olien

Well, if they open 1♣ on all balanced hands out of range for 1NT, then I like the following defense: e.g. (1♣)-p-(1♥*): X = takeout of ♠ with ♣≥♦ 1M = takeout of ♠ with ♦>♣ other bids are natural and 2NT shows ♥ + either minor (3♣=P/C, 3♦=GT in ♥) This defense works well, and I know many won't like it because there are two takeout bids and the differentiation is in the relative minor-suit lengths, but this defense has worked well for me especially when we're able to accurately compete in ♣ and push them up a level and create a part-score swing.

I don't really see what the problem with choosing to GF on this hand is. I imagine that most people would open this hand. We are 6-5 with 5 losers and partner opened. I would've bid 2♣ the first time and bid a requisite number of ♠ later on. I think saying that one should bid Good/Bad 2NT and then pass 3♣ is resulting. Imagine partner with something like: x xxx Axxxx AKxx. Now 6♣ is excellent and that's opposite a very minimum hand.

4♥ seems amazingly automatic. Partner should know that I don't have a strong hand either because of my failure to cue 3♠, so no forcing pass and he won't just make a random double. And passing because 4♥ may be too much is crazy. Imagine partner with x Kxxxx AKQx Axx. Now 6♥ is great. He could even have something like --- Kxxxxx AKQx Axx and 7♥ is claim. That being said, passing is crazy. You're not going for a number in 4♥, and its very descriptive. And no, my example hands are not too strong for 2♥ with that lovely suit quality. My partner should have good values over there given the quality of his ♥ suit and the vulnerability.

Agree that the XX demands partner pick a major. And why would you open all of the 6-5s with 1♠. Now you bid 4♥ and partner is supposed to figure out to pass with equal length? I think 4♠ is auto after the XX, and I thank the opponents for doubling 4♦ after we make 4♠. That being said, I will enlighten pooltuna on how partner would have bid with ♥ + ♦. 1♥-....-4♦-(X)...PASS. The XX is clear SOS and expressing interest in the majors only.

3♣ seems obvious...If either of my aces were in ♦, I might choose to GF, but my ♦ are horrible. So, I won't think about slam unless partner makes a strong move over 3♣ or if he can bid 3♦ I will begin to get a bit more excited.

In a midnight I played the following: Regardless of vul, we used the following openings: Pass=any 13+ 1♣=catchall 8-12 2m=6+m 8-12 2M=destructive weak 2's At Green 1♦=4+♥ 8-12 1♥=4+♠ 8-12 1♠=any 0-7 1NT=8-10 At Red vs Red: 1♦=4+♥ 8-12 1♥=any 0-7 1♠=4+♠ 8-12 1NT=10-12 At Red vs Green: 1♦=any 0-7 1M=4+M 8-12 1NT=11-12 Was a bit crazy, but very fun. We never discussed responses, but that opposite partner's opening pass: 1♣ was the negative, and anything else showed 8+ HCP. The best part was one pair of opponents summoned the director to ask about the legality of our system, and the director laughed and replied "this is the midnights" and walked away.

3NTXX - down 9 thank god we weren't playing money bridge

I like the "your card" system, although I think its technically called chameleon

agreed. For example, I'll use the auction: 1♣-1♠// 2♠ where I assume responder has shown a GF of some sort and 2♠ is a support ask. Now responder bids 3♣ to show a good hand w/o support. So the auction is at 3♣ and no fit has been found and all that's known is that one hand has 5+♠ and the other, for the sake of conversation, has shown 5+♥. Also, say responder does show a fit, there's nothing to be said that the best fit for SLAM purposes has been found. Say 3=5=1=4 opposite 5=1=3=4 or 5=1=2=5 where it would usually be superior to reach the ♣ fit. If going to put this much effort into a system, may as well play a full relay system.

