JmBrPotter

The ACBLmerge program estimates a "field strength" as the geometric mean of the ACBL MP holdings of the competitors. If you believe that, in some meaningful way, players with more ACBL MPs are "stronger" than players with fewer ACBL MPs; then this measures field strength in some sense. The larger the geometric mean, the more likely you will stumble across an opponent with more ACBL MPs than that mean. When the number of ACBL members in the field constitute a very small fraction, "nothing" is probably a fair estimate of what it means.

After more than five years, you probably either have a solution or have given up. Nonetheless, Kaplan and Sheinwold's How to Play Winning Bridge still shows up in used book stores and on eBay from time to time. My hard cover copy of the 1958 edition purports to be signed by both authors on the front fly leaf. I also have the 1963 edition in soft cover.

Thanks for the tip. I do not use any browser extensions, but I do have Safari's builtin spell checker enabled. I'll try disabling spell checking during my next few BBO sessions to see if that helps. Even if losing spell checking fixes #2 on my "It would be nice if" list, that still leaves #1 and #3 open.

My MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2018) has been at MacOS 11.2.3 (20D91) with Safari Version 14.0.3 (16610.4.3.1.7) for a couple of weeks, now. I login and connect just fine. The only problem I have is one that persists from MacOS 10.14 or older. I realize this fact is neither help nor comfort for you . . .

I, perhaps incorrectly, understood that European practice kept the bidding cards on the table during the play of the hand. Perhaps, I got it wrong or this is no longer the case.

Partner and I use unusual methods. Check our card under JmBrPotter, my BBO ID. We have frequent alert obligations. My practice is to click the ALERT button before clicking on the last button of my call. After I complete my call, immediately after my call appears inside the round cornered red box, I click on the call and immediately begin typing my explanation. Often, my explanation disappears either while I'm typing it or immediately after/while I click on OK (or press the "Return" key on my keyboard). It seems that sometimes this event correlates with opponents clicking on my call to ask for an explanation. Other times, it is just a mystery. Wednesday night (12 May), I alerted a 3♦ opening and followed my usual procedure. My explanation, "Preemptive. Always missing one or more of ♦AKQ," got erased TWICE. I gave up and made the alert in chat after the opponents never saw the alert and asked about it in chat. This has been persistent for some months, now. It frustrates my opponents and me. It also delays our games. It would be nice if (1) invoking the "explanation" box automatically put the cursor in the "ready to type an explanation" position (It doesn't, now.), (2) the evaporating explanation text bug would go away, and (3) a longer explanation text were allowed (at minimum, up to about twice as long as now). I'm using the browser client version of BBO from a MacBook Pro running MacOS 11.2.3 (20D91) with Safari 14.0.3 (16610.4.3.1.7). If you do any special Microsoft encouraged things to "optimize" for Internet Explorer, I suspect that there is a chance that those nonstandard bits may be breaking other browsers. Such behavior would be consistent with historic Microsoft practices.

The double is fine. Your hand is good enough to compete for the partscore. However, partner lacks three spades with enough high card strength for a competitive 2♠ call over 2♥. The 2♥ bidder is behind you. Unless West holds ♥AKQJxx for the overcall, West is a favorite to hold ♦K and ♣Q. That leaves you with 2-3 minor suit losers and 1-2 likely trump losers. You will be fortunate to make 3♠ (or a no longer available 3♣). With your nearly certain three minor suit defensive winners, your prospects defending an adverse 4♥ contract are quite good. North’s possible four-card heart holding may include a winner or complicate West’s declarer play so as to create a fourth side suit defensive winner. Any action over partner’s 3♠ is nearly certain to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I vote for offering Fred Gitelman sufficient resources to expedite the keyboard short cuts in the web-based BBO client. Where do I send my donation? Until that happens, those of you with mousing/trackpadding problems should investigate the Kensington Expert Mouse Wired Trackball K64325. In my experience, there is no better pointing device available from from any manufacturer (including Kensington) at any price. It works on pretty much any version of either Windows or MacOS that you can imagine and provides the smoothest, fastest, most accurate, most precise pointer movement of any pointing device I've ever used. The scroll ring lets you scroll without messing with the pointer and scroll bars. The four buttons give you a total of six "clicks" without holding down any modifier keys. Meanings for all six "clicks" are customizable (but one must be plain, ordinary click with no modifiers) to do whatever you like (including different click definitions by application if such complexity blows up your bell bottoms). The trackball also offers excellent ergonomics. It cured my repetitive stress injury caused by mousing around. It might do the same for you. End of testimonial cum recommendation.

