Leaderboard

As an FYI... I asked this same question (Does BWS2001 (Bridge World Standard) need to be revised?) of Jeff Rubens at The Bridge World 6 months ago. His reply: "In brief, no. The usual motivation for a new version is the perception of significant changes in standard practice. There have been some, but apparently very few, since the last version." :D

Would like to see a Fast Players Lounge available for non-tourney play.

[hv=pc=n&s=s72hk5dakq6cakj63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=4h]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints, unfavorable. What is your call over the 4♥ preempt?

As RMB1 points out, Law 57C also covers the situation (as here) where dummy has "illegally suggested that it be played." West's play is not subject to rectification and is authorised information for East.

As Agua alluded, the 2NT opener (and even the 1NT opener) may have some distribution. So, just because you are 4333 doesn't mean that a 44 fit will not play better than 3NT. Having seen my partner's 1NT openings, I Stayman on 4333 all of the time EXCEPT when my hand screams not to (i.e., KJT xxxx KJT AJT).

Well, as you are so new here Phil: SP is suit preference. It means giving a signal to show which of the other suits you prefer. A pip is a card of lower value than a picture card. In bridge that means anything between the 2 and the 10. In some contexts players might choose not to treat the 10 (specifically) as a pip; in rarer cases the 9 might also be excluded. Don't worry about that though, as you get more experience you will learn about these if you need to.

I play halmic: 1NT - (X) - XX = any 5+ suit 1NT - (X) - 2 suit = 4+ that suit, and 4+ higher ranking suit 1NT - (X) - 2♠ = 5+ spades, pre-emptive 1NT - (X) - 3 suit = nat, pre-emptive (6+ suit, usually reasonable quality) These also apply after a 4th seat X. I also play: 1NT - (X) - P - (P) - XX as showing a 5+ suit, giving responder the option to run (bid 2♣) or pass for penalties. With responder's 4333 opposite opener's 4333 or 4432, we just sit for the double. This doesn't apply after a 4th seat X though.

Bridge World Standard is codified by "The Bridge World". I've always been pretty impressed by the process that they follow, as well as the results. I think that we're alot better off waiting to see what they do rather than trying to create yet another bidding system. 1. Its unclear that standardized bidding systems are necessary or even desirable for an institution as diverse as BBO. (Don't get me wrong, I think that they are very reasonable for relatively small institutional bodies like the EBU, maybe the ABCL. But the idea seems laughable for BBO) 2. The forums represent an incredibly thin slice of the players on BBO. We don't have the institutional legitimacy, necessary perspective, or membership depth to tackle this type of project.

There are several ways to do this, if you play simple stayman and kickback, 1N-2♣-2♥-4♠-4N(0/3)-5♣(Q♥?)-6♥(yes and nothing else)-P/7♥. Basically any club holding other than xxx is OK for the grand, but it may not be good enough to really want to bid. Or: 1N-2♣-2♥-4♦(splinter)-4♥-4♠-4N-5♣-5N(yes no other K but something else worth having)-6♣(got the Q♣?)-7♥(yes) The difference between the two auctions is that in the second, south is much more encouraged as he has the absolute optimum diamond holding opposite partner's singleton. There are other approaches to bidding these 4M/longer m hands where you bid the long minor after stayman, if you bid 4♣ rather than 4♦ again the Q♣ is gold, so you'll have a similar auction to the second one.

