CSGibson

♠ I'd bid 4♠ on the 2nd one also. I think 3♠ should be forcing, but I don't trust that partner does also.

It would hurt my enjoyment of the game if I were not allowed to psych, or if opponents were not allowed to psych. One of the things I enjoy is creative problem solving, and balancing risk/reward. I rarely psych, but I always want the option to try something if the situation warrants it. I also consider it a nice compliment if an opponent psychs against me. One memory I will treasure is in the last board of a knockout where Geoff Hampson opened 1S on Qxx, desperate for a swing. If it had worked, I would be shaking my head in admiration, not anger, because its a beautiful game.

2 levels of cue-bidding for us.

Rexford. We have usually patterned out via our relay steps already when we would have room to do both.

60% is the new 50%.

We've taken it further in my relay precision partnership - basically any time where we have an agreed major suit fit, and the next step would be a cue-bid, and its at or below 3N, the next step is non-serious, whatever that step may be. I thought this was a brilliant idea when I first heard it supported by Justin a few months ago, so we've run with it.

Dummy's not a player, he just crushes a lot.

spade lead seems standard to me. It needs the least help, and major suit bias & all. The lead the 2nd best 4 card suit thing I don't think applies here; one of the components of that theory is that you can use the entry from your best suit to set up your long trick in the 2nd suit, but here the Q is a crappy entry.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Here is what I am saying: In the auction 1S (2D) 2H, 2H is not forcing to game for 2/1 players playing a standard 2/1. Opener needs to know whether 2S/3H is passable, and whether 3C creates a game force opposite the invitation. Those are concepts rooted in standard american bidding - I abandoned standard american before learning those things, and it is the area of bidding I struggle the most in as a result. It is extremely simple to convert to 2/1 after starting standard american, I see no problem learning the more basic first and then applying concepts later.

If you live in America, learn standard American as the base system. You need to know standard American even if you play 2/1, because in competition it reverts to standard American, and you should definitely play a system which you can play with lots of partners without much discussion when starting out - not only will playing with lots of people have the potential for accelerating your learning curve, but also if you are playing a standard American system, it is easy to ask questions of people who are better than you, since they also generally know the system. If you are in Poland, learn Polish club. In England, learn Acol. In France, learn SEF. Etc.

I object to any form of scoring which I cannot understand/explain succinctly to my parents. Imp scoring approaches the threshold of complexity I can tolerate - this is way beyond.

To be fair, to my recollection your (Justin's) bridge has been in districts 16, 17, and 24, which I believe to be in the top 6 or 7 districts in terms of depth of talent in the ACBL - perhaps even better. District 9 definitely has a ton of talent, and some of the California/Chicago districts are deep also, I guess.

Did you get any matchpoints out of it? This smells like being passed in a cue-bid...

What weird bridge accomplishments do you have to your resume? This year I think I accomplished something fairly unique - Two years ago I was on a team that won the open flight GNT for my district, last year I was on a team that won the flight A GNT for my district (though I went in the open flight instead), and this year I was on a team that won the flight B GNT for my district (see you in Atlanta fellow B's), sort of hitting for a reverse cycle, or at least as far as I can go since I am no longer eligible for flight C. Now winning them all is not unique, but I think winning them in reverse order is.

So what you are saying is that idiots shouldn't play suction. Seems reasonable. On the other hand, it can be a highly effective convention in the hands of people who know how to use it, myself included.

I consider this argument unconvincing, especially coming from a precision player - where even less defined auctions have an even greater chance of being preempted. Here we are protected by only having 3 hand types, having a relatively high entry point into the auction, and having already established a game force, giving us options with forcing passes et all. We are vulnerable like a 2C opener is vulnerable, except that the cost of entry into the auction is even higher, and our hands are more defined. Also, there is no indication that 2S would be required on this - in fact, I think 3C (or 3S, if you have the agreement that shows shortness & a fit for hearts) is standout. And having responder describe their hand is not a bad thing, especially when the description is so tight. For example, imagine the standard equivalent for these auctions - with 13-15 bal, 1C-3N (2H is ahead). For the single-suited heart game force with good hearts, 1C-1H-2C (options diverge here depending on methods, but jumps to 4H are possible, as well as going through a nebulous 2D followed by 3H). For the club GF, 1C-2C*, and then maybe 2D or 3S, depending on how aggressive you feel. So for those 3 hand types, 1 has the standard method preempting the auction way more, the 2nd has standard methods sometimes preempting the auction way more, and the 3rd has standard methods give you more room, but does not establish a game force until past 3C anyway.

