EarlPurple

If I partner myself against Jack it's easy to psych him out. Just bid his suit then run to my own suit. A pair playing against 2 GIBS could play HUMs and that would probably psych them out.

Can I have a channel for my "expert" analysis? Well that sort-of means can a user open a channel and let anyone join?

so does a quitter who gets banned from a tourney

When will I be allowed to partner GIB in a tourney? When can we have an "indy" tourney where every pair contains a human and a GIB (except maybe one pair of 2 GIBs) How about a regular indy where GIB enters, so we see how well he does?

When I want to find a game to kibitz, I would like it to take me to the table with the most kibitzers regardless of whether this is in the Main Bridge Club, a tourney or a team-game. Or at least offer me the choice.

I believe her. It's happened to me often enough. And let me guess - all the contracts were played by her left hand opponent so not only did she never get to play a hand, but her partner was always on lead too.

They decided to invent a "Standard English" a few years ago, part of which insisted on opening the MAJOR when holding a 4-4-3-2 hand of 15+ points with a 4 card major and a 4 card minor. The general problem of opening the minor comes in a sequence: 1♣ pass 1♥ pass ? Holding 4-4-3-2, 15-16 points and 4 spades, do you now bid 1♠ or 1NT? If you bid 1NT, partner may not have enough to continue, even if you do play some kind of checkback like new minor forcing, and you will be playing in 1NT, possibly going down with 2♠ cold and nothing on for them. If you rebid 1♠ partner will not know if your hand is balanced nor will he have any indication of your strength. The same issue comes up in any system, of course, but Standard English tries to resolve this by enforcing that you open the major. However, I don't see the big advantage of this. So now perhaps you can make 2 of a minor but not 1NT and nothing is on for them, and you are certainly going to lose your minor suit fit. True your swing will be -140 instead of -160 (assuming non-vulnerable) but not enough on which to base a system. I would prefer to know that when partner opens 1 of a major it will be a 5-card suit most of the time, and when not it will be balanced and 15+. (Yes you are stuck on 12-14 4-4-4-1 hands). I can raise partner with 3-cards - though I'm not really a big fan of 4-card majors myself. Never really liked it - I guess I was too fearful of being raised with 3 (and I know many experts love 4-3 fits but when I play them the trumps always break 5-1).

Why is it a disadvantage? Many pairs who play weak NT also play transfers, not because of it placing the declaration, but because of the extra space. You can bid 2♦ over your partner's 1NT to show 5 hearts, then continue on to show your hand more descriptively, i.e. invitational and forcing hands. Some pairs prefer to use the 2♥ and 2♠ bid as sign-off in that situation. It is slightly more difficult to compete over this as there is no "free" double of the transfer available. But the trade-off is that you have to find other ways to describe the stronger and invitational hands. Players who use this will often use both 2♣ and 2♦ as asking bids, with 2♦ being a "forcing to game" variation (known as forcing Stayman) while 2♣ is not forcing to game (and is used in sign-off sequences in minors, possibly with a 4-card major on the side). Most of the time you are watching vu-graph you are watching IMPs not MP. There is a difference, and I think weak NT works better at MP, but can be dangerous at IMPs because you are more likely to go for a big number. However many play weak NT at IMPs even vulnerable in the UK. If they had more vu-graph from the UK you'd probably see more use of weak NT. Acol players would open 1♥, not 1♦ and the rebid would be 2♦. It is not without its dangers, as partner may give false-preference to 2♥ with a 2-card suit and you'll end up in a 4-2 fit (assuming it is non-forcing). With 12 points you'd probably want to pass. With 13 or 14 points, you would want to open, and might decide to open 1NT to avoid the rebid problem. Authorities are very much against opening 1NT with a singleton, but I don't see why. Who are they protecting? If I want to open 1NT with a singleton, I know the opps might run off 5 tricks in the suit, but they might do anyway even if both my partner and I have 3, even if I have Q10x. The other alternative is to play that 1♦-2♣-2NT shows a wide-ranging hand or to play that it is weak. In that case if you have 15+ points you must either leap to 3NT (not that unreasonable, as partner will have at least 10 points for his 2 over 1 and you have 15) or invent some other bid. (I prefer the leap to 3NT). I've heard players say that weak NT goes better with 4-card majors but I disagree. I played it for years with 5-card majors, which leads us to: One of the features of a weak NT is that an opening bid of 1 of a suit is never a balanced 12-14. So when you open 1♣ you are either showing extra strength (at least 15 points) or extra shape. If you simply raise 1♥ to 2♥ partner may be able to come up with an invitational game-try holding a 9-11 count, would happily pass with most 6-8 point hands, would probably go straight to game with 12+. The losing trick count should produce a good guide here. You'll see that a 3-4-1-5 12 count probably has the same number of losers as a 3-4-2-4 15-count.