Gonzalo, why would someone think of doubling them with this in imps bro ? - Are we sure that we can defeat them ? NO - Are we protecting ourside for our game bonus or do we think we may make a game after we settled in 3♠? NO - Even if we get lucky and defeat them, are we expecting to defeat them by 2 tricks good amount of time ? NO - Even if they are going down 2 and we get +100 instead of our +140 or +300 is this a big loss ? NO - Does the win/lose ratio justify this DBL ? NO - In the hands where the fate of 4♦ depends on how declarer will play it, arent we replacing our +50 with -510 by doubling and alerting declarer ? YES No need to mantion that letting them make a doubled partscore will definetely give other side a momentum that maybe more costly than the score of this board itself. I can tell that from my hand they are probably going down 1 or 2 but i aint doubling them. If opponents are sane players, pd is likely to be single in ♦ and he didnt bid game, isnt this some sort of hint that he doesnt have much ? If opps are insane and bid 4♦ 4-3 fit, even with a 4-4 fit, what do we lose ? We take 100 insteada 140, big deal, but we now know that we will win this match if we dont do stupid things like doubling this kinda partscores which may change things for us. Maybe partner, due to vulnerability or due to side hearts didnt wanna make a weak 2♠ bid and didnt wanna pass either with a hand like AJ9xxx Qxxx x xx I dunn others but this is a legit 1♠ overcall to me in red.

I'm sorry, I don't know your English levels very well. Is "complete count on the hand" a term normally used when discussing what might happen when a hand is played by "experienced regular county B-team players"?

I agree completely with wank and disagree with mikeh. I would only open this hand w/r, although I don't actually hate the opening. But having opened, we have a singleton in the suit the opponents have bid and raised, and we have 4 spades, bidding 3♠ seems completely obvious to me. Passing because we are ashamed of having opened, with the plan of blaming poor partner for passing out 3♣ with his club length, doesn't make sense to me.

I would just lead a low diamond.

Tell me what cards may have my partner, Only a strong hand, a strong hand with spade,Is he showng a control in h? Is he showing a void or a single with a splinter? If he has spade why is not more simple to bid 2 3 o 4 spade.tks gigi 1H-1S-2H-3H And after this do i rebid spade? Do i tell another suit if i have? do i cue bid my control?

No, I didn't say that I personally would open 1NT with 4441 shape. In fact, I don't play a balanced 1NT opener. All my 11-15 balanced hands are in 1♦, The gadget I use for a 1NT opener is called the Aveyard 1NT, it came out (in the UK) in the early 1980s, AFAIR. A 1NT opener shows 11-15 and 1) a 4441 or 5440 shape, always short ♣ 2) 5+♦ and a 4 card major 3) 6+♦ Over our 1♦ opener we play 1M natural and NON forcing, unless opener is maximum, and 2♣ and 2♦ are also artificial inquiries. As regards the ways I've used to show three suiters, in order of my preference, they were 1) The Cambridge 1♥ as I posted earlier. 2) The multi twos with Precision. 2♦ was the standard Precision 2♦ or a weak 2♥ or 21-22 balanced, 2♥ was a weak 2♠ or 16-19 any 4441, 2♠ was a 3-level pre-empt in a minor or 20-23 any 4441, 2NT was the Sharif-style 3♣ opener or 24+ any 4441. That left room for Salisbury pre-empts, 3♣=both minors, 3♦ = one major, 3♥ = both majors and 3S = solid minor. 3) Wrap the strong 3-suiters into a multi 2♦, more or less as you (or someone) described previously. 4) Treat the better/only minor as a five card suit. If you want all the continuations, I would have to try to find some old notes.

thanks to all for exposition

South is second in hand, not third in hand. I hate 2♥ as an opening - you are far too playable in spades, even if you actually were third in hand. Many people would not open that at all in second seat but I would open 1♥ (however, my partner and I have the agreed style of opening very light, especially with a five card major). Given that the hand has been opened I think 3♠ is fairly normal and I do not think it shows extras, just a hand that thinks it is not right to defend 3♣. As Mickyb says, I think the stiff heart says you really do want to defend 4♣ on this deal. Where do you think oppo are going to get ten tricks from? Of course, if you think p has actually shown interest in game you might well make it but if p has extras they could also be going for 500. Double because it's pairs, you don't think it's making and you may well be protecting a plus score (or a game bonus if you think p has values). When you do so, partner will not expect a monster trump stack from you. Regarding your last question, lots of people play support doubles in this type of auction. If you don't play those (as I've been told you shouldn't if you play weak NT) you would normally bid with support for partner or a second suit so double doesn't feel like it should show shortage. Seems logical for it to be a strong NT.

