Jinksy

There's also the question of how high a bound the rule should have - is 6 of a suit partner's bid (and that you might conceivably have undisclosed support for) always to play? Or is it more useful sometimes/always to retain it as a grand slam try?

I've just adopted this rule with my partner - would be interested in feedback on whether people think it's sensible (and if not, how they'd modify it): Once a suit is agreed (typically meaning both partners know that both partners know of an 8+card fit, though there might be some edge cases, eg self-supporting suits insisted on), we cannot switch denomination from minor to minor, major to major, or major to minor below the level of slam.

<Drivel redacted>

'Possible' and 'easy' are different words, so I'm not sure where this 'also' comes from. And you're still discounting the - fairly high - possibility of making a beatable slam on the lead.

Bidding slam via Gerber virtually gives them the killer lead on a plate (even more so once you've cued a few times), whereas bidding 6N direct more or less guarantees they won't find it if their AK are split, and might well miss it if leader has neither.

Ken's response made me laugh out loud. Surely 'I also agree that this needs to be restated, several times. Good advice is worth repeating! B-) ' in response to the quadruple post was the final tip-off?

Neither precludes the other, of course ;) I said very basic after the 1N bid. I'm quite pleased with much of our 1♣ system, but can't persuade my main partner to play 2-way checkback, which I think would help here.

I'd prefer playing in our 7 card fit to our 6 card one, personally, so as responder (assuming I didn't just pass 2♥ - which sounds like winning bridge if not winning partnership-development - I'd bid 3♥ via Leb. I don't see the point. At this point you must both be suspecting a misfit, and if he has still has enough power to GF, why doesn't he just bid out his shape at the 3 level?

Swap the black suits and I might bid it over 2♠, as long as I could persuade myself to do so confidently (doubtful). With two quick losers in Ss and Swiss cheese for the suit we're most likely to stop in, I think it's awful on the hand as given. I'd prob pass and hope not to hear the hand passed out.

But surely you'd expect him to canape in preference if he has a 4cM? P's most likely shape looks to me something like 4261. He shouldn't be mucking around introducing five card suits at the three level, and with as many as 2Cs, he might favour passing 3♣ to bidding 3♦s on a flimsy 6 card suit. Pass before they start doubling. I don't see much point in 2♠ being forcing if you're playing 2N as Leb, since he's got two ways of bidding S more encouragingly.

Feels to me like 2♥ should be forcing to 2♠, in which case might as well try it. But I don't play supp Xes, so don't know how it's normally played

Pass.

What I've found from bidding a few deals on BBO (where as S I have 5♥s, 5+m, 9-13 HCP and W has 5+♠s and 10+ HCPs) is that usually when you open 2♥, if it comes back around to you, it's a warning that the hand is a misfit and you're glad to be out of the auction. I haven't bid enough to feel confident that this is real pattern and not fluke yet, but atm I'd more often be inclined to X unless my hand looks particularly pure. More so with ♦s, obviously, since I can correct a 3♣ response.

That was my original view, but I think it depends on the strength of the bid. If it's weak, the premptive value is higher, but having ♠s as your anchor suit means eg it's a lot easier to seek game without overshooting a possible place to play. Also, since we play bog standard UNT/Michaels without Ghestem or similar, the ♥+m hands can more realistically show themselves later by passing first.

I really want something usable in all four seats (my long-suffering Ps would probably mutiny otherwise), and there's not much point in this in third, since we can just open those hands 2m. No, 2N is unnecessary as strong balanced, so can be used for whatever - we're currently using it for ♥ + minor 2-suiters. I believe that's not legal in the UK (where the opening has to guarantee or exclude at least one suit)

I just realised no-one has commented on this line: Am I right in thinking that (even volume and aggression aside), this is basically always false, since in case of a disagreement - which 'whether it's wrong to call the director' obviously is - it's always correct to call the director?

What about the methods is it people dislike so much? They're not very sophisticated over 1N, but they just seem like bog-standard normal/natural stuff to me. I hadn't really thought about S's HCP strength at the time (I was N, and in the post-mortem we were more worried about his lack of controls), but since we do play splinters as fairly strict limit bids (or a hand so strong it's prepared to ignore a signoff), S's hand looks too good for one. I'd prefer to play 2-way checkback, but with current methods, I think S should rebid 3♦. Not sure what I should do as N then - anything other than 3♠ or 3N shows ♦ support in our meta-agreements, so probably 3♥.

