TylerE

♠ Kxxx ♥ Jxxxx ♦ - ♣ AQxx vs. ♠ Ax ♥ AKQxx ♦ Axxx ♣ Kx South deals. Auctions to grand? (I play a pretty gadgeted Precision system with this partner, so we actually got to it, but I thought might be an interesting hand for y'all.) Our auction: 1♣(1) - 2♦(2) 2♥(3) - 2♠(4) 2NT(5) - 3NT(6) 4♣)(7) - 4NT(8) 5♣(9) - 5♠(10) 7♥ (1) 16+, F1 (2) GF, 5+ ♥ (3) Agrees ♥, trump ask (4) 5+ ♥, None of the top 3 (5) Control ask in ♣ (6) AK or AQ (7) Control ask in ♦ (8) 1st rd (9) Control ask in ♠ (10) 2nd Round At this point I can count: 5♥ + 3♣ + 2♠ + A♦ + 2♦ ruffs, adding up the magic number.

Preempt frequently and aggressively over the 1m openings.

I can't *imagine* opening that hand anything other than 1NT playing from a 13-15 to 15-18 NT. If you don't open that 1NT you forever lose the ability to accurately describe the hand. If you CAN show this hand after opening 1♣ in a Strong NT system, then your system has such an overlap of bids as to be severely sub-optimal. The modern trend among top players is to open 1NT more, not less, with 1NT openings on 5M332, 2=2=(54), 6m322, etc becoming more and more common.

(3♦) - X - (p) - 5♣ is the only one that gives us real issues.

X. Near wtp for me. The problem comes NEXT round.

My defense to this system is that the opponents are required to play it.

DONT is ok, but Meckwell is better (If you want a DONT style structure, without a penalty double): X - A single minor or both majors, forces 2♣ 2♣ - Clubs and a higher 2♦ - Diamonds and a major 2M - Natural After X - 2♣: Pass - Club single suiter 2♦ - Diamond single suiter 2♥ - Both majors Basically, compared to vanilla DONT it lets you bid the major single suiters immediatly (Very important IMO), and puts the both major hand into double (no great loss).

It's the old catch 22. At least in ACBL land, it frankly sounds as if your psyches are so frequent as to constitute a partnership agreement, and, again, in ACBL-land, an illegal one.

I see very few ways to go plus and lots of ways to go minus.

Strongly disagree. Penalty X if I'm going to come in over 1NT.

2♣(1) - 2♦ 3♣ - 3NT 4♣ - 4♥ 5♦ - 5♠ 6♣ 1 - No, I don't like it, but you wanted an auction to 6♣ via SAYC, take what you get :blink:

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakqxxxhaqjt9dacx]133|100|Scoring: MP (1♦) - p - (p) - ?[/hv] Your plan? Hightlight for Continuations: If you X: If you bid 2♦: If you bid some number of ♥: If you bid some number of ♠: If you bid some sort of Ace Asking bid:

No. Practically all (As in, 99%+ including sectional and regional events) are NOT matchpointed across sections.

Frankly, the more I think about it the more I think GSF is a utterly pointless convention on NT auctions, and that 5NT as pick-a-slam is much more useful. Any sort of modern response structure will give you some way to set trumps and ask for keycards (Kickback, 4♣ keycard G---er, that sort of thing), so there is never anything that GSF will tell you that you can't find out on your own. However, a pick-a-slam bid to make the final spot a mutual decision is a very useful thing that is near impossible to do otherwise.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=shjxdakxxxxxcaxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦} (1) - (1♠) - X - (2♠) 3♦ - (3♠) - p - p ? (1) Precision style, 2+ ♦, 11-15 HCP[/hv]

Some things I'd try: Get into their NT auctions frequently and quickly. 4-4 two suiters, that sort of thing. Jump overcalls are good. Open lighter than normal. Raise partner aggressively. Basically the goal being to make them take the last guess as often as possible.

If my agreement was to show count I'd give count. That said, major failing here seems to be partner's failure figure out what's happening with the hand.

I went for 700 recently Auction was something like: 1NT (11-14) - (3♣) - 4♦ (One under Texas, shows ♠) 4♠ (I want to declare) - 5♣ (Bid slam with a club control??) 6♠ -700, when trumps broke 6-2. Also a candidate for "worst trump suit I've ever played slam in": 6432 vs stiff 5. Partner had a little system forget :D Partner's interpreation was something like: 1NT (11-14) - (3♣) - 4♦ (♥!) 4♠ (Must be kickback for ♥) - 5♣ (1 or 4) 6♠ (Crap!)

My concern has nothing to do with going for a number. If this is a 2♣ bid, how does partner ever know what's going on when (1♦) - 2♣ could be on: [hv=s=saxxhxdkxxxcqj98x]133|100|[/hv] or [hv=s=saxxhxdkxxxcqj98x]133|100|[/hv]

Anything but pass is sick. I'd rather balance with 3♣ (over 2M) than overcall 2♣ directly. If you overcall on this kind of garbage how do you EVER have a constructive competitive auction?

I'm normally a light opener but.... I'd pass this hand if playing SAYC or 2/1. Only time I'd consider opening would be in a strong club context or other light opening oriented system.

Sorry, at work so I can't screenshot. What I meant is the main background (white) and the "buttons" that populate the player list on the right side" (also white).

I'm sorry to say I'm not exactly in love with this new version. I can't stand the color scheme of the main interface. Too *bright* by far. Also, having the main background and informational elements (e.g. the player list) be the same color is just bad. I find my eyes hunting around and just generally not liking it. Secondly, no profile on mouseover is very bad. THat alone is enough to make me not use BBO Flash. Far to annoying when e.g. trying to find an open table with a compatible partner. I should add to this, I'm not a fan of flash, or web-browser hosted applications in general. The availability of a native client was one reason I came to BBO in the first place. For a flash client to be of use to me, it would have to provide a real benefit in usability and functionality. As it stands, BBO Flash doesn't provide that. Pretty? Sure But it's not as responsive and the windows client, and again, I have a strong distaste for browser-hosted applications. If it was available as some sort of stand-alone bundle, not hosted in a web browser. I wouldn't like it if when, say, Quicktime decides to crash my Firefox session, I lose my BBO connection as well.

I don't think so. Would need to know more about system (e.g.: What is 2NT?) to say for sure.

Play with a regular partner and establish at least a modicum of agreements?