ASkolnick

I like the premise, but I don't think its accurate statement. The 1♦ bid does not act in a vacuum. It is possible you go more "plus" on the other bids and go small "minus" on this bid. Sort of a "loss leader" of bidding. The reason may be that the reason that the 1♦ is less defined is because all the other bids are more defined. Something has to take up the slack of making the 1C, 1 of a major, 1N more defined since you only have a limited number of calls per level (5). And the higher the level, the less room you have. If you eliminate the 1♦ call, you will have only 4 other calls to cover the same range of hands which will make some other calls a wider scope. For example, most people think it stinks opening 1♦ in Precision, but the reason people do is because it makes other calls much more defined. My guess is you probably do lose IMPS on average when you open 1♦, but at least the theory is you would gain it all back on the rest of the system.

I have played all 3 opposite my weak NT's: 1) Regular transfers 2) Two way stayman 3) Two way transfers and by far, the easiest to handle is #3. It is true that the 2 Diamond bid is overloaded, but there are pluses and minuses to every auction. Why I like weak NT is not just to beat the stupid, but every time Mike Lawrence comes up with a what would you rebid, I never have that problem. Sure, I will miss occasional 4-4 fits, but I will tend to preempt them as well.

Yes, you can devise a system which is a "non-forcing" pass system (0-7 or 13-15 HCP) which is perfectly GCC legal. In this case, 3rd seat however cannot be required to open. There is no rule in the ACBL which requires you to bid if you have 13+ HCP. But as with Fred's post, you will be treading on thin ice. Not because of the letter of the law, but the spirit of which it was intended.

Not really a new system. Known where we are as 2-way transfers. We currently play it over our weak NT. Either 10-12, 10-13, or 12-14. With one partnership, we play it over everything, but our only strong NT auction is 3-4 Vul of 14-16, so it isn't much of a stretch. As for super-acceptance over 2D: 2S – Minimum, not 4-4 in majors Pass To play, Spades Invitational 2NT Weak or Strong with Minors 3C To play, Invite with clubs 3D Diamonds slammish, or Diamonds+Clubs or Diamonds+Hearts 3H 3-4-3-3 3S Look again 3N Never mind 3S 4 Clubs 3N 4 Diamonds 3H To play, weak with Hearts 3S Diamonds and Spades 3N Choice of Games (Diamonds or NT) 4C Blackwood 2NT – Maximum 3C Weak with Minors 3D Diamonds slammish or Diamonds+suit 3H 3-4-3-3 or 2-4-4-3 or 3-4-4-2 3S Look again 3N Never mind 3S 4 Clubs 3N 4 Spades 3H To play, weak with Hearts 3S Spades, choice of games (3NT or 4S) 3N Invite with clubs accepted 4C Blackwood 3C – Minimum 4-4 in majors Pass Either invite in clubs or weak with minors. Note: We may play in the wrong minor but it considered an acceptable casualty. Can run if doubled. 3D Diamonds slammish or Diamond+suit 3H Doubleton Club 3S Doubleton Diamond 3H To play 3S To play in spades. 3N Choice of games (D or NT) Over 2H- 2N- 4 Spades, 2 Hearts Min 3C - 4 Spades, 4 Hearts 3D - Asks 3H Min 3S Max 3D - 4 Spades, 3 Hearts Min 3H - 4 Spades 3 Hearts Max The problem with the super acceptance over 2D was it was not worth the memory taxing. Over 2H, it was not too bad.

I actually play "smolen" at the two level as well with some partnerships.

I won't add more since both MFA and AWM have made essentially the same statements I was trying to make, but perhaps more eloquently.

I do see one major problem with a Forcing Pass system. However, in a 2 board segment without advance notice may be difficult. It seems clear to me is that it would be very difficult to play your system against it. However, that being said, I would actually love to play against it because I would like to learn how to defend against it. I think in a pairs event, it really would be very difficult to discuss every situation since you only have two boards to think about it, but in a long match, I would be OK. Sure I would probably be abused by the system the first few times it was played against me. The same way the 46 defense worked in football, the spread offense worked in football, the Tampa cover 2 worked in football, but eventually teams figured out how to defend against it. There are probably ways to handle it somewhat simply though. I don't think over the Forcing Pass is that hard. Sure you don't have double, but you do have room. Treat like a 1-level preempt. You can probably play assume "X" for partner and bid accordingly depending on the fert, but I haven't worked out any details and I am unfortunately never going to have to because I live in the USA and will never play in that level of competition. I love playing against the Polish/2-way club because we have found a decent defense against it. I don't think the defense is very innovative at all or great, but I think that at least at the level of people playing the Polish Club we play, they haven't thought of a way to defend the defense yet.

I pass, but it is really a style thing. I tend to play more constructive preempts than most.

1) If 3♠ Forcing, 3♠. If not 4D followed by 5D. 2) 1♣-1♠-2N-6♦

I have played both styles - 1) It shows no extras. Advantage: A rebid of a major shows 6 cards. Disadvantage: forcing possibly a level to high without determining the level 2) Bidding 3 of a minor shows extra playing strength Disadvantage: Rebidding 2 of a Major is the catch-all bid and does not describe shape. Advantage: Responder has an easier to time describing his hand. I have moved towards #2, but I still think style #1 is very playable. I sometimes wonder what the correct action is holding two small spades opposite.

