mikegill

I'm not usually a big fan of 5m openings but this looks like one to me.

I would not open 1♠ playing standard. 1♠ - p 1NT is way too likely and will make me want to vomit. I would happily open 1♠ playing precision, since partner will know not to bid 1NT on cheese opposite a 3rd seat opener. This is right on the border for me for a 2♠ opening in 3rd. I think I would bid at MPs and pass at IMPs. IMPs I hate risking a huge minus (even though it's unlikely), but also here even if they don't double me they might get 200 or 300 when they didn't have anything making. Also some of my MP wins are now small wins or not wins at all. At MPs I might go -200 but it's by no means a certainty and there are a lot of ways to win the board by opening (go -100 against their 120/110 if we pass, they misjudge and bid over us, we're making 2/3 because partner has the right max and it would have passed out, partner makes a better lead, our bid keeps them from getting to the right game/slam...etc).

I think 3N is a pretty bad bid, but it's not so bad that I wouldn't consider it if I were swinging. Enough to make clubs run + 2 tricks is an awful lot to expect from partner's hypothetical 7-count. Partner is also very likely to have 2 or fewer spades so on many of the hands where we can make game, he will be reopening (or raising 3NT!). I also think it's clear to pass 6N. Your 3N isn't THAT far off on playing strength. You might have already won the board by bidding 3N, now's not the time to unwin it.

I would double, but I think its a good problem. The hearts look like 4 to me - partner needs to have a strong 3-card holding to make hearts play reasonably so I will take a chance on not getting to a 5-3 when it's right.

I would bid 5♣. I'm too worried partner will judge wrong if I bid 4NT (although the last time I said that I was wrong so who knows). If partner would bid 5♣ with 2452 and 3442 then I should bid 4N. Seems like 5♣ is only really wrong if he's 2551 or something.

It would not have occurred to me to bid

Not that I think anyone cares at this point, but I'm an idiot and you definitely can show (x4)(x6) hands GF.

As someone who still plays the system that was linked to (with a few small changes) and has played it for 5+ years now, I have some observations: 1) I am relatively certain that overall this has not been a huge win or a huge loss. I did not keep detailed notes about its success, so I will not try to guess based on my scattered memories whether or not it has been a small win or a small loss in that time. 2) Honestly if I were going to stop playing it, the primary reason would probably be that it sometimes sides contracts differently than they would be in standard and I would like to create fewer random swings. 3) Here are what I see are the primary advantages: - I think the many splinters and exact shape-showing sequences are a win vs. standard NT systems. As has been mentioned, much of this can be incorporated into a stayman structure if you're willing to futz with it, but I think it fits cleaner into this system. - Being able to sign off in 2♦ is nice, and I can remember wins from this. - The convoluted stayman sequence does let you avoid 4M with 4333 opposite 4333 - Being able to handle light invitational hands with (4x)(6x) and (5x)(5x) is usually a win when it comes up. - There are other sequences that seem like they should be good but they never seem to come up. 4) Here are the disadvantages: - You give them a chance to double clubs and diamonds on normal GF stayman hands. - You don't have garbage stayman (this probably about cancels the benefits of being able to play 2♦ imo). - 2♠ is artificial (I would rather play 2NT nat inv all other things being equal) - There is no way to show (4x)(6x) with a min GF (to invite slam you have to be willing to play 4N). - Lack of smolen both sometimes wrongsides and makes it awkward to bid 4-5+ and 5+-4+ major suit hands. I can't remember this ever mattering but it's definitely not a pretty part of the system. - Keri is more vulnerable to opponent bids than is stayman. It's generally obvious what to do when they bid over stayman, I don't find it so over Keri. I see the 2♣ - 2♦ - 2M sequences as approximately break-even. I don't really ever remember +110 when the entire field is -100 in 3, but I also don't remember +110 losing to a long string of +120s. I wouldn't advertise this sequence as the reason to play this system, though.

I guess this hand could be an advertisement either for or against strong 2N depending on how it turns out. You may have given yourself a chance to avoid a no-play 3NT if they have running diamonds. However, you have traded that chance for an awkward decision here. Your hand is good enough to warrant action but no action really seems right. Yes, if pass were forcing then I think it's clear to pass, but I don't think it is. If you bid 3NT and they run the first 5 diamonds you'll feel really silly, but if you double and pull 3♠ to 3NT partner may pull when opening leader had AKxxx and you were cold (or they have only 8 diamonds like they sometimes do). Either way you could be wrong. I think I would double and take my chance on getting to a heart fit since the other table will have opened 2N and found a heart fit if one exists. Hopefully partner gets the decision right after I pull 3♠ to 3N.

1) I think it's clear to open the bidding with 1♣. You have easy rebids and it's important to get in the first shot if it gets competitive. 2) 3♣ is a terrible bid, 1♠ seems obvious. Hopefully partner won't pass when we're cold for game. 3) Yes, I would pass. I didn't promise any hearts, so hopefully partner doesn't need any. 4♠ seems like a complete shot in the dark.

We have been for a while now playing 3♣ as preemptive and the other bids as raises (dist LR or better, 3-4 card limit, 4-card mixed, weak). This sort of combines the two approaches. 3♣ is clearly the best suit to have a weak jump in since it makes 1M 1N 2x 3c clearly inv, and frequently you will be able to freely bid 3♦ as an invitation. I think the next best approach would be to play 3♣ and ♦ as preemptive and lose the weak raise. Many good players seems to like invitational jump shifts but I've never understood the appeal. This seems cleaner to me - you get to do more describing on your invitational hands (like finding out if partner has a 6th card in his major when you're 2xx7) and jump on your weak hands to take up their space.

Double clearly shows balanced 10 when it goes 1♥ X 1s 2c p p X or something of the like. I thought this should be treated differently, but I'm certainly willing to believe that's crazy. Is a balanced 10 that can't make a penalty double a lot more likely than a hand like this in this auction? Obviously I would pass if I thought partner would take it as balanced values not penalty.

1) I would double and lead the cQ. I don't think they're likely to be able to run anywhere else. 2) I would lead a heart. This is almost certainly what everyone else in the field is leading so I'll try to outdefend them later in the hand.

Yes, I think it's a lot better to bid at MPs, at least against nonexpert opponents who seem to bid 5/5 way too much. A big win for bidding 5♦ that no one seems to be mentioning is that they bid over you when it's wrong and you go +. At IMPs they are much more likely to just double you and take whatever they can get, but here they have to worry about getting 500/300 against 650/450. I would def bid at fav and maybe bid at equal depending on who my opponents were. At IMPs I would probably just be passing at equal unless I really didn't respect my opponents' bidding.

1) I would try for game, whatever my most generic game try is. 2) I would double - presumably this shows values. 3) ♥K I guess. Definitely not leading a spade. 4) Pass 5) Bidding seems like a strange position to me. Partner is still there. If he has a big hand, we'll hear from him again.