With regard to people continuing play when you have not quit the previous trick, why don't you just say "sorry, the last trick has not been quit" when oppo lead? It also does not take much training to get a partner to wait for you.. Bluejak, I think the thing here is that no one is saying you *may not* think whenever you wish. Of course you may. They are merely saying that they consider it to be more courteous to think in the manner they suggest, because this avoids you thinking for a bit before playing a card and declarer then having to have their own think five minutes later, when they can see what you have played. This doesn't just waste oppos' time, it wastes everyone's time. This is a matter of etiquette, not a matter of law - not entirely dissimilar to if someone were to eat only with their hands and with their mouth open. They probably wouldn't be arrested but might not have company for dinner very often! Another point, that no one has raised so far, is that I have had opponents place a card face down, occasionally saying that they are not thinking about the current trick, and then change it after a while. Although I'm not sure what the actual rules about this are, it doesn't seem ideal for someone to imply or state that they are not thinking about the current trick and then demonstrate that they actually were.

At first sight, it is not clear that E/W have been damaged. Surely West would lead a spade against 3NT, and South will only go off if he really plays it incompetently - and then only one off. It is important to give N/S a PP. I explain to him the ramifications of Law 73C, and point out that "it was not likely that North had a stronger hand than this" is completely inadequate: he might have a stronger hand, and it is only the failure to alert that tells South otherwise.

This discussion is starting to get interesting. Regarding your point 1 above what is your gadget? You have already said you open 1NT if the 4441 hand pattern is within your NT range. But what if it isn't? What do you do now? Do you pass with 11-12 HCP or do you employ the gadget? Let's hear what the gadget is. Regarding your point 2, kindly post the detail here for the benefit of others as well. Start with your favourite, the Cambridge complex that you use (forget the variations). I would love to hear what the other 3 methods are that you have used in the past. Somewhere amongst all that I can optimise my own methods for the 4441 hand pattern. Thank you.

So the 16-17 HCP 4441 hand pattern falls into your 1♦ opening? That’s fine if you have a 4-card ♦ suit. How do you deal with 16-17 HCP 4441 hand pattern and a singleton ♦? After a 1♦ opening, I presume 1♥ shows the weak responder which kicks in the sequence "bidding 4-card suits up the line until some kind of fit is shown?"

I used to use what was called "Multi Twos in Precision" - that was what it was called when licenced by the EBU, AFAIR - to show the strong three suiters. In this setup, all of 2♦, 2♥, 2♠ and 2NT openers were multi-way. I think the EBU made that scheme illegal at some point. What I prefer now is that 1♣-1♦-1♥ forces responder to bid 1♠. Opener's rebids are then 1NT = a normal 1♥ rebid, 2 of a suit = 4441 suit below the shortage and 16-19, 3 of a suit shows 20-23, and so on. The NT rebids except 1NT are used to show balanced hands, combining those with the direct NT rebids after 1♣-1♦ you can show 2 point ranges all the way from 20-21 upwards.

i.m speakin only for the pair that is bidding in spade After to have bid 1 spade on reply to 3h. What is the behaviour?

Surely if this were the case whenever my partner alerted, announced or explained correctly my bid I'd be forced to throw the board, because taking the correct action in my system is suggested by the fact my partner has remembered the system. This is stupid. (also, L16 says _unexpected_ alert or lack of alert, although I'll grant that's after the 'reply to a question' part). Fundamentally, if partner gives an accurate description of our system I can't be constrained by that or the entire game would grind to a halt.

