wclass___

Suppose we are vulnerable 1st or 2nd seat. Which option do you think is theoretically best. a) 2N=strong bal;3♣=club preempt. b) 2N=strong bal;3♣=minors. c) Strong balanced opened via 1♣;2N=minors;3C=club preempt. d) Strong balanced opened via 1♣;2N=club preempt;3C=minors.

So he didn't have singleton ♣? Wow. Now you play ♦ to T. I examined only situation where LHO shows out in 2nd round of clubs discarding ♠, so he can't get 3♠ anymore.

3♠ is a big bid in context of this bidding with that ♠ suit. I will start with ♣A followed by another ♣. I suspect LHO will show out discarding spade. Maybe he has ♠Qxxxx ♥QJxx ♦AQJ ♣x? It is hard for me to assess with how much less if any he would bid 3♠. But i think i am going to play ♠J, his best defense would be to win and return big ♥. I should win and play a low ♥ towards ♥T. This lines makes if he has exactly that hand, RHO having ♥9xx. There are 4 shapes with LHO having QJ9x and 6 with QJxx.. but then again that 9 could add chance that he does bid 3♠. But maybe he has ♠Qxxxx ♥Q9xx ♦AQx ♣x and simple ♦ finesse is needed. Hard to assess.

yeah, IMO, it is the only right way to go. If you want relays over 1M, you need to save as much space as possible, so i don't think that 2♣ is an option. If you are going standard relay route: shape then controls, i strongly recommend not to relay extreme shapes. So 1M-1N-2♦ or 2♥ should tell that openers shape is too wild.

hmm.. it seems i misread their rule. So ''no ♥A/K or ♥A+K+Q'' =nothing or only Q or AK or AKQ ? I don't get why they need to add A+K+Q part as it is already in. Strange indeed. ^^That is what i thought their rule is.

I have no idea what are you talking about, the rule doesn't change. With 0/2=+1;1/3=skip. Bidding is not correct in your diagram. South made asking bids, noth gave answer bids. North probably made a mistake by bidding 4♠ as he does have ♣AKQ.

I would build my structure around the most important hand types. And we should definitely concentrate on finding our ♥ fit and appropriate level. 2♦=5♥+INV+ 2♥=competitive Hands with exactly 4♥ should go through double, because they will be quite frequent as responder is more willing to bid with 4♥ even if he is balanced, so flexibility is needed here and no other bid gives such flexibility as double here. I can't find better meaning for 1N as natural, surely i would prefer if i could put over-caller on lead, but then i would have to sacrifice something more important. I would also play 1N as stronger than just competitive. Something like 9-11 would be my preferred range. Then you want to show 5m INV+ and you have 2♣ and 2♠ left. I haven't thought much about optimal choice as to 5♥/♦/♣ INV+ hands and 2♣,2♦,2♠ bids.

Pass. ♦xxxx ♣Qxx sucks for offense, and ♠AKJxx is also quite defensive. LHO probably didn't bid 4♥ with 7222, so expect something to break badly.

I would definitely play small from 76;75.

IMO it is because they want to open all balanced 11-counts, while it might not be theoretically sound, it does put pressure on opponents, so it might play role in long KO team matches. Rest is logical.

T Well, most strong NT methods are focusing to make 1N opener as declarer. That should change with mini/weak NT. (I belive that when you have approximately the same point count as your partner, the one whose hand is less defined should be declarer.) Anyway, I would always play 1N-2N as bal-semibal GF, it is just too powerful method not to use. I would also play 1NT-2♠ as weakish 5+; 1N-2♣ as asking bid definetly including 4♠+ inv+

Not a spade. Even if dummy has 2♠, i can't get them both out without giving away my ♠ trick. From the rest ♦ seems most promising. The 9 of diamonds gives some extra safety. Declarer is more likely to finesse through dummy, so i won't finesse partner with my lead.

Some time ago i came up with similar ideas like ''lowerline'' and ''glen''. There is quite a bit to tell about style, reasoning and psychology, but this is outline of what I found to be close to optimal. Note that i was making this particulary for 1/2 seat when we are vulnerable. 1♣=5♣4M 11+; bal 16+ (excluding 2NT range); 16+ w/ 5♠+ or 16+ w/ 5♣+ 1♦=5♦+ (Not 5332) Forcing 1♥=limited up to ~~18/19 1♠=limited up to ~~15 1N=(13/15) 12+/16- not only balanced hands... 2♣=5♣4♦ or 6♣+ no 4M 2♦=5♥+4♠+ ~10/13 or 19+with 5♥+

You have no idea whom i am, i have no idea who are you. But i'm sure i don't want to waste my time reading trash like that. How can i blacklist/ignore forum members here?