The original suggestion sounds like a good idea to me.

Possum, To a statistician, "randomness" means something like, "The statistical properties of an observation are indistinguishable from the statistical properties of a random sampling (e.g., tosses of fair coins, rolls of fair dice, or clicks from a Geiger counter) with a distribution matching the claimed distribution of the afore mentioned observation." That definition probably sounds very precise and quite sensible. Yet, a statistics professor could probably speed a full semester long advanced graduate level course on the topic (and wish for a second semester). Donald E. Knuth devotes Chapter 3 (nearly 180 pages) of his The Art of Computer Programming to the topic of generating pseudo random variants and validating their "randomness" by that definition. It is a suitable text for a one semester undergraduate class on the topic and barely scratches the surface.

Dave, If the powers behind Big Deal say that BBO has a good hand generator, I strongly trust that BBO has a good hand generator. The authors behind that generator have excellent knowledge of both the math behind good generators and the statistics to validate them. That theory knowledge has excellent backing by good computer programming to turn the theory into practice. I have a very minor philosophical quibble with Big Deal. It samples the population of all possible bridge hands without replacement (Big Deal would deal every possible bridge hand exactly once before it repeated a hand (perhaps, a desirable property if you want to be certain that the hands for your tournament will have no duplicates). Philosophically, I feel that the sampling should be conducted with replacement (There is a tiny chance {several orders of magnitude larger than Planck's constant but still quite small} that a set of a few thousand hands for a large tournament would contain one or more duplicates.) The practical difference is that once in several human lifetimes we are very unlikely to see a headline about two identical hands at the same tournament versus never seeing two identical hands at the same tournament. That is, no practical difference. You may have built a "feel" for what "random" bridge hands should resemble from playing shuffle and play events (e.g., local club games, KO teams, and Swiss teams). To get genuinely random hands via shuffle and play, every hand would need to be shuffled seven or more times. How likely is that? What proportion of the hands will be shuffled one or two (at best three) times before dealing? Inadequate shuffling will skew the hand distribution towards deals with four balanced hands each with 8-12 HCP (e.g., lots of 3-2, 2-2, and 3-1 trump splits and way to few 4-0, 4-1, and 5-0 trump splits). Players who encounter randomly distributed hands when they leave the sheltered waters of their local shuffle and play club for the first time will have their instincts for how the cards should break thoroughly battered.

The ACBL began using Big Deal for the Winter NABC in 2016. Nicolas Hammond (author of the recent Detecting Cheating in Bridge) proved that feeding a suitable program boards 1, 2, & 3 of an ACBL generated board set would yield boards 4-36 in a short enough time for the result to be useful for cheating on most of the "solved" boards. He also delivered statistics indicating that some pairs might be using this "crack" (or one like it) to cheat at NABCs and Regionals. The ACBL (and EBU, and USBF, and WBF) finished switching to Big Deal by January 2017. Apparently, most folks with sufficient knowledge of bridge, national bridge organizations, cryptography, mathematics, and statistics (This skill cluster probably requires a team of several folks in most instances.) believe that with suitable communications security Big Deal is not subject to such a "crack."

With the working ♠ void, it seems to me that you are really off only two aces.

