MickyB

332 has been a cert for the past 40 mins or so

Obama behind on popular vote but Intrade suggests he'll ultimately finish ahead, probably by 1% or more. It also suggests Obama is 90% to take Florida and Colorado and 55% to take Virginia, Obama was 10-12% to take 330EV three weeks ago.

Romney has even collapsed on Intrade now

Indeed. Nate is looking at results more closely, says Florida basically tied, sure he'll comment on other states shortly.

Are you looking forward to all the free time you'll have once Obama has been reelected, Luke?

The card I've found from 2004 says "Intermediate jump shifts at 3-level, weak at 2-level" under System Summary. It includes a form of Swiss instead of direct splinters, which go through 1M:3M+1, but I think they now play weak splinters directly and stronger splinters through 3M+1. I don't think many pairs have copied the Hackett style, there are a few in Manc who play the whole system but it doesn't lend itself well to copying parts of. It does have a slight bunny-bashing bent, it's certainly felt to be worse than 5cM for slam-bidding. I prefer Bergen-style to INV jumps partly because INV jumps don't actually work that well when they come up - after 1H:2C [GF except rebid] we find 6-2 or 4-4 major fits if present, and if not we rebid 3C invitational.

I agree that transfer advances are superior when the partner of the bidder is limited, but not that leb is always better when neither partner is limited. 1.) Leb can be used to allow you to distinguish weak from invitational; Transfers can only be used to distinguish forcing from NF. 2.) Transfers allow you to show your suit immediately to prepare for further competition. So, 2S-X-P-2N is leb [point 1 applies and point 2 is basically irrelevant] and 1N-2S-2N is a transfer [we distinguish between competitive and GF opposite a 1NT bid, giving up on invites; and the next hand may well be about to raise spades]. However, we also use transfers on auctions like 1H (2S), where neither hand is limited, but "NF" and "GF" is a better split than "weak" and "invitational", and fourth seat will often raise spades.

Interesting that Meckwell Lite has 1D:1S, 2C as 4-4/5-4/5-3 either way. I'd be inclined to remove the 6D4C/5D3C hands from the 2C rebid and then pass 2C with equal length, rather than having to guess which is the 5-3 and which is the 3-3 when I am dealt 3-3 in the minors. Responder's Reverse Flannery looks compulsory if your 2C opening shows six cards, you have no alternative to bidding 1D:1S, 2C on 1435 so you'll miss heart fits if you don't have it available.

Eh? Obviously, I have made some assumptions, such as the TD has only polled players that he considers to be peers of the one in question, and that we consider it clear that the hesitation suggests action. I just don't understand why a TD would do a poll and then decide that his results are wrong without a pretty obvious reason. Of course there will always be borderline cases, shockingly I am aware of this, I just think the line is currently drawn in the wrong place. The old 70% rule was closer to the mark IMO than this new 25%/8% stuff. I look forward to your providing more detail as to how I have completely misunderstood the whole UI and LA business.

In the UK this is actually considered quite sophisticated. The old guard still play it as F1, indeed it was suggested that we play it like this at a junior squad training session a few years back.

I'd thought briefly about switching 3C and 3H, but losing the natural equivalent of 1S:1N, 3C:3H seems non-ideal, even if responder has denied six hearts. I'm afraid I've not quite bought into the idea of rebidding 2m on a GF hand because it's the wrong shape, yet. Maybe 1S:1N, 3C as hearts or 5314 is the way forward. I don't like transfers on this auction at all, I am far from convinced that the benefits when I am not dealt clubs outweigh the costs when I am. 1S:1N, 2S as 5S4C 11-16 is behind on just about every auction possible. 1S:1N, 2C:P 1S:1N, 2C:2D [natural] 1S:1N, 2C:2S [good preference] 1S:1N, 2C:3C [constructive raise] 1S:1N, 2C:2H!, 2S:bids [various invitational raises of clubs] This is assuming that you play 1S:1N, 2S:2N as natural invite not a club invite. You really need both of them. Plus I feel like I have a horrible guess every time I am tempted to pass partner's unlimited transfer rebid.

The polling figures just go to show how absurd the current laws on LAs are. If one more person had considered passing, the TD would have had to disallow the 3D bid.

Wrong, sorry! I'm not a fan of Gazz. I played 1M:1N, 2N as ART GF for a while but that was in the context of a 15-17 NT, now I'm playing 14-16 and non-forcing NT it's beneficial for 2NT to be nat NF. I also played some kit over 1S:1N that bore some resemblance to the 1H:1S stuff, but that was when I was playing a 2/1 as GF or good preference, there wasn't room to sort out the 5-10 range through the 1NT kit. Now 1S:1N includes good preference the only artificiality is 1S:1N, 2m:2H as bad pref or various invites [which is free because 1S:2D = 6+hearts any strength or 5+hearts INV+]. I should probably think about 1S:1N, 3C gadgets, but I can't believe it won't have a negative impact on the spade+club GFs.

1N:2C, 2S:2N shows four hearts, the same way that 1N:2C, 2H:2N does for many people. Invites without a four-card major don't start with Stayman.