That is pretty destructive, but if you want more - just lower hcp range

No need to play all that stuff to realize that nothing comes close to natural 2M. IMO analysing methods gives better estimation than playing experience, because it is hard to remember all those deals and get out some objective estimation. And normally you test your methods vs weaker opponents. (What works vs. noobs, might suck vs. really good opponents)

If you want to be more agressive play 2♥/♠=5+unbal ~~6+/10 I know that some other methods sound fun, but they are all crap.

One sentence that has direct connection to what i said. I wouldn't be so excited, both 1♣-1M-2♣/2M and 2♣-2M do better finding low games. Where did i say it does? If you didn't understand i was referring to that is obviously not necessary. Having no bid for hands that would have gone 1♣-1M-2♣-2M is more anti field. 2♣-2M tends to be 6 card suit, or good 5 and some club support. As lighter your HCP values as more likely you are to have a really good suit and some fit. If we really buy light 2M (having 6-3♣ fit available), opponents should worry more about being anti-field than we, and that's what i said in my previous post. Best advice i can give for people worrying about being "antifield" is to play natural system.

I don't get this. You bid on less hands, but boast about finding light games? Mind that with 3 card support opener should bid anyway, and after constructive NF approach you find more games not less. Ever heard of relay breaks? And most relay methods are based of opener showing 3M/no3M ASAP anyway. And what is your suggestion? Only way how to get to 2♣ is pass. AFAIK 1♣-1M-2♣-2M is natural and non forcing. Requirements for 2♣-2M aren't that much more different. I wouldn't personally worry about this situation, our bidding probably has put enough pressure for opponents not to enter auction. Guys, if you take away 5M+ GF from 2♦ i suggest you use 2♦ as natural and forcing as well... not much is left in 2♦ anyway.

Just pass

I am playing slightly different 2m openings - as 5m+unbal no 4M (added minor 2-suiters, no 6♣4♠) and what i play is quite similar to your scheme. I think it is more logical to switch meanings in 2♣-2M-2N/3♣. You can correct to clubs with good 6♣ suit, else you pass. I don't think 2N should show misfit, just maximum and no 3 card fit. Opener will have 2 card support most of the time, therefore i don't understand your usage of "only". Without good 6+♣ suit you also pass. I am skeptical about passing with 3 card fit, must be a dead minimum. I also like 2♣-2N as natural invitation here, i needed tihs to optimize relays, but imo it has quite a lot of merit anyway.

Finesse ♠J then ♥. Plan to get to position(giving away a trick to ♥A) where RHO has ♣Ax ♦KQx and then play ♦J from hand...

[hv=d=n&s=sxxhaxdakt982cxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-[1NT]-P-[P]-P[/hv] Can someone, please, run a sim?

I will add some: They are antipreemptive - it is not clear who owns the hand yet, it may allow opponents to enter an auction safely. And you give opponent one more moment to balance - giving opponent more options. Wrongsiding. If opener has to declare this then his hand will be more defined than his partners's making defense relativey easy. Also I would certainly prefer to be a leader if opener declares rather than his partner. Surely wide ranged bids don't shine in competition as well as in constructive bidding. Limit yourself early. I am not saying transfers are unplayable, i just said that ''IMO constructibe NF is by far the best.'' I don't think you are competent enough to say that "Transfers are absolutely much more flexible than 2M = constructive NF" .... like it would be accepted by all professional players and bridge gods, lol. Exactly: suit+fit is difficult, if you bid 2M with great ♣ fit, it might backfire, very logical. And it is also relativey common and safe. Meckwell has different openings and they tend to focus on GF hands a lot. If they play something it doesn't mean at all that it is best. It is very important to limit your strenght in competitive auctions. 5OM+ is very important hand type and 2 bids for it is way better than 1. If you double 2♥ on weaker hands than i bid 2♠ then your double is way too wide ranged. I am pretty sure straube meant to be able to bid 2N with 2-card support. 3 is suggestiog alternative option for hands that one would be going to bid 2N and i can't see where straube would examine this particulary. If you read my posts in this thread maybe you would find some suggestions and also reasoning.