Michael, Nice work on the BBF Systems Index. I have another one for you. MoTown Minors: General Approach: - 1NT = 10-14 balanced (but a minimum of 7 3-2-1 points) - 1♣ 11-37; 1RF; any hand not covered by another opening * Balanced 19-22, 25-26, or 29-37 * 3-suited 11-14, 18-20, 24-26 * 1-suited or 2-suited with a natural, strong 2♥ opening as in Goren 1950 * 11-15 minor suit 1-suited * 2-suited 11-15 with a 5-card major and an unspecified 4-card minor * 2-suited in minors but too strong for a 2NT opening - 1♦ 15-34; 1RF; any hand not covered by another opening * Balanced 15-18, 23-24, or 27-28 * 3-suited 15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 * 1-suited or 2-suited with a natural, strong 2♠ opening as in Goren 1950 * 16-(bad)20 minor suit one-suited * 1-suited with a natural, strong 2♣ or 2♦ opening as in Goren 1950 * 2-suited 16-20 with a 5-card major and an unspecified 4-card minor - 1♥/1♠: 11-20, Natural 4+ card major suit; 1-suited (6+ cards in opened major rebid opened major) or 2-suited (will rebid other suit 5+ cards) - 2♣, 2♦, 2♥, 2♠: Natural weak-two bids - 2NT: 11-15 minor suit 5-5 or more 2-suited - 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠: Natural, preemptive - 3NT: ANY solid 7-card suit (♥ and ♠ possible) without a side suit entry - Suit Higher: Preempt or partnership agreement - 4NT: Blackwood Responses & Rebids over 1♣ - 1♦ response waiting - 1NT response 10-14 bal - 2NT response 15-16 bal - 3NT response 17-18 4-3-3-3 - 1♥/1♠ response balanced too strong for 2NT or 3NT - 2-suit: 3-8 Natural 6-card suit HCP concentrated in bid suit - 3-suit: 3-8 Natural 7-card suit HCP concentrated in bid suit - Opener becomes captain except over waiting bid - Opener's rebids over 1♦ - 1♥: Nat, strong 2♥ opener - 1♠: 3-suiter or 29+ bal - 1NT: 19-22 bal - 2♣/2♦ 11-15 Nat, 1-suited - 2♥/2♠ 11-15 Nat 5 cards in rebid M w/ 4+ in either m - 2NT: 25-26 bal - 3♣ 16-20 minors 2-suited - 3♦ 21+ minors 2-suited Responses & Rebids over 1♦ - 1♥ response waiting - 1NT response 10-14 bal - 2NT response 15-16 bal - 3NT response 17-18 4-3-3-3 - 1♥/1♠ response balanced too strong for 2NT or 3NT - 2-suit: 3-8 Natural 6-card suit HCP concentrated in bid suit - 3-suit: 3-8 Natural 7-card suit HCP concentrated in bid suit - Opener becomes captain except over waiting bid - Opener's rebids over 1♥ - 1♠: Nat, strong 2♠ opener - 1NT: 15-18 bal - 2♣: 3-suiter or 27-28 bal - 2♦ 1-suited strong 2 opening in either ♣ or ♣ - 2♥/2♠ 16-20 Nat 5 cards in rebid M w/ 4+ in either m - 2NT: 23-24 bal - 3♣/3♦ 16-20 Nat 1-suited Subsequent responses and rebids tend be to be natural along approach forcing, 2/1 GF, or fast arrival lines. Use your current defensive bidding and preemption methods. :-) Brian