Its very easy to see the merit for me - now they can use those bids for something else or make negative inferences that these are not the hands held. Like using a jump to 2N as inv, bal, a jump to 3N as 16-18 bal, and 2H can include 13-15 or 19+ bal if they like, making it very easy to show a hand-type that others tend to struggle with. Or, if they play multiple ways of showing a heart game force, responder knows that the hearts are not good enough to play opposite x - or that slam may not be in the picture opposite xx even with appropriate outside controls since he didn't go through 2H. Having a way of raising clubs GF frequently at the 3 level also has great merit. You really only get into some trouble with those methods opposite interference, and since these methods are all showing game forcing hands opposite an opening hand, interference is less likely, and can be easily countered with simple discussion. This particular problem is not a methods problem - normal methods might be to bid 3N with partner's hand, off the first 7 spades. It's a problem of judgment. In this case, I think judgment puts reasonable players in the camp of the club game, with an option for a club slam since there does not appear to be significant wastage opposite our spade shortage.

I've played similar methods successfully, and have seen this particular treatment gain traction among successful ACBL district 6 players in particular (FWIW, I am district 20, 3000 miles away. I see this treatment most frequently at nationals). It appears that the players did discuss what to do in competition - thus the detailed description of what double means. As it turns out, it is my experience that it is fairly easy to make agreements about what to do in comp BECAUSE there are such distinct hand type.

I dumped puppet stayman in most of my partnerships. I've also stopped playing any conventional first discards in favor of straight UD attitude or standard attitude (if partner won't play UD). In one of my partnerships, we've abandoned count signals except for potential hold-up situations, preferring suit preference instead. I play a similar thing with two-suited calls - I won't make a two-suited call unless I think we are more likely than not to take the bid. It tends to favor acting with pure non-crap hands NV, and constructively when red.

The 2♥ convention is useful, don't change it. But bid 4♣, you aren't close to doing anything else IMO.

Playing 2/1, I strongly prefer to open or rebid NT with all balanced hands, and frequently with semi-balanced hands, and to have a 1S rebid indicate an unbalanced hand (or semi-balanced with concentrations in the suits). I feel like that treatment unloads a great deal of hand types that would otherwise rebid 1S, and allows for powerful negative inferences, as well as making 1N harder to defend since the defenders have to account for more hand types. That being said, I also do not frequently raise with 3 card support or rebid 1N with a singleton, which may impact both my viewpoint and the overall effectiveness of this treatment. In my partnership where I do rebid 1N with a singleton frequently, and do raise frequently with 3 card support, I rebid 1S with 4. That is a strong club partnership, however, so the inferences available from promising an unbalanced hand with a 1S rebid are greatly diluted when the rest of the hand shape is so nebulous. In reality, though, it means what you say it means, there is no clear right or wrong, and as long as your partner knows what to expect of you, and you know what to expect of your partner, then everything will work out.

1♣, not even close. Yeah, you have short suit quacks, but you are also 6-4 with good suits. Plus, it always makes for a smoother auction if you don't feel like you have to "catch up" later in the bidding. Open 1♣ now, and you've gotten the hand off your chest.

Can you expound on the thought that the slow 4H suggests a particular action? Frankly, the only thing that you have brought to bear on that point is mockery - not an unusual argument, but not effective, either, when you rise above grammar school level...

After I'm through there will be :)

Maybe, but I think of Lall/Woolridge/Wolpert/Grue & more as great players with less of a track record, primarily it takes consistent greatness over a recent period. Success with different partners is also a plus.