Cameron_1

For 2c 6c maybe 4M I noticed some play 2c 2d? 2h one M, 2s max suity, 2n max nty, 3c min I was curious how people developed after 2h one M? All help appreciated

I said X ... Which worked well up until .... I failed to pull x of 5c which is equally part of the problem

All I can say is this is going to be tremendous fun. It will be super interesting to see the various schemes people design all if which have to contain compromises. My guess is next year we will see considerably more system innovation which can only be productive. I strongly want this to be a good experience for all concerned.

I am staggered the forum reached as many as 11 replies ...

I can't even work out reading all these threads what has been agreed !

Cameron_1 is my BBO login

Had a similar experience vs Holland and Green where after ducking spade Rho pitched a low attitude heart which had to be from 5 so early in the play and without any nice minor breaks this only leaves 1552. So cashed K clubs and ducked then they switched to a low heart which I ducked to the 10 only danger AJx hearts in Lho but the low switch rules that out. Making 10 on a black squeeze vs lho. Regardless don't really get the urgency to play up to kq hearts when you ave so much squeeze potential, you need to duck some tricks to tighten the position.

Isn't this quite simple? I think the gripe is simply that Smith Peters are "on-off switches" hence bridge is nearly never a clear cut decision a slow signal provides substantial addition information. But to address Andy's point does that mean you have to go out of your way to self distruct in a frenzy of speed, no of course not. Give them the Anglo Saxon salute and move on.

2nt is not lebensohl here it in essence shows a wknt so it seems like an splendid choice

If you care this is the structure I have played in the past: 1♣ (1♦) X 4♥/5♥ <FG 1♥ 4♠/5♠ <FG 1♠ <4M F 1N NAT <INV 2♣ 5♣ INV+ 2♦ 6♥ 9-11 INV/5+♥ FG 2♥ 6♠ 9-11 INV/5+♠ FG 2♠ 6♠ 6-8 <INV 2N 55M INV 3♣ 5♣ MIXED 3♦ 55M FG 3♥ 6♥ 6-8 <INV 3♠ XFER 3N 1♣ (1♥) X 4♠/5♠ <FG 1♠ <4M F 1N NAT <INV 2♣ 5♦ INV+ 2♦ 5♣ INV+ 2♥ 6♠ 9-11 INV/5+♠ FG 2♠ 6♠ 6-8 <INV 2N 5♠5♦ INV 3♣ 5♣ MIXED 3♦ 6♦ 8-10 good suit INV 3♥ 5♠5♦ FG 3♠ XFER 3N 1♣ (1♠) X 4♥/5♥ <FG 1N NAT <INV 2♣ 5♦ INV+ 2♦ 6♥ 9-11 INV/5+♥ FG 2♥ 6♥ <INV 2♠ 4+♣ INV+ 2N INV 3♣ 5♣ MIXED 3♦ 6♦ 8-10 good suit INV 3♥ 5♥5♦ FG 3♠ XFER 3N 1♦ (1♥) X 4♠/5♠ <FG 1♠ <4♠ F 1N NAT <INV 2♣ 5♣ INV+ 2♦ ♦ RAISE <INV 2♥ 6♠ 9-11 INV/5+♠ FG 2♠ LIMIT ♦ RAISE 2N 5♠5♣ INV 3♣ 6♣ 8-10 good suit INV 3♦ MIXED ♦ 3♥ 5♠5♣ FG 3♠ XFER 3N 1♦ (1♠) X 4♥/5♥ <FG 1N NAT <INV 2♣ 4♣ INV+ (since no “other” nebulous call) 2♦ ♦ RAISE <INV 2♥ 5♥ INV+ 2♠ LIMIT ♦ RAISE 2N INV 3♣ 6♣ 8-10 good suit INV 3♦ MIXED ♦ 3♥ 5♥5♣ FG 3♠ XFER 3N

thanks but needless to say i was not asking what everybody thought was standard i was asking what was best

Splendid well Andy finally got me to not only log into the BBO forum but to post also ! As the actual X'er here people seem to have been diverted from the two interesting points on to the subsidiary issue of if the X is standard or not. The points of interests are: Firstly, if this was a clear 5♣ call or not. Secondly, if the X is best used as take out or two way. For me yes 5♣ and two way X is the clear option and I have never played against somebody smart enough to put me in a position where I have been compromised in this position although I do grant you it is theoretically possible.

Seems pointless given the obvious skill imbalance between the teams and the head start ... I fail to see how a win or a loose one way or another will offer meaning.