One way you can get around the nebulous diamond problem in Precision is: 1NT opening range 13-15 Balanced 12-point hands you simply pass. You gain little by opening 1♦ anyway, as you take away very little bidding space from the opps. You now simply open 1♦ when you have diamonds. I have also experimented in the past with the 2♦ opening showing 12-15 points, a good 6-card suit headed by two top honours, and no 4 card major. The response system is simply: - 2 of a major promises 5 and is forcing - 2NT is invitational (though can be made conventional whereby you check for stoppers on the way to 3NT) - 3♦ is probably played as pre-emptive but you can make it invitational or even forcing if you wish instead. That method also overcomes the problem of nebulous diamond, though you lose the possibility to use 2♦ as a weak pre-emptive bid. By the way, I have rarely held a 13-15 point 4-4-1-4 hand when playing this method, but decided the correct opening bid for such a hand should be 2♣. If partner has a fit for one of your majors you hope to find it. Or you hope the opps will intervene when you are about to play in a 4-2 fit. No, you won't always reach the best contract but it will rarely turn up and when it does it's only a part-score swing you are going to lose.

I haven't put it in the system, but I have assumed that you might play weak jump shifts over 1♣ and 1♦ openings, so 1♣-2♥ and 1♣-2♠ would be bid on many of the weak hands with a 6-card or longer suit. You cannot claim LAW-protection as partner is not guaranteed doubleton support, but you might take your chances with it anyway even on a very weak hand. 1♣-2♦ is a game-forcing response with no 4-card major so it cannot be used on weak hands with diamonds. So with such a hand, you might agree that 1♣-1♦-1M-2♦ shows simply diamonds and does not guarantee 4-cards in the other major, but then what do you do with 6 diamonds and 4 spades if partner is 4-4 in the majors, and you'd have to decide whether or not this sequence is forcing. The other option, if you don't want to pass 1♣, is to bid 1NT and hope it plays well. The system has been primarily designed to find major-suit fits and it does it very well but it makes it harder to find minor fits at part-score level. That might be fine when the opps don't compete, as you can often end up in 1NT and will often make it when the hand belongs to you. When the opps do compete, it's probably easier now to compete in the minors, using good-bad 2NT to differentiate between game-going hands and competitive hands. By the way, I don't believe the system would not be licenced at the 1-level. What might not be licenced are the multiple 2-bids, so anyone wanting to play it should obviously check first.

Acol is more "natural" because every 1-level suit opening bid promises at least 4 cards in that suit. The only artificial opening bid in standard Acol is 2♣.

Yes, you could. Needless to say you'll need "checkback" now to find if you both have the same major, i.e. if you have one. (Presumably without one you are still opening this 1♣). What if partner does not respond 1♦? 1♥ and 1♠ would be showing 5-card suits? Must I now jump to 2NT with no support, and to 3 of his suit with support? (or make some other jump bid to show a strong hand) At the moment, you'd open 2♣ then 3♦ over the likely 2♦. Yes it is a pain that you are so high and haven't shown partner your clubs.