I know that the 2♣ bid is supposed to be used if following the original gazilli, but it could be modified since you play KI. As an idea, why not something as follows: 1♥ - 1♠: 1NT = ♦ or balanced or any 16+ 2♣ = 5+♥ 4+♣ 11-15 2♦ = 6+ ♥ 2♥ = 5+♥ 4♠ 2♠ = 5+♥ 4+♠ 16+ 2NT = some 6/4, 13+-15 3m = 5/5 13+-15 After 1♥ - 1♠// 1NT, 2♣ is the 8+ relay and then: 2♦ = 5+♥ 4+♦ 11-15 2♥ = balanced 11-15 2♠ = **6+♥ 16+** This structure lets you get out in 2m while only giving up playing 1NT. You also don't get to play exactly 2♥ when responder is very weak and opener has a ♠ reverse. Anyways, just an idea.

the consensus here is to bid 5♠, but, personally, I like pass. Maybe doubling is right, but where are the red cards?

3♦ is pretty clear IMO Can't handle a 3♥ bid from partner if I X, but if I bid 3♦, if partner advances with 3♥ I bid 3♠ and if he advances with 3♠ I raise.

I've only opened 2♣ on a 5-card suit a couple of times in 3rd seat. Both times it was a (31)45 type where I preferred a ♣ lead to a ♦ lead and I wanted to preempt them out of an M fit. Of course you might also do it on (41)35 types or (42)25 or even 2245 types where you just want to get in a lead director and do some preempting. I'm not really a fan of the idea of doing it with a 4-card M because too frequently you'll lose the M fit and play in a 5-2 or 5-1 ♣ fit. However, I would never open 2♣ on a 5332 type hand except maybe under the most favorable of conditions (white v red, super light, know opps have game). It totally distorts your offensive capabilities and can destroy your later constructive/competitive bidding if you can do it on this hand type and partner is expecting you to usually have 6+♣ or at least some distribution to compensate. Anyways, these are just my experiences.

I have no idea if this is original or if its even good, but I want to get peoples' opinion of it. Responses to 1NT (we play strong, but range is not really relevant here): 2♣ Normal Stayman 2♦ a) 5+♥ b) any 4441 GF or c) 6+/4 either way in minors GF 2♥ 5+♠ 2♠ size inquiry or 6+♣ any strength or 2=2=(5/4) quantitative+ 2NT ♦ transfer or weak both minors 3♣ puppet stayman, but not 4-4 majors 3♦ 5+/5+ minors, GF 3♥ 3=1=(5/4) GF 3♠ 1=3=(5/4) GF 3NT to play 4♣ the dreaded G word 4♦/♥ transfers 4♠ minor suit freak, no interest in 3NT or slam 4NT quantitative with 4333 After 1NT-2♣ (3 response stayman), pretty standard follow ups: 3-level smolen, garbage, 3m natural and GF (promises a major) After 1NT-2♦, opener usually bids 2♥ and then: 2♠ cancels transfer, any 4441 or 6+/4 either way in minors GF 2NT and higher reveal normal ♥ transfer hands 1NT-2♦// 2♥-2♠// 2NT relays (forced), and then: 3♣ any 4441 with 4[clubs) (then 3♦ relays for LMH singleton) 3♦ 6+♦ + 4♣ (3♥ relays for LH singleton) 3M shortness with 6+♣ + 4♦ 3NT 4=4=4=1, NF 4♣ 4=4=4=1, quantitative+ Opener can only super accept with 2♠ over 2♦, and then: 2NT = 5+♥ any strength 3♣-4♣ = same as after 1NT-2♦// 2♥-2♠// 2NT... 1NT-2♥ has the normal array of stuff, nothing special 1NT-2♠// 2NT (min) or 3♣ (max): P/3♣ = to play 3♦ = 6+♣ either w/o shortness (mild+ SI) or 0-1♦ (3♥ asks then 3♠=0/1♦) 3M = shortness, 6+♣ 3NT = to play 4♣ = 2=2=4=5 quantitative+ 4♦ = 2=2=5=4 quantitative + 1NT-2NT, opener super accepts with 3♦, then pretty uneventful 1NT-3♣: 3♦ = no 5M (does NOT promise 4M), then 3M=4 OM, 4m=5m(332) quantitative+ 3M = 5M, then OM=strong raise and 4m=natural quantitative+ 1NT-3♦: 3♥ = asks for shortness Opinions would be welcome. Thanks. And sorry if some (or all) think this is the wrong section to put this in.

why is this called a well bid slam?

