TylerE

When I played a Canape system we always assumed the 2nd suit was at least equal - it's not always, but that was our operating assumption, so we needed a reason to take preference back to the 1st suit. Not always right, but tended to avoid disaster - in part because you don't spend lots of bids floundering for a fit so it's a lot harder for the opponents to balance effectively.

Result stands. E tried something, it doesn't sound like they have an agreement. I don't know about EBU territory, this agreement would be highly unusual so would never assume it if undiscussed. W wasn't on the same wavelength, and can hardly alert something he doesn't believe they are playing. That's not illegal. I don't have a problem with E"s 4♥ bid holding the 5th trump, two doubletons, and a suit oriented hand. I don't find N's claim very convincing - he knows that EW are on a GF (and in most jacoby variants 3N would show moderate extras, which makes 4♠ even less likely to not get hammered), so his partner his broke, and given his singleton ♥ how many ♥ E has isn't likely to be that relevant to how well 4♠ does. He's going to have to come up with something about 1000x more compelling than a "might have" after the hand has been scored up.

I like the general idea of this....it fits with my personal preferences...hit me up if you want to do some practice bidding to see how it works out. I am tempted to say go even farther with the 1♦ bid and have it deny a 4M 100%. Then responders 1M rebids can show 5+ cards, and you'll have a much easier time getting to responders 5-3 when weak (e.g. less than NMF values). Then change 1N to NF and you have great (for MP) non-informative 1N auctions where the opps have no idea WTF to lead.

I think the day BBO goes to a paid membership the usage would vastly decrease. Wether this is a good or bad thing I'm not entirely sure.

Simple, we open all 16's 1♣, period. There is no such thing as a "Bad 16 opened 1♦". We also make the sequences 1♣ - 1♠ (Balanced hand) 1NT (Semi-forced, denies extreme shape or extras) - stayman/transfer response - 2NT show 8-9 and is NF. This provides an escape valve to stay out of game on bad 16 opp bad 8.

If 4N shows 2 places to play (nad it should), it should be ironclad 5-5. The 5 level is not to be trifled with. Any less shape can just pass. More importantly, a 54xx hand, where one of the two suits is not ♣, does not pass 5♣, but instead corrects to 5♦, which will get recorrected to 5♥, and the eagle has landed...

Why? 5♣ guarantees an 8 card fit. 5♥ does not.

I hate 2♠ on this hand. Too many flaws. * Too many values outside trumps * Stiff king * 4♥ * Poor trump suit that I don't want lead Any one, maybe even any 2 of those, find, but all 4? Pass.

What is the actual NS agreement?

What did you use over that? I guess you could use like a modified 2 way stayman? e.g. 1N-2♣-foo-2N says go only if really max, and 1N-2♦ says go if not minimum, with a 3N rebid if opener is accepting the invite without a major.

Works well for me, we play it 1st/2nd NV or =. Really need to be playing a strong club to make it work though.

Seems like such a simple-minded analysis as to be pointless. Cardplay, especially at that level, often depends on inferences in the bidding - to examine the two in isolation is kinda non-sense.

Did you actually read my original post? It was predicated on opening 1N when in range, which I strongly feel is correct. You can't just ignore that and then snipe at the rest of my post.

Yes, but then your range when you open 1M on a balanced hand is only 12-14, not 12-16, so you don't need a bid to unravel it, because you can't have the strong hand and no second suit to rebid. If you're 4522 you may as well just grit your teeth and rebid 2♥. But I stand my statement that 1♥-1NT (forcing) 2♣ = 12-14, 0+ ♣ 2♦ = 14-16, 0+ ♦ Is incredibly dumb.

If you want something to play like 1980s flavored Standard American your best bet is probably Bridge Baron.

Personally, I think that happens just as much at mps. It's just partscore randomizing that kills you, rather than game/slam bidding.

I hate this purposed scheme. My recommendations: Play 1NT *semi* forcing - never including a 3 card raise for openers major (find some other scheme to handle those - see addendum). Open your (14+)15-17 5M balanced hands 1NT, not 1M. Then, you don't need a bid to show 15-16 after opening 1M, because you can't have that hand unless unbalanced, in which case you have a 2nd suit to bid naturally Bids that exist to purely show point count, and do not otherwise clarify shape, are dumb. Don't play them. Holding 3-3 or 4-4 in the minors always rebid 2♣, even if the ♦ are better. Addendum: My preferred basic major suit raise structure playing something 2/1ish 2M - 5-9, 3 cards 2NT - Jacoby 3♣ - 6-12, 4 cards, then 3♦ asks for range, then 3M = 6-9, anything else shows is natural and shows the 10-12 hand. 3♦ - 10-12, 3 cards 3M - 0-5, 4 cards

It would be much better if some reasonable compromises were made - e.g. when viewing a list of tables sync the profiles of the, say, 60 people you can actually see, instead of having to wait for a roundtrip server response on every...single...one.

No. Flash can't save a file. If you want to log you need to use the non-web client.

nigel1, in a case like this, that sounds like a psuedo-psychic-double-shot, not a logical or sane way of applying the laws, at least if you're advocating what I think you're advocating.

This is not a monopoly situation. Individual companies are free to make contracts and business deals.

Score stands. To me the hesitation could easily suggest partner is thinking of doubling rather than bidding on, so 5♥ may even be the ethical bid, if it's possible the hesitation suggests defending. After all, especially if North is known to have a sense of humour, trumps could be breaking as badly as 5-0 in 4♠.

We have two ways of key carding and always stopping below 5M, and in one case, frequently below 4M. The 3m bids are also possible prelude to a slam try.

In the one partnership I've played these sort of methods, after 1N (14-16)-2♣-2♥: 2♠ = Inv with 4♠ 2NT = Inv without 4♠ or 4♥ 3♣/3♦ = Natural, forcing, doesn't promise 4♠ 3♥ = Inv 3♠ = Forcing, 4♥-3♠, to cater to opener's 5M 3N = 4♥ and exactly 2♠ 4♣ = Straight Ace Ask, doesn't promise a fit 4♦ = Undefined 4♥ = To play 4♠ = RKC ♥ 4N = Quant without 4♥

In the one partnership I've played these sort of methods, after 1N (14-16)-2♣-2♥: 2♠ = Inv with 4♠ 2NT = Inv without 4♠ or 4♥ 3♣/3♦ = Natural, forcing, doesn't promise 4♠ 3♥ = Inv 3♠ = Forcing, 4♥-3♠, to cater to opener's 5M 3N = 4♥ and exactly 2♠ 4♣ = Straight Ace Ask, doesn't promise a fit 4♦ = Undefined 4♥ = To play 4♠ = RKC ♥ 4N = Quant without 4♥