Jinksy

[hv=pc=n&s=st83h65dt87cat763&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1np3nppp]133|200[/hv] Pick yer poison.

Who are you and what have you done with the MickyB who said the 2♦ opening was the worst thing about the Fantunes system?

I've been chatting to the author, and he's got some interesting ideas. I wouldn't call it 'light' though - there's a *lot* of gadgets in there to get it all to work. Still need to be convinced by his range-stretching, though. In particular a 12-15 opening NT seems pretty uncomfortable to me.

I believe Ron Klinger doesn't. Anyway, this would be subject to the 'agreed exceptions' that I tried really hard to emphasise that there would often be...

As wank said, most people (or at least the balance) play the jump shift as a splinter for ♣s.

I find meta-bidding agreements some of the most valuable concepts in bridge bidding, but it occurs to me I've never put mine down as a discrete list, nor seen anyone else do so. I'd like to request BBOs post any they can think of in this thread and/or critique/refine some of the suggested ones. I'm interested in both basic/obvious and more advanced ones, so that I could use the thread for reference with beginner partners, as well as experienced ones: (this was in part prompted by the following from PhilKing): Some more basic ones I have with various (not all) Ps. Assume that each of these is prefixed by 'if in doubt' (and suffixed with 'unless otherwise agreed'): A new suit bid one level above when it would have been a forcing bid is a splinter The bid above that is EKCB (would like to refine this, though) Each player gets one chance to X any combination of suits competitively, thereafter subsequent Xes of the same suits are penalty Bidding the opps' suit is non-natural and forcing Bidding between 2N and 3N is patterning out If in doubt, it's forcing If undiscussed (and not implicit in other meta-agreements), it's the naturalest thing it could be If they reopen after we make a penalty pass, subsequent Xes are for penalties I also remember another one from Phil King a while ago that I liked - something like 'at rubber bridge, 2N, 2M and comparable bids are never slam tries - they only mean you've forgotten you were already in game'. I'm sure there are dozens more - what have I forgotten/not thought of but should play? Should I change any of the above? (ETA) I apparently did not emphasise enough that these, being metarules, are always going to be overruleable by specific exceptions. I struggle to think of a meta-rule that doesn't have at least one exception, so while I welcome discussion of such exceptions, please can we keep it distinct from discussion of the rules to which they except?

Something I've forgotten to mention thus far is that we use jump rebids of a new suit at the four level (eg 1H 2N / 4D) specifically for showing (a non-min with) a decent 5-card side suit. Again, I don't have a strong feeling about these. I have a general suspicion it's better to be able to show P exceptional shape than to get pedantic over a point or two and restrict yourself thereafter to cuebids, but as I say, not strongly held. Do you disagree?

Comes down to agreements, I suppose. I play in bog-standard Acol that NT rebids categorically show at worst at doubleton, and we frequently bend the rules to distort our minor holdings just to give us a forcing bid. Eg holding Kx KQxxxx AJx xx, I might rebid 2♦ after 1♣ 1♥ / 2♣, since 2♠ would be non-forcing and 3♠ would exaggerate the quality of the suit (and still wouldn't be forcing with some partners!).

I don't agree with the second part (of Helene's post, which I was too slow to be underneath). I think here- 1♣ 1♥ 2♣ 2♦ 3♣ 3♦ 3♦ is still forcing. Otherwise what's responder supposed to do on this type of hand (or a more mundane 2551 shape)? Anyway, in the given auction, W should raise 3♦ to 4 if it promised 5 of them. If it was just E's only forcing diamond bid (eurghh), W should probably bid 3H esp at MPs, since a 5-1♥ fit might be the only making game (or 3♥ the only making part if E wants to pass) opposite a minimum, and if both red games are making it'll score better anyway. Then you probably end in 6Hs. Not ideal, but more MPs than going off in 6♣.

It would show a stronger distributional rather than just min distributional hand, like UCBs. Take away the black kings from the OP north, for eg, and I'd still like to be able to bid 3Hs for competitive reasons (especially if I were playing 4cMs). True, but the same could be said of UCBs. I don't mean to insist that it's a good agreement, but you seem to be claiming it's obviously ludicrous, which requires stronger arguments than you've given, IMO. Letting opener use it has the benefit of consistency - until this conversation it's honestly how I had always assumed we were playing after conversations agreement UoverU with irregular Ps, and I would guess many of them assumed the same.

Right, but it can't if your 'minimum' bid, or one of them is 3M, in which case with an inv hand, P just has to pass.

Whence this sarcasm? If you think it's a bad idea in the original auction, could you say why, and what use you'd prefer?

I don't know why people are talking about going down - I would put 5♠ heavily odds on to make, whereas I have no idea if 5♦ is down 2 or up 2.

Sure, but when he knows we've bid 5♦ without him really offering a trick for it, he can surely raise us on a lot of single-ace hands.

I might have preferred 3♥ last time. It won't help much with slam bidding but a ♥ lead is prob worth an extra trick in defence, maybe two.

One benefit we've had from putting our minimum bids through 3♣ is occasionally opener can show a minimum on marginal or control-poor but otherwise decent hands, planning to raise P's sign-off to game, but discouraging any thoughts of slam. I don't do this much myself, but one of my partners has been successful with it a few times. Would you say the main benefit from yours is the min-w/shortage bid? It seems like that would take some pressure off such hands, and might include several of the 'raise-to-game-but-not-really' types.

How strong a hand did the Michaels bid show?

I think you're mixing threads up? I was an advocate of 1N opening on the stiff K hand, but I don't see any reason to rebid NTs just because P bids your singleton.

Then give it an extra point or two outside Cs. Eventually you're going to run into the same problem (and if it's not strong enough for a strong NT, it's not strong enough to reverse).

Why is it better to mislead partner about length in a major in which he's specifically expressed interest than in a minor in which he's mildly denied it?

Crowhurst is irrelevant. I don't understand the players wanting to rebid 1N - it's not Acol, and I doubt without detailed agreements whether it's good bridge. Do we also treat 0445 as balanced just because P's bid our shortage? My auction playing typical modern English Acol would start 1♣* 1♠ 2♥ 4♦ * I don't mind reversing over 1S, so I'll pick my better minor. After that N has to decide whether he's worth moving, but system is irrelevant at that point.

What stops him from just having a weak hand with long Cs? At this vul, he doesn't need much more excuse to bid than that he thinks 4♠ is probably making.

Hm? If you have x-KQJx-AKx-Qxxxx and it goes 1C 1S / in a strong NT system, a 1N would still lie about your strength.

This seems to be the only legal hand? If S can bid 4♥ as Last Train, that solves his problems. If not, he cues 5♣, probably showing both the AK, or maybe just confirming the ace, depending on style, but drawing attention the the H problem either way.

Were you always this caustic, or do you just feel bound to the law of total trolling since the Hog calmed down?