P0STM0RTEM

Pescetom's link to Bob's suggestion about Pass being Forcing seems the way to go. Then opener I assume would overcall any 5 card suit at the 3-level and double failing that thus allowing a Penalty Pass conversion by responder. I'll take the bidding tree one step further: 2NT 3 X ? Pass is Forcing Double generally without a Quality 5+ long suit Pass = Penalty Pass conversion Next Suit Up = To Play (no ability to transfer into it) Higher 3-level Suit = Invitational to 3N or 4M 3NT = Option to play w/ invite in what would have be next suit 3-level shows Quality 5+ long suit Double negative (up to 4♥) 3♦, 3♥ transfer to suit above 3♠ asks for stopper in enemy shown suit 3NT sign-off 4♣ Gerber 4♦, 4♥ transfer to major above, or splinter slam try if next higher suit is enemy suit 4♠ quantitative (16+-17) 4NT quantitative (15 to 16-)

Better than 4♥ I feel is the Fitted reply of 4♦ showing ♥ support enough for game with 4+ Good ♦s. There's hardly any room not taken up with this call and it allows opener to participate further over interference. This IMHO 'expert standard' treatment would of course require partnership agreement.

Too bad 5+ wasn't included as an option. That would receive my vote. Any flatter and would conceal ♠ length with 1N or 2N relying on a later check back for a major suit fit (just as I would over a 1♦ reply). ♠: Must have either <5♠ or longer ♣ to open 1♣. Therefor 4 Max. ♥: Raise ♥ with 4+, wouldn't bid ♣ with only 3 and longer ♦. Therefore 3 Max. Thus 4-3-1-5 or shapelier would rebid 1♠, a minimum of 5♣.

Thank you everyone for your input.

Would very much appreciate any thoughts you might have on either the first or second or third Poll Question. Would vulnerability play a factor at all? Obviously after 1♥-(P)-1♠-(2♣) opener can now double to show 3-card ♠ support, which maybe the answer to all my questions, but then again maybe not. Thank you!

