OleBerg

Until advancer bids 4♠. Like I said, I then support partner. Wouldn't you think 5♦ was making? Might even be a good save instead. Definately. But what about 6♦?

Tend to agree. However, if partner sprung it on me, I'd expect something like: ♠x ♥Axxxx ♦8765432 ♣x

Agree with double and 4♣. I will pas 4♠ however. Partner should bid 4♥ with only 4-card spades.

No. I will not punish partner for taking a good stand on minimum values.

I dont duck it.

Agree. How about taking out the take-out double? Theres a reason for its name. Of course if it is a values-double, you'd have to pass.

Easy raise. I always raise with two aces... wait, thats another game. If partners 1♦ bid shows 4+ diamonds I raise. If partner has four hearts, opps. might be in 4♠ in a second, and then it wont matter which red suit we compete in. If they bid only 3♠, we can back in with 4♥. (Partner is bound to understand it. :blink: ) If partner shows only 3 diamonds, I double.

Splinter. Wouldn't expect anything else at all. Ill try to convince my partner that playing it as void is better, but that would be a special agreement.

That's still not a1NT opening unless playing 16-18 You're probably right. (I've been playing 12-14 for 20 years.) Still, if I had accepted to open 1nt with a 5-card major, I might also have accepted to adhere strictly to my nt-range.

My partner can confirm that at least one intermidiate player knows enough about it, to discuss it on the internet.

Well, the Norweigan Bermuda Bowl winners used it. That doesn't nescesarily make it right, but it is an indication, that it can sometimes be usefull. (Yes, I stole it from them.) Anyway, if the mentioned division by strength isnt ok, I guess you could divide hands into other subsets; maybe other strenght ratios, or maybe by hand types, instead of strenght.

The theory is sound. It is very rare in the pure form you describe, but the general principel is on the repertoire of the expert player. How many misspellings in the sentence above? :)

You need seven covers. A doubleton can provide one, meaning that you now need six. Ace-fourth in trumps probably is two covers also, so now you need four additional covers. A trick source might provide some additional covers somewhere as well. But, won't partner insist with that massive of a hand? I mean, if partner can look at his hand and realize that he has seven potential covers opposite a flat 5332, shouldn't he re-assess and bid something like 3NT or 4♠ as his "super-acceptance?" Or, make up a super-acceptance below 3♠ planning to accept any whisper bid at all? Can a 1N opening ever insist on game opposite a simple transfer? If I had somehow agreed to always open 1nt with 5-card majors without good interiors, and held: ♠AQ10 ♥65432 ♦AK10 ♣Ax I just might do it at red, Imps.

In another thread somebody mentioned problems with transfer-responses to a strong 1♣ opening. If you want to make it a priority to rightside contracts, I definately believe a Smolen-like structure should be considered. A nice way to arrange responders first reply to 1♣ 16+, is this: All 5-card+ major hands, and all balanced hands, are divided into two subranges; Normal Strenght and Ekstra Strenght. Normal Strenght would be something like 8-11, while Ekstra Strenght would be 12+. As a guideline, 2♣ is always used to inquire about 5-card majors, and 2♦ to inquire about NT hands. Thus, using the same structure everywhere will easy the burden on the memory. Responses to 1♣, 16+: 1♥ = Spades Normal strenght and Ekstra Strenght, NT Ekstra Strenght. 1♠ = NT Normal Strenght, Hearts Ekstra Strenght. 1nt = Hearts Normal Strenght. On the first two responses, opener use a relay to clarify. Thus: 1♣-1♥ 1♠- ? 1nt = Spades Normal Strenght, (2♣ = New relay.) 2♣ = NT Ekstra Strenght, (2♦ = New relay.) 2♦+ = Spades Ekstra Strenght, responder bids as if a 2♣-relay had been made. 1♣-1♠ 1nt - ? 2♣ = NT Normal Strenght (2♦ = New relay) 2♦+ = Hearts Ekstra Strenght, responder bids as if a 2♣-relay had been made. 1♣ - 1NT 2♣ is simply a relay.

What a take-out double shows, depends on what the 1♣ opening showed.

This is as much "partnership-agreement-territory" as it can get. If you have agreed dbl. to be penalty, double is obvious. If you have agreed it to be takeout, pass is equally as obvious. If you have no agreement; shame on you, even with a pick-up partner. (Though maybe not on BBO.)

In Denmark this opening-scheme has some following at the top-level: 2♦ = A bad weak two in either major, approx. 4-7. 2♥/2♠ = A good weak two in the bid suit, aprox 8-11. This is quite focused on constructive bidding: The gains: Good accuracy in bidding marginal games. When you open 2♥/2♠ opponents are under pressure, as oppeners partner is very well placed to make a good call (Preempt, bid to win, sacrifice or make a penalty double.) The loses: Loss of preemptive value. The 2♥/2♠ bids are infrequent, and some of them can be handled by a one-level opening. The preemptive value of the ambigius 2♦ is low, as partner cannot bid on, unless he holds both majors. A well organized defence handles 2♦(multi) much easier than it handles a weak two bid. It is worth noting, however, that even in Denmark, where multi-2♦ has enjoyed 25 years of continueos popularity, defences are seldomly well organized. So the last loss may not be big. If I were to play this, I'd definately prefer to switch the meanings of 2♦ and 2♥/2♠, primarily on grounds of frequency.

Very much with you on this one. (Assuming "diamonds and spades" is a typo, and should be "diamonds and hearts.) You have not set any points limits for the "values" double. In my book a decent 13-count should be enough. (Remember to play at least one take-out double.) This is even more importent when opponents play unbalanced 1♦. Here the sequence 1♣-1♠ is sometimes played as a two-way bid, that can contain 0 points.

A double shows no more strenght than a 3♥ bid, but it assures you of playing in the right suit. Partner hasn't promised 4-4 in the majors,

1) Double. Obvious. Poor interiors in clubs, and support for hearts and diamonds. 2) 2♣. Far from obvious. I'll double 2♠ if it comes around. If 3♠, pre-emptive, comes around, I'd wish I had started with a double. 3) 4♦. Relatively obvious. Many hands with 8 scattered makes for an excellent game.

No, it shows minors. Well then, 4C must be Gerber, right? Strike two.

Again you agree with me. (Well almost, nobody will talk me into a pass.) Edit: Actually on e) and maybe d), I would bid 4♠

1) I double. 2) Pass. Need one more diamond to double.

Hopefully he went for beers too.

Assume you don't want my reply then. Cant tell, but if it's somthing like: "Convention X is best, all the experts play it." It's ok not to reply. Sorry. Didn't get the gender thing. To slow again.