rbforster

If you're going to use a direct bid to show all the 4441 positives, I like 2♠ a lot more than 2N. That way the concealed hand can play 3N and have it's stopper(s) protected from the obvious lead. I currently play that these strong 4441 hands respond 1♦, together with most 0-7 hands, and usually jump later in the auction.

Its a fit-non-jump! I'd go with 2D as the constructive raise and 2M as the weaker one, for preemption purposes. After all, there shouldn't be a different in the number of diamonds in either of them, right? Especially if you have various jump raises for 4+ major raises, your average 3 card raise will have 3.3 diamonds. Still, i suppose having 2D be weaker is a little less risky for the times when you don't have 3 diamonds and have to bid 1N (since you might miss more if that's semi forcing and partner could have the constructive raise).

I agree with Glen. I think your fine with these openings as "all purpose" openings with 10+ points. However, you're going to have a harder time with non-GF artificial responses aside from 1C-1D or 1m-1N

Looks good to me. Funny how showing single 6+ suits at the 2 level is just fine (out of habit), but swap the 1 and 2 level openers and people start whining. Consistency isn't high on the priority list of these types of complainers however.

Yes, the Midchart used to be quite permissive in allowing artificial suit-showing openings under the "4 card known suit" clause. That was found to allow Moscito, and hence the new Midchart removed this and replaced many of the "general" rules with very specific "allow" clauses that can't accidentally allow other interesting systems to arise. In fact, the only 1 level bids allowed by MC not allowed under GCC are playing 1M as strong (15+) and artificial, for both people who want to play a strong 1H system. There is still a provision for 1H showing spades under MC, but I believe they revoked the approved defense for that, rendering it legal but unplayable. They also recently banned 2 suited 2 level bids that might only have 4-4 shape, something that was previously possible at least some of the time. It's a sad day for creative minds in the US when more things are allowed in a New Zealand club game than are permitted in the NABC+ top tier SuperChart events in the US. You know, because Meckwell & Co. need to ask for your defense against multi (just in case you forgot to bring it), but they can't possibly beat you playing forcing pass.

You've been misreading my comments apparently. Full disclosure applies to your opponents at the table and I've clearly stated that I would give a complete description for the alert, etc. It doesn't require you to ask the regulators about your conventions in any particular language. If I know they'll auto-deny anything with the word "MOSCITO" in the title (which is pretty close to accurate), I can just ask about your system calling it "New and Improved MOSCITO" and get them to reply that this is not allowed. Now I'll do this for every system I don't like and try to get each team sanctioned for playing those methods, despite the fact that if they may have also asked about their system in a different way and gotten it approved. "Catchall" is defined in the context of a system, referring to everything else you don't open something else. In my more-like-MOSCITO-than-Owen's GCC system proposal these are equivalent. What exactly do you mean I "don't open any hand with 1♦ anymore"? Do you think that there's some particular hands you must open 1♦ with under the all-purpose GCC provision, because it sure doesn't give any indication of such in the rule text. Every single system opens 1♦ with some hands and not with others, and catchall is just a convenient name for a wide range of hands that don't fit elsewhere. It's as completely different as a 0+ precision opener is from a 2+ precision opener is from "unbal, promises a 4cM", all of which people play under that rule now in strong club systems. Each of contains a bunch of hand types and at least 10 points. And remember here in the US defense is your opponents' problem, not yours, since a legal GCC opening requires providing no defense or anything similar. Just alert and explain, and if the opps aren't prepared for that particular conventional opening, well, that's their oversight. As an aside along the lines already mentioned, 1♦ showing 4♠ unbal or a "Gambling 3NT" opener (solid 7+ minor) should fit the 0+ definition just fine under even the most picky reading of GCC. It promises 0 cards in any suit - just a bunch of misc hands with 10-14 points not opened anything else.

Option #1 will have some rare but serious issues when responder over-competes at a high level and opener has only 4 trumps (but you play him for 5 since he usually has 5). Option #2 will have more common but less serious competitive difficulties (since 1♦ is always ambiguous whenever it comes up), so you may not be able to compete to a minor partial as easily since it's more risky without knowing which minor opener has. In short events esp MPs, I would play #1 and hope the relatively rare 4M hands doesn't come up or don't matter. I would want to be well placed for competitive auctions starting 1♦ instead of poorly placed (vs Option #2). In long events esp IMPs, I'd have to worry a little more about which is "better on average," since 1♦ will come up a lot but may not cost many IMPs on average when it does. I would generally lean to #2 since I think many opponents don't have a good defense to a 0+ 1D and opening this pretty light will give them more troubles since hopefully we'd be better prepared for the negative inferences, uncertainties, etc, than they would be.