This doesn’t help me anything. The problem is not the opening bid, but the continuation bidding. How does the opening bidder get the 4441 message across? In the post below, this was one of the ways I used to show a 4441 max. I can live with brian_m’s suggestion of opening 1NT if your hand falls into the 13-15 HCP range. The corollary here would be opening 1♦ and possibly bidding 1NT with a ♠ singleton when partner responds 1♠ and you have 11-12 HCP. However, your problems are compounded with 16+ and a 4441 hand pattern. Any bid you make over 1♣ 1♦ ? distorts your hand pattern. I have seen Precision players moving these hand types out of the 1♣ opener into the 2♦ bid, Multi style. But this also gets messy when you have to show the singleton on level 4 (all depends on how the bidding has progressed). FWIW the Precision players using the 2♦ bid as Multi style have changed their responses as follows: 1. 2♥ = artificial, 0-13 HCP, no interest in game unless one of the strong hand patterns has been opened. This is basically Pass/Correct whenever opener has a weak 2 in ♥ or ♠. 2. 2♠ = artificial, 14+ HCP, game interest if opener is in the upper end of the weak 2 bid.

1. Opens 1D - though some will open it 1H (playing with 4 card majors, but 5 is the standard I gather) 2. It depends. Most will have some way of self splintering or showing a 4414 in a GF auction

How does Precision now bid - 1. A 4441 hand pattern 11-15 HCP (the singleton anything else except ♦)? 2. A 4441 hand pattern 16+ HCP (the singleton anything else except ♦)?

Swap the ♦ and ♣ and there are probably more people claiming that a 2♣ opener denies a 5-card major. But after 2♣-3♣-3♠-4♠ with a 5-6 we have found many a 4♠ game that the rest of the field has missed (two in the last week). Precision has moved on, and so has bidding in general.

GIB-W is very tolerant of this behavior, although GIB-E told me the other day that he hates playing against Leo Lasota. He thinks Leo needs to be more forthcoming with his disclosure and explanations about opening 1N and 2N with a wide range, and with shortness. He also thinks that GIB-N takes advantage and doesn't follow the source code.

The argument for considering it unfair is this: During the time that the player is thinking, he knows what card he is going to play to this trick. Therefore he has more information during that period, and is able to use the time more effectively than anyone else. If the other players at the table do their strategic thinking after playing to a trick, they do not have the same advantage. Several people have already made this point, but you seem not to have offered any refutation. Can you explain why you believe that we are wrong?

Mike, I guess I just got a little needled by the combination of Art stating that he hadn't played Precision for many years and then calling my version of the system unplayable. Yes, you can construct hands where bidding the major first costs. I don't disagree with that. To understand why I prefer the major first approach, you would have to look at other parts of the version of Precision that I use. It's quite a distance from "standard Precision", if such a thing exists. As a general principle, though, I wouldn't put catering to opponents' pre-empts as a major consideration. If I'm that worried about 4♥ overcalls, I'm not going to play Precision in the first place, because they're far more of a concern to me over a 1♣ opener than on the occasions I hold a limited ♦+major two-suiter. Brian.

Art, The comment about what you thought was tongue in cheek. I'm aware that British and American humo(u)r is different, so I even put a smiley on the end. No, I absolutely do NOT say that the "current version" of Precision calls for a 1♠ opener. I've stated very clearly that I accepted it was NOT a majority method. Precision has fragmented over the roughly 50 years since Wei's Taiwan team came on to the scene. I don't think there's any such thing as "the current version". I also think you're a little off beam in calling this Canape. It isn't. If it was Canape, then I would guarantee another suit of at least the same length in a two suited hand. That means that if I were 5-1-4-3 shape (in suit order) I would have to open 1D, assuming any other requirements were met. I'm most definitely not advocating that! Finally, I don't have my copy of Goren's Precision writeup to hand, we moved a little over a year ago and reorganising my books hasn't come to the top of the list yet, but from memory I'm almost certain that Goren advocated a 4+ card 1♦ opener and a 12-15 HCP 1NT opener. As and when the book comes to light, I'll check.