I've developed a dealing machine file verify and translate utility. The current version accepts two input files, verifies them to determine whether they represent the same board set, and, when there is a third file and the board sets match, reformats the inputs to create an output file in the specified format. Now, the supported formats are as follows: *.ALL: DEAL305 format ( rw ) *.BRE: Autodealer format ( rw ) *.BRI: Duplimate format ( rw ) *.CSV: Comma Separated Values text format ( rw ) *.DGE: Duplimate format ( rw ) *.DLM: Duplimate for Windows format ( r ) *.DUP: Duplimate format ( rw ) *.HRF: Duplimate Hand Record Format ( rw ) *.HDM: Hand Dealer for Macintosh ( r ) *.PBN: Portable Bridge Notation format ( rw ) *.RBN: Richard's Bridge Notation format ( rw ) Any help with adding *.LIN, *.GIB, or other interesting formats would be appreciated. The intended objective focuses on dealing machine operations. Given two files for the same event and session, the utility can verify them against one another---potentially helpful if there is some confusion about the correct file to use for dealing the boards. Also of occasional helpfulness, possessed of a dealing machine file in a format alien to one's dealing machine, this utility may provide a reformatted file for the same board set in a form acceptable to the dealing machine. Thanks,

Thanks to all of you. I've been working on a dealing machine file verify and translate utility. This discussion helped me add Duplimate for Windows *.DLM format to the library. The current version accepts two input files, verifies them to determine whether they represent the same board set, and when there is a third file and the board sets match reformats the inputs to create an output file in the specified format. Now, the supported formats are as follows: *.ALL: DEAL305 format ( rw ) *.BRE: Autodealer format ( rw ) *.BRI: Duplimate format ( rw ) *.CSV: Comma Separated Values text format ( rw ) *.DGE: Duplimate format ( rw ) *.DLM: Duplimate for Windows format ( r ) *.DUP: Duplimate format ( rw ) *.HRF: Duplimate Hand Record Format ( rw ) *.HDM: Hand Dealer for Macintosh ( r ) *.PBN: Portable Bridge Notation format ( rw ) *.RBN: Richard's Bridge Notation format ( rw ) Any help with adding *.LIN, *.GIB, or other interesting formats would be appreciated. The intended objective focuses on dealing machine operations. Given two files for the same event and session, the utility can verify them against one another---potentially helpful if there is some confusion about the correct file to use for dealing the boards. Also of occasional helpfulness, possessed of a dealing machine file in a format alien to one's dealing machine, this utility may provide a reformatted file for the same board set in a form acceptable to the dealing machine. Thanks,

Mike, Previous replies have certainly explained why this double is a penalty double. All this is quite so if your partnership agreement is that weak-two openings are (1) preemptive and (2) one-suited. In its original (auction bridge) form, a "weak-two opening" went by a different name. A typical holding might have been ♠AKQxxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣xx. We'd call that a full opener, today. The contract bridge scoring table changed things quite a lot. Losing either king or the ♥K and any one of the top three spades leaves a perfectly good weak-two bid as played in the contract bridge world in from about 1950-1969 or so. The bid became weaker and more broadly defined, but still with a six-card suit. It evolved from a strong low-level preemptive bid into a preemptive/constructive (or constructive/preemptive) call. If you and your partner think of a weak-two opening as a (nearly) pure preempt, stick with this double as penalty. Now a days, many of us will open a weak-two with 5-4-3-1 or 5-4-2-2 shape. The four-card suit might even be spades! Especially, in second seat red against white, our playing strength (if not our HCP) might resemble that of a full opener (maybe, even more than one defensive winner, but maybe a 6-3-3-1 with no outside honor). Third seat at favorable, our weak-two might be a rather shameless handful of (used) tram tickets. So, to my partner and me, this double sounds more like something in the optional double or negative double family. If you have the traditional small one-suiter with no more than one loser in the suit, leave it in for blood. With tram tickets and a four-card major on the side, let's mention that four-bagger. With one-suited tram tickets, pulling the double to the opened suit might make good sense (Think of that as the "no feature" response to a 2NT feature ask.) This might be a good time for you and your partner to discuss what is (and what is not) a weak-two opener. Pure preempt? Preempt with some constructive flavoring? Mostly constructive with a side of preemptive? How does the bid vary with seat position and vulnerability? Once you've settled those issues, you can talk about responder's actions and bidding over adverse intervention. That would include defining this double in the context of your weak-two opener. The more likely it is that opener might be two-suited or semi-constructive and two-suited, the more likely it becomes that the double should shade towards optional or negative meanings.

