Jinksy

I would agree it's the worst, but it's hard to be sure. According to Bill Jacobs' data about Fantunes openings, 1♦ is the big winner (unsurprising, since so infrequent), followed by the two-bids and the weak NT. But at least the two-bids' success can be explained by their novelty - they're often a feature of competitive auctions, and opps haven't really got a sense (and perhaps not a good system) of how to deal with them. Meanwhile, for every fan of the two-bids, there's someone who thinks they're 'the price you pay' for such well-defined one-bids. I think it's probably somewhere in between. Against weak-intermediate/advanced pairs, the two bids have been a huge source of income for us. Against stronger pairs, I think we've still benefited from them, but somewhat less so. The one-bids have a huge wealth of both benefits and drawbacks, and it's much harder to get a feel whether we've benefited on any given auction. When we seem to have done so, often it's more because we've got such a well-defined and practiced system than obviously because of systemic gains, per se. But of them, 1♣ is obviously the most ambiguous, which probably works to our detriment more than our benefit. As for the OP system, IMO it's impossible to predict how these things will work without testing, so if you like the idea and have a willing P, by all means go for it. For what it's worth (IMO), the 2♣ opener is at its strongest by far in third seat, where it can be 0-13, so if it's locally legal to do so, you might trial it there first, or fall back on it there only if you feel it's not working out elsewhere. For similar reasons, it's poor in second, so you might want to specifically exclude that. An aside: To me the Fantoni-Nunes natural 2N opening makes little sense. Such hands can be adequately described via a forcing 1-level opening, and there are several - more frequent - others that pose problems for this (albeit sometimes all) systems. For us, the 5-5 major hands have been problematic enough that we use it for them. This isn't an option for you if only your 1C bid is forcing though, at least unless you want to include 21-22 balanced hands with a 5cM in it.

Since reading Bird and Anthias, I've wondered if X of 3N (given no suits bid) should be 'lead my minor', on the grounds that when you've got a running major, P should be able to find it on his own.

This sort of stuff is obviously both true and quite unethical (in an actual ethics sense, rather than 'laws and ethics' sense), in that it's a clear prisoner's dilemma defection. The game is better for all the fewer people do it, but any pair who do clearly stand to benefit.

What's the formula for KnR? Googling it, all I find is links to software that applies it for me.

Why? Presumably with a heart thrown in with the diamonds you'd bid 1♠?

What am I missing that the 1♥ bidders are seeing? It seems to me both 1♥ and 1♠ promise 0 points and 3+ cards in the suit, and I can't see any obvious reason to choose the weaker one. Also if P now forces with 2♦, I might bid 2♥ and give him a choice (well, I'd prob bid 2N, but at some point if he keeps forcing me I can give him a second choice).

The most obnoxious opponent I've ever met at the bridge table complained something about this. She wasn't worried about 'getting rid of' cards, but was adamant that P had no right to claim without knowing where the K♣ was. My P patiently explained that the card was completely irrelevant to the hand (which pissed her off enough that she later started making underhanded remarks about his not having showered). Claiming, we were told, was never ok unless you knew where all the cards were. A couple of boards later she (correctly) claimed the rest of the tricks. We decided not to enquire about the ♦2.

My view is at IMPs for undoubled overtricks or undertricks, this is pretty annoying, otherwise I'll put up with it.

I stand with the pessimists, but I'll bid my better major.

2N for me, still. I'm planning to win this auction.

I carved this: [hv=pc=n&w=skt843ha2daqt9ca8&e=s765hqj853d7ckq92&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1np2dp2hp3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs, random BBO players in all four seats. Lead is 3♣.

But an unorthodox 18-count.

It does depend on the rest of the hand, but I lean towards 2N. As others have said, I intend to bid again, expect to win the hand, and now have a decent chance of describing every one of my cards.

Good point. I got as far as thinking 'pass looks wrong', then my brain switched off.

IMPs. My BBO random expert partner was helpful enough to criticise me for not having rebid 3♠. Given that we were playing 2/1*, I wasn't sure who should have acted more aggressively. [hv=pc=n&s=sak9832hakd987cj9&n=sq4h954da6532ca84&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1sp1np2sppp]266|200[/hv] * Well, we must have been, despite his profile saying 'SAYC' and mine saying 'your card'. You can tell from the bidding, and his expertise.

