Cthulhu D

You sit west Vul against NV at teams. The opponents are on tilt. South deals and passes, and you pick up the following collection: [hv=pc=n&w=sak9753hkj863djc2&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1s2d3d(Good%20raise)d3h4d4s5d]133|200[/hv] I opened this 1S. I can systematically open it as a GF with majors, but didn't because I thought the heart suit sucked. This was perhaps unfortunate. The 3H was undiscussed but partner and I were both on the same page that it was a natural second suit and forcing to game. Alternative options to 3D are: 4D splinter agreeing spades, 3H, 4C fitjumps, 2S competitive, 3S pre-emptive, 4S very pre-emptive and 2NT limit+ Question: It's your turn to bid in the diagram. This is where I committed the fatal mistake. Do you bid 5S here or do you pass? Going up in front of partner seems a bit bad.. but I do have a 6/5 two suiter with no defence. Though maybe 3H shows that? Results: It turns out that 5H is one off and 5Dx'ed is going for 500 (for a game swing in as at the other table our team mates opened the south hand leading to the auction 1D-(2D)-5D and oppo guessed wrong). As it turns out partner has 3/2 in the majors and 6(!) clubs, so maybe 3D wasn't the greatest bid ever there, but it doesn't affect the question. vvvvv: Bidding replaced by diagram. 3C would be round forcing.

IMHO This post by Fred and it's follow-up 2 posts down: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/19242-123/page__st__40__p__193447#entry193447 remains the best post on game tries in the forums, and it's sufficiently simple, natural and easy to be used by beginners.

It seems in lands without regulations about minimum NT opening strengths people play the kamikaze as 9-12 balanced typically, but 9-13 seems unworkably large.

Can't you just flash your firmware then download AIR+BBO anyway?

Bad arguement, unless you mean this seriously 'cause the world is consolidating on right hand side of the road and km/h. The holdouts are either America or islands!

Shouldn't the actual case where it's 'bad' be "I couldn't make that bid because I needed you to decide between X and Y based on facts ABC and bid Z would give you the wrong information to make that decision, so I tried Delta instead on the hope that it would." If partner doesn't have to make a decision later, you can lie as much as you want if it gives you the infomation you need to make the correct decision.

It's a product of the number of upvotes their posts have received alone, so it basically boils down to Post count * percentage of good posts. It's totally useless as a metric for anything. Masterpoints and 'face to face' status have nothing to do with it. This can easily be seen in action by checking out the relative status of a couple of terrible bridge players (e.g. myself) and, say, Jeffery Allerton (posts under jallerton).

To supplement Zelandakh's excellent advice: http://bridgewithdan.com/systems/UAC.txt <--- Full unassuming club writeup. Lots of stuff to loot. In the same vein, http://users.abo.fi/jboling/bridge/bclub.pdf Bolish club. Bolish really hammers home how nice it is to take out the 'too strong for 1NT' openers out of the 1C.

I literally logged in to post about this, but I see you are ahead of me. Your solution doesn't quote work, either this: 1N 8-14 3 Suited takeout (P)-2C ART. Game Try (P)-2D To Play (P)-2H To Play (P)-2S To Play (P)-3D To Play (P)-3H To Play (P)-3S To Play (P)-2N Asking for 5 card suit (P)-3C Asking for 4 card major, Invitational+ or this 1N 8-14 3 Suited takeout (P) 2S ART. Game Try 2CDH To Play 3CDH To Play 2N Asking for 5 card suit 3S Asking for 4 card major, Invitational+ Work - the second option is better because (P)-2CDH doesn;t work.

Around here there is usually: Open Men Women Mixed Restricted (0-300 or 0-500 MP) e: Seniors

Our system regulations at the NBO level are just the WBF's regulations photocopied onto a different template. Application (e.g. banning yellow stickers all the time, sometimes, just in some proportion of the field in barometer pairs(?) etc) is left solely to club owners and TOs. So.. I probably won't, but hey! Worth a throw. That's my point though, individuals writing in leads to inconsistent responses being delivered back. Should be published. Then everyone knows what's what.

I wrote up a response but then noticed I'm really just bickering. Ultimately I agree that A) System regulation is needed at all levels of bridge B) We need much, MUCH better communication from all regulators as to What is the goal of regulation, and how do regulations map to those goals. I'm not opposed to forcing pass methods being banned, but I don't understand why 1C ferts are banned for example, whereas the case for 1H being banned is much clearer, but neither is explained by anyone at all, nor is it explained why banning a 1C fert or a myxo 2 or 1NT for takeout or whatever at whichever level of the game is 'good.' IMHO the goal of regulation is to protect from degenerate methods that dominate a given format. Degenerate methods should be banned and other methods permitted. A degenerate method is a method that disrupts the environment sufficiently that the only people 'winning' are people playing the degenerate method or people playing specific methods to counter it. It is possible that strong pass systems fit this criteria, though the total lack of tournament results to support that argument would be a case for deregulation.

Not sure what's worse: East making a weak jump shift with a 5 loser hand with a 5 card heart suit or West passing with his strong NT. Double perhaps? Even a michaels cuebid is a better start for East's hand - both bids are absurd. vvvv yeah, but LTC is simplistic. I'm just making the point that P doesn't have to have much to make 5D or 4H ice cold, and if it's a misfit you need to let partner in on this ASAP so he can defend spades X'ed. The guys from partnership bidding at bridge advocate specific 2 suiter overcalls here and I like it for exactly this reason.

