ash1968

A few years ago playing with my wife against another married couple we had an auction that went something like... 1C-(X)-1S-(2D after a hestitiation); 2S-(3D after a hestitation)-All Pass. I lead the SA to which dummy tracks with JT9x and partner follows with the Q. After I give partner a ruff the dummy screams (and I mean screams) "Director!" The director wanders over and says "who called?" - the entire room starts to laugh. Dummy says "I did" and starts to launch into his spiel. Of which the director informs him that dummy is unable to call the director during the play. After we complete our cross ruff and the contract goes several down dummy now calls the director (no less loudly). The director with a straight face repeated his question "who called?" Dummy accused me of fielding the psyche so the director asked me if I knew partner had psyched. I said I did as there were three clues. (1) Partner following with the Q suggested a singleton. (2) RHO's hesitiation over 1S which showed spades (3) and LHO's hestitiation over 2S which also showed spades. Dummy called me a cheat but I was laughing so much that I failed to get offended. Cheers, Stephen

Regarding Newell/Reid they play 3C as a constructive 6+ card suit because of their other openings (strongish 1C, 9-13 openings including 1S showing diamonds or diamonds and clubs - they use 2C/2D for 4/4 style preempts). BTW it is not T-Rex which is very different. Regards, Stephen

In reading this topic the one thing that stood out to me was the non-defensive attitude to the discussion from the developers of the scheme. The responses to questions raised were genuine, thoughtful and constructive. Very different from most authorities. Well done. Cheers, Stephen

I am a passer but I am somewhat ashamed to admit the inconsistency of mentioning that I would have opened 1C (an acol and light opening background is my excuse) Cheers, Stephen

How to play bridge with your spouse and survive (Teukolsky?) - just kidding darling!

I know a pair who wanted to make it "more difficult" for pairs who played a strong 1C so they would open 1C 10-12 any when possible. Mostly opponents then played X = same as 1C opening and the rest of the system on.

I am not sure that any of this really addresses the incentive that is created. Being staggering or heinous doesn't prevent it ocurring. Look at the cheating that happens in high level competiive activity. For example - What if the sponsor's team was in the final and one of their opponent's was a regular in their NOT or GCC team? Or the regular pair had lost to the sponsor in the semi-final and the sponsor won, or the regular pair lost a match which meant in the round robin their sponsor qualified for the semi or final. Because the standard of expert bridge includes mistakes who knows whether a pair tanked or not? Can the ABF judge something like that? As I said in my original post - I like the idea but I wonder about creating a peverse incentive.

I like the idea but one possible downside (irrespective of sponsors) is that you may have three pairs hoping one team wins - ie the odd pair know they will be picked if they get to the (say) semi-final. That would create a peverse incentive. Cheers, Stephen

I have played two non serious systems on a club night that I enjoyed: Play the opponents system but you are not allowed to refer to their system card or ask and you are not allowed to make it easy for partner by making a non systemic bid to help him/her. Eg if you think they are playing 2C Multi (just like a 2D multi) and you open 2C with a weak 2 Major. Partner bids 2D (which if he thinks you have opened a multi asks for your suit but is a negative if he thinks you have opened a strong 2C) you can't bid 2S with the Multi version and 3S with the GF version to help him. It is unfortunate that the pre-alerting regulations have destroyed this system. Symmetric Anticipation where you assume partner has 1/3 of the remaining values and shape and bid what you think you can make. Partner makes a similar assumption from his side. You don't play many 4-4 fits and you open 2NT a lot! I have also seen approaches where (1) you are allowed to make no more than two bids (incl double) by each player in your partnership and (2) where your side is not allowed to start bidding until you are in the pass out seat. Cheers, Stephen

Heart T for me, seems best chance to beat it Cheers, Stephen