Or if 5♦ makes and 3N goes off. Or if 5♦ makes an overtrick and 3N has 4 unescapable losers. Or if they both go off but 5♦ goes off less. Ok, in two of the four cases we'd rather have been in a different number of diamonds, but since we can't be confident what that number is, I'd rather make the call that scores as well or better than 3N in all four potential cases rather than just one. Given that we've described our shape perfectly and P has opted to avoid 3N (and could presumably have bid 3♥ if in doubt), if we still think it would have been the best contract, why not a 'new partner asking' 7N?

If I wanted to make a second bid I should have done it the first time around.

I'm far from confident, but X at any form of scoring. P might well have a trump stack and an easy penalty pass when we have nothing on, and I generally prefer to play with P's that it's primarily the hand making the final decision that accounts for the vul. Meanwhile, if P has 3-5 or conceivably even 4-4 in the majors, a heart contract will probably play better, since we can ruff diamonds in the short hand. There's always the chance P will turn up with clubs, of course. I hear some backwater corners of the world still allow contracts in that suit.

P's most likely shapes are 3343, or 2344, neither of which screams tricks aplenty. I'm closer to passing than bidding 6♦, but even I'm not that much of a wimp.

I don't see anything to gain by overcalling. We're not gamehunting, and it gives the opps more room to describe their hands and more info about how to play (which they're likely to do if they own the spades). I'd like a diamond lead, but if P finds another one, I doubt it will do any harm.

Dbl. They're unlikely to be able to penalise us if it goes wrong, and 2 down undoubled in hearts beats their 3♠. If the latter isn't making, hopefully partner will spot the green card among his useful ones.

4♣ shows whatever you've agreed it shows. Undiscussed, I'd assume suit, though I prefer doubleton. It's hard to envisage P having a hand that makes slam good. Assuming he's got 4Ss, he'll need AKQx to make it much better than 50% on a (marked-ish) H lead. Then he'll need AK in clubs to avoid a finesse there. That doesn't leave much room to cover red suit losers. I think he'd need something like AKQx xx QJx AKQJ to make slam cold, but even if he didn't upgrade that to a 2♣ opening, he'd have bid the same with AKQx Qx QJx AKJx when slam looks hopeless, or AKQJ Jx xxx AKQx, when five is dangerously high, and I don't know how to sensibly find out. I pass.

With Qx in their suit, I'm less worried about the bidding coming back to me at the 5-level. Even if I weren't, there's just no way I can bid any number of hearts and expect P to find slam when it's on.

I don't claim much insight into this, but my preferences fwiw: Either looks fine to me. Depends on vul, perhaps - favourable I'd prob prefer the preemptive value of 1N, unfavourable I want to get to the right contract, so I lean towards 1♦. But would have no objections to a P opening either at any vul. I seem open 1N on such shapes fairly conservatively, but for me Qx or better in both would normally be a rough min. Seat is also relevant - with a 12-dodgy 13 and a decent diamond suit, I'd often prefer 2♦ in third. Now it's more about what my club suit looks like, since I don't have the choice of rebids 2254 offers. If I have a comfortable 2♣ rebid I might open 1, else I'll lean towards 1N with maybe 3+ points in the majors. This just seems like something to chuck into your laundry list of things you might want your 1N continuations to deal with. It's not obviously one that would make the final cut though, since if P is 5-5 in the majors, 4M might well play better than 3N. For my main partnership, 1N 2D / 2H 2S is forcing, and opener can bid 3m with a max and the corresponding major, or 2 or 3N with this shape or an uninspiring (4333) - but we play a Fantunes weak NT, on which all 5422s in the range get opened 1N. Obviously it depends on your methods, but short answer is you probably don't. I play responder's 2m as a controlled psyche, which might be a hand with both majors - in which case if he bids his 3 card minor and P shows up with 5 cards in it, the opps might not be able to X you there. Playing natural runouts, there's nothing to stop you bidding 2m on a 3-card suit for the same reason, then pulling to 2H if you do get Xed.

What's your disagreement? 3♦ is obviously the rebid of kings in lieu of a treatment to deal with this shape/strength, and as Art says, it's very easy to construct hands where it goes badly.