[bluenikki]

 pescetom, on 2023-April-15, 15:02, said:

If I understand you correctly, you can do both with XYZ, and obtain a better description of opener's hand besides.
Maybe you could give some example to clarify your point.

Maybe I don't understand XYZ.

When will opener ever learn that responder has Ax AKQxx xxx Axx after a 1♣ opening? Rather than Kx AKQxx xxx Qxx. This big hand needs to tell, not learn.

[mikeh]

 bluenikki, on 2023-April-15, 18:56, said:

Maybe I don't understand XYZ.

When will opener ever learn that responder has Ax AKQxx xxx Axx after a 1♣ opening? Rather than Kx AKQxx xxx Qxx. This big hand needs to tell, not learn.

He likely won’t

So what?

In most constructive auctions one partner usually has a better idea of his partner’s assets than that partner has of his.

Captaincy is a vastly overrated notion, imo. There are some auctions which lend themselves well to the idea, but I much prefer the idea of constructive bidding as a dialogue or conversation rather than one player ‘being in charge’.

I definitely disagree with your suggestion that the ‘big hand needs to tell’. Why?

Give us an example or two of a decent 1C opening hand consistent with either of your suggested responding hands. You may be able to create one where normal bidding would flounder but I expect you’d be struggling to do so.

[bluenikki]

 mikeh, on 2023-April-15, 19:37, said:

He likely won’t

So what?

In most constructive auctions one partner usually has a better idea of his partner’s assets than that partner has of his.

Captaincy is a vastly overrated notion, imo. There are some auctions which lend themselves well to the idea, but I much prefer the idea of constructive bidding as a dialogue or conversation rather than one player ‘being in charge’.

I definitely disagree with your suggestion that the ‘big hand needs to tell’. Why?

Give us an example or two of a decent 1C opening hand consistent with either of your suggested responding hands. You may be able to create one where normal bidding would flounder but I expect you’d be struggling to do so.

I said _this_ big hand.

[mycroft]

I play what people are comfortable with. I actually don't mind weak jump shifts, minor to major (only!) They're aggressive, get the hand across in one bid, play in a major, and take away a bunch of 1 and 2 without going to the 3 level ourself. I play that in one partnership.
I've never played reverse flannery, but I would be happy to do so. A lot of it can be handled in XYZ and good agreements though.
My main partnership plays it as a fit jump shift with limitish values. Not great (except when it comes up), but it's consistent with all the other auctions, and to start with, we wanted "no exceptions" (which is why we still play UD SP, "if everything's upside down, I can remember. If only some things are upside down, I'll get it wrong"). As always, I prefer playing "what we can remember, as long as it's not actively bad" over "better system we sometimes forget".

[bluenikki]

 mikeh, on 2023-April-15, 19:37, said:

Give us an example or two of a decent 1C opening hand consistent with either of your suggested responding hands. You may be able to create one where normal bidding would flounder but I expect you’d be struggling to do so.

Any consistent opener with the singleton heart jack. (Responder has AKQxx.) Often with the doubleton heart jack.

[mikeh]

 bluenikki, on 2023-April-17, 12:04, said:

Any consistent opener with the singleton heart jack. (Responder has AKQxx.) Often with the doubleton heart jack.

It’s clear that you don’t understand my point. I’m not going to waste anymore time discussing this with you.