Duplicate post

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj864hq42dkq83c&n=sa95hakjdj652ck83&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c(Cs%2014%2B%20or%20balanced%2015%2B)p1h(4%2BSs%2C%205%2Bpoints)p1n(15-17%20bal%20without%204S%20%5Bmight%20be%201444%20exactly%5D)p4c(splinter)p4sppp]266|200[/hv] After the 1N bid, our system is very basic - checkback stayman with 3 weak TOs at the 2 level, nat at the 3 level. Who erred, and what should they have done differently? (If relevant, we don't play Last Train)

I'm still slightly confused about what you're supposed to say to the director (and, while waiting for them to arrive, the opps) in this sort of scenario. If it's "just the facts" in the most parsimonious sense - ie no mention of 'aggressive manner' and such subjective judgements, what do you actually say, assuming they haven't used any phrases which are unambiguously hostile*? Are you explicit that you're reporting them for bad behaviour? How would you describe the behaviour if it didn't entail clearly offending phrases? Or do the facts include such things as subjective experience? Ie 'I found E's manner very unpleasant'? There's a spectrum of grounds for complaints about bad behaviour that directors must have to deal with and which, as a player, I'd like to help them gauge the position on, from a player throwing explicit abuse/pulling a gun on someone through to having an innocent verbal or facial tic that the complainer has misinterpreted. Somewhere in between these extremes lie the majority of most bad experiences at the bridge table'. I am pretty sure someone could read the rules and laws of bridge from beginning to end and then still deliberately make another player's life miserable at the bridge table without violating the letter of any one of them. Having not read them in such depth * I'm not even sure such phrases exist. Almost any term of abuse can be sincere, friendly banter or even - more rarely - neutral.

Playing Fantunes (or other systems with cheap forcing bids), we effectively have 2N as a spare bid. Up until now, we've been using it to take some of the pressure off the 2♥ opening, such that it shows 5♥s, 5+m, same playing strength as an opening 2-bid. I'd briefly contemplated making it the same but with ♠s as the anchor suit, but initially dismissed the idea on the assumption that preempting seemed less valuable with the boss suit. I'm now revisting that assumption, since I've realised that anchoring to Ss gives you a lot more space to bid constructively at the 3 level. But I'm finding it hard to get a suitable sense from just running BB hands of which factor is more powerful, and wondered if others had any well-informed intuition or even sim data they could share. Also open to the idea of using it to mean something completely different (I like Gerben's idea of 'nat, 13-14' 1st and second in NV, but few partners are willing to play that :P), but I think the 2-suiter version is pretty helpful, esp since with our continuations over 2M, opener would never get to show this shape otherwise.

I would like to see the calculation for this. It seems very hard to believe, when you allow that P has also shown at least 3 (maybe at least 4, depending on exact agreements) ♦s. I don't know how to do the sum, but he has five cards to draw (subject to those contraints) from an available 7♦s, 10♣s and 8♥s. Naively, I would expect marginally fewer than 5/3 ♥s in his hand. I don't agree with Billw55 that 2♥ has fewer HCP than 2♠, and I think you're right that 2♥ can be on a five card suit and a misfit (what do you do with eg x AQTxx xx Kxxxx? Are you supposed to jump to 3♥?), but the misfit is the key point. You're telling P that the hands probably have no little communication and will have trouble establishing suits. Thus he's very unlikely to bid again with eg a balanced 17-18 count - which is what you want him to do here.

What would you expect from an expert partner that would let you pass? Just that they might generally be willing to play you for more points if you then made a strong action, or a specific understanding about foreseeable sequences? (Just added 1N to the OP. Not sure how I managed to forget it, given that it was my choice at the table!)

[hv=pc=n&w=sahkj32dkt5cat973&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1d]133|200[/hv] IMPs against random BBO opps. Which is your least worst call? ETA - how did I forget to put in 1N?! That was the bid I actually chose at the table...

I hardly ever blast slams, but put me down for an instant 6N. I don't play Gerber, but even if I did, I'm not sure I'd use it here. After 1N 6N, I expect a passive lead, which might mean we make even missing the AK of a suit, if they're not in the same hand. Gerber a) suggests a long running suit, which might warn them to cash out, and b) gives them a chance for a lead-directing X, and some useful negative inferences from not having used it.