MickyB

That sequence now shows 4M333. This is also different from Ron's version, I think - transfer then 3NT is simple choice of games looking for a 4-4 fit, and 4333s go through 2♠.

I would bid 1♠, there is no reasonable alternative.

Justin, I agree - There is no doubt in my mind that the best way to improve is to learn about cardplay. However... I was a system addict when I started playing - I didn't know about transfers until my 3rd duplicate, but 2 months/10 sessions later I had switched from Acol to SA to Mini NT 5 card majors, and I was playing transfer responses to 1♣ and Rough Diamond (2♦ showing a weak hand at least 4-4 in diamonds and a major). It is hard to quantify how it affected both my understanding of natural bidding and my interest in the game, but it certainly had a positive effect on both. Now if someone at my university asks about a convention, I make it clear to them that it isn't really a part of improving their results. If they still want to know, then I will tell them. Of course, someone being paid to talk about a convention isn't going to advise people not to attend, particularly as novices tend not to realise how little they know about cardplay so may find this insulting.

Could someone provide the rules for Easybridge? I'm embarassed to say that I never noticed this option before... Wow me neither...I've just found some unsuspecting people who joined then asked what minibridge is! You get a 10 point bonus for correctly saying how many HCP you have, then a declarer is picked in the same way as you suggested. It sounds like declarer can then pick any contract, although I haven't seen for myself that that is the case.

It seems to me that in virtually ANY hand evaluation system, tens are rarely accounted for, and even jacks are left to subjective hand evaluations (unless we apply faithfully Milton Work Point count, which seems to be not so highly regarded). So I would say that basically, almost any hand evaluation system largely depends on "adjustments" and "common sense" to account for Jack an Tens, and that LTC - if aplied with common sense adjustments as any other method - cannot be indicated as much worse than most other methods in this regard. Is that true ? In my experience, LTC, when used in its non-basic form (e.g. Qxx is NOT 2 losers but rather 2.5/2.75 or so, account for likely working or not working finesses based on bidding etc), tends to work rather well, ESPECIALLY for weak distributional hands. If you know what the mean value of a jack or ten in a suit contract is, and assign each card that value initially before adjusting based on everything else you know, you will land up closer to the true value of the hand than if you initially give them no value and go from there. Counting with a 40 HCP deck, 3 HCP is worth approximately one trick, so LTC is working on something like a 9-6-3 shortage count and a 4.5-3.0-1.5 honour count. Giving shortage that high a valuation assumes that: Partner will have no wasted honours opposite your shortage Any suit with 4+cards will be able to win the 4th round onwards with its small cards

As far as I am aware, it isn't possible to prove whether Bergen raises suck or not, so what can "Bergen Raises suck" be other than an opinion?

Micky, I agree with the concept (see my post on using LTC rather than hcp for this). Problem is, LTC is fundamentally flawed, as it rarely takes into account jacks and tens having value, and it overrates distributional hands in comparison to those based on high cards. When looking for a number to represent the strength of my hand for a suit contract, I'll usually start with BUM-RAP for honours (4.5 - 3.0 - 1.5 - 0.75 - 0.25) and add shortage points (5 - 3 - 1).

"Bergen raises suck." That is quoting my authority, Whereagles ;) 3 ways of raising to 3M is just overkill - play 1M:3M as values for a single raise and put the limit raise into a properly designed Jacoby structure or one of the jump-shifts, that is enough. Fluffy - I don't think 6 HCP is that far out. A lot of 7 counts with 4 card support and a singleton are worth a limit raise IMO. The problem with playing a mini-splinter as including both invites and minimum GFs is when openers rebid is a slow sign-off, unless your tempo is brilliant you will miss some games that you want to be in. Putting this aside, I would suggest - 1♠:3♥ 3♠ = min, sign-off opposite invite 3NT = GF opposite invite but not got much more 4X = Slam-try opposite a min GF I'm not sure how best to use the extra space after say 1♠:3♣.

Think I would rather play a 12-15 NT denying/rarely having a 4 card major, then 1♦ can promise a 4 card major. Or even better, play 1♦ as promising exactly 5 cards in a major... BTW david_c is unable to access the forums atm, which may be why he hasn't participated in this thread for the past few days. None of the normal links work for him, and DrTodd is having the same problem.

Looks clearcut until the 4♠ bid...think I would bid 3♠ there, and pass partner's 3NT.

Thanks, Tysen. What other openings worked out well with the 4 card heart, 5 card spade described below? and with a strong diamond? Cheers.

IMO you need to be able to split the hands short of GF values into two ranges - invitational and weak. If you play 2/1 as totally GF, then your jump-shifts need to cover one of these ranges. I'm not sure whether I prefer WJS or IJS. In his book on 2/1, Lawrence suggests that sequences like 1S:2C, 2S:3C should be invitational. IIRC 1S:3C is then a strong-jump shift. Personally, I'd be quite happy to lose Bergen raises.