You got my hopes up that you were switching to four-card club, prepared diamond :(

After 1D-(2S): Double on 2344 9-count, pass on 3244 9-count, cue 3S on GFs. You should be playing some form of transfer leb/rubensohl on this sequence. After 1D-(1S): Double on 2344 8-count, 1NT or maybe pass on 3244 8-count. Bal GFs without four hearts can often bid 1D (1S) 3S.

Also, my preference is to play 1D (1H) 1S as 5+ spades if 1D shows 4+cards, but as 4+ spades [or better still, 0-3 spades] if 1D shows 2+cards. This is because shapes like (32)44 can raise to 2D iff the 1D opening is natural.

One option is to play 1D:2C as 5+diamonds any strength [now 2D = weak NT, others = nat unbal with diamonds] and 1D:2D as GF clubs or 3343 [continuations natural]. 13(54) should rebid 2C IMO, 1453 is more interesting, it doesn't feel right to me to rebid 2C on it when partner will pass with 3C2D but I've seen Joe Grue do it. I'd pick between 1NT and 2D. 2D will have six cards 98% of the time. Rebid 1S on all hands with four spades. In standard methods I prefer to rebid 1NT because the alternative is rebidding 1S to show 11-18, but in Precision it's pretty huge to be able to float 1S any time you have three spades and 0-9 points, especially as you might respond light just because you don't want to play in a 2-2 diamond fit. I'm happy to bid 1D-(1S)-2S with GF hands with four diamonds. Invitational hands are more of an issue. BTW play 1D (1M) 3M as asking partner to bid 3NT, better it be from partner's side.

Sorry, I think you misread my post. I said that I'd told him that it wasn't alertable, not that I'd told him he mustn't disclose it. As for describing him as "an intelligent man" - counter-evidence, board 8 set 3 B-)

As I've already said in this thread, if you play 1N:2C, 2H:2S as a five-card invite, then it's better to rebid 2S with 4-4 majors - you get the stronger hand playing it, you don't have an invitational auction that invites a double and you disclose less about suit lengths. There are also methods that include second-round transfers by responder where it is beneficial for opener to show spades then hearts.

If oppo did this, I would think it most likely they had mistakenly announced an alertable Stayman-like enquiry, unless I knew the oppo in question to be particularly well-versed in the alerting regs.

Playing Walsh, 1C:1M is alertable but 1C:1D is not, at least when under EBU regs. By the same logic, it feels clear that 1N:2C, 2H is not alertable if it denies 4 spades, even if you deem 1N:2C, 2S alertable because it may have four hearts. If a 1S opening can be 4-4 in the majors, is that alertable?

I have at the back of my mind that some Scandinavian countries always respond 2S with 4-4, my impression was that bidding 2H with 4-4 was far from universal outside of the UK but I may be wrong. The Wikipedia entry says "with both majors, bid the longer or stronger, with preference given to spades" or words to that effect. I suspect the rise of the hideous "non-promissory Stayman" has increased the number of pairs who bid 1N:2C, 2H with 4-4, because you now need both 2S and 2N to show invites with and without four spades. If you play 1N:2C, 2H:2S as a five-card invite then it's probably better to rebid 2S on 4-4. With regards to EBU regs - If your only responses are 2D [denying a 4cM], 2H [showing 4] and 2S [showing 4], you are to announce 2C as Stayman, and 1N:2C, 2D isn't alertable. If you play, for example, 1N:2C, 2N as 4-4 in the majors, or as showing five hearts, then you are to alert the 2C response, and the subsequent 2D rebid. I initially misread this as stating that no responses to an announced 2C are to be alerted, thus thought it clear that 1N:2C, 2M wasn't alertable regardless of your response with 4-4 majors. IMO my initial reading of it makes more sense than some "non-standard" methods involving the alerting of 2C and others the alerting of the responses to 2C, and I suspect I read it as the author intended. I disagree with Gnasher that it's obvious to alert it even if the rules dictate that you shouldn't. Playing without screens, unexpected alerts can confuse oppo, and may lead to UI issues. The situation occurred behind screens. I didn't alert but volunteered the information to my screenmate. My partner is only in his second event behind screens, and I had [mistakenly] told him that it definitely wasn't alertable, so he didn't say anything.

This occurred in an English event, held under WBF alerting rules - 1N:2C, 2S is the systemic bid with 4-4 in the majors. Should this be alerted? What about 2H that denies four spades? If relevant, nearly all respond 2H to Stayman with 4-4 majors in the UK. If you think this is alertable, would it make any difference if the event was held elsewhere, or in a European/World event? I assume it wouldn't be alertable if held in a country where most respond 2S to Stayman with 4-4 majors? What about under EBU alerting regs?

I don't think this would be an improvement. The fundamental problem is that there is limited data to differentiate A from B. I don't think that [tending towards] ignoring the data that we do have is an improvement; Better to just hope that A and B occasionally play with other partners, thus the amount of data we have will increase. I like the idea of reducing the par score for pick-up partnerships.