As mentioned earlier, if partner is so weak as to pass 1♠, one of the opponents would have opened. Thus, open 1♠ and follow partners likely 1NT, 2♥, or 2♣ response with a natural strong jump shift in ♦s and a ♦ rebid. That should get you to a spade game when there's no slam. When partner has the ♠A, you should reach 6♠. If you have room for some cue bidding, you might discover the black bullets in partner's hand and bid the grand. There is some risk that you may end defending a high level heart of club contract going down not very far. That risk suggests a more abrupt approach, but I'm sticking with open 1♠ and jump-shift into ♦s.

This is three replies: One as a club director, One as a player, and One as a generic ACBL official Club Director: I do not care whether or not you psyche in my club, but if I'm called to the table, I'll probably rule against you when any of the following have happened: - Your psyche violated the General Convention Chart - You were picking on a pair I have reason to believe that you knew were weaker Things like psyching a control on the way to a notrump contract with a suit wide open or bidding notrump over partner's preempt on a couple of major suit stoppers and some fitting cards in partner's suit are fine with me. Player: My bidding methods tend to create an environment where I may legally only psyche 1M openings, overcalls, cue bids, and notrump responses to partner's preempts. Against equal or stronger players, I feel at liberty to psyche the 1M opening in third seat (where partner being a passed hand is unlikely to go nuts), to psyche a simple one-level overcall to suggest a lead, and to psyche a cue bid or "place the contract" notrump bid to attempt stealing a contract. The last tournament I played, I psyched once in eleven sessions. Generic ACBL official: I'll live by the rules and enforce them when and where appropriate. I'll also tell players who complain about a psyche just because it's a psyche does not make it a crime. If the psyche is legal in form and is not picking on players the psyched knew or should have known were weaker, I'll uphold the psycher and chat with the complainant about psyches being part of the game.

I do not consider this hand balanced. I'm opening 1♣ in 2/1. If partner bids a red suit, especially hearts, my rebid will be 2NT for the reasons mentioned in the original post. My partnerships bypass minors to show a four-card major, so partner's 1♥ response may well include 4-5 diamonds, too. If partner responds in 1♠, I may mastermind the hand with a 2NT rebid. If partner raises clubs, I may take a shot with 5♣, but I'll probably make a game try with 2♠. As my partnership does not bid 2/1, our opening bid will be 1♠ (4+ spades, 11-20 HCP, 1-suited {in spades} or two-suited with 4+ spades and 5+ in another suit NOT shorter than spades {same length as spades or one card longer}). My likely rebid over partner'd likely 1NT (5-6 or more HCP, no spade raise {0-3 spade cards}, and too weak to force game) is 3♣ (=4+-x-y=5+ shape with 16-20HCP).

Since partner and I open balanced 10-14 counts with 7+ 3-2-1 points with 1NT, our auction would have been either: Pass-(Pass)-1NT-All Pass . . . or . . . Pass-(Pass)-1NT<1>-Pass 2♣<2>-(Pass)-2♦<3>-Pass 2♠<4>-(Pass)-2NT<5>-All Pass <1> 10-14 HCP in a balanced hand <2> Do you have a 5-card major? <3> No <4> I have 0-3 ♥ cards with 4 ♠ cards and game invitational or stronger values <5> I have a minimum with 2 or 3 ♠ cards Opposite a passed partner, the West hand is not going past a partscore. Using 2/1, Acol, SAYC, or similar methods I would pass (likely at unfavorable vulnerability) or open 1♣ (likely at equal or favorable vulnerability). 1♣ is probably a more useful lead director than 1♦ in the likely event that North has a good hand and North-South buy the contract. If partner responded to a 1♣ opening, I would pass. Note that the powder puff 1NT opener has good preemptive value and probably leads to a sane to semi-sane contract with good chances to avoid the -200 result for -2 vulnerable. 1NT might even go +90 or +120 for a very good score on a board that will pass out at many tables. The possible 2NT contract is more problematic. It might easily go -100 for a zero, but +120 for a top is not an impossible outcome. Defending 2NT on 22 HCP with 18 HCP may give the 8th trick away on the opening lead. If the IMPs are a team event (not IMP Pairs), the third seat powder puff 1NT opening may put irresistible pressure on North to do something that turns out poorly. That opening will certainly make the board more interesting than the fairly likely "All Pass" auction at the other table. Thus, I blame neither player while casting stones at the bidding methods which forced West into the distasteful choice between passing and opening 1♦.

