pbleighton

"1♠ never promises anything it barely promises some spades." Especially after you passed the first time. Peter

1S. I would have bid 2S in the first round if not vulnerable. Peter

Double, hearts are weak but I have 5 and I only promise 4. Peter

Well, I would have passed, leapt to 3NT, then cursed partner :rolleyes: Why didn't he bid Michaels? Maybe he has 6 diamonds and 5 spades. Bid 5D. Peter

I would double, playing DONT. I prefer to play Meckwell, where 2C would show clubs and a major. If I were playing that, I might bid 2C instead. The 2C bid in DONT is far too ambiguous, IMO. Peter

"What? Pass or 5D (would say 5D, but pass is quite reasonable). " Pd is a passed hand, you have 11 hcp, you have J104 in diamonds, and you would raise to 5D? And I though I was optimistic :D Peter

4C. For doublers, what do you do after 4D from pd? Peter

I could live with Adam's proposed deregulation (assuming that it would replace the GCC) - though I'd like to be able to play a forcing pass system at sectionals and regionals :) Peter

I agree with others about 3C, but I wonder what I would have done at the table :) Peter

I have had very good luck with connections with myself and my partner - I can't remember the last time either of us had a problem. Our opponents, however, are a different matter. We will get on in the Main Lobby, and play perhaps 20-30 hands. During that time we might have 4 or 5 opponents. Probably every third time we play an opponent will have a major problem - not just 10 or 15 seconds. They seem never to be U.S. or Canadian players. Question for Uday, Fred, or Ben - is this usually an ISP issue? Peter

"My point was that some restrictions on methods make bridge a better game than it would be with no restrictions. Of course we can argue about which bids should fall into which categories." Of course we can argue about your point, which is totally unpersuasive, and not backed up by facts or logic. And "which bids should fall into which categories" - is this a popularity test? What basis would you use? If it is a popularity test, which countries' players get what share of the "vote"? Let me give you some examples: I have played weak/mini NT for about 3 years now, in the ACBL and online, which are both strong NT territory. I can tell you from experience that most LM/Bronze LM players (300-999 masterpoints) and quite a few who are very experienced defend VERY poorly against it. No one I know would suggest it is anything but "just bridge", but it is MUCH harder to defend against than strong club systems, no matter how many symmetrical or asymmetrical relays they have. Artificial openings are more vulnerable to intervention, and most reasonable duplicate players know this. They may play very simple methods, but they get by. Contrast this to weak/mini NT, or very aggressive preempting. Let's talk about aggressive preempting - say 5 card weak twos (legal everywhere) versus Muiderberg (not GCC legal, and thus effectively illegal, in the ACBL). Is Muiderberg more difficult to defend than straight 5 card weak twos? I would argue the opposite - the more defined a bid is, the easier it is to defend. Another example - transfer openings (1H = 4+ spades, etc.). These are Mid Chart in the ACBL, but because the required defenses have been withdrawn from the defensive database, they are effectively totally illegal. They should be GCC legal, as they are easier to defend against than "natural" bids (you have double and one level cue available, rather than just double. Double is stolen bid, cue is takeout - pretty tough, eh?). Another example - relay systems (not GCC legal). Why should any decent player be worried about bidding against them, as long as they are properly alerted? They are a license for less risky preemptive overcalls and lead directing doubles. Adam, please think about this. Your posts are usually quite good. The fact is, most unusual methods are easy to deal with. Weak/mini NT and aggressive preempting is tough for players without good bidding judgment in competition (which is most players, including me), but you can't legislate bidding judgment. And any bridge legislation which is based on protecting players without good bidding judgment is bad legislation, IMO. Peter

"In the US, the tendency is to be forcing, slammish hand." Most where I live (in the U.S.) play it as invitational. Peter

I would pass, as I play that a double of 4S and above is for penalty. Not everyone plays this way, but I believe most ( at least in the U.S.) do. Peter

To be prosaic: I think it would go like this at a lot of tables: 3H-P-4H-All Pass. I'm not saying this is ideal, just that it would be very common. West has great shape, but also has an aceless 11 count. This is tough to double in the direct seat over 3H for a lot of players (including me). 2H would be another story. 4H by North is clear if, like many, your 3H NV in the first seat can be junk. You have a great looking hand, but it has a lot of losers. Peter

I would open this in the 3rd seat. It's not even close. In the 4rd seat it is very close. I would open this unless we were playing 11-14 or 10-12/13 NT, or opened very light in the suits. Peter

I would pass, quite reluctantly. At IMPs I would bid 3S, showing my 6-5 :D Peter

This is VERY close. No room, great shape, but no aces, and pd likely has wasted values in clubs. One possibility is to bid 3H, then after pd's 3S bid 4H, and hope pd understands 5-5. If he gets excited, he can go on. An alternate auction is Stayman, then If pd bids 3D, bid 3H, assuming you don't play Garbage Stayman after 2NT, or 4H, if you do. This will likely lead to a 4M game. If pd bids 3M, cue 5C. I wouldn't blame a partner for trying anything reasonable with this hand. Peter

I would pass. I would bid 3H at IMPs. Peter

3D, but the vulnerability makes pass pretty close. Peter

Do you have an agreement what the reopening double shows? Peter

OK by me. At this seat and vulnerability, pd should have 6 tricks, and you have 4. Maybe you get killed in clubs, but you have to bid game, especially vul at IMPs, and I like 4H better than 3NT. Peter

I bid 1H with these hands. I would rather lie about minor length than major length, and you are not close to reversing strength, even with a 6-5. Peter

Very few 2/1 players I know play SJS. People play WJS (the majority) and Bergen (a substantial minority). The problem I have seen with WJS is that people overuse it. I have a pd who did so (in a non-2/1 GF system), and we lost boards because of it. We switched to SJS, and while it rarely comes up, it isn't a problem. Peter

"I didn't CLAIM it's unplayable. I said there's a case for saying it's unplayable. Meaning: it's probably better to play it as forcing than not. Perhaps "unplayable" wasn't the right word.. english is not my 1st language." You are right, unplayable is the wrong word. It is a VERY strong word. To suggest that "there's a case for saying it's unplayable" is essentially saying that it is at best an inferior method, and at worst it is really, really terrible. It would have been better to say that "there's a case for saying it's inferior" or "I wouldn't play this, I prefer this sequence to be forcing". Don't worry, though, lots of native English speakers use wrong words :) Peter

"There is a good case to say that 1♠-2D-2♠ is not playable as NF. " I have been playing it NF for 3 years, with one pd (I play 2/1 and Precision with others). I find it quite playable. More to the point (for who am I), lots of top ACOL players find it playable. I think it is dangerous (arrogant?) to say that a widely used method is unplayable. Peter