In case anyone today wants to make use of this old but still very useful technology here are the syntax rules for the .bss files: There are 16 individual items (about 8 sections which I've color grouped) within each line of code that can be broken down as follows: ..001NP2C=YYYYYYYD08Non-Forcing Stayman Asking for a 4+Card Major, Generally 8+HC, but can be less when major oriented Starting with UltraViolet (as in you can't see it) the code denotes which side and seat opens, the Vul, Auction to this point, if the last bid is natural, possible strains the contract is headed, the type of bid, the length of the suit bid and finally how you define the current call shown in Pink. 1).......Only if the opponents are first to make a non-pass call is an asterisk used 2).......Which seat Opened: 0=Any Seat; 1to4=that seat; 5=seats 1or2; 6=seats 3or4 3).......What is the Vul: 0=Any; 1=None; 2=V/N; 3=N/V; 4=Both; 5=:WeNV; 6=WeV; 7=TheyNV; 8=TheyV 4).......Auction without any initial Passes listed (eg if the ops Dealt and we opened 1N followed by Stayman it's just 1NP2C). {Captions} can be include after the last bid, but must be consistent throughout the rest of the auction for the sequence to group together 5).......The Equal Sign '=' which assigns a definition to this table setup and auction 6).......Binary answer to if the most recent bid is Artificial or not (Y/N) 7)-11)..Individual Binary answers to if final contract may end in one of these suit strains respectively (eg YYNYY would allow our side to play in anything besides Hearts as the order is ♣♦♥♠NT) 12)......Binary answer to if they interfere whether we can allow them to play undoubled (Y/N) 13)......Disposition of the Bid: 0=No Agreement; 1=Signoff; 2=NonForcing; 3=Constructive; 4=Invitational; 5=Forcing (1 round); 6=Forcing to Game; 7=Slam Try; 8=Control Bid; 9=Preemptive; A=Transfer; B=Puppet; C=Relay; D=Asking Bid; E=Reply to Ask 14)-15) Minimum to Maximum Suit length in the current bid suit (even if it's showing another suit, thus for NT it's omitted) from 0-7 or 8 being Anything 16)......Your system explanation of the current bid in light of the Seats, Vul and Auction Note:...There are no spaces conjoining the different sections, though they can appear in free text entries The .bss files are just Notepad .txt files with an extension the BidEdit.exe program can read and delineate in the FDCC system. I recommend dumping the .txt files into excel and break out the components to build your CC. Thereafter a concatenated Excel column of these components can be pasted back into Notepad and saved as your .bss file. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or want to try to pique my interest in a collaboration. Thus the above would show a Game Forcing bid showing shortness, like a Splinter that's not artificial, though surprisingly allowing your side to play in that suit or any other strain or the ops in an undoubled contract. One can be very generally with 002C=YYYYYYY60822+HC or be highly specific as well defining 2H based on different opening seats and vulnerability (overdone to get a point across about the possible variations): ....(1)..........(2)..........(3)..........(4)..........(5)..........(6)..........(7)..........(8)..........(9).........(10).........(11).........(12).........(13).........(14).........(15).........(16) Off|Def?....Seat(s)....Vul.......Auction...Equals...Artificial....<..Our...Contract...Possible...Outcomes..( Yes / No )..>..BidType...< Bid Suit Length > Explanation OpsOpen # or #'s..Color(s).....Bids.....Defining..Natural?......♣s?........♦s?........♥s?.......♠s?........NT?..DefendNoX. Disposition..Min #....Max #.....Meaning =Asterisk 0-6..........0-8...1C-7N,PDR. = Sign.......Y/N.........Y/N........Y/N........Y/N.......Y/N........Y/N.........Y/N......0-9, A-E....0-7, Any...0-7, Any...Free Text .................1............5............2H...........=............N............Y............Y............Y...........Y............Y............Y............9.............5............6............Aggressive: Generally 6!Hs, 5-11HC (Rarely with a void, side 4!Ss or good 5 card minor) .................1............6............2H...........=............N............Y............Y............Y...........Y............Y............Y............9.............5............6............Tempered: Generally 6!Hs (2 of top 3 or 3 of top 5 honors), 5-11HC (Rarely with a void, side 4!Ss or good 5 card minor) .................2............0............2H...........=............N............Y............Y............Y...........Y............Y............Y............9.............6............6............Sound: 6!Hs (2 of top 3 or 3 of top 5 honors), 5-11HC (Never with a void, side 4!Ss or good 5 card minor) .................3............3............2H...........=............N............Y............Y............Y...........Y............Y............Y............9.............5............6............Shameless: 5-6!H's of any quality .................3............5............2H...........=............N............Y............Y............Y...........Y............Y............Y............9.............5............6............Wild: Generally 6!Hs, 5-11HC .................3............6............2H...........=............N............Y............Y............Y...........Y............Y............Y............9.............5............6............Boarderline: 5-6!H's,5-11HC (Generally a good lead director) .................4............0............2H...........=............N............Y............Y............Y...........Y............Y............Y............3.............5............6............Obstructive: Good 6!Hs, 12-16HC ......*..........6............0...........1C2H........=............N............Y............N...___...Y...........Y............Y............Y............9.............6............6............Preemptive: 6!Hs, 5-9HC Here's that grouping again merged together for use in a .bss file: 152H=NYYYYYY956Aggressive: Generally 6!Hs, 5-11HC (Rarely with a void, side 4!Ss or good 5 card minor) 162H=NYYYYYY956Tempered: Generally 6!Hs (2 of top 3 or 3 of top 5 honors), 5-11HC (Rarely with a void, side 4!Ss or good 5 card minor) 202H=NYYYYYY966Sound: 6!Hs (2 of top 3 or 3 of top 5 honors), 5-11HC (Never with a void, side 4!Ss or good 5 card minor) 332H=NYYYYYY956 352H=NYYYYYY956 362H=NYYYYYY956 402H=NYYYYYY356Obstructive: Good 6!Hs, 12-16HC *601C2H=NYNYYYY966Preemptive: 6!Hs, 5-9HC

I’m an avid bridge book reader that plays way too many conventions and cares as much about defense as I do employing ambitious conventional schemes. If you’re looking to learn and teach (yes ideally both) plus likes to openly review hand records and feel the same then we may be a good pairing. I’m heavily influenced by writings of Jeff Rubens, Max Hardy, Eddie Kantar, Marty Bergen, Terrence Quested, and Ken Rexford. I play an Expert Standard 2/1 base including things like XYZ, Top&Bottom Cue, Transfer Advances, BAZE, SARS/ACID, Transfer and Stayman Super Accepts, QQ and Vasilevsky to name a few. Defensively I’m an advocate of UDCA with Trump Suit Preference and Smith Echo plus have dabbled in Rusinow and situational Prism signals. I fail to adequately count down many hands, will miss some squeezes, can be overly aggressive at times bidding, will occasionally screw up a bid and will take my fair share of bad play lines, but maybe with your help and patients these will be mitigated. I'm still a member of the working class Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8)

It may seem a little convoluted, but what I like to do is play transfers at and beyond the level of the cue bid after which if advancer later supports overcaller is just a lead director should the opponents take the auction. Here's how it works: 1♠-(2♥)-3♥-(4♣) to show ♦'s or a ♦-lead directing raise of overcaller's ♥s. IMHO, the best of both worlds are achieved. The only reasonable bids I see available to actually provide partner an inference to lead their own ♥ suit would be [Pass] or [X]. I have to fully agree with 'whereagles' and hope to either get the ♦s in later and look for either a lead of a ♥ or ♦A or Q or another with at least one visible in dummy. I'm just not sure how much of a favorite the ops game is to fail. Change the rounded cards in the hand around to: ♠Axx ♥xxx ♦KJ98xxxx ♣--- I'd have to chose to ask for a ♣ lead here via a 3♠ call - when rather liking a suit, but also having a void the decision about which to feature gets tough. Rest of the available bids and meanings for those curious: After 1♠-(2♥)-3♥- 3♠* = ♣'s or a ♣-lead directing ♥ raise 3NT = To play 4♣* = ♦'s or a ♦-lead directing ♥ raise 4♦ = Good ♥ raise 4♥ = Preemptive ♥ raise * any subsequent ♥ bid by the transferer CANCELs the expectation of a long suit alternative sacrifice and instead requests the directed lead to help defeat the contract whether it's later doubled or not.