I understand that the Bermuda bowl the system regulations are different in the round robin vs the knockout as well. I would confirm this on their website but it down atm. Anyway, to get to the meat of your example, if that is the case you should ban them entirely! If the amateurs without coaching access etc are to be protected, making your 'protection' it a crapshoot based on other teams results doesn't make any sense. It's also going to lead to dissatisfaction for everyone. Say Belgium is planning on using a HUM if it makes the knockout. They are only a 20% shot, but they get lucky and make it. Now the amateurs are totally screwed - if they couldn't prepare for this with months of lead time, it's completely unreasonable to expect them to jam it through in a few days. The pros are going to be irritated as well because even with the months of coaching this it is very hard work to get across relatively common systems like Polish club etc if you don't play them much (see: Cohen), so they are going to be in the same boat. Yup. My only point was that in places system regulation doesn't line up with the apparent goals, but as there are no stated goals it's impossible to actually asses the performance.

I think I found a bug. Works fine, but if I change D 15+ 1D ART. 0-4 Bust to D 15+ 1STEP ART. 0-4 Bust It won't compile d:\PlaceIHavethings\>bml2bss.exe What's the name of the file you want to convert? SCM.bml Traceback (most recent call last): File "bml2bss.py", line 302, in <module> parse(i[:-1]) # skip the \n File "bml2bss.py", line 182, in parse include(row, _indentation) File "bml2bss.py", line 140, in include parse(' ' * indentation + i) File "bml2bss.py", line 189, in parse bid = stepBid(_lastbid, bid) File "bml2bss.py", line 96, in stepBid denomination = int(bid[0]) ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: 'C' I can email you a copy of all the files involved. Note for reproducing: It only seems to happen if I use the step command after a double - as seen in the file above, the step is fine after a bid of a suit! This took me some time to figure out - what a bug! I think it's simply that STEP looks for the root bid, gets double and breaks. Thanks again for all your work Also, if anyone wants it, I've developed a bunch of modules for this Canape Overcalls - Mark Abraham's Catomult overcalls Overcall Structure - Fout's overcall structure Myxos - Myxomitis twos 1416NT - 14-16 NT response structure Majors ShortClub UnbalancedDiamond Inquiry's Equality Transfer Advances The 1CDHS openings are based on stuff from the forums And one included Ekrens 2H, Multi 2D, Dutch 2C and a random 2S. Nothing is of course perfect, but if anyone wants them email me :) Edit: Tip for authors, if you write a COPY/END copy block, then import it into your main BML file, your other bml files can refer to it - so I have my variation of XYZ in a copy block and then my 1C and 1D structures just have INSERT TransferXYZ so I only need to update one place despite having it mentioned in lots of modules.

1NT has to be forcing to play this though right? You absolutely don't want partner passing 1NT with some balanced 11 if you were planning on bidding 4H with some expectation of making! Also with the 3"over" bid couldn't you just use the cheapest bid to ask and 4M is a stiff in the suit you cannot show? (clubs over 1S and spades over 1H)

The problem here is that a method can be legal in the selection trial and banned in the competition. Everything that holds true about the championship itself is presumably also true about the selections. The reverse is much less of an issue. Then to prevent a pair qualifying using a method that they cannot actually play, the obvious approach is to ban methods that are also banned at the world champions in your selection trials, but as presumably national championships etc will form part of your selection approach, the World Championships end up as the 'you must not be taller than this to ride' approach to system regulation. Of course, the status quo is more bizarre. If the rationale is as you state, why can you play methods in the selection trials, then not the round robin, but then you can again in the finals? Literally the same people are at each event, and in similar circumstances. There are plenty of puzzling similar decisions (the use of BSC's in defence at the WC level to 1C = 2+Cs, 1C = 3+Cs, 1C = 4+Cs, 1C = Polish, 1C = Swedish, 1C = Any strong). Why is the cutoff at 3+? Simply tradition? Certainly using Glenn Ashton's test if it's a vexing bid if you could bid a grand slam in a suit they have bid, that is the case for all of those openings. A major oversight of Bridge regulation atm is the lack of stated reasoning (the EBU is the best at this), for regulating decisions. The experience from stuff like Magic: The Gathering (where the DCI waits for a demonstrably degenerate environment to emerge prior to the regulating then provides reason), is probably a good model.

How do you guys actually do this? I'm currently playing 2/1 with a 14-16 NT and raises like this after 1S: 2C: GF Balanced, clubs or 3 card limit raise (10-12) (2DH) are game forcing hands 2S: Weak, constructive 2NT: Limit+ (3CDH): Invitational with 6 baggers 3S: Mixed - 8-10 4 card support 1NT is essentially not forcing, and I think you need that as forcing to do all raise types, both because it buys you some sequences, and there is less pressure to show the invitational 6 baggers straight away. What are other people doing? Or are you just changing the 3S bid according to vulnerability.

We do - the success rate is not as high as I might like :)

To calculate hand frequencies you want "deal" bridge.thomasoandrews.com/deal/

2C as 4-4 minors is going to cause oppo heart palpitations, but you can put the "any 5/5" hands in with the 18-19 balanced hand in 2C Writeup page 20 here: http://users.abo.fi/jboling/bridge/bclub.pdf If you do this, I'd suggest taking the strong option out of the 2D multi and just making 2NT natural 20-21. Though going crazy is still an option. 2S a 4-5 spades and 5 cards in a minor?

This does miss my point slightly though - what's the actual case for system regulation? There is a second driver too - I think the growth of online events is probably going to mean you would like to harmonize system regulations.

It would be nice if you could get a per-exisitng partnership matchmade against another such partnership.

South hand is right on the border line for me to open, so it would probably go - 2♦! (Multi) - Pass - 2S! (Pass or correct) - Pass - 4H - All Pass. If south opens 1♥ though, he loses big time. 1♥ - 2♠! (Spades + clubs) - 3♠ - 4♠ - Not sure what south will do, probably pass.

Yeah, my question is what do you play here? It's equally applicable after 1D-(P)-1S-(2H) as well.