olien

This sounds like such a wonderful idea! As a junior, I will find the game much more interesting now that we all play nearly the same system and have 6 minute time limits per hand.

not that I agree with the idea of GIB beeping, but I think the idea was that it would ONLY beep if all lines were successful...but yes, I agree that a failure to beep means that there is a way to fail which will cause players to take much more time to figure out which line fails...so, I am still opposed to the GIBeep feature

There are tactical reasons for not bidding 5♠ as well. If S is expected to be atleast 5/5 in ♠ and ♦, then there are no ♠ tricks to be taken, so bidding 5♠ may push E-W into a slam they would not have otherwise bid. Also, can S really be 5/5 in ♠ and ♦ when N is looking at 7♠ and W bid 3NT? Seems like N is able to use logic to figure out something is going on. So, N has logical information and tactical reasons for not bidding 5♠.

My suggestion for the bidding system issue IF computers were to be used seems like it would probably work. Each pair would be responsible for submitting a card in FD format that would then be used during the play. Each bid would automatically be alerted and the opponents would not have to ask for an explanation as that is already provided. I understand that it takes significantly more time to fill out an FD card as opposed to a normal convention card or system summary or advanced summary form, but that time would be at least mostly be made up by the lack of pauses for questions. Sure, there may still be some questions regarding style, but the style is usually covered in a general style in the system summary form.

So, partner has a balanced 19 count or so with 4♥. Shouldn't he bid 1NT over 1♥? If he hears that I have values next, he can then revert to ♥. Its not the most difficult thing in the world. And the odds that after the auction goes (1♦)-X-(p)-1♥// (2♦-2♥ that they will manage to X us after responder failed to find a response over the X are pretty slim. You are thinking "worst case scenario" and I'm thinking "get me out of dodge." I'm not saying that partner will never raise ♥, but the odds that he bids 1NT or 1♠ over 1♥ seem a bit higher. And I still wait for my 19 count unless I have EXCEPTIONAL distribution. I don't always get to continue the auction at a nice comfortable level. For some reason, it seems the opponents like to preempt, but I'm guessing they don't preempt against you? And I'm glad to know your name since you repeat it at the conclusion of every single one of your posts.

I heard about this from a friend, about the car accident and subsequent penalties. Sounds like the german TDs are gestappo? xD

There's a club a few blocks from Trocadero. Some juniors also play there on occasion. There are some other clubs, but I'm less familiar with those.

I 100% agree with 1♥. It keeps the bidding low and makes allowances for partner's possible off-shape t/o doubles. I like my partner to be able to double with 4=4=3=2 or similar with less than adequate ♣ support. I don't understand these people that would pass 1♠ because 2 might be too high. These are the same people that would bid 2♣ on the previous round to avoid "distorting" major suit length. Isn't 2♣ likely to propel one too high? Also, because RHO couldn't find a bid over the X, isn't it likely that partner has a strong hand? Say he has a balanced 19 count and I chose to bid 2♣, wouldn't I prefer to play 1NT instead of 2NT? We can't play 1NT after I respond 2♣. Also, say you X and bid 2♣ and partner bids 2♠, would you pass that also? If you would, then you're playing partner to have about 17-19 HCP that don't work opposite yours with inadequate distribution and expecting partner to leap to 3♠ to show that hand which really cramps the auction and can make judging the correct game (3NT or 4♠) more difficult. With these flat hands that are weak I prefer to respond in a 3-card major to a 4-card minor to partner's takeout X. Get in - Get out works well for me and its much easier to get out after a 1♥ bid. It won't be the end of the world if we play a ♥ contract on a 4-3 fit since my QJx of ♥ will make the suit a bit more solid opposite partner's ♥ support. Also, partner shouldn't be leaping around with a 4-card ♥ fit and a hand that's unsure about playing 3NT or 4♥. Partner should give the courtesy of a cue-bid and then support to offer a choice of games. I would give the courtesy raise from 1♠ to 2♠ because my X and bid style is very conservative (my 1-level overcalls are about 7-18 HCP, and I know this isn't "standard"). Also, its unlikely the opponents are going to let us play 1♠, and if they balance are we not going to compete to 2♠ then? For those who play that 1♥ is natural and denies having as many as 8 or 9 points, the raise to 2♠ should show about 4-7(8) HCP and partner can still make game tries opposite that, but if we had a full invite opposite the X and 1♠ bid, could we not just bid 3♠ over 1♠? The 1♥ bid has also left us better placed as after our raise to 2♠ partner will be able to judge that we probably have some ♥ values.