@blackshoe: I think I would prefer RHO to either play (too) fast or to tank where I'd still be able to take the same amount of time deciding what to do prior to playing an equal card from dummy. In either case it would be more telling than a tempo play. I think what you may be saying is that RHO would have the opportunity to show LHO that they too had an obvious play, where as if there was a few second delay this inference wouldn't be applicable. As such I'd recommend waiting the few seconds before playing and then thinking where it matters. Was this the intent of your query? @jjbrr: By "aren’t I still correct to encourage partner to play from a choice-less dummy?" I meant as a general strategy of when to take the time to think, and not while at the table as dummy. Perhaps I do this incorrectly: I flip my card over as dummy is tabled, should I be waiting on something? I suppose playing the higher vs lower card etc could be a signal to declarer about something, like I'd really be positioned to advise partner. What really would the other team call the director to say about what I was doing and what penalty could reasonably be enforced? Again, I full-well realize I shouldn't, I just think my partner ought to be calling for the card to use the time to think more appropriately. I am very fond of the "I'm sorry, is it my turn?" question as RHO. I just am not certain if I can pull off saying it quite as innocently as it is stated.

My first time ever playing ‘Fast Pairs’ I table dummy and efficiently gesture and follow suit with the 3 from the 3-2 doubleton as we were becoming pressed for time. I completely realize that dummy should be silent and only ever merrily follow declarer’s wishes and furthermore that is my obligation to be a courteous partner and never damage the relationship. Playing from equals or following suit with a singleton was less than acceptable to my partner, citing that good declarers make a plan before playing from dummy. Well aware of this imperative, I incredulously added that there shouldn’t be a need for the parenthesizes addendum, ‘(though of course you shouldn’t waste time and brain power pondering how to proceed if RHO plays low, overtakes or ruffs when there’s no choice in dummy.)’ We agreed I wouldn’t do it again. I’m not looking for affirmations for my actions and comments, nor do I need to hear about how disrespectful I acted to my most wonderful partner – I actually want to hear why I’m incorrect and if a reason exists to hold off as declarer from playing a card from dummy. The only thing that comes to mind is attempting to gauge the opponent’s body language which I here I believe is unethical? IMHO, though RHO has as much time as is needed, perhaps just maybe playing from dummy, will elicit a tempo following incorrect play from RHO while declarer can deduce by making a plan before playing on the first trick. So I ask while I know I’m in the wrong, aren’t I still correct to encourage partner to play from a choice-less dummy? In the same vein of thought, as RHO this time, I’d fear after a minute or two that declarer is waiting on me to play. I wouldn’t want to interrupt their thought process, by playing or reminding them it’s their turn when they have no choice. What’s protocol here for RHO? Again, I’m sure I’d be in the wrong, but would I really be impolite to play?

Impressive response speed. I will check them out. Awesome, found it "hcp(south,clubs)>=9" for my example. Thank you again! :(

Is there any more coding options that are available in the BBO Deal Generator Program other than the one's listed below? If so, is there a list somewhere? hcp( ) + - && || >= == <= spades( ) hearts( ) diamonds( ) clubs( ) Conjoined sure, but can functions be embedded (in terms of like setting the hcp within clubs for south to be 9+)? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Hello, I play under the moniker p0stm0rtem (with zero's for o's) and have also been looking for partners that integrate a great number of conventions and new concepts into the 2/1 framework. In addition, I'm also located in the South Bay SF Area. I'm a big fan of Pattaya bridge's 'Definitive Guide to 1NT 'auctions - particularly their stayman and transfer sequence extensions (SARS, ASID, Quest). I however can't see to find anyone else willing to play them with me. More main stream are ideas within Max Hardy's 'Advanced Bridge for the 21st Century.' Normally I play Odd/Even discards, but believe that I can handle UCDA. I'm an avid reader and here's a list of additional conventions that I haven't been able to practice enough: - Full Reverse Bergen Major Suit Raises (including ambiguous splinters and Swiss) or Combined Bergen Raises - 4-suit xfer super accepts - Modified Two Way (as opposed to New Minor Forcing) - The BART & Meckwell Adjuncts plus the Wolff Sign-off - Walsh Diamond - XYZ - Good/Bad 2NT - Lebensohl or other sohls - Nagy/Kokish 3-way game tries - BROMAD - And I haven't even mentioned doubles like the reassignment of the standard Take Out doubles to Types 1-4 and the adjustment of Michaels with the 'equal level correction' 2-suited overcalls. Please come find me if anyone is interested. -Douglas