Actually the idea for this system came from a topic in another forum about what would be the simplest system to teach. So toying with ideas my first thought was the simplest way to find the major suit fits. This system. like MAF, is designed to find major suit fits more often than not. In particular responder can show for certain a 5-card suit after partner opens 1 of either minor, something not present in mainline systems. Opener can happily support with 3 knowing they have found an 8-card fit. The next thing is to keep almost all the bids limited. Have 1-bids sound, 2-level bids multi covering both the pre-emptive and the strong hands. In simulation the only weakness I have found is the 2♥ and 2♠ bids. When partner has reasonable values, 2 card support of the bid major and big support of the minor, do you risk looking for the minor? Odds are that partner does not have a fit with your minor. Example: You open 2♠ with this most pure of hands: ♠ KQJxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ KQxx nice 11 count, all the points in your suits. Doesn't qualify for 1♠ bid in our system. Partner has ♠ Ax ♥ xxxx ♦ Ax ♣ Axxxx and 5♣ is cold (as is 4♠ probably). But if partner has 5 spades and 4 diamonds (which you fear he does) then where are we going with this? (If you don't like opening 2♠ with 11 points, then move one of the jacks across and you get the same problem). None of my simulations have yet run into any problems opening 2NT. Yes you could run into a disaster, but it doesn't happen often enough to worry about.

Yes I've found MAF now here: http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/M.A.F/index0.htm Yes, my 1-bids are similar, I'll have to look at that system in more detail. Mine is supposed to be very simple though.

Don't know MAF. I do know there is a system already where you open 1♣ with a 4-card major and 1♦ without one (is that MAF?) and may buy the notes. You might pass the 2♣ opening with xx xx xx QJTxxxx but I can't see you passing it that often. With 4 points you will often have game, but if after you bid 2♦, partner shows one of the stronger hands, you may pass with absolutely nothing. Then you'll probably go 2 or 3 off, hopefully (and most of the time) undoubled. Partner is slightly less likely to be totally bust (you have 2 points less so that's 2 more than partner might hold). And if partner is totally bust he may at least have a 5-card major to run to. Maybe we'll lose on this particular part-score deal, although it may play no worse than declarer in his 3-2 fit in his prepared minor at the other table. Yes it could. Although I said the 1NT response is about 6-9, you might bid it also with just 5 points, hoping it plays better than clubs when partner doesn't have them. 1NT is to play and partner is expected to pass. The "canape" only occurs in that you bid 1♣ to show the 4-card major even if you have a longer minor. You can show the minor suit later. With a single-suiter weak 2 opening you open 2♦ (a multi bid).

Opening bids: 1NT: 15-18 balanced. If 15, contains a 5-card suit. If 18 does not contain a 5-card suit. 1♣: promises a 4-card major. 12+ but if 12 must contain a 5-card minor (in addition to 4 card major). 1♦: denies a 4-card major. 12+ but if 12 contains a 5-card minor. May be 5-3-3-2 balanced with 12 points and a 5-card minor. If balanced, maximum point count is 15 (no 5-card minor). If unbalanced, maximum point count is 17, but unbalanced hand would have to be minor-orientated. 1♥, 1♠: 5 card majors. Limited to 17 points. 5-3-3-2 hands of 15-17 points would be opened 1NT so if balanced is no more than 14. 2♣ is the mini strong bid, 18+ (unbalanced)-22. 2NT rebid shows 20(5-3-3-2)-22 (4-4-3-2 or 4-3-3-3). But can also be weak 2 bid in diamonds (and will be a lot of the time, so beware coming in over it with any old rubbish). Responder bids 2♦ when he is happy to hear partner pass with a weak-2 in diamonds. If it's one of the strong bids, opener bids on to describe his hand. 2♦ is the big strong bid (balanced hands 23+ or 5-3-3-2 22-count, or unbalanced 23+). But can also be a weak 2 in either major. Responder bids assuming weak 2 in major (is most of the time!) if it's the strong option, opener breaks the sequence. 2♥ = hearts and a minor 2♠ = spades and another suit. These bids will be normally 8-11 points and show at least 5 in the major. You may play them as always 5-5 if you prefer. 2NT opening: maybe a bit controversial but is 18 (5-3-3-2) - 20 (4-4-3-2 or 4-3-3-3). That may seem a bit weak for a 2NT opening but if you are going to play to open 1♣ or 1♦ then rebid 2NT you will probably end in 2NT anyway, or, with a weak hand, partner may pass you in a minor neither of you have. Significantly though, 3rd player will often get the chance to bid 1 of a major for a lead, whereas the 2NT bid forces him to come in at the 3-level (possibly playing in 3 of his suit doubled). In addition, this way we are also keeping the 1♣ and 1♦ bid strictly limited, which is very good for competitive auctions. _______________________________________________________________ Responses to 1♣: 1♦ promises a 4-card major. If 1♣ is overcalled with 1♦, Dbl is "stolen bid" and so promises a 4-card major and bidding 1 of the major shows 5. (I know that in standard bidding this method is considered inferior, but here we know partner also has a 4-card major somewhere and also know he is limited, so the situation is different, we want to try to find it). If 1♣ is overcalled with 1♥ or 1♠, Dbl shows 4 cards in the other suit. (I guess it might be sometimes a 5-card heart suit when the overcall was 1♠). These responses apply over 1♦ as well: 1♥ and 1♠ promise 5 card suits. 1NT response to 1♣ usually shows about 6-9 points and opener should pass 2♣ response is 10-11 points, no 5-card major (or 4 card over 1♣, generally start of an invitational sequence, though opener may pass with a minimum hand and long clubs. 2♦ response is 12+ game-forcing, no 5 card major (or 4-card over 1♣), not necessarily diamonds. 2♥ and 2♠ are weak jump-shifts, about 6-9 points, 6 card suit. Opener should pass, though (after opening 1♣) holding a maximum and 4-card support, you might make a game try. ___________________________________________________________________ Some situations that need discussion still: When 1♦ is overcalled with 1♠, does Dbl show 5 hearts (pointless to show 4) or a general willingness to compete? Does 1NT promise a stopper. 2♣ could be used as a general competitive bid but would it necessarily be 10-11 points now? Perhaps Dbl should be around 7-9, 2♣ is 10-11 and 2♦ 12+. 2♥ will show a 5-card suit but will be 10+ thus forcing though not to game.

