TylerE

You're barking up the wrong tree here. Jack doesn't have anything to do with Java.

Hardly. Never heard of checkback?

Hardly. Opposite my 2NT partner with 5♠ will bid 3♣, and we'll back into the spade fit.

Isn't Qxxxx Kxx xx Jxx passing 2♣?

I wouldn't have opened 1NT...but I think I rebid 2NT now. 3♣ doesn't feel right with both suits being a bit iffy. 2♣ isn't even in the right zip code.

I wouldn't have opened 1NT...but I think I rebid 2NT now. 3♣ doesn't feel right with both suits being a bit iffy. 2♣ isn't even in the right zip code.

Playing with GIB not bidding 2N is a hopeless action. GIB does not reevalaute for secondary fits/non-fits so trying to conduct some sort of delicate shape-showing value auction just isn't going to work out well.

It's bad because they're basically no reason not to keycard and see if you can count to 13.

(Although I actually DON'T really think this is cheating.... I think it's more likely that S misclicked his opening, and N's 6N is certainly a bad beginner bid but it's not TOTALLY out of left field)

http://i.imgur.com/5ExzZ9d.png

Isn't this somewhat academic? Took me about 90 secs on his "my hands" page to figure out which hand it was.

IMO, assume partner has a decent (not exceptional, not qucky) but decent 15. Decide if you want to be in game opposite that. Bid accordingly. Invites at the 3 level at MP are often the worst of both worlds. It's a bit like a shove-or-fold decision in poker.... the middle ground is worse than either.

So, after passing intitally with ♠KQ9373 ♥Q862 ♦4 ♣963 GIB decided that after p - (1♠) - X - (p) it's logical continuation was.... 3♥. Needless to say, 3♥ was not a successful contract with basically no tricks and poor trumps.

3unt

Seems like a system fix to me. The jump to 4♣ consumes a lot of space. How about something like (made up) 1♣ - 1♠ 1NT - 2♣ (checkback style, GF) 2♠ (3+ card support, sets trump) - 3♣ (cue) 3♥ (cue) - 5♣ (exclusion) 5♠ (2) - 6♠

I think this is one of those cases where simple is best... 5x shows a suit (not just length, should have trick potential.... AJxxx or so at minimum)...this is ONLY if you're unsure whether or not to accept the invite...the goal is to help partner visualize tricks. Otherwise just pass or bid 6N. Really the most important thing is to figure out your style. Either invite marginally and only accept with the nuts, or invite heavy and go with anything other than an ugly minimum.

2♣

Because it gets you to way more making thin 3NT contracts than bad slams obv.

My recommendation? Spend your brain cells elsewhere...have decent meta-agreements about interference so you have some clue what you're doing, but unless you are not just a pro player but a pro player with permanent partner I can't see how a rather obscure sequence like this that comes up maybe one a year is worth having system for.

I'm dissapointed in you guys. No yet has mentioned our obligation to show support for partner by raising to 3♦? <_<

Agree with the ruling. The 2NT makes me suspect even WEST wasn't sure it was a transfer, at the time. I would also do my damnedest to find grounds for rewarding W with both a PP and a ZT violation.

Also, 2H Flannery = 0 dots, and the usual 2D Flannery is 1? The 2D variety is muuuch easier to defend against as direct seat will get a 2nd crack at it 99%+ of the time, whereas 2H can be passed with quite a bit of frequency, and usually on the hands where the defending side is most likely to have a good spot (e.g. 3rd hand is weakish)

Is it possible to white-list certain shorter sequences, e.g. "XX" or "1NT" while not lowering the general limit?r

Oops, doh, you're right. Still, it's probably, I dunno, 45%ish? Depending on how likely you think the preempter having the off-suit K is. 6♣ obv. is better and the logical thing for the E robot to do is bid 6♣ as an offer to play there over 4N... if you're going to 6 it can't really hurt to show the fit.

You're much better off doing something like this, really: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=opening+balanced+11+counts+site%3Abridgebase.com%2Fforums