nekthen

1. Why is the ACBL so afraid of the multi 2♦ and Lucas 2s? You will only meet these on Open chart events 2. Apparently transfer responses to 1♣ are banned below open chart events as well 3. Why even mention psychic bids? By definition they cannot be part of your agreements. By all means agree that Psyching a strong artificial bid is against the rules I think most of the rest of the world is bemused by the stance of the ACBL. I find it irritating when a tourney on BBO bans multi bids.

Prepared to be shouted down but.... 3N ♥ stopper 13+ 3♠ 2♠ no ♥ stopper 11 ish 3♥ GF no ♥ stopper if p bids 3♠ no ♥ stop either 3♦ 6+ NF 3♣ 5 5 minors NF 2N ♥ stopper 10-12 There may be an argument for agreeing 2N to be lebensohl style puppet to 3♣

Playing lebensohl style, I would bid 2♠, which I regard as weak without a long minor. A direct 3♠ is GF and 2N 3♠ is invitational

Which is why "best hand" is so horrible

pass is a very close second and I would not lose faith in a partner who chose to pass make the Q♠ the Q♦ and the 5♦ the 5♠ and you will find a lot more passing

28 zar points a standard 1♦ opener

We really need to know what system these experts are playing. The 1N bid is not forcing apparently, which rules out 2/1. For all we know, they were playing 4 card majors, which puts a different spin on the whole question

After 4H 4S I play 4N as exclusion rkcb. So when south bids 5H we are committed to 6d but we know that South has not counted the ace of hearts.

It is not possible for BBO to look at the results of every hand. That would be a ridiculous amount of work. However, at imp scoring it would be possible to discard the top and bottom 5 or 10% of scores before calculating the par result against which all results are calculated e.g. a board where everyone bids and makes 3N except for a few idiots/malicious results. Anyone bidding 3N gets zero imps instead of gaining some. I think this would be easy to implement. I do not think that there is anything similar that is possible in MP scoring. It might also be possible to suspend users who go down more than one trick in 7 level contracts on multiple occasions

Partners 3♦ should be a trial bid as ♥ have been agreed and you should bid as if this is the case. So as has been said 3♥ is a sign off and so is 4♥ any other bid is a cue bid GF with slam potential or just go for 4N

Abstain from the poll. 1♣ is a truly awful effort. My partner is entitled to expect 2 defensive tricks. Yes we can open weak in 3rd seat but not 1♣ swap the black suits and even my gran opens 1♠. I am not opening 3♣ without 6 of them. If I have it in my aresnal, I would consider opening 2N

Best Hand is awful. Knowing you have the best hand can certainly distort the bidding and possibly the play as well. It is not bridge

Interesting to note that the Banzai Count is 32 which equates to a HCP count of 22. This counts A = 5 down to 10 = 1 plus 1 for a 5 card suit. Apart from the length, this gives a score out of 60 and can be multiplied by 2/3 to give an equivalent to the HCP value. I only bother to work this out for NT hands that are borderline, but I find it gives a concrete reason to agree that this is not a full on 23 count. PS There is a short cut to working out the Banzai value. Start with the HCP already calculated, 23 add 8 for the 8 cards of 10 or more and 1 for the 5 card suit = 32

The first wrong bid is the foundation for all future misunderstandings. As such it is meaningless to criticise 2♠ as the first wrong bid is 2♥. Clearly if you are playing puppet stayman, this hand is a 2N rebid. The important thing is the implications of choosing to bid 2♥. Either 2♥ is a 6+ card suit or the bidder has a secondary suit to reveal. Therefore, 2♠ is imo the best bid as it takes up no bidding space. (Indeed you might consider making it a second artificial relay asking p to define his hand further, a 2N response to 2♠ could show spades)

I think the hand very interesting. Clearly 6N makes but it is risky to bid it. Will a double of 6♥ persuade opps to plunge into 6N? There is a school of thought that says don't lead a spade because partner has not asked for one, but partner may not have an ace and the spade lead will save the over trick. Also it is very dangerous to double as opps may have a club void. I think South is correct to pass and North should still choose to lead a spade Playing Ghestem, I would bid 4♣ and my partner may well make the excellent, if unfortuate, 7♣ save. This sort of hand is just a lottery

On a ♦ lead 3N is as shaky as 6♣. If clubs don't break 2-1 you are doomed. my Acol bidding should go 1N 2♣ 2♠ 3♣ indicating 4♥ and 5+♣ and GF 4♣ (you cannot deny your club support) 4♦ RKCB 4♠ 1/5 4[N] Q? 5♣ no At this point you do not know about South's Red Kings and you do not know which ace he has. So really cannot bid 6 However, maybe after 3♣ 3 of a suit should indicate 4 clubs and lowest ace Now South can bid 3♠ North can see that the stiff diamond makes NT dangerous so temporizes with 4♣. Now 4♥ indicates K It seems better to show this K opposite partners 4 card suit Now maybe North knows enough to bid 6♣

True for 5 card majors. I still prefer opening 4 card majors, though I open 1 minor with 4 major and 4 minor

I use xyz, which I think a great convention. So after 1♣, 1♦, 1♥ xyz applies So 2♦ is GF artificial and 2♣ is invitational any distribution or weak with ♦ partner must bid 2♦ unless exceptional This leaves 1♠ and 1N as weak 5-9 (maybe bad 10), which makes it possible to stop in 1♠

You and me for a start!

How long until we join the experts and use transfers over 1♣ as standard? I already do IRL, soon it will be as normal as transfers over 1N

When partner showed you two aces would he have bid the same way holding ♠ x ♥ JTxxxxxx ♦ Ax ♣ Ax ? A 2 ace response is not good enough to be bidding 6 unless you are in the mood for a "Hail Mary" or need one However ♠ x ♥ KTxxxxxx ♦ Ax ♣ Ax Is a 3 ace hand using rkcb and allows you to bid 6 with confidence

The problem is that 4♣ is generally either a singleton or void, but this can be inefficient as partner might be looking at a good holding opposite x, that is not so useful opposite a void. I would suggest that you bid 3♣ followed by 4♣ (unless partner signs off with 4♥) and bid 4♣ directly only with a singleton

Sorry you are correct. In fact, I believe that the correct slam is 6N as there is no need for a spade ruff

This is not a great slam. At pairs I would accept 3N. On a heart lead you need the club finesse to work. The problem with exploring is that you may show opps the optimal defence. On the other hand there are plenty of South hands that are consistent with the bidding that have only one ace so punting 6 is also high risk. Indeed p may well have S KQx H Qx D AJTxxx C QT Now 6 looks pretty foolish and if you cant stop in 4N you could be down in 5 when 3N was solid gold Indeed S KQx H KQ D JTxxxx C QT Is also consistent

It's been a while since I played in these (I hate 2/1) from memory I played SAYC and no one was surprised Perhaps BBO could implement the CC for these tournies so we know what bids should mean