Bende

I am playing a couple of different versions of a 5533 2/1 system. One uses three weak two bids and one uses 2♦ Flannery. I quite like the effects of Flannery on the rest of the system, like 1♥-1♠ showing a five card suit and 1♥-2m; 2♠ showing extras. Now, I am thinking about getting rid of the 18-19 balanced hands somewhere to free up 2NT to show problem hands in sequences like 1♦-1♠; 2NT. One way to do this would be to play 2♦ showing 18-19 balanced. Now, is it completely crazy to lose the possibility to show a weak 2♥ opening by playing 2♦ as 18-19 balanced and 2♥ as Flannery?

I have played two systems with unbalanced diamond. In one we played transfers after 1D-1M so 1NT would show clubs. 1D-1H; 2D would show three card support and 2H four card support. 1D-1S; 2D would show 4+H. In the other 1NT is sort of like Gazzilli, showing a strong hand or long diamonds.

Typo. Fixed. Thanks!

For those who are interested, this was the result. The pair who left was suspended for one month by the diciplinary committee. The match was ruled 20.00-0.00. The general regulations, which did not really cover this type of situation was amended as follows below. The change was quite long but this is a summary (as far as I can understand it): When several artificial results are awarded, it should be 3 IMP for the first board, 2 IMP for the second board, and 1 IMP for the rest of the boards. Maximally half of the boards in a segment can be awarded an artificial score. To count a segment, at least half of the boards must be played and the boards comparable. If only one half of a 24 board match are played, the other half gets artificially rewarded results on half of the 12 boards and the 18 board VP scale is used.

The jurisdiction is Sweden. I cannot find any specific conditions of contest for this league, but let's assume that it follows the standard conditions of contest for competitions in Sweden. In that case, I can find rules for a walk over. However, walk over seem to deal with one team not showing up at the agreed time to play. There is no mention of a team showing up, starting to play, and then leaving. In any case, the result in the case of a walk over is: - Team A gets 0 vp. - Team B gets VP from the best of three options: 1. The average from other matches, calculated at the end of the league. 2. 12 VP 3. The average of what other teams have scored against team A, calculated at the end of the league. No masterpoints are rewarded. Does it make sense that the above is also used in the case where the match was started but aborted? Does it matter how many boards were played?

28 board team match, 20 vp scale, part of a league. One table completes the 14 boards of the first half of the match. On the other table there's disagreement about rulings and upset feelings. The pair from team A leaves the table after 12 boards and after discussions with a TD leaves without completing the match. What should the result of the match be in the league table? In case it matters, team B was up by 34 imps on the 12 boards that were played at both tables.

As for basic system, I was thinking 5533, 2/1, strong NT.

In the most common support double situations, i.e. 1-over-1 and fourth seat enters the auction with a suit bid below two of responders suit, what does double show if you are NOT playing support doubles? I think I remember reading an interview with Eric Rodwell where he said that he would prefer not to play support doubles in a natural system, but I could be wrong about this. OK, so the answer is (probably) that it is a take out double. But I have actually never seen a description of which hands choose to bid this way. Does it depend on strength of the hand, for example (i.e. a good/bad type of situation)?

In a natural system without many artificial bids, consider the sequence (opps silent) 1♦-1♠; 2♦-3♥. I have seen people arguing for two main meanings for the 3♥ bid. a) 2♥ would be natural and forcing and 3♥ is game forcing with 5♠-5♥. We need two bids to show hearts, since otherwise we will run into problems differentiating between 5-5 Ms invite and 5-5 Ms game force. b) Since 2♥ would be natural and forcing, 3♥ should be a splinter bid in support of diamonds. This helps us find good diamond slams if the cards fit as well as chosing intelligently between 3NT and 5♦. If we have 5♠-5♥, we can start with bidding 2♥ and follow up with 3♥ to invite or choose some forcing bid (like 1♦-1♠; 2♦-2♥; 2NT-3♣) if we have a game forcing hand. The 5-5s sort themselves out. What is considered standard here? Is a) some old standard and b) more modern?

In the new version of the app (iPhone version), I cannot find the "Start listening" button to hear the voice commentary. Has it been removed?

I think that would be right for some situations, sure. I also think there are some situations that are too obvious for you to claim that you were just not aware of that hole in your agreements, maybe not even the first time but at least when they have come up. An obviously extreme example would be that you agree to play one of a suit as 12+ points and a five card suit and a strong no trump. You pick up 4432 and open 1♥. "Yes, we play five card majors. This just happened to be hand which we did not anticipate so we had to improvise a bid."

Thanks for the responses. My question was not really about how to plug these holes in the system. That is very easy. Rather it is about whether a pair could continue to claim to play according to original agreements even though holes such as these have been uncovered. Cyberyeti thinks you can no longer claim to play your original agreements. Nige1 says, as I understand it, that even when this situation comes up the first time the opponents could claim MI. I agree with this. For these quite basic holes in agreements I think it could give the pair an unfair advantage if they pretend these holes in agreements do not exist.

This has probably been discussed before but I cannot find it when searching. In some situations you end up with no good bid with the agreements you happen to be playing and have to invent a bid. At which point are such "holes" in agreements so large that you are forced to alter your agreements after the situation has come up? Example 1: You agree to play a strong club system with five card majors, a 2+ nebulous diamond, 2♣ showing a six card suit and weak twos. You pick up a 4414 12 count and open 1♦ because you didn't have any other bid available. Example 2: You agree to play a 5542 system and 1m - (1♥) - dbl as showing a four card spade suit. You pick up a 3244 11 count and after 1♣ - (1♥) you double because you decide you didn't have any other bid.

