MickyB

David Stevenson has posted the proposed regulations for alerting in the EBU to rec.games.bridge. The change is scheduled for January 2006. You can view the thread here. The highlights include: Announcements of Stayman, Transfers and range for 1NT opening bids only Few alerts above 3NT Weak 2s and Strong 2s not alertable, any other meaning (including Intermediate 2s) alertable - eugh! Better Minor not alertable

In uncontested auctions, responder not being able to bid a suit naturally without forcing to the 3 or 4 of opener's suit could be a problem. There is also the rare case when you want to play in eg 2♦ opposite diamonds, but 5♣ opposite clubs. Most of the losses would be in contested auctions: The opps jam the auction and you lose your fit. They have two opportunities to bid a suit - on the first round, showing strength and looking for game, or on the second round, just competing for the part-score. They also get to bid 2 of a suit over your spade single suited opening bid. Obviously this is the case in standard systems too, but then you have the constructive advantages of the 2 level to work with. I think the idea can work, but you will need to find gains with the other bids. I dislike 2♣ and 2♦ being 5-4 either way around, I would rather it was something like 2♣ = 5♣, 4 of a major suit.

They seem to have replaced the 'beginner poster', 'intermediate poster' etc, so I doubt you can choose your own. Think they have been there a couple of days.

At MPs I'll rarely open a weak NT with 5 spades, too likely to be missing our best part-score. If you hold hearts then you have an extra way to win by keeping the opps out of their spade contract, and if you are playing IMPs +90 against the par of +110 is only an imp out. Give me hearts when playing IMPs, and I'll open 1NT every time.

Although it is about right here, Kaplan-Rubens is poor at evaluating playing strength in NT - it is best used for suit contracts only. Thomas Andrew's evaluator together with Tysen's post suggest that in isolation, the direct seat hand is worth slightly more than 14hcp and the balancing hand is worth a bit over 8hcp.

Some (if not all) of these have been mentioned before, but here goes... 1) It would be nice to be able to see friend's lobby chat, but block out everyone elses. 2) I'd like more flexibility in which names can be shown on the main screen - for example, displaying all of my friends, all of the hosts, and all Brits. Currently I can't cut out 'neutrals' of other nationalities without losing half of my friends. 3) Bubbles currently appear over the bidding. When you click on it to see the bidding again, the trick just finished is taken away so you can no longer look at the previous trick. If the bubble cannot appear elsewhere instead, maybe clicking on it should not remove the cards? 4) Many people seem to start Post Mortems as the last trick is being played. I'd prefer this trick to be played automatically, and possibly some earlier cards as well when there is nothing more to the play, eg when someone has only high trumps left. 5) It would help if tournaments in progress displayed how many boards were left. If I would only want to sub for a few boards, I currently have to kibitz a table first to check how far through the tournament is. If kibs aren't allowed then I can't even do that.

Yes, contracts getting good scores would be better...an England junior international got an interesting push once - love all, 4H+1 in the other room, he played 5H-9.

A 2-0, when I splintered as opener and partner passed. This was a while ago, maybe I jumped a level more than I needed to...it was not a success, despite trumps breaking.

I'm not keen on playing a tourney as long as 28 boards, and I suspect most feel the same. I'd recommend 12-18 boards.

I've played transfer responses a bit (2N=♣, 3♣=♦, 3♦=♥), this means you don't have to choose between F and NF new suit bids. Transferring then bidding 3♠ is invitational with that sidesuit, any other bid is GF. 2♠:3♥ = flattish invite to 4♠.

Thanks Ron. Looks to me like this revision is intended to give less info to the defence. The old 1N:2♣, 2♦:2NT sequence was horrible at times - Opener disclosing whether he had a 4333 or not when there was no fit anyway, and showing 4 cards in the major that responder wasn't interested in. Flame, why do you think this version is more suited for wide-ranging NTs? IMO the ability to invite and play 2M make either version of Keri more useful opposite a four point range. This version would seem more useful for strong NTers, who have more reason to open 1N with a 5 card major or 6 card minor. I'm not convinced about opening 5cMs in Moscito, but I can see the advantages.

Presumably two way drury is to cope with 4 card major openings?

This auction was perpetrated playing Acol, but I think that makes no difference: 1♣:1♥, 2♣:2♦, ? What should a 2♠ bid now mean? What would you bid with Q73 J J85 AKQJT5?

Thomas Andrew's Double Dummy Analysis says that 6520s are about 0.15 tricks better than 6511s, where the singletons/doubleton are small cards. It also says that 6520s are slightly worse at defending NT contracts and slightly better at defending suit contracts, but I suspect that the latter is biased by partner finding opening leads into our void that he would not find at the table.

I find this a little strange, unless 1♠ - 2♦ is natural NF. Thanks for the update, I will keep an eye out for the new version.

"Not suitable for any other bid" is not a permitted agreement, as the term 'bid' does not include pass and double. This is important, you cannot choose randomly between 1♠ and pass. However, "not suitable for any other call" is fine, as long as those other calls are then described (IMO this should be immediately and without prompting). Whether a 1♠ overcall that is made on any hand (including hands with a solid 9 card suit) is legal is a different matter, however I know of no reason why it should not be.

I only skimmed it, but I think he said good 15-18? Wanting to break 12-18 into two equal ranges. Personally I think 15-17 and 12-14 are close constructively, with 10-13 best 1st NV.