as for item #1, I do agree with penalizing players for slow play. The WBF already does this, and the introduction of timers would make it easier to assess blame for slow play. Also, shouldn't the timer be given to a pair rather than an individual player? This would make the most sense since we're not punishing individual players. However, I do not agree with "rewarding" players for fast play. It basically makes bridge a speed contest. I agree with bridge being a timed event, but what other "mind sports" reward players for fast play? In chess, a player is not rewarded for playing faster, it won't change who wins or loses, but with your proposal a team could win by playing faster than the opponents even if the opponents play within the time limits. and regarding item #2, why impose strict system restrictions? If we're using computers, why not just implement the FD card format and have players submit their systems in advance (obviously this would only be for major competitions). Then after a bid is made, the system can automatically alert and provide an explanation to the opponents. This would have the added benefit of avoiding MI cases. Anyways, just some ideas. I've yet to decide if I'm in favor or opposed to the overall idea. Clearly for the majority of competitions, its the wrong idea. Part of the enjoyment for most players is the social aspect. But at the top levels (e.g. the BB or the ITT, etc) its not as important. People are there to play bridge.

well, my partner and I play Reese-Schapiro for ♦, so we don't have any problems xD :P

Yeah, getting the weak NT out of 1♣ is clearly right. I just had a mental block about the fact that opening passer can't have an invite. So, a 3rd seat 1NT as 9-16 should work OK. I might recommend that if 3rd seat opener is 9-13 or so with a 4-card M, that they be able to choose to open by showing the M rather than being forced to open 1NT. Will help decrease penalties, and if they do nail you after you open 1N, will increase the likelihood that the opponents have an M game.

Well, over an opening pass, couldn't you possible use the non-forcing pass version of moscito 3rd/4th seat opening bids? Maybe something similar to: 1♣ = 0-7(8) any or 11-13 BAL or any 17+ 1♦ = 4+♥ 9-16 (or whatever range you like) 1♥ = 4+♠ 1♠ = ♦ or both minors 1NT = 14-16 balanced 2♣ = 9-16 6+♣ no 4M etc... After the 3rd seat 1♣: 1♦ = strong option 1M = 3+M, 0-6 HCP 1NT = both minors, 0-6 HCP 2m = 6+m, 0-6 HCP After 1♣-1♦, not sure what would be wise here, but here's my idea: 1♥ = 0-7 any 1♠ = 11-13 BAL, sets up GF and now O can relay beginning with 1NT 1NT+ = 16+ HCP, using whatever relay steps you desire. Since the 6-level is safe now, the lost space isn't really lost. It may even be better after 1♣-1♦ to play that 1♥ shows 11-13 BAL or a strong hand and other bids are in the 0-6 range, but seems to chew up a bit of room. After the transfer openings, play the relay bid by opener shows the strong option and establishes a GF and relay away. May not be best, but might be something that can be built off of

Is it so much to give up the cheapest jump shift? I know that Garner - Weinstein play natural cue-bids over minors and 2m+1 is michaels. Having spoken with Mr. Weinstein several times about this, he swears by it. His argument is that 2m+1 is not that preemptive as a natural preempt and I asked what he does with the classical 2-level WJO and he replied "we bid 1 or 3." So, if you want to show specific two suiters and are willing to give up 2m+1 as a WJO, then you could do a similar thing without the natural cue bids (all bids 5+/5+ unless otherwise noted): Over 1♣: 2♣ = ♥ + ♠ 2♦ = ♦ + ♠ NF 2NT = ♦ + ♥ 3♣ = ♦ + ♠ strong Over 1♦: 2♦ = ♠ + ♣ 2♥ = ♥ + ♠ NF 2NT = ♣ + ♥ 3♦ = ♥ + ♠ strong Over the majors one may desire to not give up the cheapest jump shift as weak since it does cramp their auctions significantly more (i.e. after (1♥)-2♠, if the opps don't have a ♥ fit, they don't always have enough room to diagnose if 3NT, 4♥, or 5m is correct and mis-guess enough of the time to make it worthwhile, although one can always just bid 3♠). Anyways, over 1M they play specific 2-suiters: Over 1♥: 2♥ = ♠ + ♣ 2♠ = ♠ + ♦ NF 2NT = minors (they also play here that 3m=6+m and 4♠) Over 1♠: 2♠ = they play this bid as 4♥ 6+m, but could also be played ghestem style (5+♥ + 5+♣) 2NT = minors 3♣ = they play this as 5+♥ 5+♣ NF, but could be played ghestem style (5+♥ 5+♦) 3♦ = they play this as 5+♥ 5+♦ NF Anyways, just a suggestion.