Thanks! Do you have the name of those books?

After a sequence such as 1M-3M (invitational), does it make the most sense to play a new suit as a cue bid (A, K, singelton, or void) or should it be natural, showing shape to make it easier for partner to evaluate their hand for slam? In this video ( ), Peter Hollands and Justin Howard explain that they like shortness showing bids so in sequences like this, they would play new suit as shortness and 3NT as slam interest without shortness. I have also seen some players using new suit as cue but always A or K, not shortness. I think it is logical to have some way of making partner evaluate their hand for slam since we know so little about the hand after 1M-3M. For this reason I play that new suits are natural with one of my partners. We tried to have a meta agreement that a new suit is natural even after we find a fit if we haven't shown any other suit. However, in some sequences we still find it difficult to know if the bid is a cue or natural. So far I have failed coming up with some simple rule to follow for situations when we have agreed a major on the three level.

Another option would be to ditch the preemptive opening in favor of having BOTH the INV hands with a side suit and with a splinter. Something like: 2M+1 = 4-card support, INV, side suit; next step asks 2M+2 = 4+support, GF 3M-2 = 4+support, INV or min GF 3M-1 = 4-card support, INV, any SPL; 3M+1 asks 3M = mixed Opener can then only stop below game after asking about the side suit, not about the splinter. This feels like a bit too many bids with invitational hands to me. They would also overlap as I suppose you can have four card support with both a side suit and a splinter, even if those hands would probably be unlikely to accept stopping below game.

1. pass 2. 4♥ 3. Reasonable. 4. - 5. pass 6. 1NT 7. I like opening 1♦. 8. ♣K

I guess I am not sure of the usefulness of the preemptive raise when second hand passed. That's why I moved the mixed raise to 1M-3M. I suppose I could bring it in again. That would form this structure: 1M- 2M+1 = 4 card support, INV, any SPL 2M+2 = 4+ support, GF 2M+3 = 4 card support, INV or min/GF 2M+4 = mixed 3M = PRE

We use 3M+1 and above as two tier splinters, ~10-12 and ~13-15. I agree that 2♣ does seem to handle the 3 card GF raise well. However, that leaves me with 3M-1 (or 3M-2 if the INV/min GF hand moves to 3M-1 wher it used to be) undefined so I want to do something with that bid :).

There are no restrictions regarding follow-up bids where I play. However, I think I like keeping 2♣ as a GF.

A new try is this: 1M - 1NT = F1 vs 1♠, can contain three card limit raises or INV with lower suit 2♣ = GF, balanced or clubs 2x = GF, real 5+ suit 2M = normal raise 2M+1 = four card support, INV, any SPL (next step asks for the splinter) 2M+2 = 4+ support, GF (continuations as in my first post) 2M+3 = four card support, INV or min GF (next step asks, 3M is INV and with GF you would cue) 2M+4 = three card support, 13-15 balanced 3M = mixed raise There are several things here I'm not sure about, mainly: * Does it really matter to have an extra step for the INV/min GF hand? * Is having its own bid for the min GF hand with three card support at all useful? It takes some slight pressure off the 2♣ bid but maybe those hands fit there nicely anyway?

Would it be better, worse, or equally good if 1M - 2M+1 showed a three card limit raise and a short suit as compared to a side suit?

Given that you play a 2-over-1 system where 1M - 2♣ is balanced or natural and other 1M - 2x shows a real suit, and further that 1♥ - 1NT is semi-forcing and 1♠ - 1NT is forcing (both can contain a limit raise or an invitational hand with a lower suit), do you think that this major suit raise structure makes sense? 1M - 2M = normal raise 1M - 2M+1 = three card limit raise with a side suit 1M - 2M+2 = 4+ support, forcing raise 1M - 2M+3 = 4-card support, INV or min GF 1M - 2M+4 = mixed raise 1M - 3M = preemptive raise After 1M - 2M+1, 2M+2 asks and: 2M+3 = suit 2M+4 = suit 3M = the fourth suit After the forcing raise 1M - 2M+2 (i.e. 1♥ - 2NT or 1♠ - 3♣), almost according to something I saw Fred suggested: 1♥ - 2NT; 3♣ = min (not six hearts without a short suit) ...3♦ = asks ... ...3♥ = six hearts, some short suit ... ... ...3♠ = asks ... ... ... ...3NT = spade shortness ... ... ... ...4m = shortness ... ...3♠ = five hearts, short suit ... ...3NT = five hearts, no short suit, some interest ... ...4m = five hearts, short suit ... ...4♥ = five hearts, no short suit, no interest 3♦ = extras, five hearts, unbalanced ...3♥ = asks ... ...3♠ = shortness ... ...3NT = no short suit (5422 or possibly singelton honor if you don't wish to show that as a short suit) ... ...4m = shortness 3♥ = extras, six hearts, no short suit 3♠ = extras, six hearts, shortness 3NT = 18-19 balanced 4m = extras, six hearts, shortness 4♥ = minimum, six hearts, no short suit And similarly for 1♠ - 3♣. Is it getting too fancy with so many ways to raise the major suit while sticking so many other hands in 1M - 1NT? Is it sensible to take the three card limit raises with a side suit out of 1M - 1NT and put them in the 1M - 2M+1 raise or is it a waste of space? Would it be better if 2M+1 showed a singelton instead of a side suit?

dbl = t/o with four cards in oM cue = t/o without four cards in oM (three cards or very strong)

One partner and I agreed to play what you played earlier (at least what you posted in some thread) though it has yet to come up. I would be interested to hear what you play now.