I think its probably playable since they won european championships and olympiad. Yes, this baffles me. I feel certain that their opening structure is poor, yet they keep winning everything! Maybe they have just been lucky so far :)

I saw a system that opened 1♠ on a balanced range. While this may make defence more difficult, you have lost out a lot in the bidding - you gain no constructive bidding room, the opps have extra opportunities in the auction, etc. I've played a little short club, strong NT, transfer responses to 1♣ where 'completing the transfer' shows 11-13 bal, which must right-side some contracts. As Ron mentioned, relay systems do very well here when the undisclosed hand is playing the contract. Strong NT, 4cM does well too, frequently having auctions 1M:1N, AP where opener has shown 11-13 bal and responder has denied GF values. You could introduce some artificiality after a GF 2/1 so that the bal hand doesn't rebid in NT.

I take it that that hasn't done too well in simulations, Tysen?

I don't think that is what was meant, maybe I should have quoted more: "Even though [Law 16] speaks only to what a player should not do, it is occasionally misinterpreted into a positive suggestion to evaluate alternatives in the light of UI. That evaluation is something that a director or appeals committee might well undertake, but for a player to do it would be to use it would be to use UI for the basis for choosing an action." It then has the paragraph that I quoted in my original post. This is followed by: "Perhaps those dispensing behavio(u)ral recommendations mean to warn against choosing an abnormal action suggested by UI, which would be sound advice" "We suspect that the root cause of confusion in this area is the failure of the Laws to distinguish between a player's correct procedure (intended to be in Law 16) and a director's correct procedure (see Law 73F1) in UI situations."

I always thought that when in receipt of UI that you should try not to choose a call that is suggested by the UI over other LAs. If I have understood it correctly, The Bridge World's November editorial is saying that this is incorrect. "[some people tell] recipients of UI not to choose an action thereby suggested. That is very bad advice. In fact, it would be illegal to follow it in general, because a recipient of UI is required to ignore the extraneous information, to take the normal action. ([Laws] 73C, 73D1 and 74A3)." Any comments? Making a call that you know will be adjusted is in effect giving the opps a double shot. If you instead choose a call that is not suggested by the UI, what action can be taken by the TD? In fact, this seems to suggest that you *should* make the call suggested by UI, as otherwise you may be trying to avoid giving the opps their double shot... :)

I don't see why a wider range should lead to your missing games...either play a 14-16 NT, so that only 11-13 bal passes the 1NT response, or use eg 2♦ as artificial invite. I don't think it being weaker will make you go down too many too often, you will escape 4-2 spade fits to play 1NT and minor fits. I can see the logic in accepting the misfits and passing, but you could miss games opposite a shapely opener if you pass these hands. Opening 1m and rebidding 1♠ is a nice description, however I think that this system requires an artificial 1♣ opener and a nebulous 1♦ opener. I presumed you were going to play a strong club, in which case 5♣4♠ isn't too well handled and you could be preempted out of showing your spades when holding 5♦4♠. Also, an overloaded 1♦ opener might benefit from an artificial 1♠ rebid. Responding to a single suited two bid should indeed be similar to responding to a weak two, however OGUST is awful for both :D In response to 2♥, I would suggest: 2♠ natural F1 2N, 3♣ transfers - now 3N = choice of games, 3♥ = invite with side suit. 3♦ general (balancedish) invite

While I have never played anything quite like this, I have been considering something along these lines for a while. Try looking at The Way Forward, it is very similar to your idea, down to 1♥ being wide-ranging. The system file is at at http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/bridge/ As has been mentioned before, opening 1♠ on 4-4-(32) isn't a good idea. TWF opens these with a nebulous 1♦. I don't think it is practical to use 1♠:1NT as anything other than natural NF. How else do you bid 4-3-4-2 opposite 2-4-3-4? TWF uses 2♣ as the GF relay, although I'm not convinced that this leaves enough room. Two other ideas that I have had along these lines... Take the hands with exactly 5♠ out of the 1♠ opener. This means that 1♠:1N, 2m promises 5 cards in the minor, and means there is plenty of room for relays after 1♠:2♣. You can also make single raises on 3 or 4 card support, yet responder will still know exactly how good your fit is. See the thread 'Strong Club - 1M = 4 or 6 cards' in this forum. A 1♦ opener promising 4+♠. This was inspired by MOSCITO, which uses transfer 4 card major opening bids. This solves the 44(32) issue, because there is room to find your heart fit. Continuations something like this... 1♦:1♥ = INV+ relay, usually won't have 4 card spade support (as there is too much risk of being badly placed by preemption, better to show the fit immediately). Now 1♠ = exactly 4♠ - the final contract is much more likely to be in NT than ♠ when opener has exactly 4, so this will right-side many contracts. 1♦:1♠ = 4+♥, forcing 1 round 1NT, 2♣, 2♦ natural NF. 2NT INV+ raise, 3 bids fit-jumps with exactly 3♠ MOSCITO makes a single raise show exactly 3 trumps and some points (6-10 ish). This is so that opener can make safe penalty doubles after the opps balance, without worrying that responder will have a bust, or that we are doubling 3m on an 18 total trick hand. This has two downsides - firstly with 4 card support, you have to preempt straight to the 3 level, which can turn out badly when the last making contract on the hand was 2♠ (or even 2m for the opps). Secondly, you have to pass the transfer opener when you are very weak. This is ok when the opps have a game on, but not so great when they do not. I'm not sure whether I agree with this approach or not. One idea I have had is that with 4 card support and a singleton, you must preempt to the 3 level, but with a flat hand you do not have to. This way, if partner makes a penalty double after a balance, if you do have 4 card support in ♠ you will also have two of their suit which should be useful on defence. A 2♥ response could be used as some kind of raise, but this gives the opps more info and options to decide whether to compete. I am probably wrong, but there may have been a misunderstanding before - JT was suggesting a 1NT opener showing a *balanced* hand with exactly 4♠. Over this, there shouldn't be any problem getting into 2♠ with a fit or playing 1N on many hands without a spade fit.

I think you are confusing this with the issue of odd/even signals. It is fairly common to think before a discard, whatever methods you play.