The drawback to 1♣-1♠ as a negative is that constructive partscore bidding (when opener has 17-21ish) becomes more difficult. I'm not saying the losses aren't off-set by the gains of the transfer responses (of which I'm a fan), but that 1♣-1♠ isn't that great. I've played 1♣ (always strong) - 1♦ as any GF for a while and have had much more success than I expected (I thought opps would preempt more KNOWING we have game). The advantages have more than off-set the inferior part-scores we've reached after 1♣-1♠ (immediate double neg). We also gained by having immediate semi-positives in response to 1♣. Anyways, I think the structure mentioned by Bende is a good starting point.

I would like to vote for 4♦ :P As it is, I'll bid 4NT as RKC. I can't really be expected to have more in terms of controls and trump support. The only problem is my ♠ holding, but certainly my partner has them under control to explain his slam try and the opponents bidding.

I also play natural run-outs with my regular partners. We play XX is penalty, pass is neutral, and 2♣ is the catch-all run-out. The other run-out system which works pretty well is the following: Direct Bid = lower of touching suits Pass = force XX to play or show non-touching suits (which includes ♣ + ♠) XX = forces 2♣ to show 1-suiter After responder's pass, opener is allowed to pull with a minimum and a 5-card minor and is not totally obligated to XX. So, written out, it works like this: 1NT - (X): 2♣ = ♣ + ♦ 2♦ = ♦ + ♥ 2♥ = ♥ + ♠ 2♠ = can play either as natural (to be more preemptive) or more distributional with ♠ and ♣. 1NT - (X) - P* - (P)// XX - (P): Pass = penalty 2♣ = ♣ + M 2♦ = ♦ + ♠ 1NT - (X) - XX* - (P)// 2♣ - (P): P = ♣ 2X = natural Also recommend playing 1NT - (X) - 3X as natural and preemptive. Obviously there are some extra bids, but this allows for the showing of 2-suited hands. Can also invert the meanings of pass and direct bids so that non-touching suits are shown immediately so that responder can bid 2M directly over the X as natural. So: 1NT - (X): 2♣ = ♣ + M 2♦ = ♦ + ♠ 2M = Natural 3X = Natural preemptive 1NT - (X) - P* - (P)// XX - (P): 2♣ = ♣ + ♦ 2♦ = ♦ + ♥ 2♥ = Majors And 1NT - (X) - XX can just be 1-suited with a minor

my regular partner and I play the following: 2NT-3♣: 3♦ = no 5M or 4♥ ....then 3♥ = 4♠ ............3♠ = 5♠ 4♥ 3♥ = 4+♥, no 4♠ .....then 3♠ asks .............3NT = 4♥ .............else = 5+♥ 3♠ = 5♠ 3NT = 4/4 majors

either way, I believe I would pull to 4♣ given that partner is passed. I understand there's no hand with which partner passed initially that could now want to play 3NT, but I'll save him from his own stupidity since I have no desire whatsoever to play 3NT-X.

My friends are allowed to refer to me by name. And I prefer if Mr. Hudecek refers to me as Mr. Lien or olien if he so prefers. It wouldn't slow down the game? I would have to read the explanation of every opening bid to see if it shows this or denies that. And I'm not referring to explanations provided by the software; I'm talking about in real life. Opponents sit down and are playing Flannery, and from what I have deduced from your statements you expect them to alert a 1♥ opening as tending to deny a 4-card ♠ suit? Also, you could have to provide endless qualifiers to each opening; for example: I open 2♥ weak, but we play that this doesn't deny having a 4♠r or 5-card minor. However, some pairs play that it does deny such a holding (especially having 4♠), so you would have a dot for a) weak 2, may have 4♠ and b) weak 2, may not have 4♠. Now you have more specific agreements, and if somebody decides to make the 2♥ opening with 4♠ even though their card says they don't do that, you plan to report it as a psyche? This adds more "red tape" and brings in more bureaucracy than before. My suggestion would be the ACBL come up with a better convention card format for live play than what they have now; I would suggest something resembling the WBF convention card. This may not be the best solution, but would provide more complete information about people's agreements. An added bonus would be a boom in the convention card holder industry because the cards take so long to fill out people would just prefer to save their cards which is easily facilitated by convention card holders.

