TylerE

I'm going to pull a rexford and suggest that 4♣ here should be a splinter for ♦. (Not ♠ since we would start with a neg X on hands with both majors). Failing that agreement, I would start with 3♣.

I disagree that E has nothing to think about. After all, game is on a hook opp. AQx xxx xxx xxxx, and could make opp as little as ATxx xxx xxx xxx. I don't think W has any real alternative to 4♥. The initial 2♥ was rather conservative, and he's looking at a dead max with a small doubleton in the opponents suit. While I'm not sure about the legal situation, my gut instinct on this is that there was no real BIT. I would perhaps have more sympathy if N/S had reserved rights after pass and before 4♥.

Strongly disagree that this should be allowed. If a side makes this request, and *then asks about a bid*, the amount of UI created is huge. I'm sure players would rapidly figure out that: X = Takeout Ask - natural! - X = Penalty Ask - artificial! - X = Lead directing

Really Mike? At least the way I play minor suit spinters is that it shows a really good hand, almost a slam force but willing to bail opp a really soft balanced minimum.

Much more so than starting with 2m. I mean, we basically have the following options: 2♣: GF, 4+ ♣ 2♦: Forcing (GF?) with 4 (5?)+♦ 3♠: GF, 4(usually 5), and shortness in ♠. Additionally, 3♠ has the advantage that you've got a good shot at stopping in 3N when slam is bad (KQJx KQxx xxx Jx), which you might have trouble doing after starting with 2m.

3♠ seems obv....I mean there are 10 counts where we have play for grand.

IMO Capane' without strong club (And I've played it seriously both ways) is a big loser, but done right can work well in a big club context.

I like 2N here to not deny a fit, so I can just bid 2N on this, then I play a sort of two way checkback: 3♣ is NMF style, showing 5M 3♦ is checkback-ish, to allow opener to show 4 card support on the way to 3N or somewhere else.

If the flash client was packaged so it could be run outside of the browser, I'd be more inclined to use it, but I really hate how it ties my BBO session to my browser session. Browsers tend to crash....and I can't accept that taking my BBO session with it.

Ugh, what a terrible auction. 5♥ is one of the worst bids I've ever seen. I now bid 6♣, what I should have done last round.

Grossly underestimating the advantage declarer has in 3NT imo. Also, you're assuming the opponents always stop in 2NT, when IMO it's more likely that they bid 3 here. How about if you assume the have superior methods, and thus bid 3NT 75% of the time when it's right, and only 25% of the time when it's wrong. Then the table looks more like: 7 Tricks (24%): 25% of 0 (0), and 75% of -3, for -2.25 8 Tricks (40%): 25% of 0 (0) and 75% of -220 (-6), for -4.5 9 Tricks (36%) 25% of +480 (10) and 75% of 0, for (0), for +2.5 Net: -1.44 If we always pass 2N then: 7 Tricks: 25% of +3, 75% of 0, +.75 8 Tricks: 25% of +6, 75% of 0, +1.5 9 Tricks: 25% of 0, 75% of -480 (10), -7.5 Net: -1.92 What if we assume the opps are weaker, and have a 50/50 of getting it right: If we always bid 3N 7 Tricks: 50% of 0, and 50% of -3, -1.5 8 Tricks: 50% of 0, and 50% of -220 (6), -3 9 Tricks: 50% of +480 (10) and 50% of 0, for +5 Net: +0.24 If we always pass 2N: 7: 50% of 0, and 50% of +3, 1.5 8: 50% of 0, and 50% of +6, 3 9: 50% of -10, and 50% of 0, -5 Net: -0.24 If we assume the opponents are very weak, and ALWAYS get it wrong then: Bidding 3N 7: 0 8: 0 9: 10 Net: 3.6 Passing 2N 7: 3 8: 6 9: -10 Net: -0.48 And finally, against perfect oppoents: 3N: 7: -3 8: -6 9: 0 Net -3.12 2N: 7: 0 8: 0 9:- 10 Net: -3.6 I guess the moral of this is one of two things.... either A: it's too late for me to be doing IMP math, or B: Bidding 3N is always better, and it's fairly close (but real), except against very bad opponents where it pays off a lot.

I don't these methods, but: 5M this queen but not the other, 5N: Both, no minor king, 6m: Both, this king, 6♥ Both, and both kings. Would seem logical.

2♠, wtp? If we have game, it's surely in spades, but there's a more important point here. This hand might be essentially worthless as dummy in 2♦, beyond xxx of trumps. It might not take a single trick, whereas opener will surely have some tricks for 2♠. Not hard to come up with layouts where 2♦ is down, with 8, 9, maybe even 10 tricks in ♠.

Eh? I want to be in grand on these cards at most forms of scoring. Just need no 3rd round heart ruff, or 3-2 trumps, although you can't combine the chances. Getting there might be tricky Assuming 1NT is 12-14, I hate 1N. Far too good, and 2-2 in the majors isn't very attractive either. I'd propose: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♥ (4sf) 3♣ - 3♠ 4♠ - 5♣ 5♦ - 5♥ 6♦ - 7♠

I might be up for some online play. I've got the WJ05 book at home somewhere. That said, from the times I've played it hasn't blown me away. While it does make the opponents bid more construtively over 1♣ than a pure big club, I've found that the strong auctions are much more dicey, often being at 2M or 2N before even establishing that opener has the big hand. In addition, the 1X openings aren't nearly as limited, which I don't like. The 1♦ bid is far superior to Precision I'll grant, but I'm not sure it's worth giving up the 10-15 1M.

5♥. Our hand keeps getting worse the more partner bids. Any club ruffs in partners hand would be with high trumps. (If not with high trumps, we're already in way too deep...)

The X after 1♠.

That is what the X shows...the opponents bid the other major.

Red at IMPs? Why am I still thinking? I don't really expect this to make, but on a good day it will at we're certainly getting sufficient pot odds with the punt.

If X doesn't promise 4♥, what is it supposed to show?

2♥ only promises 4♥ because the responsive double promised 4♥. This is not a case of doubler freely introducing a suit.

65 is a great source of tricks IF you can set your suits up. The spots here are so awful I have no confidence in that.

3♥ now. The first X was totally off the charts. Why not make a bid that actually describes your hand, like 1N?

Pass and hope I can balance. Opening on this MIGHT lead to a thin 4♥, which may or may not have play. It may also lead to partner whacking off the opponents when they bid their cold game.

Don't even get me started. From my expirience even the more..brief WJ players alert more fully than many "natural" bidders who assume everyone plays their regionally quirked version of SA, and don't bother to alert stuff like 1M-2♣ as a potential 2 card suit (Because 2♦ promises 5 obv).