1NT semi-forcing relative to the Italians. Thus you might want to look at their methods as well.