"How To Win At Bridge When Constantly Picking Up 4-counts And Watching The Opponents Bid One Cold Game/Slam After Another" would be a useful book for me. or "How To Stop All The Major Decisions Falling To Partner". or at least "How To Attract Top Partners".

Perhaps the reason many of us have never achieved all these wins is: 1. We simply don't play enough 2. We find it hard to find decent partners. I'm sure if I'd had decent partners and played in every tournament I could find, I'd have a few wins.

Jack can play Moscito but there is no way you can tell it what defence you are playing. So you can play your defence to it, and Jack will just guess what your bids mean, explaining them for you. If Jack's explanations are wrong you have no way to correct it. This is obviously likely to upset Jack's subsequent bidding plus any inferences it might be able to make in the play. In addition, Jack has a similar weakness if you are playing an artificial opening bid system against it. Jack does seem to also play extremely slowly at times with seemingly nothing to think about.

so what would this be: 1♦ X pass 2♣ pass 2♥ ? And what should I do with: ♠ KQxx ♥AQJxx ♦ xx ♣ Qx

I don't have any partners to agree these things with sadly. Haven't had any for a long time. I'm lots of theory and very little practice, I'm afraid.

Cardinal Sins is a book by David Bird (and Terence Reese) about the Abbot... As for the hand, I would have opened 3NT with that long diamond hand. I agree with the other comments: - You've bid your hand, so let partner decide - You should not concede 6 off but play it to the best of the ability to keep the penalty low - If this was in the Main Bridge Club then you may leave the table at the end of the hand if you desire. If a tourney then quitting is obviously wrong.

I don't play GOSH, I play equal-level correction. I don't like my doubleton diamond - would rather my doubleton were clubs and I had 3 diamonds. Did I have a pre-emptive 3♠ available last round? Though again doubleton is the worst diamond holding I could have.

I hope we can do it again. Be better prepared: - over opponents opening methods and - handling opponents intervention. That is why I would like to see the systems posted here. One of the pairs came in as substitute to replace one of the pairs who were scheduled to play, and that was perhaps part of the problem because they were unprepared for the match. Our match was clashing with a Topflight Special featuring Zia Mahmood, which is why we did not attract as many spectators as we might have done. Hopefully next time...

The time to play is now. Trying to round up the players (just in case they browse here).