I think 3D is looking for a Diamond stopper, but I think 3S passes the buck back. Doubt anyone would want to play in spades in this auction without a 4 card fit and it is probably unlikely he has one.

The 1D bidder did nothing wrong. 1N was natural 2D was fine. The pass was not. That is exactly the point. Once the 11 HCP person decides to act, he has "unauthorized" information that his partner may overcall with a ratty hand in this situation. He did not make the normal bid and therefore fielded the psyche. If this is a constant occurence by the partnership, then 1N no longer shows (15+-18) HCP, but 15-18 HCP or a psyche. Sure, this hand he lost, but he may be able to narrow the scope even more to have a better known partnership understanding.

It's funny people mentioned the "alternative psychiatrist" theme. Because on the TV show Frazier an astrologist said "What's the difference between what you and I do? I listen and try to help people feel better about themselves" Frazier's reply was "Yes, but I can prescribe drugs".

I know, but it makes me feel good. :)

I hope so. But can we please make sure that everyone attends the same school for the collegiates. I was insulted when one year you only needed 2 players from the school. I have no problem with doing the competition online as long as there is a way to have things supervised. I can tell you it was a pain in the butt to coordinate when we played in 1992. But alas, I have my one "national" championship.

I agree that you did nothing wrong in this set, but I don't agree that a pattern is not relevant. Actually a pattern very much does define a problem, contrary to what you may believe. By doing so, you are establishing an implicit partnership agreement which is not disclosed to the opponents. Here is a paragraph from Ethics in Bridge: Let's say I know 1N shows either a balanced NT (NV vs Vul) or a weak preempt (3-6 HCP) with a 6 card suit because I have seen you do it X number of times in this situation. Auction:1C-1N-2C-P- 3N-P - P - ??? I am holding a balanced 6 count with no club stopper, 1) Do I double? Now must I lead naturally or do I realize that you may have a suit that I can hit? This is where the problem lies. I should double on 1, but I can construct legitimate hands where everyone could have their bid. The problem is I have information that may suggest that double is not the winning action. I am sure many people can come up with many other auctions where if I have knowledge of some of the unusual possibilities, I can guess right. So unless as a partner, I strive to bury you, I am already acting on "unauthorized" information.

White on Red, you tend to psyche a lot of the time. If I have played with you for a few times, I can probably generate a pattern being established about when psyches would be available to you. Theoretically, I should not make any actions that is inconsistent with the auction, but I already have the heads up that funny business is going on. I am holding a 10 count and it goes 1S-1N (You)-dbl-??? (I can sit and you can run, but I am already aware that funny business is going on, not necessarily that the spade opener was light). If you tend to do it on an unbalanced 6 card suit, I may be prone to raise once you run from the double. Ken, do you record your own psyches? Since you seem to be the experimental type: For the next X tournaments, record your own psyches(tactical bids) and see if you can establish a pattern. If you can establish randomness, I can see the psyches being OK. If you use psyches always in a specific situations, don't you think someone who plays with you will be able to establish the same pattern?

You call the director and if no line of play was stated, it should be down 1 or 2. Although slightly inferior, a reasonable line of play could be to play spades from the top. I don't believe you can assume a finesse.

For people to know its 53% for either 2-2 or the queen to drop.

Ken, I have no problem with the choice of making psyches if you choose to do so. However, there is a caveat to that. If you constantly do it in specific sequences, even NV vs V which is likely, you may be establishing an implicit agreement with a partnership. Let's say I am your partner and notice that you psyche every 12th board when you are NV versus V. I am now privvy to information that the opponents might not be privy to. I have used the same kind of tactics that you have used to deflect interference. With 0-5-6-2 on the auction 1D-P-1H-X- I bid 1 Spade to prevent a spade bid. But if I keep doing it, partner may be able to recognize the situation and play accordingly. And that is the reason why the psyches do need to be recorded. At one time it was practice for psyches to be recorded for no other reason but to contain a track record of psyches.

It's funny you mentioned things like the color of the walls. My 1st grade son was in class and they were talking about Barak Obama. It didn't have to be that hard to discuss. Does not have to be in detail. Make sick people better, give money to the poor etc. But instead of talking about why Barak Obama would be a good leader or what he could do for the country (Not that I am a fan of his), instead the focus was on what type of dog or cat he was getting for his kids. This is the type of stuff that worries me about education in the United States that the focus is in the wrong place. I understand not getting into the McCain-Obama debate, but maybe I am one of those strange parents that is willing to discuss anything my son would like to. Good or bad, he is already asked about "Why do people have to die?" and what suicide is? I feel I am better off explaining to him now, so he has a better understanding down the road and is not afraid to ask me any difficult questions.

My favorite Mark Twain quote is the opposite of progress is Congress.

Well, when I was younger, it did happen to me. We knew each other from playing volleyball and handed me a note which said "If you want to do something, give me a call at xxx-xxxx" If the person is worried about saving face, you now have put the onus on the guy to call. If he is interested, he will. If not, he won't.

The only problem is if partner is 4-3 in the majors, he bids 4♠, but I agree with bidding 4♦ as a 2 suiter.

I bid 3C. I agree with CODO it promises 2 places to play, usually that means the major and either support or the other minor. So, if I bid 3C, he should have either S&C,S&D or S&S and a weak hand.