jjbrr

You might remember and revive this thread. Edit: and I realize that doesn't quite cover exactly what you seem to have in mind. I'm sure a new thread in the offline bridge forum would get a lot of discussion.

What?

as I've said, I think it's clear to play 5♣ natural in this auction if transfering to ♦ can include 4♣

Ken, when partner invites you to game, and you accept, do you start cuebidding all your good cards to tell the opponents where everything is and allow them the opportunity to double or do you just bid game? How is this different? you are looking for a way to stay out of an unmakeable slam which is after all what Blackwood is really about. Blackwood? I thought we were talking about quantitative 4NT. Feel free to have whatever agreements you want with your partners, but I don't think answering keycards in this auction is a good idea. I think 5♣ natural might be useful on many hands, and what does a 5♦ response mean to 4NT? and why is partner bidding quantitatively with no aces, which is what we're worried about with 5M responses?

Ken, when partner invites you to game, and you accept, do you start cuebidding all your good cards to tell the opponents where everything is and allow them the opportunity to double or do you just bid game? How is this different?

Quantitative over NT auctions is simple: Bid slam with a max, pass with a min.

1) Pass, 5♦, 6♦, 6NT are all sign off. 5NT says pick. 2) No. 3) Why have you denied a max hand? You can still have a max hand without a good fit, with which you would raise. Can you still have xxx in ♦? Jxx? Qxx? QJx? xxxx? Those would all be reasons to accept if you aren't min.

I agree with awm. In non-serious events, I personally let a lot of things slide. I admit I haven't called the director for a lead or play out of turn in many years, and that goes for some serious competitions as well.

But how can a pair prepare adequate defenses to the opponent's system unless they know not only the meanings of all the bids, but also all the follow up agreements, agreements for coping with interference, etc This amounts to their entire system notes, doesn't it? How is bidding naturally and constructively not an adequate defense to any system? Did you mean optimal? I suspect the difference between adequate and optimal is negligible enough for almost all systems that it doesn't justify going through all the trouble to learn someone's ENTIRE system and ALL follow up agreements only to then have to decide what the optimal defense is. That seems completely ridiculous to me and an enormous waste of time.

I still don't understand all this discussion of copyrights. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the issue at hand, as far as I know. stjk, no one is even coming close to suggesting that it is against any law or ethics for anyone to compile information from vugraph archives. Changing the vugraph archives to prevent people from doing this is a terrible idea. You said earlier in this thread, "It's not the ofiicial Lite version from meckwell, but should be clsoe. It's based on the version used by the US youth team and I added some followups." Is it safe to infer from this and your previous post, then, that you reviewed the US junior events on vugraph to compile your system? I'd be interested to learn which events you studied and which partnerships were the most helpful to you.

i thought it was funny :blink:

LOL. sorry. agree i meant. fml

I don't think I've done this, and I don't think the agreement was to "not share parts of the notes". Semantics, though, and I see your point. I'll use PM from now on. Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way about this topic. I assure you I couldn't really care less what OP posts or doesn't post. If I were someone else, though, and I wanted to post the system as OP did, I would cite the source, or make some reference to where the information was received, or at least note that someone else did all the work thinking this stuff up and none of the information is his own. Also, what is the "for students" business? It's clearly not "for students." It's for everyone. I don't think it's appropriate to say something is for a certain group when the intent is clearly just to educate the masses. As if saying "for students" makes it acceptable to plagiarize someone's work or something. That's merely my opinion, and I accept that not everyone will disagree.

If people are really using this UI to their benefit, their behavior is exploitable, if you wish to fight fire with fire. Just alert things randomly; throw in a "stayman lol" once in a while unprompted. (I know neither gnome nor anyone else who posted in this thread would ever consider doing this, of course, but it could be used to get back at blatant abusers.)

