zenko

I like 1d-3d constructive, 1d-3c invit raise, and 2d either GF or trash, but I am not sure is that legal in ACBLstan

Looks like bread and butter sequence but I am sure some will be surprised with what's consensus opinion. My opinion is that d is clearly superior but only playing strong NT. Playing weak NT, 1st seat I vote c, 2nd b, and 3rd/4th obviously a.

Yes I was asking about transfer overcalls, I can not find any mention of them being allowed, so I assume they are not allowed, but it strikes me as bit strange to allow transfer advances of overcalls, transfers after doubles, but not transfers overcalls too. Regarding 3+ cards responses, the spirit of the rule seems to be exactly like you described, but if you allow canape systems like Blue Club (or what Rubin, Ekeblad and their crew are playing) where 3 card responses are common, there has to be some compromise. Pretending that 3 card response is not systemic, just because you usually have 4+ might be convenient but is completely dishonest.

Thx for clarification, do you maybe also know a) are 3+ cards 1M responses on 1C/D openings allowed, and B) are transfer overcalls allowed? Thx in advance!

I just noticed Kaplan Inversion is removed from GCC. Is that a typo? If not, I would really like to know whose brilliant idea was that, and how did that came about? Even more, I can not find any evidence that KI is even Mid-Chart allowed anymore, I checked "Additional Mid-Chart approved bids, defenses and segment approvals can be found at http://www.acbl.org/play/defenseDataBase.html" and i can not find it there. I get it that KI in its core really is a "tell me more bid that does not promise GF values", which seems to be disallowed even on Mid-Chart, but c'mon, 1S is really just like 1H-1NT(F1) when playing Flannery, how hard is for opponents to deal with that? What's next to go, 1430 maybe?

KQ863 AQJ5 K3 K4 9542 96 AJ97 1073 Favorable, IMPs, partner opens 1C (16+) 2nd seat and you end up in 4S from not the optimal side. The lead is 4 of D (4th best), you play small from the table, RHO plays Q (yes, now you regret playing small, but please support claims that you would put K with some convincing analysis). What is your game plan?

you had 2.5H bid round ago and 3C bid probably made your hand even better, don't you feel 3H now is bit of an underbid?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sa103hak109874d76cq]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1st seat you open 1H, partner responds 1S, you bid 2H-p-p RHO balances with 3C. What do you bid?[/hv]

I agree 1NT is by far the best bid. If once in a blue moon I go for a number so be it. Regarding should 1NT-2C be natural I think it makes a lot of sense to play it natural if the opening bid was a major suit, and if it was a minor to play "system on" (Stayman+transfers).

I like to believe that my partners double with less than 4 cards in the other major only if they are very strong, or they have a hand very suitable for playing in 4-3 from my side, and neither of those apply here. What I am saying you either use the bid that describes your hand the closest (1NT), or stay out of it (at least for now) and pass. Doubling and hoping that the partner will say somehow divine that you do not have support for neither of his two 4 cards suits (if he has say 3424, which is quite possible) strikes me as bit too much.

I find this hand quite interesting for several reasons, I am 100% sure i would not ever bid 2D with it, but I feel this hand belongs to "I know it is not right, but.." category i.e, I think many players who should know better will in the heat of the battle reach for 2D card. Another interesting angle is once when we decided 2D is not the right call, what is the correct way to approach the selection of an alternative? Dble on the first glance seems the best, but I am not comfortable with it at all, by trying to have as many options open, you really limit your ability to take advantage of any. The bottom line is that after dble it is very likely that your bidding troubles just begun, especially at MPs. Bidding troubles on this board, that is, I will not even go into how much you will pay for it down the road, once your partner pegs you for a "mushy" doubler.

I would gladly pay a fee to not receive those ads, not because ads per se, but because the are programmed poorly, so they are crashing/slowing down my computer.