I was considering the opposite of this just last night...how about a 1NT rebid showing 15+, can be fairly offshape? Makes slightly more sense playing weak NT obviously.

Assuming you know they play it as a FP situation, of course. I've never seen it on a convention card, IMO there should be a FP section on the EBU card as there is on the WBF card.

Mark, I think David was suggesting a 12-14 NT, with 15+bal opening 1♣. David: IMO 16 point hands are THE hands you want to open 1♣. You have already shown the strength of the hand, which might be difficult if you had opened with a suit. I'm not convinced that a natural 1♦ opener doesn't benefit much from being limited - it allows partner to raise with a weakish hand and an outside 4 card major, whereas playing unlimited openings you normally have to bid the 4 card major for fear of missing game. I showed you a system a while back which had 1♥ as 5+ cards 11-19 and 1♠ as 4+cards 10-15, which allowed 1♥ to be a strong relay after a strong club and negative response. Tysen has said on here that his simulations suggest that the 1♥ and 1♠ openings are actually better reversed; I don't know to what extent this took into account the effects on the 1♣ opener, or how a response structure would work. I played something similar to Millennium Club a few months ago. I decided that I preferred 1♥ and 1♠ to be unlimited to simplify the 1♣ opener; I think including strong but not GFing hands with a primary major could make the opening much less successful. Another interesting alternative is to make 1♣ 11-13 or 17+; 1NT and 2♣ are 14-16 nat. IIRC Misho said that Kalin-Rumen played this vul, with Millennium Club or similar NV.

The Principle of Restricted Choice IS correct. There are twice as many combinations where the finesse is correct (Q singleton, J singleton against QJ doubleton), however QJ doubleton is slightly more common than a singleton (12:11 by Empty Spaces - LHO has 11 other cards, RHO has 12 other cards) so it is more likely to be in LHO's hand by 22:12 = just under 65%.

For computer dealt hands, I agree with Eric. Manually dealt hands, however, are a different matter - IMO some shuffles (and previous orders of the cards) are more likely to produce shapely hands than others, so if you are dealt a shapely hand, it increases the chances that the deal was such that shapely hands are more likely.

In response to Dutch 2s, I play: 2NT - bid the minor you HAVEN'T got. Responder's 3♥ rebid is forcing 3♣ - pass or correct for minor suit 3♦ - Artificial invite to game in partner's major 3♥ over 2♠ - natural NF Raise - Preempt 2NT can be used on a hand that wants to sign off in its own long minor, or on a strong hand that wants to know partner's minor. The same responses should work quite nicely over a Capp/Woolsey 2M overcall.

If the TD was called before the opps made a call on the next board, you should be given the less favourable of the table result and -3 IMPs (40% at pairs - normal Avg minus). If not, then I don't think the table result can be adjusted - but don't hold me to that. A Procedural Penalty against the offending side is still an option, but given the lack of CoC it would be quite harsh in this case!

It seems to me that love all is much closer in terms of gains vs risks to game all than it is to only opps vul. I guess in this sense it is probably more dangerous than most people realise. I might have a go at some figures tomorrow.

What problem do you have with him taking time to make his call? Maybe he was thinking, maybe he was busy juggling. It doesn't matter, unless: His partner takes advantage of the hesitation You fail to finish the board because of this time wasting He deliberately hesitates to mislead the opponents You seem to be suggesting the third scenario may be true. The typical case is 1H-P-2H-P, then hesitate before passing to try to persuade LHO that it would not be wise for him to balance. I can't see that being the case here. Firstly, his bid is not that clearcut, and secondly, as Eric points out, his hesitation implies uncertainty - surely that is a slight suggestion that you should *not* bid 5♥?

I think you have replied based on playing 2/1 - the system stated is SAYC.

I've seen the 'Main Bridge Club' list say there were 80 odd kibitzers when there were in fact 7. This was on one of the recent test versions, but not the latest one - I think either 3.9.7 or 3.9.8.

Winstonm, I'm not quite sure how you reached your conclusions - some of your percentages seem quite dubious. Neither vul is definitely less dangerous than both vul. If they can definitely make game then it makes little difference to the odds whether it is love all or game all, just the swings will be smaller either way at love all; If they cannot make game, then you are losing more when you are vul. Therefore with a stronger hand you are much safer at love all, whereas with KJTxxx and out opposite a passed hand there is little difference. I think.

According to Bridgeguys 4SF was introduced by Norman Squire. My impression was that it evolved from a semi-natural bid to a totally artificial one. There is a reasonably well known quote by a top player complaining about this change.