So, let me get this right, Art. Despite the fact that I explicitly said I realised it wasn't the majority method, and from your undoubted position of strength of having "not played Precision in many years", you're able to suggest that the agreement is "unplayable"? Well, having played Precision for the vast majority of the last 40 years, I beg to differ. What *I* think is unplayable is violating system just on a whim, as you advocate. If those spades were 9xxxx rather A9xxx, I'd agree with you. You probably still think 1♦ shows 4+ ♦, as per Goren's write-up. :D

I’m sorry but the only guy I agree with here is brian_m. If you are playing Precision, I don’t see how you can open the ♦ suit first. How do you bid a 4441 hand with 14-15 HCP (max)? After 1♦, partner makes the expected ♥ response and now you jump to 2♠? How do you think partner is going to interpret the bid? He will understand 4144 (singleton ♥) and 14-15 HCP (or 13-15 depending on your style). If you are playing Precision, you need to open the ♠ suit first and then jump bid in ♦ second time round.

The ♥K singleton is not great; I open 1♦ and jumpshift in spades.

Let's be charitable and assume that your post crossed with the one above it.

Blao! Good job!

In the strong ♣ system I play I open 1♦. That it promises 4+ ♦ is immaterial.

I've played 2NT-3NT as artificial for years. It's not really a question of what I happen to use it for (a club slam try, as it happens) but rather as Andy and others have said, so that I can get everything I want to into the response structure to 2NT. One thing we do think is important is that we have two different ways to get to 3NT after a 2NT opening - either by 3S (diamond slam try or to play in 3NT) or via 3C. That gives some control over what suit RHO might double. The estimate that this costs "1 imp per board" looks crazy to me. Given that we never forget it (and we have never forgotten it) it makes no difference nearly all the time, some of the rest of the time we bid a good slam that we wouldn't otherwise have done, sometimes it gets them off to the wrong lead, sometimes they go for a penalty (a +960 not that long ago springs to mind) and yes, every now and again, it gets them off to a better lead against our final contract.

4♥. I am surprised that this is not unanimous.

I don't understand what you can possibly find shocking. The Law is very clear and very specific: you are not entitled to ask about calls not yet made; therefore you are not entitled to everything What's more, the logic behind this law makes very good sense to me for the reasons that Trinidad (and others) are arguing. I don't want to play in a world where there are conversations along the lines of: North: 4NT East: What's that mean? South: It asks me for keycards with 1430 responses, except that if I've got a void I jump to 5NT with an even number of keycards or bid 6 of the void with an odd number of keycards. Oh, and if you double we play DOPI/ROPI or North 2H East Pass South 2NT West: what's that mean? North: It asks me to bid a singleton with a maximum, 3NT with a solid suit, or 3H with a minimum

I am NOT trying to avoid giving information. I have all along been thinking about this from the point of my opponents. I don't want my opponents to not fully disclose their methods, but I also don't want them to help themselves by giving more than required, if it means it could help them. I don't understand why some are so worried about people that don't want to disclose their methods, or misdescribe their methods. If my opponents do that, I can easily get redress. I have NEVER had that problem and not get adequate protection. I HAVE had opponents potential help each other by explaining the way some advocate. I even gave examples earlier where "I" COULD have been helped. Not one person has address how my way can in any way hurt me if my opponents follow it, or how the way others advocate NOT potentially help my opponents.

=When my opponents bid 2♣, they are asking about "majors", I'll find out what responses they play when the responder bids. I don't see a problem. If I really think I need to know whether they are asking about four-card or five-card majors before responder bids, I can inquire(look at the card, or ask if I must), but I sure don't want them to volunteer the info unasked. = Ok, you choose to believe some here want to hide part of the meaning. I understand there are some like that. I don't think they are the ones posting here. If some here do want that, I agree they are wrong. You seem so worried about them that you fail to address my concerns.

You keep addressing a problem is not being discussed. Noone is advocating not telling the opponents what the question is. I, and others are advocating not telling in a way that helps partner know how one is going to answer the question. If you are saying that the only way to tell the opponents what the question is requires telling the table what the responses are, then say that. I think that one CAN make it clear what is being asked without giving UI to partner. 2 clubs over 1NT asks "what is your major suit holding" not "what is your response to puppet stayman"