Straube, System principles: - Shape first (inspired by Roman Club) - Bid early, bid often, and stop fast when you are not going anywhere - Many unsound or preemptive openings > Weak two opening bids in all four suits (inspired by Roth-Stone) > Open 1NT on 10-14 balanced (including =5-3-3-2 and 3=5-3-2 shapes) in all seats at all vulnerabilities > Open 2NT on x-y=5=5 11-15 counts in all seats at all vulnerabilities > Open 3NT on AKQxxxx in any suit when the hand has no side entry > 3-suit openings deny a 7-card suit with all three top honors. > Open all 11-counts (and many slightly shapely 10-counts) as "full valued" opening hands > Have a special opening bid sequence for 3-suited hands to keep them out of other auctions > Avoid getting to a natural 2NT when the partnership might hold less than 23-24 HCP in the combined hands System Book URL: MoTown Minors Book Opening Bids Table with some initial responses and rebids: 1♣: 11-37 One Round Force 1♦: 15-37 One Round Force Some stuff in the 1♣ and 1♦ openings - Bid hands that would open 1♣ in most big club systems get divided about evenly between these to conventional openings. - Three-suited hands get split into six HCP ranges, three in each of the above openings - Balanced hands bigger than 14HCP get split between these two openings - Minimum range minor suit one-suiters live inside 1♣ - Major suit oriented "Standard" 2♣ openers get split between 1♣ and 1♦ - Minor suit oriented "Standard" 2♣ openers begin with 1♦ 1♥, 1♠: 11-20HCP, always unbalanced (5-3-3-2s get treatment as balanced with less than 8 tricks in hand or less than 4 defensive winners.) > 1-suited with 6+ cards in the opened suit (rebid or jump rebid opened suit to show strength) > 2-suited with a second suit NOT longer than the opened major (simple rebid a new suit [minimums] or jump-shift [maximums]---both rebids non-forcing) > Response & rebid structure otherwise similar to 2/1 methods with adjustments for the likely 4-card major 1NT: 10-14HCP, balanced > 2♣: ask for a 5-card major; over the expected 2♦ negative response, responder may look for a 4-4 fit by bidding 2♥ or 2♠ (or pass as a runout) or rebid 2NT invitational > 2♦, 2♥: Jacoby with doubleton showing super-accepts; responder's 2NT rebid invites game > 2♠: Transfer to ♣s---Normally used as a runout or slam try > 2NT: Transfer to ♦s ---as above 2♣, 2♦, 2♥, 2♠: Weak Two Opening Bids 2NT: 11-15HCP with x-y=5+=5+ distribution: > 3♣, 3♦: Sign-off > 3♥: Heart stopper for 3NT; usually no spade stopper; may rebid ♥s or ♠s to try for a major suit contract > 3♠: Spade control for 3NT; no heart stopper; natural major suit development as above > 3NT: to play > Higher: usually slam tries except for immediate sign-offs in ♣s or ♦s (which may be preemptive) 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠: Preempts that deny holding AKQ5432 or stronger in trumps 3NT: AKQxxxx in one suit and no side entry (Gambling 3NT in all 4 suits) Higher openings: Whatever you like will do just fine. The system book offers ideas, but any sane practice will fit. Initial responses to 1♣ and 1♦: 1♣-(Pass)-1♦: Waiting bid 0-29HCP any shape/strength combination NOT included in the responses, below 1♦-(Pass)-1♥: Waiting bid 0-25HCP any shape/strength combination NOT included in the responses, below 1♣, 1♦-(Pass)-1NT: 10-14 HCP, balanced (including all 5-3-3-2 shapes). Responses and rebids ignore the 1m opening. Opener is captain as though responder made a natural 1NT opening. 