TylerE

It's not really all that bad of a slam. Just need to bring in clubs, and then either find K in the slot or get a non-heart lead.

I would argue that it is impossible to psyche stayman, as it doesn't promise anything, it's purely an asking bid.

That's not enough to say it is the only reason. What if a ♣ ruff is the only possible way of beating the contract? Especially at IMPs you really really don't care about the overtrick when partner is broke so it may well be the only logical play. That's not to say I'm especially happy with N's actions, but I'm not going to shoot him without hearing him out first.

Pass for me. Every contract at the 5 level could be -3 or even -4. I also should probably abstain because I think 4♠ is just gross. You opened this because it's a two suiter, show your second suit - a simple application of the MTBTMRYH principle.

I spent some time playing a sort of similar range-split minor system recently. My conclusion was that ultimately it's NOT worth freeing up 1m-1X-2NT. Basically you have all the downsides of Precision, without many of the benefits.

I don't think so. I don't think even a novice will not only ruff a winner, but ruff HIGH.

3 tricks to declarer. There is no possible layout where ruffing high is *ever, ever*, right.

Maybe you only noticed when wondering why partner "jumped" to 3♠?

http://www.bridgebase.com/intro/installation_guide_for_bbo.php

If you want to play something at least vaguely resembling bridge, don't play online indys. It really is that simple.

At the very least every textbook I've ever read specifys an AKQJ suit for gambling 3N is holding only 7. Missing the jack you're going to have problems running it often enough to be annoying, even assuming you're not off 5 off the top. PS: In context of the system, I don't think straining to open 3♦ with crap is right. Opening 3♦ on bad hands might work against bad opponents but I don't think it's an effective long term treatment.

3♦ to both and I don't think it's close. Yes, it's probably going to go 4♠ next but I'm feeling a lot better about whatever partner does (including pass!) if I open 3 rather than 1.

I'd say it has more to do with the (barely extant) average skill level. Indys are BAD BAD fields.

This basically sums up my dissatisfaction with ACBL online games. The focus is very much on keeping table counts up, the integrity of the games in very distant 2nd.

I'm going to tend to disagree to an extent. There are many things a player could be thinking about besides which of two equivalent cards to play. Players are allowed to think about the entire hand.

Applies to overcalls too.

That is a problem because that's not an ACBL GCC legal convention. Conventional bids over 1N other than X and 2C must guarantee at least one known suit.

If the 2M bids didn't promise the minor they'd certainly be legal - GCC has no purview over natural (NON-conventional) bids.

The only thing worse than playing transfers over weak NT is *not* playing transfers over Weak NT.

Because how do you handle the auction 1♦-1♠-2♣ with 5-4-(3-1/2-2) shape? You can't bid 2♥ (4SF), and passing risks playing in a 6 or even 5 card "fit". FWIW, I actually play 2-way reverse flannery over a precision 1♦ with one partner. 1♦-2♥ is 5-4-x-x weak, and 1♦-2♠ is the same but with invitational values opposite an 11-15 hand.

This example pretty much sums up exactly my issue with this type of thinking. Rather than doing some sort of new math, why not teach: Hands with long suits, and two suiters, often play much better than their point count would suggest, so look at your length and suit quality and upgrade accordingly. Consider an example hand like xxxxx AK K xxxxx

Disagree. I've seen way too many novice players fail to advance because they mentally reduce everything down to "I can see X so I Y" type decisions. That's 180 degrees from the right mindset from bridge and it's hard to retrain them out of it once it sets.

My advice is to forget ALL of these "Rules of X" and make a habit of looking at your cards and thinking about the hand.

IMO GIB is just too fundamentally flawed in it's design such that any amount of bidding fix up to the rules won't be enough - it just doesn't understand how to evaluate the *trick taking* potential of a hand. Honestly is BBO is really serious about computer bridge they should just license Jack, whatever the cost.

That's bad players not bad methods. No system can fix stupid.