It seems to me that confusion exists about who shall explain agreements, to what extent and when during the auction? I think the real question is: Is explanation of all possible calls that by partnership understanding can be a direct response to a particular call part of the disclosure on that call? Examples: Is a comprehensive explanation on all (normally) possible responses: 5♣, 5♦, 5♥, 5♠, 5NT, 6♣, 6♦, 6♥ and 6♠ part of a "full disclosure" when explaining 4NT as RKCB? Is explanation of the (normally) possible responses: 2♥, 2♠ and 2NT part of a "full disclosure" when explaining 2♦ as "Multi"? Note that if the answer is affirmative then such explanation will have to be given by the player who eventually will be the one making such response calls (contrary to the general rule in Law 20F)! My understanding of Law 20F1 ("[...]He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.[...]") is that such explanation of responses must be delayed until a response call has actually been made, and then be given by partner to the player making the response call.

I'm not other people. I never argued this, because, like you, I feel it IS being unethical in hiding ones methods. I'm not sure why anyone would want to know the answer, but how is the dialogue - "asking for clarification" - "what form of asking bid" - "Ogust"/"feature" - not better than "Ogust" or "feature" right away. Again, I would much rather my opponents use the former rather than the latter. Most of the time, I believe noone would ask for the responses(he will find out the response that describes the hand on the very next bid), again, I can't see why someone would need to know at that time. I am surprised that you don't see the problem with the approach that you suggest. What is the problem with the approach I suggest?

No it is not. Ogust is not in response to a weak two, but in response to the asking bid response to the weak two. How can it be unethical if noone will be damaged, and it cannot benefit. Does the bid 2NT show any different type of hand if one plays Ogust than if one plays feature? If I wanted to be unethical, I would want it the way you suggest. In this situation, from the start, I have been thinking about it from the point of the opponents of the bidding side. I don't want my opponents helping each other by explaining what their bids are going to mean.

Bluejack has been on record before on this issue. His definition of full disclosure includes that which will happen on subsequent rounds of bidding; we believe that it applies to what has happened (and even what other bids not made would have meant). I don't remember his opinions extending to "unethical" and "cheating" before, when debating the matter; but, we aren't going to change his mind. In all cases such as the 2NT ask, the 4NT ask, Leben, good-bad, etc, the opponents are entitled to know what kinds of hands are being shown by the bidder who is doing the asking (if there are in-fact a set of hands described by the conventional bid). The opponents have no need to know, and nothing good can come of telling them (and reminding partner) what the continuations will mean before the continations occur. My opinion of my own ethics is that I go beyond what appears to be the minimum disclosure required. I draw the line here. I will not freely disclose what might happen next; I will disclose fully what has happened. If, in the only situation I can imagine where an opponent would like to know what will happen **, I do not provide that information, I consider that a good thing. **Opponent might want to know that if he makes a risky bid in the middle of our conventional asking sequence we have or don't have a way of penalizing him. Poor baby will just have to find out when he tries it, and I will be happy to disclose that partner's double is penalty after she doubles.

No, I've damaged my side by giving my partner UI, thereby constraining his actions. I don't think Kevperk's examples are an attempt to hide what he is playing. They appear to be an attempt to answer the question that was asked, and not some other question. The opponents asked the meaning of 2NT, so he tells them the meaning of 2NT. They didn't ask him to explain what subsequent actions will mean; if they want to know, no doubt they will ask. If I play 1♥-2NT as a game-forcing raise with four-card support, I describe it as "game-forcing with four-card support". I don't say "Game-forcing with four-card support, and asking me to bid 3♣ with any minimum, 3♦ with a balanced non-minimum, 3♥ with a non-minimum and short clubs, 3♠ with ..." Similarly, if I play 2♥-2NT as an invitational or better hand, asking for more information, it seems entirely proper to describe it as "an invitational or better hand, asking for more information".

There are a couple more Astro variants: Asptro and Astpro (but maybe Modified Astro is one of these). http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt01.htm provides info on about 96 possible defences. The defences which give up a penalty double, such as DONT, I think are only suitable against a strong NT; I wouldn't like to give up a penalty double against a weak NT. If you want people to rate them, perhaps better to ask for a score of 0-10 for those they've played, when the 1NT range is suitable.