1♣, 1♦-(Pass)-2NT: 15-16 HCP, balanced (including all 5-3-3-2 shapes). Responses and rebids ignore the 1m opening. Opener is captain as though responder made a natural 2NT opening. 1♣, 1♦-(Pass)-3NT: 17-18 HCP, any 4-3-3-3 shape. Responses and rebids ignore the 1m opening. Opener is captain as though responder made a natural 3NT opening. 1♣, 1♦-(Pass)-1♦, 1♥, 1♠ (not a waiting bid): balanced hand too strong or off-shape for any immediate NT response; 1NT systems are on but opener's 1NT rebid is natural and makes responder captain in a game forcing auction 2♣, 2♦, 2♥, 2♠: 3-8HCP concentrated in a 6-card suit (one-suited hand) 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, 3♠: 3-8HCP concentrated in a 7-card suit (one-suited hand) Notrump Structure (for all balanced hands which include all 5-3-3-2 hands): > 10-14 HCP: Open 1NT > 15-18 HCP: Open 1♦ and rebid a simple (1)NT (1NT opening systems on) > 19-22 HCP: Open 1♣ and rebid a simple (1)NT (1NT opening systems on) > 23 or 24 HCP: Open 1♦ and rebid a single jump (2)NT (treat as natural 2NT opening) > 25 or 26 HCP: Open 1♣ and rebid a single jump (2)NT (treat as natural 2NT opening) > 27 or 28 HCP: Open 1♦, first rebid 2♣ (claims to be 3-suited with 15-34 HCP), and second rebid a simple (2 or 3)NT (treat as natural NT opening) > 29 or more HCP: Open 1♣, first rebid 1♠ (claims to be 3-suited with 11-26 HCP), and second rebid a simple (2 or 3)NT (treat as natural 2NT opening; special sequences available for slam in hand looking for a grand situations) One-suited hands with ♥s or ♠s: > 11-20 HCP: Open the major and rebid it. Respond and rebid similar to 1M openings in "Standard or 2/1" > 8+ offensive winners with 4+ defensive winners: Open 1♣ (w/ ♥s) or 1♦ (w/ ♠s) and rebid your major at the 1-level. Respond and rebid like 1M openings in "Standard or 2/1" - Hands that "fall in the crack" between these treatments bid as one or the other with awareness of the sub-minimum or super-maximum situation. This is very rare. One-suited hands with ♣s or ♦s: > 11-15 HCP: Open 1♣ and rebid the long minor at the 2-level (Adverse bidding is common and sometimes successfully preemptive.) > 16-20 HCP: Open 1♦ and rebid the long minor at the 3-level > 9+ offensive winners with 4+ defensive winners: Open 1♦, first rebid 2♦ (responder has an all but forced 2♥ rebid), second rebid long minor at the 3-level Three-suited hands: >11-14, 18-20, or 24-26 HCP: Open 1♣, first rebid 1♠ (claims 3-suited---follow specialized response and rebid structure) >15-17, 21-23, or 27-34 HCP: Open 1♦, first rebid 2♣ (claims 3-suited---follow same specialized response and rebid structure) Two-suited hands with ♥ or ♠ as the "shorter suit": > 11-15 TP: Open one of the (usually) 4-card major and rebid (nonforcing) two of the (usually) 5-card "second" suit > 16-20 TP: Open one of the (usually) 4-card major and rebid (nonforcing) three of the (usually) 5-card "second" suit > Stronger: Begin as though one-suited in the longer suit and show the shorter major suit as a side suit if it becomes appropriate - The second suit bid is never shorter and the suit lengths are equal or the length difference is one card Two-suited hands with a shorter minor suit and either ♥ or ♠ as the "longer suit": > 11-15 TP: Open 1♣ and rebid 2♥ or 2♠ (non-forcing); the minor stays concealed unless responder provokes a rebid to show it > 16-20 TP: Open 1♦ and rebid 2♥ or 2♠ (non-forcing); the minor stays concealed unless responder provokes a rebid to show it > Stronger: Begin as though one-suited in the major suit and show