mfa1010

I think bridge players treat system-notes as a tool for their own system work. I think few would mind having opponents looking in the notes, but typically that is not practical. For example. Our section with bidding after 1C (we play precision) starts: "RP, except...". That's a reference to a norwegian book, where we play the corresponding chapters in full expect when something else is agreed. That way we save say 30 pages of sequences. But good luck to anybody else figuring out what we mean. And our notes are (not surprisingly) in Danish btw. I disagree that this is the WBF policy. As I understand it, WBF policy for supplementary sheets is that they should include: conventional systems and treatments that require defensive preparations (which there was no room to describe on the card itself). This is very different from a pair's system-notes in full. I have met pairs that had dozens, maybe even a hundred, of pages of supplementary sheets. This is clearly not the intention. The intention is that the sheets could be rewieved by the opponents in advance for their preparations. It has been suggested that a pair should file its complete system in English in advance with the organizer (in WBF-tournaments). This has not been enforced. It would also be quite a burden for non-English pairs with the translation. So far I think pairs can file their system if they want to, in any language. The purpose is not disclosure as such but rather to serve as documentation if there will be a TD case of possible misinformation. Yes, and easy to skim through in advance, which is their main purpose. I will make the claim however, that I have not once ever in my ~14 years of playing international bridge found something concretely useful for me in my opponents' supplementary sheets. Not once. If we take the Vanderbilt HH-appeal then no amount of notes would have been likely to avoid the appeal. The misinformation was after a 1x-1y-2NT continuation, and the opponents would have been most unlikely to try to gauge a meaning of the actual sequence out of a huge system-book rather than just ask for it (and as it happened, get misinformed because of bad memory).

Obviously it has little to do with the posters in this thread that some random north in some other thread failed to live up to his disclosure responsibilities (I haven't read the thread myself). Anyway, the thread sounds interesting. I have a feeling, that once in a while it happens that players are less informative about their disruptive bids than they would generally be with their explanations. I think this is unconscious, the bid's merit often lies for a significant part in the confusion created, and an unconscius swift and too short explanation might enhance that confusion. I find it to be good style when players are particularly careful to explain in depth about their disruptive bidding.

Nobody playing 4♣ here as both majors and 4♦ as forcing?

Yes. And when it comes down to it, I think I'll provide better explanations overall for my opponents by being generally well-prepared within my system than by memorizing specific speaches for some specific bids.

4♦ looks automatic on west's cards. 2 cover cards in ♥+♣ and a 3-card fit is enough for slam, and partner did show values.

I'm sorry but I am frankly not willing to do that work. There is more than enough to do with the system itself, I don't want to prioritize a written-down meta system also.

This sounds good in writing but is tricky in practice. The problem is that it can be hard to foresee all possible hand types for bids that are "asking" in nature. If we go ahead and explain some possible hand types, then this tends to be much more harmful to the opposition, when the bidder has something else, than if there was said nothing about hand types from the beginning. Then it could be argued that the partnership should reveal their partnership experince, which is true. The problem is however, that specific sequences don't come up as often as a lot of people seem to think. So the partnership experience might not be so clear cut as people (=opponents, TDs etc.) might like it to be. So while I tend to agree with you, I don't find it all so straightforward in practice.

I agree, I want my system notes as short and concentrated as possible, so that they are fast to read through before major events. Instead I would suggest that disclosure is a focus point for the partnership in the way that they discuss the proper way to explain certain bids afterwards, whenever one feels it could have been handled better at the table. Just as the partnership would discuss whenever an agreement turns out to be obscure.

Only fair to mention also that B-Z haven't played in a Bermuda Bowl since Paris 2001.

5♣ instead of 4N was a clear error. Partner will take a preference to the lower suit (♣) with equal length so 4N will always get us to our longest fit. In a sense it got what it deserved when partner had to take them back to 6♣, had it not been for north's big panic error of returning a diamond away from the queen.

We went there today, and it was good. Thanks! Good luck and enjoy. Don't invent anything new because of them, concentrate on your usual game.

First thought: Ruff, ♣K, ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♣ ruff. If ♣Q came down third, I pull trumps. If not: ♦Q, ♦ ruff, ♣. If west has ♣Qxxx, I have to ruff high and hope for trumps 2-2. If east has ♣Qxxx, I make with trumps 2-2 or 3-1, since west has to insert a middle trump on the fourth club to avoid a complete cross ruff for 12 tricks. And when he does, I can pull trumps after all even when they were 3-1 (I have only ♥AQ doubleton left in hand at this point).

I think passing 3♠ is too masochistic. We rate to catch at least something useful, and then there will be some play for a lucky game, while 3♠ will be silly, if partner's spades are less than excellent.

Support with support the first time. I suppose pass to 3♣X was some kind of tactical effort to get them to underbid or something, but I don't really understand the bid and I don't like it. 4♣. Now we got, what we deserved. Forced to guess, I would try 5♣.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakt874htdaj75c83&n=sqj952hd9432ckjt6&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=4hp6h6sppdppp]266|200[/hv] I chose 6♠ to test the depth of the waters. I also though that E was likely to have a void, which was very likely to be in spades given our length and AK. Dummy was nice... A bonus question: W led the ♣5 (low from 2 or 4, middle from 3), which E won with the ♣Q over the T to shift to ♦8. Systematically they play 2nd/4th through declarer. What is you play?

We play suit preference T1 when dummy hits with a block of tricks with no future in the suit for us. This dummy qualifies. I would play ♠9, and then ♥T-J-9 if declarer pulls trumps.

Don't care what defense to 1NT I play. As long as D=Pen and 2♣=Majors :)

No passers?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakt874htdaj75c83&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=4hp6h]133|200[/hv] West is a solid citizen, but east is much wilder. East is still a pretty good player, though. IMPs, towards the end of a close first set of 16 boards, with 16 more to go in a knockout. Opps are a dangerous team, but one you expect to beat something like 3 out of 4 matches.

We are missing ♣AKQ, ♦AK, ♠AKQ. Bidding on is too optimistic.

I have found that 4N specific aces does come up with reasonable frequency. Virtually every expert pair around here play 4N as specific aces, a few as both minors preemptive or as a good 5m preempt. I wouldn't want to play 4N as anything else but specific aces. "Undefined" is bad for a serious partnership. The reply with 2 aces is colour-rank-odd at the 6-level btw. 6♣ = reds or blacks, 6♦ = majors or minors, 6♥ = ♠♦ or ♥♣. Those responses fit nicely with our hand. This hand can be bid either by opening a pedestrian 4N or by trying some tactical manouvre hoping to get doubled in a making contract. I would try the former.

A key to getting more of these problems right is to be able to show shortages on either hand to let partner evaluate the fit. Just focusing on general strength and cuebids is bound to result in getting too high/too low when a shortage fits particularly bad/good. 1♣-1♥-3♦ mini-splinter would be good here. Other options are to allow responder to ask for and show splinters after 3♥. The fact that responder should bid 1♦ in some other bidding styles is irrelevant.

Spingold from next monday, but if we contrary to our expectations don't go all the way to the final, we will play side tournaments. Swiss in the weekend etc.

Getting old... :P

Thanks