I've played as any two suits, but what seems to work best is playing it as Michaels. Then partner can bid 3♣ P/C, or bid 3♦ as a game try in ♥.

So, if 5143 is such a problem after 1♥ - 1♠ // 2♣ (assuming that 2♠ is the game force), why not play 2♦ there shows exactly 5♠ and an invitational hand. Then the auction can proceed smoothly and can stop in 2M. Just an idea

I play a simplified version of their structure. As a side note, they play different structures depending on: a) if partner is passed and b) if its a NT overcall as opposed to an opening. I love the 2NT bid as puppet stayman as the opponents get no lead directional double, and one can bid this on almost all GF balanced hands looking for a 4-4 fit and not disclose if partner has 4 cards in the other major. Their inability to invite in a minor is a matter of their mentality and the different hand types they're able to show by the extra step they gain. Here is the simpler Meckwell structure that I play with a partner. It is not the same, and is vastly simplified in many areas, even though I do know both structures but am not allowed to post the official version. 2♣ stayman, with normal continuations 2♦/♥ transfers 2♠ range or ♣ 2NT puppet stayman 3♣ 6+♦ any strength 3♦ 6+♦, 0-1♣, GF 3M shortness, 5+/5+ minors, GF 3NT to play 4♦/♥ transfers After 1NT-2♠: 2NT minimum 3♣ maximum ........P/3♣ to play ........3♦ 6+♣ GF, 0-1♦ or no short (3♥ now relays then 3♠=0-1♦, 3N=no short, mild SI, etc) ........3M 6+♣ GF, 0-1M ........3NT to play ........4m 2245m, quantitative+ After 1NT-2NT: 3♣ no 5M .......3♦ (31)(54) GF (now 3♥ relays, then 3♠=0-1♥, 3NT=0-1♠ NF, 4m=1345m SI) .......3M 4 other major GF, denies 4 other major .......4m 5m(332), slam interest 3♥ 5♥ .......3♠ artificial strong ♥ raise .......3NT to play .......4m 5m slam interest, no ♥ fit 3♠ 5♠ .......4m 5m slam interest, no ♠ fit .......4♥ artificial strong ♠ raise 1NT-3♣// 3♦ (forced) 3M shortness 3NT 6+♦ no short, mild slam interest 4♣ 11(56) GF 4♦ 6+♦ no short, strong SI 4♥ RKC for ♦ With some partners, I play the 2nd round transfers (after a transfer to 2M), but with most I choose not to because of the complexity. My partners and I just play fairly standard continuations after 1N-2♣ and 1N-2♦/♥. For the record, meckwell play 1N-2♠ as MSS and 1N-2N and 1N-3m as natural invites if responder is passed or the 1NT bid was an overcall.

I like a version that allows for showing any 4441 and 5m(440). Its not as simple as the ones suggested, but works well. 2♠ = (41)44 or 04(54) 2NT = 44(41) 3♣ = any solid suit 3♦ = 40(54) 3♥ = 4405 3♠ = 4450 8-10 3NT = 4450 11-13 4♣ = 4450 14+ (by a passed hand, 3♣ = 4045 and 3♦ = 4054) after 2♠, 2NT is the relay, then: 3♣ = 04(54), then 3♦ relays for longer minor/strength 3♦ = 1444 3♥ = 4144, 8-9 3♠ = 4144, 10-11 3NT = 4144, 12-13 4♣ = 4144, 14+ after 2NT, 3♣ is the relay, then: 3♦ = 4414 3♥ = 4441 8-9 3♠ = 4441 10-11 3NT = 4441 12-13 4♣ = 4441 14+ After a 3♦ response by an unpassed hand, the longer minor is not clarified. Of course, one can use controls or QP's instead of HCP or also choose to use low->high shortness instead of the reverse, but this is the structure that is used by one very successful precision partnership.

