Gilithin

Here are some ideas for the auction 1m - 1M -- 2R - 2M:- 1. Opener just bids out their shape: This comes recommended by the best player currently posting on BBF so should probably be seen as the default option. To me it feels much better suited to Strong Reverses though and I remain unconvinced it is so great playing the more traditional variety. It looks simple on the surface but requires quite a lot of discussion as to what is or is not forcing as the auction develops. 2. Opener bids 3M with fit+min; 2NT with no fit+min+stop; 4th suit with no fit+min+no stop; others GF: This was a suggestion from the previous thread. Personally I hate it but it is at least logical and consistent, so unlikely to be forgotten. 3. Opener bids 3M with fit+min; 2NT with no fit+min+stop; lowest suit bid with no fit+min+no stop; others GF: This feels to me like a vastly improved version of #2. You lose the ability to show a 6th ♣ naturally in many auctions but gain reasonable clarity. The artificial 3♣ with M=♠ is easy to forget. 4. Opener bids 3M with fit+min; Step 1 with no fit+min; others GF: This regains the ability to show the 6th ♣ but can wrong-side 3NT. Has the benefit of being simple. 5. Use #3 if M=♥ and #4 if M=♠: Gives a reasonable mix of pros vs cons but adds complexity. In all of these methods, if Opener shows a minimum without fit, I think Responder's 3rd round 3m, 3R and 3M should be non-forcing and everything else is a GF. If Opener shows a minimum with fit, any call from Responder other than Pass or bidding game is a slam try. It is perhaps also worth noting that if you play Strong Reverses, there is more or less no such thing as a hand with a fit for Responder's major that does not want to be in game, so I would expect Opener's 3M over 2M to be forcing, or at least "forcing if you have a real response", in that case. What is really best? No idea! Just agree something and stick to it.

Read any SB thread in this forum started by Paul (lamford) for an example.

Everyone agrees that Meckstroth was courteous and respectful at all times both to the opponents and to the TD, so neither 74A1 or 74B5 would apply. He suggested a possible remedy to the TD rather than making an illegal table ruling, so 81C would also be inappropriate. The playing conditions for the Vanderbilt (and most ACBL events) states that written defences must be provided. I believe it is silent on whether those must be printed (Meckstroth claimed that he could not read it after the TD call). I think it needs to be made clear that there are no allegations of cheating against Meckwell in this case. They took a situation and used it to maximum advantage within the rules. It would be fair to call it a$$hole behaviour for sure but this is what playing "Hardball" is all about. I was more interested in whether a top TD would find it appropriate to call out a TD-favourite player like Meckstroth to his face. Blackshoe answered with a very clear "Yes"; as far as I know the TD in this case (nor in the similar but less discussed case that occurred 2 years later) did not.

It was a slightly oblique reference to something that happened many years ago (over a decade) in, I think, the Vanderbilt. A team of juniors from Singapore was playing a match against Nickell. Due to local conditions, they were unable to access printing resources and TDs were also unable to provide them with any defences when asked. So they instead made the effort to copy out the entire set of official ACBL written defences by hand and were willing to switch to 3 Weak 2s if any opponents objected. In the first part of the match the Singapore pair informed the opponents (Nickell-Katz) before the segment and Nickell responded by producing their own defence. In a later segment, with Nickell unexpectedly trailing, Meckwell played against this pair. Again they explained the situation at the start of the round and were told "Let's see how it goes." During this round the Singapore pair did end up opening a (mini) Multi 2♦ and Meckstroth reacted by calling the TD and suggesting that the opponents not only be barred from using the convention but also be awarded a PP. It is rather a famous case in the ACBL that I am sure blackshoe is more than acquainted with. Obviously I could have picked any of hundreds of bridge incidents where common sense suggests one or more of the players was being economic with the truth and created an example based around it for this thread.

If Rodwell or Meckstroth told you that they were unable to defend a Multi 2♦ opening without a freshly printed written defence, would you be willing to say that to them?

So now we have that 3♣ denies a ♠ stop, so presumably not 3046/2146 with values in ♠. Now over to Responder - they have 6-7hcp including a good ♠ stop, are they expected to bid 3NT? Note that I am not saying that this method is unworkable, just that there are things that require discussion. It is not as simple to bid optimally without specific agreements as you seem to be thinking.

Back in the 70s and 80s, one of the great challenges facing mankind was seen as overpopulation. Governments throughout the world invested huge amounts of effort to persuade people about the dangers of large families and the benefits of having fewer children. This was part of many school curricula (mine included) and in many places was presented as more or less a national duty. So it is hardly surprising that, 2 generations later, numbers of births have decreased. Yes it is because women/couples have decided to have fewer babies; but perhaps being bombarded with heavy propaganda from childhood might at least make it to the list of reasons how that decision was reached.

Nah, it just means that the strategy will be implemented by someone that is actually competent. The US was lucky that the Republicans showed their hand with such a dysfunctional administration. After this dress rehearsal, the next coup will not be defeated so easily.

