maggieb

Well I have to agree with Josh again, hand 3 is better than hand 4. I would certainly open hands 3 and 5 (of course), the rest I consider a style issue. Playing with my husband (who is intermediate or advanced-intermediate) I would pass with the other hands. Playing with my favorite (bridge-) partner I would open all but the first hand but please keep in mind that we frequently open 5332 11-counts as well.

Seems like the simple line is also the best line. Finesse in clubs and play for a diamond-spade squeeze on either defender. Bridge is an easy game sometimes! Though it is a worse line, if you told me west had all three guards, I would be very happy to triple squeeze him with a crisscross ending!!!

I'm with you Josh, a good auction to discuss with your regular partner.

I wonder how many people have an agreement about this auction, is 4S still a strong bid after the opponents open a precision 2C just like it would over a weak 2? If so then perhaps west should act but wow, what a perfect fit!

How nice to be playing 2/1!

Yes absolutely 1S! There are hands where I might decide not to show a 4-card major but they are rare and if you just always bid your major you'll do fine. Whoops, I forgot that with a gameforcing hand you tend to bid your suits in the natural order, so with KQxx Axx x AQJxx you'd start with 2C.

Awesome.

What century are we living in?? I only once asked a guy out for a date, next summer we'll be married for 15 years. :rolleyes:

Well let us hear about that story of yours smart guy! As for me, I would always bid 2H at the table but I can see the merits of 2C. It's just not something I would ever do.

4♥, my trump suit is too big of a liability to move again if partner can't do it.

2♣, since this is more flexible, more preemptive, and doesn't lie about my suit length. I'd call this obvious, but boy howdy, some people like to bid spades!

Are you implying that you think this is an inherently inferior bidding system? I think there is not enough information to draw this kind of conclusion about any reasonable bidding system, and certainly not about a system which is becoming very popular among top-level European players.

I think you are missing the question. I meant that the two seem to (at least normally) be part of the same arrangement. Sort of like allowing 3♣ as Puppet Stayman but not allowing a 3♦ rebid by Opener to show one or both undisclosed four-card majors. Is it perhaps possible that someone has read your post, yes even understood the point you were trying to make and still doesn't agree? It makes sense to allow muiderberg in pair games since it promises a given 5-card suit. Multi does not promise any given suit and is therefore not allowed in pair games. The fact that many people only want to play muiderberg when they also play multi should be irrelevant. Whether you and I like those rules also doesn't matter, the rules are clear (not the rules in general, just this particular part of the rules) and there actually is some logic behind it. I must say I am really surprised that you didn't know multi is not allowed in pair games, which US have you been living in? Your analogy about puppet stayman is extremely poor since the two situations are not analogous at all. The original question is about two conventions that can be played side by side but don't have to be played side by side. Allowing puppet stayman but not allowing opener to respond to puppet stayman is a contradiction.

I'm with Josh, bid game and make them guess what to lead. 3H looks fancy but is losing bridge.

I was looking forward to a defensive problem.

That sounds like a good plan, I wouldn't worry too much about system with people who don't even know the rules yet.

5H is really clear on the first one. I will play in spades unless partner bids 6D immediately. Prospects for slam are so good that anything that risks playing below slam (double, 4NT :D , 5S) should be disregarded. 6S seems too unilateral but it must be better than 6D which is what my friend Peggy might bid, she doesn't like to declare slams. ;)

You win 4 vs lose 2 Ken.

Double is really clear, I don't want partner to bid 7NT unless she is absolutely sure it makes.

I would bid my major on all three. Surprised people are passing on the third one, I think it is extremely obvious at favorable.

Pass, about a king short of a raise.

1) I actually like this. 2) Transfers seem much more useful to me than stopper showing. It seems like you could still invert the responses to the double as above, though. 3) I have no idea what this means. If you are saying to play 3♦ after opener shows a strong hand with clubs as stayman, I think this is a bad idea. 4) Even the most serious partnerships would do well to avoid this complicated an agreement after this rare an auction. 5) This sounds terrible, the gains from this are very modest, the loss (to be able to just play 3♥) is very large. 6) I seem to be sacrificing my natural 3♥ call for no reason.

4♣, strong raise.

Reading your story I am not sure what exactly happened, who these guys in the suits were and what the end result was. I did enjoy the suggestion that both psyches were white against red and they therefore might be the start of a pattern. I hope they didn't notice that both times you psyched on a board number divisible by 3.

Any regular forum reader who does not skip Rexford posts should be familiar with cover cards.