TylerE

Hrrm, are you running FF4? I'm running 3.6 here and have it installed with no problem.

I encourage those who are unhappy with the new look to try my user style: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42400-alternate-style-for-forums/ (Requires Firefox/Chrome)

I've worked up a user style sheet for the forums, more to my tastes. I'm sharing it here in the hopes that others who enjoyed the old forums will find it more to their liking. This is certainly not a finished effort, but already I find it to be a significant improvement. To Install: Install the Stylish Extension Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2108/ Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/fjnbnpbmkenffdnngjfgmeleoegfcffe Once installed, go to http://userstyles.org/styles/38942 and click the "Install with Stylish" button. Known Issues: There's a blank line between posts in topic listing. I hope to have a fix for this. (Fixed 10/26/10) Main Forum List Before: http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/2420/before1.png After: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7150/after1x.png Forum Topic List Before: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8334/before2.png After: http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5076/after2.png Topic View Before: http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2258/before3.png After: http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8205/after3r.png

Can we please please please have something like the old theme back? I find the new colors extremely distracting, and hard to read. The red is really bad. Draws your eyes away from the text. Font choices are small and soft. The main list of forums I don't like either. Left-aligned is bad. The icons are kinda huge too. Really a shame that the software itself seems much improved...but visually just extremly off-putting. Much like the flash client, now that I think about it, and for many of the same reasons. Everything is way too spread out. For instance, when viewing a forum I can't see the topic title and poster at the same time because they're about 10 inches apart. I dislike the 100% on all the topic pages...ideal line width for reading is much much narrower.

n.

Paaaaaaass. I won't improve the contract because anything I bid is forccing.

Yea. My thing with a double here is that we will rarely end up in the right fit. (Maybe even a ludacris 3-3♠ fit when partner is Qxx/xxx or xxx/xx in the majors with ♦ length.) That leaves the overcalls and 2NT. My agreement, which I beleive to be NA standard, is that two-suited overcalls are Min/Max, not continuous range. I don't know if this is best, but it certainly seems to be mainstream. So that rules out 2N. Of the overcalls I favor 2♣ slightly because if partner ends up on lead against 3 or 4♠ I really need a non-♥ lead.

2♣=10 1♥=9 X=7 2N=2 Pass=0

Yea, I think 3N is pretty bad. 7C would be worse.

I might be interested...not playing that system though. TBH those 1♣ response s are not very good imo.

Aaaaaaaacccccceeeeeeeee

The only proper place for stolen bid doubles is on my oppoennt's CC.

Funny. I almost got into the 80s once... ended up with like a 79 and change...could have been an 83 if I hadn't botched a 29hcp 6N...don't remember the details this was probably 5 years ago, but do remember working out later how it could have been made.

System wasn't stated, but if playing typical 2/1 style where pard will GF with random crappy 12 counts, I don't think this can be a 1♥ opening.

Pass for me in 1st... would oepn 1♥ playing strong club. The hand is too...weird for 2♥ in my opinion.

Are we North or South?

Making balancing doubles with GIB is really not recommended.

Why isn't 3♦ slam invitational? It's not just some random 5-4 game hand.

Glad to see you're continuing to raise the level of discourse Roger.

If you don't know what to when opener raises, why are you make a slam invitational bid? (Assuming 3♦ isn't something weird in your system)

Agree with much of that, but disagree about playing a 4 card diamond opening. I play that with my regular partner, and it has some definite benefits. ALso used in many european 2/1 systems (e.g. Ambra). This is assuming It's a 5=5=4=2 opening structure, and not Montral Relay or garbage like that. In the case of 5542 the odds of 1♣ being on a doubleton are quite small, so you can mostly ignore it if you choose to. Others I'd add: Misspelled conventions Anyone who feels it nessesary to list standard stuff - A profile of "stayman transfers neg x" isn't very helpful. SAYC + Some modifier. There's no such thing as "SAYC Basic or SAYC Full". Also people who list only SAYC + about 20 conventions that are the exact opposite of SAYC (weak jumps, inv minors, things like that). The absolute only thing SAYC has going for it is that it is set in stone...

Expert standard is through 4♥ or 4♠, depending on who you ask.

At least around here Sanwhich NT is a weak-ish takeout for the unbid suits, say 8-14 and at least 5-4 if not 5-5, while an X is a stronger takeout.

I said decent, not great. QTxxx is certainly a decent suit in my book. Even opposite as bad as 2 small it can be setup for 3 tricks a lot of the time, and opposite Ax or Kx it will be 4 tricks a good chunk of the time.

I'm confused. 1NT can be natural or sandwich...not both.