With extras or not? If not then you need to define bidding sequences over this. If 3♣ does show extras, this appears to be exactly the same as the "1st step minimum without fit" system I mentioned previously except that those minima are (for this auction) split between the 1st step and 2NT. It certainly requires more discussion than that system though, since it is not immediately clear to me how that works for an auction like 1m - 1♠ -- 2♥ - 2♠. Does 3om now become a minimum without a stop? What if the opening was 1♣ and Responder now wants to play there - we get forced to the 4 level. You might look at this and say "simple" but this method certainly requires some discussion. Which is the point - reverses require some discussion and then they stop being a problem. Without any agreements (as per the OP) they tend to cause issues.

The advantage of this approach over the WBF commentary is that it does not penalise players that are honest rather than quick-thinking SBs who will tell the TD whatever gives them the best options. Presumably the WBF approach relies on knowing that all of the players in their events are lying SBs so it is still a level playing field not to allow that type of substitution.

Surely it is at least obvious that 4♥ (4th suit at the 4 level) agrees clubs with slam interest? The question is really whether you think you can get any useful information from going slowly. If you think you can then this seems like a safe course that partner will definitely not pass; if not and you have worries about the alternatives, just place the contract with your best guess. After all, partner apparently showed a full GF hand (maybe mention that in the OP?) and we have a solid opening bid with 5 controls and a huge trump fit - how bad can it actually be?

I would humbly suggest that you would be better served by following the rules of the game rather than creating your own. If you have UI then you need to carefully avoid taking advantage of it. Lebensohl, or better still Blackout/Ingberman, is an excellent convention over a reverse. It simplifies the vast majority of auctions. Since this was your first ever reverse I am going to assume that you have no agreements at all at this stage of your partnership. If I sit down with a random pick-up of intermediate strength I will assume what I loosely refer to as B/I Standard. In this, Responder's repeat of their suit is non-forcing and a GF hand with a 5 card major has to bid the 4th suit. It is horribly inefficient but this is the way the vast majority of beginners and intermediates learn and never change. If I sit down with a random expert I will assume Lebensohl is in play and that a repeat of Responder's suit is forcing for a round. Finally, there are a small number of players who will play the suit rebid as forcing but not pair that with Lebensohl. That might arise organically, for example by agreeing to Weak Jump Shifts where NF makes little sense, or just through understanding that forcing is good without knowing the rest. It sounds like you are part of this third group and I suspect your partner is in the first group and wanted to let you know through means other than the bidding box. What is forcing in this sequence (1♣ - 1♥ -- 2♦ - 2♥) is a factor of the underlying system. If 2♥ is not forcing then basically everything from Opener except 2NT and 3♥ is now forcing. While some would see it as lazy, I would just bid 4♥ at this point. Things get much more interesting if 2♥ is forcing. The approach Mike suggests at this point is for Opener just to describe their hand. Now it is important to note that this is in the context of playing Strong Reverses, so the range for the reverse is less than would be the case for your system. An (arguably) simpler approach for "weaker" reverses is for Opener to bid the first step (in this case 2♠) with any non-GF hand without fit, and raise to 3 (ie 3♥) with a minimum and fit. Everything else is then forcing. Obviously such a method requires agreements though. And this is really the point Reverse sequences are difficult for pick-up pairs because there are so many variations that are regarded as Standard. Once you have a few agreements in place, things become much easier. Just agreeing Lebensohl, Blackout or Inbgerman with a partner has the advantage of putting in place a sensible set of agreements with just a one word exchange. Playing anything else means additional discussion if you want to have an equivalently good structure. Now even Lebensohl does not cover everything, which you can see by minor disagreements between some of the better BBF players in Mike's thread, but just the basic set already gives you a significant advantage over most other pairs. In the end, find a set of agreements that you and your partner both like and can remember. Reverses are rare enough for system forgets but common enough for forgets to be expensive. So keep it as simple as you need it to be. If you and your partner can manage one of the systems that allow Responder to split their range efficiently (basically Lebensohl, Blackout, Ingberman or Transfers) then they are worth the effort to include. If not, just muddle through and try to keep the auctions as clean and simple as possible - most of the time that does actually end up working out.

Did you actually click on the link Ken? If you look at the table it is blindingly obvious why the USA does relatively well in terms of GDP per capita - Americans simply work more hours on average than any other developed country. Is that really a positive thing though? When you take the hours worked out and move to the productivity column, you get to see what is really happening, which is that US workers are not more productive than European ones. So the entire basis of the argument is completely flawed. The proper question to ask is why Americans work ~20% longer than Europeans when the benefits of doing so are clearly at best minimal. If you want to increase productivity, have each employee work fewer hours (either through public holidays or by contract) and, if necessary, employ additional workers to make up the shortfall of hours. I may be wrong but suspect it might have something to do with the way healthcare works in the US as to why this model probably increases costs for the employer rather than simply being a win for everyone. In other words, it is precisely the mechanism that Mankiw is criticising that allows European companies to have the flexibility to provide a better model for its employees that helps to increase productivity above that of the US. But let's not let feal data get in the way of a good right-wing scare story.

He might find it useful to come up to date. According to the most recent data, the USA currently ranks 11th in productivity per worker, behind 10 European countries. It does better in terms of GDP, only being beaten by 4 European countries.

