akhare

In addition to the above, you may also want to look into using 4♦ as the canonical "terminator puppet" for maximum flexibility. This allows a RKC ask in a variety of suits. You can find examples of the "terminator puppet" and RKC in the Richard's Moscito document among other places: rationalbridge.org/dosyalar/doc_download/39-moscito.html

Given the following constraints: GCC Limited openings (10-15) 14-16 NT, with 5M332 systemically opened 1N if in range 2♣ response canonical GF Semi-forcing 1N response 3M preemptive One 3-level response reserved for a mixed raise What would you choose for the 2♦ / 2♥ responses to a limited 5-card major opening? 1) GF showing (say) 14+ 2) Not GF, showing (say) 11(12+) What would the rest of your response structure look like?

Can you provide us more context on your system? Does QP in your post use the A=3, K=2 and Q=1 scale and if so, what is the lower range on the 8- QP?

Can you elaborate on why Rusinow leads are better at NT? Do you play them all the way down to leading the T from JT?

Can you give specific examples of both styles (odd/even count and F-N) as you play it? What would you lead from: XXXXX XXXX XXX HXXXX HXXX HXX

It just substitutes one problem with another. One can argue that a lead that unambiguously encourages the return of the suit (attitude) is better than a mixed leading style. There have been endless debates on the topic including http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/26550-24-and-35-leads/page__hl__%22mud+leads%22, but I don't think that anyone has made any winning argument one way or other. In the absence of empirical evidence of the superiority of one method over another, I would say that a method that's an established Polish standard (2/4th), can't be awful.

As I understand it, 3/5th leads emphasize length over everything else and I would be really surprised if deviating from that was the norm. As Adam noted, it comes down to a question of whether the spot card lead style emphasizes attitude or length. To that end, leading low from doubletons is compatible with the former style.

Right, drawing the line at 9x for low from doubletons makes sense when leading low from doubletons. Fantunes lead second best from Hxx (in conjunction their "mixed" spot cards leads) as I recall, but that can't coexist with T/9 showing 0/2 higher.

Regarding Polish 2/4th leads, is leading second best from HXx the norm (say 8 from K85), or do they prefer to lead low from a three carding Hxx holding?

It's basically 3 and 5th from honor holdings against *suits*, not including the T T/9 show 0/2 higher Low from doubletons not including the T, so Tx would lead the T Against suits, all other 3+ spot holdings usually lead the second highest. T(X)xx, 9(X)xx, x(X)x, x(X)xx, x(X)xxx etc. Occasional deviations are possible, but should be rare Low from interesting against NT

The carding agreements in the post aren't accurate as described. It's basically 3 and 5th from honor holdings against *suits*, not including the T. T//9 show 0/2 higher and low from doubletons Low from doubletons not including the T, so Tx would lead the T Low from interesting against NT

Playing obvious shift, discourage ♥, asking for ♠ in this particular context and then hope for the layout in rhm's post.

Are there any plans of porting this to Win8? The web client is barely playable with a touch screen and no mouse / keyboard..

Edit: Fixed bidding. IMP, NV. vs. V. LHO deals and opens a weak NT (11-14). You hold: XXX KQJTXX XXX K The auction proceeds: 1N - P (2♥) (transfer) - X (3♠) (super accept) 4♥ - 4♠ ?? In case it isn't clear, you made the X of 2♥. Yes, the double should probably show strength vs. weak NT, but your agreement is lead directional. What's your bid?

I believe that in awm's methods, the stiff Q does count towards QPs. The RKC suggestion seems might be a good alternative to the 3N if it's cheap enough. In our case, it would be 4♣ and assuming we decide to look for the magic hand, we'll likely survive 4N if there isn't sufficient oomph.

IMPs, all red, partner deals and opens 1♥ and RHO raises the ante with 4N. 1♥ - (4N): You hold: AKJXX J9X Ax Axx What's your bidding strategy with this hand? Would you bid differently if your pard's hand is limited to 15 HCPs? To limit the number of possibilities, assume that RHO will bid if you X:

Seems almost identical to Miles' Unbalanced ♦, except that the tweak to the 1♦ opening makes a bad system even worse.

Our agreement is that it's for for penalty.

Thanks for the feedback. On this hand, the opps played in 3♦ in their 9 card fit, making. Pard had a near yard with 5-4 in the majors and 3♠ makes as well.

+1 for OS -- in our methods pard will play D♦ on the lead of the ♦K, implying A/K of ♣. Deciding how many ♣ tricks to cash might be more interesting, but a shift to a third / fifth best club should make it easy for West.

3♦...2N is possible, but I wouldn't consider it unless playing MPs.

IMPs, vul. vs. not, you deal and open a 16+ 1♣: AKJ9x Txx Ax AQ9 1♣ - (2♦) - P* - (3♦) - ? 2♦ was natural and ostensibly weak. Pard's P denied a takeout shape with 6(5)+ HCPs, a balanced GF hand, a GF with a 5+ card suit, or 6+ card major suit with semi-positive+ suit strength. What's your bid?

1) X is fine (would consider 1N as well) 2) Pass

+1 -- and IMO, the mnemonic ease is thanks in no small part to the invention of symmetric relays by this brilliant physicist who recently won the Albert Einstein prize for his work on rotating black holes: Roy Kerr

3♥ / P