dake50

As meckwell say, all balanced hands rebid NT, no exceptions. In any case I always consider Qxx a stop. -- mcphee *** Are you presuming we'all have a Meckwell years of discussion? Of course a decades old agreement works for them! I know my partnership doesn't have the discussion time invested to avoid **bal - but no stop** cases as Meckwell. Truly in a bind with **bal-no stop** hands.

I like to play a style where a PH bidding 2H always show a S tolerance. There is no hand unable to open 1H or 2H on round 1 that are good enough to make a PH 2/1 with a stiff spade. -- benlessard *** Continue. There is no 3D bid that doesn't tolerate Hearts from a passed partner. Sways me to 3D.

Try X: denying a 5+M 3M: this 5+M 3om: both 4xM (if 3D as here over 3C) P: you decide higher: GF+ . The double to show points; pass not points; is much too restrictive. Way over-riding our partnership judgment. Aside. At this unfav VUL, your tactic should be just bid "borderline" games and let them phantom sac if they want. The problem hands then become slammy maybe? hands. Use your gimmicks for them.

4d now and let partner tell me his judgment over 4H. I go with HIS Pass or Dbl over 4H.

Another remark: the system is quite aggressive on it's own, it's not a good idea to be too aggressive in all seats imo. -- Free *** Exactly. What aggressive shapes would partner in first seat have bid? What fits are remaining/possible for 3rd seat? *** I need that both Majors opener as 1st seat 10 won't have both Majors. So I do 1H on 1); and 1S on 3). *** 2) is a systemic pain in the backside. Never hold that hand!

This is popular in some circles , but whenever 2NT is bid without a jump there is no general agreement this should show a fit. In the old days experts observed we have not enough ways of raising partner. Nowadays some partnerships have no way of bidding a suit but too many ways of showing a fit. For me cue-bidding opponent's suit is good enough to show a limit raise or better, when 2NT is not available as a jump bid. One idea I first learned in Poland is to use 2NT and higher bids as transfers in these scenarios where RHO has overcalled at the two level. If opener accepts the transfer it is not forcing. A sort of generalized Rubensohl. The scenario is slightly different when there was a jump overcall and when (like here) the overcall was in a lower ranking suit. This last scenario gives you 2 cuebids to show different other handtypes. You can directly overcall in overcaller's suit and you can now transfer into overcaller suit. For example after 1S-(2H) Double: Negativ (could be a balanced hand interested in notrumps) 2S: normal raise 2NT: club suit 3C: diamond suit 3H: spade invite or better 3D: anything else you like to describe (e.g asking for help in overcaller's suit) Rainer Herrmann *** Dbl: could be converted for penalties, thus promising >= A+K. *** 2NT,3C,3D: could be help suit raise *** 2NT: could be arbitrary strong IFF certain rebids are chosen. Eg. big 1-suiter, 2-suiter, bal w/o stop, big bal w stop Some bid reserved for a big hand, not a raise, to be shown next. I suggest "lowest" transfer may rebid to show very strong/near slammy not fitting.

Because of the trend of some to say they play exactly what would work in the given case, when it is doubtful they really do that. Because in the balancing seat versus 3H, I seriously doubt NLM is a good idea (based on frequency of patterns for balancer). Because even if NLM is someone's choice, I doubt it also shows an 8-count. *** And because double works here (NOT into 3H-X=) or are you passing (with 4S on)? Deny the problems shown in the immediate hand, as you wish, BUT to suggest 2-suiter take-outs won't work when this hand suggests that very agreement wins is head-in-the-sand.

I am waiting for someone to post: "We play weakness-showing non-leaping Michaels 4♦ in balancing position here." I hope I have a long wait. *** Because it works on the immediate hand?? Or you just don't think 2-suiter take-outs are useful?

I see HA +DA + partner's side trick in defense. I'm trying 5H.

Yes I see an abstract on game decisions. Now flesh it out using these many inputs, esp those frequencies: 19-6 rarer than 14-11, so ding 14-11 missed proportionately more than 19-6. I would be interested in those fleshed-out results.

Unfortunate opponents fail in 4H. Otherwise a big gain.

Learn something about encrypted signals before sharing any more of your wisdom. (Recognizing that the key to an encrypted signaling system is available for the post mortem would be a good starting point) *** And as I posted, deviate then justify - HOW?? I used them before they were disallowed. Be sure of YOUR DISPARAGE BEFORE YOU SPEAK. The exact problem - verify deviation was NOT by some other clue than bridge was discussed by ACBL comp committee before sanctioning them. Such drivel INDEED.! "worthless troll" because you cannot verify the VERY claim I contend. That term more applies to someone not thinking, just name calling. Prove my assertion wrong. Catch a cheat who is allowed to encrypt his signals. HOW?

Why are these banned in most jurisdictions? Are they considered to be too powerful? It shouldn't be a problem of disclosure as they're quite easy to understand. -- wank . *** Deviate from your disclosed agreement, or BIT, now try to defend your play. Cheats CANNOT be caught if they use encrypted signals. How then do you suggest ensuring our game's integrity?? . Play all competitions on a computer screen? I imagine that is coming. I even like the idea. Not here yet.!

What now? -- 'phil_20686 . *** What "partner did not choose 3C,3D,3H, ... " inferences do we get? Tell us your agreements for those. Are you asking "Within those agreements, what to do?" OR "what agreements SHOULD we have?" "Should agreements cater to strong 2-suiters or fly by the seat of our pants with these?" *** I would like to hear from posters on their theory in answer to those.