Maybe....but if East knew Opener was 4315 or 4306, do you not think they might at least take a look? And at the very least reach the safer game? We know the system is based around majors and min/max, so I assume after 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠, 2NT and 3♣ would be non-forcing invites. But what should 3♦ be? Within the specific design parameters, is it not logical to use this to ask if Opener holds 3 hearts (and since there is space for it, if <3♥ if there is a diamond stop)? So while I agree with you in principle, until we know the system we can hardly decide what the issue is with the final contract of 3NT.

How many peer-reviewed articles? Not everything in an academic database is worth using for something other than loo roll.

I think you miss the point of Lebensohl, which is specifically to show a hand that is not worth game. As mentioned, how you show this hand depends on system, with a Lebensohl 2NT being just one option. If you are just playing B/I Std, you show the same thing with 3♣. Over that Opener can show a GF hand with 3 hearts by bidding 3♥. It is a very simple auction. Several players using these forums play a convention knows as Strong Reverses. You can find out about them if you read mikeh's excellent write-up that is pinned in one of the forums. Over a strong reverse, it is quite possible that this Responding hand is worth a game force, in which case you obviously have a different auction. Since you mention 16+ I will assume you are playing the type of reverse that I grew up with (I won't say Weak Reverse as some play a reverse not to show any extra strength at all). Lebensohl is not taking any decision away, it is describing your hand. Opener is fully allowed to make a descriptive bid with a hand that is too good to sit for 3♣, which is precisely what has been suggested to you here. As other posters have already pointed out, there is nothing really wrong with 2♥ from Responder. It is perfectly ok to bid that way. The problem is that it adds even more ambiguity to an auction that is already notoriously difficult for a pick-up pair without agreements. Not playing Lebensohl, Responder has a really easy call to show precisely what they have without creating any ambiguity, 3♣. You are not missing a heart game this way because with a GF 1345 or 0346, Opener has an obvious 3♥ bid. And if Opener does not have extras, you have at least reached a playable part-score. So while bidding 2♥ may or not be theoretically better, as a practical point it is for me just a bad decision. Particularly if you have UI from partner to help you along to that conclusion. ;)

You must have a way of finding out if Opener has 3♥ or not though. What are your sequences for that? Without knowing your system over 2♣, I do not see how any of us can evaluate the original poll question.

If you respond 2♦, what are East's options for agreeing ♣ in a forcing auction over the various possible rebids? If East could identify that West is (43) in the majors, that might be a path to getting it right. I suspect that this is not solvable with any certainty after the 2♣ opening without some very fancy methods though. It is not completely trivial even after a 1♣ opening, although the system requirements for sorting that one out are considerably lower. This is basically something you accept when you go for a forcing 1♣ and natural 2♣, particularly when 2♣ can include 5♣4M hands. Some hands you gain an advantage due to preemption but on hands where you need investigation the lack of space works against you. No system will reach the optimum contract on every hand, so if one of the worst hand types for your system still scores close to 50%, the system is probably not too bad overall.

I basically agree with what came before: 1 Not completely sold on 2♥ here. An immediate 3♣ (B/I Std); 2NT (Lebensohl) or 2♠ (Blackout) seems better. 2 Having gone for 2♥, we can feel quite good because partner apparently has a GF hand and this has allowed us to show our hand more fully. 4♣ now is the best description for the reasons Paul already gave.

I am not misunderstanding anything David. I am responding to the original comment that said: My point is that that is generally not true for constructive auctions and liberally applying it is poor bridge. You can go of on whatever tangents you want to try and take that point out of context but I don't want to go down any such rabbit-holes with you. You bid your hand within the system you are playing. Also, if your boundary for bids is consistently below what you say your agreement is, that is MI. The real agreement is what you actually play, not what you tell the opponents to mislead them.

Q2: Over what time frame? Per year or cumulative sales? Sales by $ or number of units? Q3: Over what time frame? The odds of the USA never again in history engaging in a major military action must be close to zero, even if it is just China invading a defeated country devastated by civil war.

You might be right here. The point I was making was to differentiate between constructive and non-constructive sequences. Fast in fast out refers to non-constructive sequences and is certainly good advice for those - generally reach the level you want to bid to as quickly as possible. But I do not think it is good advice for constructive sequences. A good overall philosophy for those is to go slowly until you know what needs to be done (bid contract, invite, RKCB, etc) and then to bid that. The reason I gave the game force as an example of that is because, in what I might loosely describe as BBF Standard, the most common time that this comes up by far is in deciding between a GF 2 over 1 response and a Forcing 1NT. I think it is right for players to evaluate such decisions on their merits and not to feel they need to make the 2/1 call in order to "overbid EARLY". The same thinking applies to most* other constructive sequences. * specific counter-examples quite possible but not appreciated.

Preemption is a different matter. There, yes, it usually pays to bid as high as you dare early, except in specific cases - walking the dog or showing a distributional 2-suiter. But your statement did not make that limitation and I fear is potentially dangerous for lurkers learning the game if taken to heart in a more general sense.