the shorter minor suit as a side suit if it becomes appropriate - The second suit bid is never shorter and the suit lengths are equal or the length difference is one card Two-suited in the minor suits: > 11-15 HCP: Open 2NT > 16-19 HCP: Open 1♣ and rebid 3♣ (Responder will pass, correct to 3♦, or advance with a good hand.) > 20-25 HCP: Open 1♣ and rebid 3♦ (Responder will pass, correct to 4♣, or advance with a good hand.) > Stronger: Open 1♦ and first rebid 2♦; over the all but forced 2♥ response, rebid 2♠ (suits equal or ♣s longer/stronger) or 2NT (♦s longer/stronger) 1NT is a very common opening. It frequently creates an anti-field contract or declarer. This is often good (or even very good) because we have beat the opponents to 1NT when that is the highest contract either side can make. When it is bad, we run out if doubled or when undoubled play a ridiculous 1NT contract going down 50 or 100 a trick (usually) into their game or slam. This is sometimes bad when we are down two (or more) vulnerable on a partscore hand. We are learning to pass vulnerable against NV in 4th seat with bad balanced 10-counts. This common opening often acts as an effective preempt. Against aggressive players, we sometimes collect lucrative penalties when holding a good 13-14 point hand if the opponents will not let us "steal the hand." The weak 2♣ opening also often gets our table in the anti-field zone. Often, the opponents (or our teammates) opened at the other table putting the opponents at our table in a more difficult spot. Sometimes, a player in our seat opened 3♣ rather than our 2♣. Sometimes, their 3♣ opening helps the players seated against us. Sometimes, the 3♣ opener is overboard. Naturally, with a suitable hand we can choose to open 3♣ rather than 2♣, but we do not do this very often, now. The 2♣ opening usually does the job well enough. The 1♣ and 1♦ openings are vulnerable to preemption. We have countermeasures similar to those most Big Club bidders deploy. After adverse preemptive action, the fact that our big hands spread across two forcing openings sometimes (but far from always) helps us figure out what is going on slightly better than our counterparts with "normal" Bid Club methods. I suspect we need to spend less time "finding our spot" and more time swinging the axe when opponents preempt over 1♣ and 1♦. Sometimes, the 1♣ opening actually has the effect of a preempt. After the 1♣ opening on a minimum range minor suit one-suiter, opponents sometimes "preempt" us so effectively that they play a partscore rather than the available (and easy to bid over a natural 1♣ or 1♦ opening) major suit game. Such party favors will become less frequent as opponents figure out how to handle the 1♣ opening. That is the skeleton. For muscle, connective tissue and skin; see the book posted on line. It is old, but the newest version has not yet made it into the "official" documentation.

Agreed. I apologize. Look for the answer to Straube's, "What's your system, then" in a new topic called "MoTown Minors".

Right, my fumble. I misread the post as using methods analogous to Kaplan Inversion after a 1NT overcall. Consequence of posting while asleep . . .

GregorJack, Well, I posted on BBO for a BBO partner or a local face-to-face partner in the Florence, SC; Southern Pines, NC; Lumberton, NC; Fayetteville, NC; Cheraw, SC area. I did not get any action, either. Check out my profile. If you think we fit for either BBO or face-to-face, give me a holler. I'll be at Gatlinburg all seven days.