[hv=pc=n&s=s52ht62da8532ckj8&n=sakqjt74ha84dktc7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(16+%2C%20artificial%2C%20forcing)2c(natural)2d(5+%21D%2C%20game%20force)3h(fit%20showing)3sp3n(not%20my%20choice%2C%20but%20call%20chosen)p4c(cue%20agreeing%20%21s)p4dp4np5c(1%20or%204)p6sppp]266|200[/hv] What could have been done to avoid this and how should blame be assessed? Also, what alternative auctions might be suggested in a natural context assuming south raised to 4!S instead of bidding 3NT. For the record, 5!S is cold once a !h lead is ducked, so reaching the 5-level is "safe" on this hand.

When I play precision, and I play 2NT as an INV+ raise, it ends up being approximately an INV raise or 15+ raise. The in-between raises just bid 4M usually. The re-bids are geared to assuming the INV hand, and are as follows. 3♣ artificial, game force opposite INV 3♦ artificial, game try opposite INV 3M worst possible hand 3oM oM void, slam interest opposite INV 3NT ♦ void, slam interest opposite INV 4♣ ♣ void, slam interest opposite INV After 1M-2NT// 3♣: 3♦ relay ........3♥ no short ........3♠ oM short ........3NT ♦ short ........4♣ ♣ short 3♥ oM short, too strong for initial splinter 3♠ ♦ short, too strong for initial splinter 3NT ♣ short, too strong for initial splinter 4M we have arrived After 1M-2NT// 3♦: 3M sign off 3oM relay ........S1 no short ........S2 oM short ........S3 ♦ short ........S4 ♣ short 3NT oM short, too strong for initial splinter 4♣ ♦ short, too strong for initial splinter 4♦ ♣ short, too strong for initial splinter 4M we have arrived 1M-2NT// 3M: (3M is 95% of the time without shortness) S1 no short, slam interest S2 oM short, too strong for initial splinter, still interested in slam S3 ♦ short, too strong for initial splinter, still interested in slam S4 ♣ short, too strong for initial splinter, still interested in slam 4M we have arrived This structure is simple, and doesn't reveal much info on hands without slam interest. This structures gain over one with 3♣ showing all minimums is that when you have a non-min, you don't reveal any distributional info to the opps in case responder only has an INV raise, while if playing 3♣=any min, when you have a non-min you have to reveal some distributional info to the opps. However, this structure works much better in a precision context than in a standard context.

I'll make a recommendation regarding TAB Should play compressed steps: 1st step = 6+ card suit (now 1st step asks honours with none, 1, 2, 3) 2nd step = 5-card suit, no honours 3rd step = 5-card suit 1 honour 4th step = 5-card suit 2 honours 5th step = 5-card suit 3 honours It may not be that worthwhile differentiating length with no honours, and just play steps of 5-card suit, no honours, and 1/2/3 honours with 6+ card suit. Anyways, just an idea

I tend to open 1♣ unless my ♦s are significantly better than my ♣s. e.g. AKxx KJxxx I would normally open 1♣ AKxx QTxxx I would probably open 1♦ If I have honours in both doubletons, I will open 1♣ planning to re-bid 1NT. I would never dream of rebidding 1NT with a singleton in responder's M, so with (31)45 hands I usually open 1♣ and bite the bullet. Both styles have their wins. I always hear from the 1♦ camp how great it works when the opponents overcall with 2♣. However, I prefer partner to lead my ♣ suit against 3NT instead of my secondary ♦ suit. Anyways, in summary, I open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors about 90-95% of the time.

I have a GREAT hand for slam, Kx of ♠, nothing wasted in ♥, and a ♣ control. However, I agree that 4♥ shows atleast some degree of ♦ support, so I'll also show my ♠ honour on the way. If partner has a good (3+) ♦ fit, he can bid over 4♠ and then I can drive to slam. This hand is a good advertisement for playing 3♠ over 2♥ as a semi-solid or better 6+ suit and game forcing values. This way 4♥ would not be ambiguous as to being single suited or with support.