How exactly is it cheating if I ask the regulators a completely well posed question and they decide it's legal? Am I obligated to ask for clarification in a way that maximizes the chance I will be rejected? What about other players who haven't heard about some prior related email rejecting this treatment and ask my question innocently and are told they are allowed to play the methods - is if fair or rational that I should not be allowed to play the same system but they can? Perhaps more to the point - who says that if there are contradictory rulings on legality that one should err on the side of rejection? After all, if a regulator tells you it's ok, how can you reasonably say it's not ok? It's his job to think about negative inferences and whether such methods should be allowed, as I'm sure not everyone who asks about their pet method will give a full list of all possible shapes for each bid. It's called doing his job. As for "leaving out an important part of the method", do recall that negative inferences are not alertable (such as failure to support double) and this has been an established policy for some time now, so I'm not sure why you think I should be calling everyone's attention to it when even my opponents at the table aren't entitled to that protection by the rules. Just to be clear, I am not proposing any non-disclosure to my table opponents, but merely that I should be able to ask any question I want in any way that I want of the regulators and that I should be able to rely on their answer. To have any other system of clarifying regulations makes no sense at all. Frankly I don't even know why people ask the regulators anything in the first place, since the legality of your methods are all up to the arbitrary ruling you'll get from your local director if someone complains.

Tell me exactly how it is cheating if you submit your system to the ACBL and they say it is legal? I would argue that's the only definition of legal you should be certain of - not one based on your speculation, or my speculation, or that somebody's friend's aunt asked Memphis about something vaguely related and got some unclear answer that is tangentially related to this. Note that I didn't say not to disclose the details of the 1♦ shapes if asked by your opps.

Sure they do, it just depends on how you ask them. Give them my opening bid structure and offer 1♦ as "0+ catchall, 10-14 points" and I'm sure they'll say it's legal. Don't ask questions you don't want the answers for and you'll be fine. That's really all I have to say about this, since we all know it's futile to expect either rational or consistent answers from the ACBL on matters of conventions. Play what you want and have your good excuses ready.

Under a reasonable reading of GCC, you can play 1♦ showing 4+ spades and 10+ points, and 1♥ as 4+ natural. Of course this doesn't give you a chance to use 1♠ for diamonds or other nice features, but you could try this: 1♦ "0+" 4♠ unbalanced canape or 4(441), 4S/5+m or 4S/5+H 1♥ 4+♥ unbalanced. Hearts and a minor, either longer, 1444, or 6+ single suited 1♠ 5+ standard 1N 12-14 balanced, includes 5H(332) 2♣ 5+ constructive - 6+ or 5m/4+om (no side major) 2♦ 5+ constructive - 6+ or 5m/4+om (no side major) If 1♥ seems too overloaded here (I think it's manageable with KI and 1H-1S-1N showing 5H/4+m), you can remove the 6+ heart 1-suiters to 2♥.

I liked the idea of passing with some club hands to help keep your 1 level openings natural and have played a Silent Club style where many more hands passed than Adam's suggestion of just the canape ones (I used 2♣ as a preempt instead). I'm not sure about your opening standards in 3rd/4th, but if you're still opening 10-14 unbal and 12+ bal, it'll be quite rare to miss game although you may pass out some partials. This happens much less than you might think, given you are only passing with unbalanced club hands of around average strength, so it's likely someone else will open anyway. 2N as 20-21 might help narrow your strong club range, especially in competitive auctions, and will get you a little more with the field. An alternate more exotic treatment would be a strong specific 2 suiter that didn't want to open 1♣ anticipating a distributional auction where it would be poorly placed (maybe 5♥/6+m?). I know 3♣ with both minors is a better preempt than 2N with the same hands, but I will add that since 2N is normally played as forcing you can put some strong hands in there too where you want to play 5m or 6m in partner's choice of minor.

Natural bids are allowed, and possibly beyond the reach of the ACBL to regulate (which is why you can open 1♥ with 4+, etc). Natural for a minor is defined as 3+. Feel free to open any number of a minor with 3+. Note however that while they can't regulate you opening 2♣ or 3♣ on a 3 card suit, they can and do ban conventional responses and defenses to weak two's that may not have 5 cards in length. I hear Marty Bergen was a fan of preempting with chunky 4 card suits in his younger days and sufficiently annoyed the establishment that they tried to force people to play at least 5 weak twos.

Am I correct that 2C promises at 4 card major? It looks like you don't have followups for balanced invites with no 4cM, so I'm assuming those don't bid 2C. A couple of comments - After 1N-2C-2D, 2S what about this as 4S inv and NF, instead of 4+S forcing (with similar responses including P = fit + min) 2N could this show 5H invite? Showing 4H when there's no fit doesn't seem to help. This might need a natural 1N-2N or a size ask 1N-2S so you can invite without majors some other way 3m why are you showing 4H/5m when opener denied hearts? These could be just 5+m GF and let opener bid 3S to checkback After 1N-2C-2H, you're losing your 5-3 heart fits and playing 2N or 3N. More generally, I'd be worried that by resolving your full shape around 3S/3N with relays, you won't have much space to get min/max info below 3N. This seems more important than resolving minor fragments for example.

You can almost always solve this problem with more relays and memorisation. One solution is to allow for RKC and exclusion RKC as alternative asking options, instead of DCB/Spiral, by relayer. For example, 1♣...relays relays...3♥ showing some shape 3♠ asks for strength, then DCB 3N to play 4♣ exclusion RKC, relay to 4♦ and then show which suit with the next 4 steps (responders' longest comes first, etc) 4♦ end relay, forces 4♥ to sign off 4♥-5♣ regular RKC (responders' longest suit comes first, etc) You can make various improvements on this by breaking relays earlier, or maybe skipping only 1 step in an earlier relay to focus on a particular suit (which then can be used for stopper asks, RKCs, excl-RKC, etc depending on the subsequent auction).