Confirmed, Noble. I realized I had the notes in my e-mail. "Strong hand with a Major: With a forcing hand containing a GOOD Major, jump to 2 of the Major. This would be a hand similar to a standard 2♣ opener and a rebid of a Major (2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠) 1♣ - 1♦ 2♠ - - Strong, 5+ Major 3♣ = 2nd Negative, opener can rebid 3 of the Major, nf new suit by opener would be forcing here" Though 2♥ kokish is standard now. Edit: Also, many are playing 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♠ as 5♠, 3♥ and 1♣ 1♦ 1M 2♣ 2M is sign off as well (don't know why that's not in OP; 2♦ is just scrambling). Also inconsistent with OP: "Minor GF: with a game forcing hand and 5+ (usually 6+) in a minor and with NO MAJOR, jump to 3 of minor. If the jump is 3♣, then 3♦ by responder is waiting, or a Major rebid = 5+. 1♣ - 1♦ 3♣ - 3♦ = waiting bid by responder 1♣ - 1♦ 3♣ - 3♠ = 5 spades by responder"

LOL@mentioning copyrights again. reading comprehension ftw.

Prove to me that it is fair, and I'll concede. Edit: It seems to me that a simple request like "I don't want you to share this with too many people" is totally fair also. I have no idea whatsoever if any of them still feel this way, but if they do, I respectfully say you are completely wrong. It is not only totally unfair, but amazingly disrespectful for someone to post this with neither permission or even any reason whatsoever. I'm very aware that many, many people play this system and that nothing here is a big secret. I don't know the originators of the system well enough to guess their intentions. Perhaps they're delighted that people are posting their ideas for everyone to read. Perhaps they have a book in process that they plan to make money from and OP just cost them lots of dough. All I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, posting this wasn't without some damage to somebody somewhere. Edit again: and why do people keep mentioning copyrights? wtf is going on? in no way did i imply anything about copyrights at all. it's the principle of the matter. Edit a third time: Maybe they just don't want random people approaching them offering their theories about how to improve the system. A totally fair request, in my mind. Am I totally out of line here? This is basic, kindergarten, golden rule stuff. If you told someone not to share something, and they did anyway, you would feel upset. Why do you think it's ok in this instance?

Just hearing people think like this makes me sad. Next thing you know I'll be able to copyright 2-way NMF and start suing people for playing it and getting their internet connections pulled for mentioned it online. Remember that 1st amendment? PS Credit was certainly attributed in the title, unless you're talking about whoever "simplified" it. Thank you for your ignorance. A little bit goes a long way. Meanwhile, I received an electronic copy of these notes from Jeff's son a couple years ago after I promised that I wouldn't distribute them without permission. My only point was that if they still feel that public dissemination is inappropriate, perhaps that point should be made clear, and we should respect the wishes they had, albeit a couple years ago. Where you got this lawsuit and copyright business is totally beyond me. Care to explain wtf you're referring to, because I in no way implied anything like that in my post?

3♠ is definitely 3505 imo

The version in OP, from a quick glance, is what I play and is what is in the notes I received from someone close to the source, though I don't recall 1♣ 1♦ 2♠ showing minors. I might have overlooked it, but im reasonably confident it was just GF with ♠ And just a btw... are we certain meckwell or whomever else is OK with OP posting this information in such a public place? I know it's not private info or anything, but some credit should be given to the source, in my opinion.

Some poker theory is probably useful here. Opposite a passed hand, you can bid 1♠ with strong hands that fit your later criteria (good strength, good suit, etc), but you can also overcall with particularly weak hands, which acts effectively like a lead-directing psych, since you know partner can't go crazy bidding a lot with a big hand. When partner isn't a passed hand, the range of hands you can overcall with a 4-card suit is much narrower, since partner will try to have a constructive auction. This is why I called these type of bids very situational.

This post is gold. Even with 13 cards, this hand might be too strong for 4♥

This was my initial reaction.

why did you bid 3♠? Edit: The question shouldn't be "what do i do now?" The question is "what does 2♠ mean given all the information you're lacking" When we answer that question, the rest of the auction becomes easy.

4♥ is definitely most descriptive. 3♥ or 3♦ (which should be forcing) would probably also work fine. Just some kind of forcing bid will get more info from partner. As for the original question, partner is probably looking for the perfect kind of hand from you. The type of thing where if you have 2 aces, he can count 12 laydown tricks, but if you have a less-than-perfect hand the 5 level could be in huge trouble.