Thx for the info! Does it have an option for "blanket" reject (except maybe for your friends or whoever you somehow approved to send you invitations) , or you have to specifically name the payers from whom you want to reject invitations? The first option would be much more useful I think. Thx again, Daniel

I suggest adding “block all tournament invitations” option, similar to “block all chat” option that you already have. Probably the optimal way to do it is to follow the same pattern and give you an options to block separately invitations from enemies, and lobby, i.e. to let you allow only invitations from friends. I think this tool would be also useful for a lot of players, those who are very popular/famous so they get too many invitations, or for people who are simply not interested in playing, except maybe with their friends etc. I often see those kind of messages on somebody’s profile (e.g. “please do not send me invitations, I will not accept”), so I am sure many people will be grateful if that feature is added. Sadly, there is an another angle to it. A player I was playing recently has some guy apparently obsessed with her, if she tries to play with somebody else he found the way to essentially prevent her from playing by constantly sending her tournaments invitations, rapid-fire style, which blocks the view of the table (at least until you refuse invitation, but then comes the next one right away). So with adding this feature you can also completely isolate yourself from malicious users, unfortunately I am sure this not the only case of this type. Best regards, Daniel

In most systems if bidding goes 1x-DBL-p-1y-p-2y is at least somewhat invitational (depending on style). Does anything change if bidding goes 1x-DBL-1z-1y-p-2y? Doubler's partner bid freely, does that change the nature of doubler's raise to mere courtesy raise, or it still has invitational overtones? Also sequence p-p-1x-p-1y-p-2y probably belongs into same category. In both cases my tendency is to always raise if I have 4 card support, even with absolute trash, so if I do not raise I deny 4 card support, but I am not sure can I expect an expert partner to expect that.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqj1063haj85d4cq106]133|100|Scoring: IMP you pass, LHO opens 2D (alerted as decent W2), N bids 3C, RHO 5D, now what?[/hv]

I noticed that at least one very prominent pair involved in recent US National team trials plays Rusinow leads, but only from 4+ card suits. There are plenty of situations where defenders can deduct from opponents’ bidding AND his own hand was the lead in fact from 4+ card suit or not, but that information is not available to the declarer. I do not see any material difference between that and other types of encrypted carding, like for example signals that vary depending on holding even or odd number of cards in the suit bid by opponents, etc. That type of carding is specifically forbidden by ACBL, and US Trials were played under those rules too. So, what gives?

Because as soon as you remove the option you know you will pick up ♠ KQ109xx xx Axxx x, Vul in 2nd? well in my style and also I think in the mainstream expert style these days, that’s perfectly fine minimum level 1 opening, even more so, say non-vul vs. vul 1/2 seat I would not dare to open weak two with that, to risky that my partner will pass with decent hand, they all saw me open weak twos in those positions with hands that are too obscene to print

on the 1st seat 0-5 probability is about 14% , and 11 is about 9%, but if the 1st seat passes 0-5 hand probability goes down down a lot, and on 3rd seat even more, in short, playing say just 11 count weak 2 you will open more often than playing just 0-5 weak 2s

It seems that the modern style of lighter level 1 openings significantly changes the utility of weak two bids, especially VUL. Even slight lowering of level 1 openings threshold by say between 0.5-1 point makes a big difference, because we are talking about the most frequent hands. If you look at the stats, by switching from "old-school" 6-11 weak twos to "modern" 0-10 style, even non-vul you will actually decrease the frequency, even non-vul and even playing it completely random (i.e. any 6 card suit hand)! To be more precise on the 1st seat you will slightly increase the occurence (non-vul), but you will lose more than that on 2nd/3rd seat, since if 1st hand passes, point count odds change upwards. Non vul it still seems like fair a trade-off, especially on 1st and 3rd seat, but Vul, where lowering the treshold for Weak Twos does not make much difference, since you can not afford to be reckless, whole concept becomes very questionable. I guess the way around it could be to play sounder level 1 opening vul, and lighter non-vul but in practice that seems like too much trouble because you would need to adjust response structures too. Frankly, I can not even remember when was the last time I opened weak two on 2nd seat Vul vs non-vul, and I do not recall having any bad results because of that, so whats the point of even having that option available?

I noticed that plenty of top level players have serious concerns about misuse of Weak Two openings, especially Vulnerable. What is your approx estimate, based on your experience, what percentage of hands with 6 card suit and less then opening hand strength is really suitable for Weak Two opener Vulnerable, 1st position. Also does that percentage significantly change on 2nd/3rd seat, and if opponents are Vul or not? Thx in advance for your input!

Please do not badmouth 2nd seat preempts, you will kill my main IMPs generator

1. yes. 2. no. 3. pass, +500 is too tempting, plus who says that 5 in a minor is cold?

and what if West has say 5134 distribution?

These are really two separate issues. Do laws really allow this kind of ruling procedure? If they do the law should be changed/clarified at once. BTW at the table without hesitation I would bid 4 diamonds, but I understand that might be a minority view