Something simple to play would be: 2♣ - inv stayman, or garbage intending to pass any response. Then 2M = 5 card invite, 3M = 6 card invite, 3m = 5+ distributional invite, 2N for the rest. 2M/3m - signoffs 2N to taste, perhaps 5/5 minors weak or GF 3M - 5/5 majors inv/GF You lose the crawling stayman sequences (checking for the 4-4 fit when responder is 5-4 in the majors before playing in the 5M). You play 2N when responder has a 4♠ invite opposite 44 majors with a minimum opener. That said, you get to stop low in 2M on a lot of invitational hands, which is much better than the alternatives IMHO (like 2♣...3M including a 5 card invite).

I joined the forums with a different username than my BBO handle. Currently I can only login to the forums via my BBO username, but it is rejecting my logins as my (preferred) BBOF username. I would rather avoid this split personality on the forums and keep posting under my long time forum username (although I know it's popular with some of the regulars to reset their names periodically). I would especially like to access the personal message box for my old forum account, which I presently cannot reach. I tried to register my old BBOF name on BBO, but it tells me that name is not available. Help or suggestions appreciated.

I would not have bid 2♦, but either 3♣ or 4♣ preemptively depending on the colors. Or maybe just 3♣, since we've got such soft, defense values and no useful shape.

Zelandakh - interesting structure My major non-raise structure is pretty boring right now, but that's mostly the ACBL's fault for forbidding most innovation on those sequences. I've tried a few things (like 2/1 weak, or 1N and 2C as F1 including all GF hands), but I can't say I'm particularly happy about those. Right now I play 2/1 with lots of special jump raises. 1M-1N(f) is restricted to Midchart+ if it guarantees inv or better values. This is mildly annoying, but can sometimes be handled by putting in one or two rare weak hands. Here are a few variations: 1M-? 1N GF relay 2C "forcing NT" hands with 3+ clubs (could be inv with clubs); opener passes if he would have rebid 2C 2D 5+ inv 2H 5+ inv P less than an invite and unwilling to bid 2C or you can go with the 1N inv+ and throw in a few weak hands (which of course makes the relay structure a little worse/more natural. For example, if you play something more natural for opener's rebid: 1M-1N-? 2C any min 2DH 4+ 2M 5+ 3C 5+ and now let responder pass or correct to 2M with certain weak hands like long clubs. This makes responder's 2M rebid into a weak hand instead of the 3 card limit raise from Zelandakh's structure, which is obviously worse but maybe not too bad given there are so many low-level forcing sequences. or finally, you can play something kinda like Gazelli where 2C has all the strong hands instead of all the weak ones: 1S-1N 2C any max, or 4+ hearts min (now 2D is relay, 2H or 2S pref's) 2D 4+ min 2H 4+ clubs min 2S 6+ min (over 1H-1N you can do something similar, but play 2C as max or clubs rather than max or hearts).

Sure, but auctions like 1♣* - P - 1♦* - (1♠) strong; art GF; natural overcall 1N - (3♠) - ? are the same reason other people like to play natural positives. Any time your opponents manage to jam the auction to 3♠ where your side has made only 1 descriptive bid is going to work out poorly for you on average.

Remember that "the worst that can happen" is not that the opponents get involved. It's that partner jumps to 2N and now you're way too high with no fit.

Are you happy with your WJS-style 1M-3C? I can certainly see the merit of the slow invite, since sometimes you'll uncover a 6-2 major fit along the way,etc. What do you think of just passing with the weak hands and using the direct 3C for some convetional use? Are you happy with your major suit raises, etc? It seems like when opener is limited and you've got a WJS hand, you could just pass and let the opps try to sort it out (likely their hand, but they may notbe able to double with club shortness).

Lol, what you mean to say is just that you don't believe that. Anyway, the US health sector remains in private hands so it is irrelevant. Just IMHO I don't think they'll do a better job, but I can't imagine anyone believing the govt can do the job cheaper. Medicaid is something 10-20% fraud/waste, and what makes you think this will be any better? Look at how trying to offer universal healthcare has done to the MA budget and you'll see it's a financial disaster even if you think it's a worthy goal.

Jacoby "2NT"

A few comments. My scheme shows 4432/4333 balanced hands with 2D+, so if you're trying to squeeze in 12 more shapes (5332s), you'll be short on space. That's fine if it's how you want it, but balanced hands are very common so it might make sense to have a 2C+ response scheme instead. Maybe 1C-1S(bal)-1N(relay)... Also, if you're strapped for space, you might want to prioritize resolving the minor-heavy hands (short majors) first and let the major-heavy hands resolve higher. This will hopefully give you space to ask for the major stoppers below 3N (in the minor case). Then, in the major case, hopefully you find a major fit so you've got extra space up to 4M instead of just 3N to figure out strength etc.