I was informed that a 1♥ response as "hearts or relay" is super-chart, but maybe Mr. Beye was wrong on that front also. Anyways, agree with the 1♦ needing to be unbalanced 4+ if playing 1NT as GFR, but the Granovetter's played it this way and a 1♥ response was "waiting" over 1♦ (which had to have a 4-card major if balanced), then 1♠=4♠ and 1NT=balanced with 4♥ over the 1♥ reply.

I know that the Granovetters used to play a structure where 1♦-1NT was the GFR. Their 1NT opening denied a 4-card major, and if their 1♦ opening was balanced, it included atleast one 4-card major. After 1♦ - 1NT, I know that the general idea was as below. After 1♦-1NT: 2♣ = balanced hand, atleast 1 4-card major 2♦+ = unbalanced hands. I agree that this structure may be best if you can put all of your balanced hands into one bid over 1NT. Maybe a structure like this: 2♣ = any balanced hand or 4M-5C-22 2♦ = both minors (not 5+/5+) 2♥ = 4♥ 5+♦ or 3-suited both majors 2♠ = 4♠ 5+♦ 2NT = (04)(54) 3♣ = (41)44 3♦ = 5+/5+ minors, short ♠ 3♥ = 11(65) 3♠+ = 5+/5+ minors, short ♥ Not sure what you do with 4+♦ 6+♣, but anyways: 1♦ - 1NT// 2♦ - 2♥: 2♠ = 4♦ 5+♣ 2NT = 5+♦ 4♣, 0-1♠ 3♣ = 5+♦ 4♣, equal short 3♦ and higher = 5+♦ 4♣, 0-1♥ If you open 4♦ 6+♣ with 2♣, could even play the 2♦ re-bid as 5+♦ 4♣ or 4X-5♣-22, and use something like this: 1♦ - 1NT// 2♦ - 2♥// 2♠ - 2NT: 3♣ = 4M-5♣-22 3♦ = 1=3=4=5 3♥ = 2=2=4=5 3♠ and higher = 3=1=4=5 Also, if you open 2♣ with 4♦-6+♣, and use this possible change, takes even more load off of the 2♣ re-bid and limits that to strictly 4432s, 4333s, and 5m(332)s. 1♦ - 1NT// 2♥ - 2♠: 2NT = 44(41) or 44(50) ---> 3♦ = 4414 or 4405, 3♥ = 4441, 3♠ and higher = 4450 3♣ and higher = 4♥ 5+♦ 1♦ - 1NT// 2NT - 3♣: 3♦ = 04(54) 3♥ = 4=0=4=5 3♠ and higher = 4=0=5=4 1♦ - 1NT// 3♣ - 3♦: 3♥ = 1=4=4=4 3♠ and higher = 4=1=4=4 I don't know if this is what you're going for, but seems relatively symmetric and I believe that separating balanced hands from unbalanced hands as quickly as possible is best. Also, if it goes 1♦ - 1NT// 2♣ (balanced), then you can treat responder's non-relay bids as showing various minor suit GF bids and that takes the load off of 1♦ - 2m and allows the balanced hand to possibly ask more about responder's hand, probably best to restrict these to 1-suited minor or 2-suited with both minors. Hope this helps. Regards

So, after a tournament of trying this, we've decided the 2♣ opening needs better definition. We didn't like the potential for a 5-card suit in the 2♣ opening. So, we've gone with part of Larry's solution, and are now using the following opening structure: 1♦ = 4+♦ 10-14 HCP, may be ♣ canapé 1♥ = 4+♥ 10-14, may be 4414 or 4405 or 4♥-5♣ 1♠ = 4+♠ 10-14, may be ♣ canapé 1NT = 12-14 balanced 2♣ = 6+♣ 10-14, <4♦ <4♠ 2♦ = weak 2 in either major 2♥ = weak both majors 2♠ = 5+♠ 4♣ 10-14 2NT = any ♣ preempt or bad ♦ preempt 3♣ = both minors weak Thoughts?