oxyde

1) As you are playing a non-standard carding system, you should inform your opponents as soon as you come to their table. 2) Again, you are using a key that is not based on the current board, so I guess it is not allowed - or at least it will never be allowed if some encryption was to become allowed.

I think I have a good one : - if partner showed 12H+ in the bidding and the answer to our BW was the low choice (0 out of 0/3 for instance), then we answer to King question the first King we do NOT have. Otherwise we answer the King we have. You might very well advocate that this is for COMPRESSION purposes as your method assume partner is more supposed to have 2 than 1 when having the low choice before. Don't see why this would be not allowed.

4NT 5♣ = 1 or 4 keys Do I have to tell it is 1 or 4 ? If not, then door is open to encryption. I am not fully sure but I guess we do not have to reveal, so... ------------------------ But to come back to initial aim of the topic Such a method is based on the asumption that we are able to share the key : 1) Are we supposed to build the key based on our hand only ? This I think is regulated and I guess answer is yes. At least there must be a sentence somewhere in the laws stating that bidding shoud be based on our hand only. If answer to 1) is Yes It means we have to lose bidding space to first share between us the key. 2) Basically this means we have a less efficient bidding system. Nothing to debate there. 3) How could we ensure that we both have understood the key ? Tricky one. OK when talking about BW because we know we will stop if missing 2 keys (something like a CheckSum). But in other cases ?

2♥ Partner will raise with 8HCP 4 cards or any 5 card. Good 5 cards fit go straight to game. The main issue with bidding 3♥ is that it is closing to many doors. - it excludes my best 4 card suit : ♣ which could lead to a slam facing not that much (Kx Qx xxxx Kxxxx makes easy 6♣, so any high card less would lead to 5♣). - it also excludes ♦, which could be played if partner has a strong misfit and long ♦ : I would pass a 3♦ bid. Such a hand is highly possible (see hrothgar comment) In such a case 3♥ leads you to an horrible penalty

Do you balance 1♥ with East hand ? As partner is more inclined to have a stronger hand at the 2 level, then it should be right to balance with same hands.

Of course you don't know. But you have some "evidences" as you are short and weak with no honnor. Your partner is supposed to have some values there. So : - either your partner is also short and they have a fit (if they have a 9 cards fit we mathematicaly have a 8 cards fit somewhere [most probably ♠...]) - or he has no stopper as he could have found a NT bid (yes, provided he his strong enough, but we are weak). So worst case is 4 small ♥, but in such a case they have a concentration of ♥ honnors and the Law should be adjusted with 1 total trick more => I guess balancing will also probably be right.

3NT How often does the 3♣ bid (NF!) come from AKQJxx(...) ? Almost never In all other cases 3NT has chances, either with a stopper from my p or a blockage.

West : pass East : 2♠ Whatever the scoring is. To let opponents play fitted at the 2 level is a clear losing strategy on the long term. And those who are afraid of being doubled are also afraid to double a partial at IMPs. IMPs and MP are not that different for such situations. As long as you have a reasonable chance of making your contract, you should bid. Only if 2♥ were facing a passed partner, I would reconsider balancing that one because they may be missing a game.

I believe transfers have some merit. I would however do it in quite another way: Pass: Weak or 15+Bal. X = Transfer to diamonds. 1♦ = Transfer to hearts. 1♥ = Transfer to spades. 1♠ = Transfer to clubs. Edit: Naturally this wouldn't apply to openings in fourth hand. This would cover all constructive hands. 1NT = Both majors. 2♣+ = Preemptive. As they will quite often have 12-14 bal., this is another possibility: 2♣ = "Perfect" takeout double of 1♦, 11-16 non-forcing. 2♦ = "Perfect" takeout double of 1♣, 11-16 non-forcing. I have some experience with these kind of bids, and when you make them, they are quite efficient, especially if you are well-organized (jump in a new suit preemptive, while better hands "cue" in the opponents alleged suit), putting advancer in an excellent position. The relatively low frequency is somewhat an argument against these bids. Yes that was my second idea, covering all aspects : - 1 level : Transfers with at least opening values (and could be played illimited in strength), like you described (X = 1♦) - 2 level : Same intervention scheme as what you play on a strong 1NT opening, but clearly preemptive. With 1NT = the meaning of your X on a strong 1NT.

I never thought about much changes on strong !c openings, except bidding more aggressively. But somebody pointed out 1NT could get free for any other purpose. So quickly thinking on it, might be good to overcall with transfers starting from 1NT ? You could this way also cover 2-suiters and get stong opponent on lead.

Suprising that nobody highlighted partner still had his word to say. I basically pass waiting for another double, action he should do whenever we are worth the 5th level.

TD is there to restore equity That also includes possibility of manual adjustments to cover such cases. Afterwards, In real life, Ethics chambers is there to explain people how to behave / ban On BBO, you should report to abuse. I would say that deliberate behavior to abuse of regulations or whatever is in the rules you accept when logging in.

I would personnaly play as in other two-suiters auctions. Best asumption in unexpected situation is to refer to sthg you know. That means you should work with a regular partner more on bidding style than very precise situations. Depends on you agreements but I like : - pass then double for penalties : no need to tell them what will happen (if I double LHO can pass to show equals length, so that RHO can better choose if longer in the higher suit) - immediate double from myself is take-out - first cue is to show a weak hand in last suit - second cue is fit-showing Good thing to know when we have values or not. Here we have to adapt as partner showed nothing : - I would still double for take-out, even with 54 in majors => my choice here - I would bid 3!c as transfer to !h (expected weak) - I would bid 3!d as transfer to !s (second transfer as no fit can be shown) - I would bid a major as natural and forcing (unless partner is used to reverse !h<=>!s in situations like 1NT (3!d) ?) But I agree playing Stayman/Texas might be the best here. Except that you don't know if partner is strong when Texas : how about 1NT (2NT) 3!d (5!c) with a balanced hand, immediate tricks and good fit ?

Would it be possible to include an additionnal scoring mode, IMP against calculated board par ? The optimal score for both sides can now be computed quite easily.