I think Mr. Hudecek should get his paranoia checked. IMO, the only reason he thinks there isn't full disclosure is because he doesn't ask relevant questions. He asks what a bid means, and they tell him; it seems he expects them to provide every negative and/or positive inference that is relevant. This is equivalent to saying that a failure to make, for example, a support X is alertable. He would cry murder because they passed with their two small or whatever and he took a line of play in case they had three because the pass wasn't alerted as denying three-card support. This negative inference alertability thing can get out of hand. Here are a few examples: 1) Opponents play Flannery 2D (I love using Flannery as an example) and open 1H. Should they have to alert 1H as denying a 4-card major unless opener holds reversing values? 2) Opponents alert you that they play a 1D opening as denying having balanced distribution. They open 1C and announce that it could be short per regulations. Carl mis-defends because opener had a non-traditional shape (say 3352 or 4342). He would say that full disclosure wasn't given because they didn't say that they opened 1C on all balanced hands outside of the NT range and without a 5-card major even though the negative inference is clear: 5-card majors, unbalanced 1D opening. The same negative inference applies to a precision 1D opening. My point is, Mr. Hudecek saw only two possible solutions: a) To require the opponents to explain every bid and all of its negative/positive inferences. He also would have the opponents submit an entire set of system notes with the same and a suggested defence for anything he considers non-standard. However, he realises this is too cumbersome and would slow the game down too much to be palatable. b) To make the suggestion he did which is at the other extreme. However, this is also clearly wrong; but from his perspective is more palatable than option A. Also, I ask Mr. Hudecek a question regarding these games for testing systems for approval. Are you not effectively putting a severe restriction on introducing new system? Nobody would want to go through a 2 year "test" phase and expend an immeasurable amount of energy just to hear their method is disallowed. Wouldn't it also cease intellectual bridge thought in the US regarding system development? It would seem to be a logistical nightmare in organising these matches, and to have anywhere near the amount required to meet the desire of those who want to introduce systems would be monetarily impossible; and you can just forget it if you expect the applicants to foot the bill. Also, how can you judge what current bridge players desire? You say you've quit playing, and I'm sure you have at tournaments at least. So, even though you still watch, how can you claim to have an intimate knowledge of what the current bridge player wants? I'll be surprised if you can provide intelligent responses that doesn't ramble on and on like most of your previous posts to this and your concurrent thread.

Some of those players do take a lot of time but appropriate measures have been taken already and its not on "every other hand" as Mr Hudecek suggests. This whole idea is absurd and I am no longer going to waste my time with it. If a system resembling what Mr. Hudecek suggests ever comes into place in the ACBL, or whatever NBO that happens to be relevant to me at that time, I will find an alternative.

I wish there was a "like" button on the BBF :)

Why should we expect the Conventions Committee to approve any methods? They always seem to prevent the approval of new methods by saying the methods are too complex or, failing that, to just not approve the defence for the method. The foreigners that come over and play in our tournaments have worked just as long and hard, if not more so, at perfecting their system and learning defences to unusual methods. However, you're narrow-minded and don't think they should be allowed to play their methods. They've had to learn defences to American methods which they think are unusual and are definitely uncommon or rare in Europe. A couple examples are Flannery 2D opening and the Capp defense to 1NT where 2C shows ANY suit. In England, that 2C bid is restricted to certain levels. However, you're suggesting that these pairs come over and have to scrap their systems which they've spent years perfecting and have to play methods with which they're uncomfortable because you can't seem to figure out that the easiest way to treat a polish club is to act like its a short club and bid accordingly. Or that multi 2♦ is not that hard to defend and is actually easier to penalize (usually) than a normal weak 2. But you prefer to play in your protected shell where you don't have to learn anything and they all have to start over in developing system.