pooltuna

What the hell is an "unbiddable 4 card major" in a 5cM system context? If partner is systemically not opening a major on AKJx, I am going to bid my 5432 suits quite readily (though would prefer 1d response to a bad major if not playing Walsh & holding diamonds). I don't think it makes any sense to have suit quality requirements to respond 1M if playing strict 5cM. If you were playing some 4cM system, then having suit quality minimums makes more sense. For me something like 9543. Of course I have to bid this when I hold both majors in a 4432 context. And despite your tone I assume you know I get to bid the hands however I choose and don't have to obey your bidding rules. In fact I could tell you where to get off so have a nice hike. :P

Basically a cost effective method to do this is hard to come by. As far as restoring rivers have you ever noticed the quantity of water flowing in most of them? Of course I may be biased as I live in New Orleans. Nevertheless rivers flow one direction for a simple reason and moving that much desalinated or to be desalinated seawater uphill ain't easy.

1) not usless I agree to a style that opens this hand 2) 1♠ partner can have 4♥ and 4♠ 3) 3♥ presumably this is on the bottom side of our opening hands and 3♣ was a game try

I got lost after 2. Or do you think your vulnerable opponents bidding to the 6 level are just insane and have no idea what they are doing? In fact I think it's more likely they make than that they are down more than 1. I have to question their sanity if I am holding AQ of trump and another A with partner opening the bidding. Of course I recall a hand yesterday against less than stellar opponents.... [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq7h9854dkt9765c5&w=s8432hj72da4cak63&e=sakjt6ha63dqj32c7&s=s95hkqtd8cqjt9842]399|300|Scoring: XIMP Auction (2♦) 2♠ (3♣) X all pass[/hv] with west hand my thoughts were "I LOVE VOLUNTEERS" (i.e. where opponents elect to willingly go down) ...2,5,8,11 bingo

1) I would prefer 3NT if partner has a double ♥ stopper, failing that I guess i would bite the dust for 5♣ 2) Repeat after me 2,5,8,11,14...

1) if you are not playing Walsh then it is standard. If you are playing Walsh you should start with 1♥ since I don't oonsider this a GF hand. 2) Not with a biddable 4 card major. With an unbiddable 4 card major and 2NT as a forcing call then 1NT would be a possibility. 3) I presume you want 2NT to be an invitational call and this hand seems about right. There is no point in bidding ♥s as partner does not have 4

It already has a name....mastermind. Generally you are better off bidding your hand and letting your partner bid his <_<

and all this time I thought you were the BBF search utility <_<

amen and if you are not ready to rebid 3♣ with 10HCP don't bid 2♣

Amen! It is really remarkable how much the mere addition of the T♠ instead of an x improves this holding. Now your suit can run opposite partner's void albeit still against the odds plus you move to over 50% if pard has a small singleton.

1) opener could have started with 1NT 2) opener was right about 2♣ 3) responder was right about 2♥ provided it did not show xtras (opener has some but not enough for a reverse). IMO the inability to show xtras is a flaw in most 2/1 FG systems. 4) 3♥ now responder pays for the initial 2♣ call 5) responder is nuts to bid 4♠ didn't 2♦ show a minimal opener?

partner's failure to XX has strong implications that you belong in ♦ so I would call 3♦

yes but the objective is to lose only 1♦ .

GF 2♣ hand should be 1 trick short of game and only need 1 of 2 cards from partner to make game NV at IMPs (i.e. you cross the 50% threshhold for being in game) and still lower odds for V at IMPS. So the hand you showed does not meet the criteria however just changing the suits with the same cards you get a 2♣ bid. i.e. ♠xx ♥AKQJxxx ♦AKx ♣x now you have a practically auto 2♣ call as any of A♣,A♠,K♠, Q♦ produce an apriori probability of >85% chance of game

It seems harsh to punish extra research seeking to find a solution to a problem. This is something new to physics from my day when researching alternatives to book solutions was virtually impossible.

Well in this particular auction I don't think lightner applies nevertheless I think a ♣ will not work so I will try the other major

with the caveat that the OP apparently is not playing split range Michaels how much do you like it and what is the difference if your minors were swapped :)

Huh? Why couldn't we have a penalty double of 2♣? LHO has a weak NT, partner has a single suited hand (presumably spades with more than a minimum spade overcall) and RHO has run out of the double of 1NT to 2♣ natural and to play. While my hand says that we don't (and probably cannot) have a penalty double of 2♣, the bidding doesn't say that. even worse the bidding seems to be whispering "the opps may sac in ♣" :D

agree but they are even more zealous about opening lead agreements (good for them) :D so while chance of a ♥ switch is low non 4th best ♠ lead is even lower :)

this

I would think W vs R is a fairly clear 5♦. Other than that I would probably defend

I think we can safely infer that partner's suit is ♠. Do the system agreements prevent him from holding 3 ♥s along with 6♠. If not I would try 2♥ as the best chance to get to a makeable game.

true if the opps are playing 3rd/5th and UDCA then you can place the ♦ at LHO with 4 and RHO with 5. If the opps are using standard carding and 4th best leads it looks much murkier as the lead and signalling do not make sense.

this is true you have 9+ tricks but the trick is to :(

I wouldn't