Siegmund

I tried 1D = 4 hearts and got shot down, though I had a couple directors on my side. The hazard of asking for a ruling is that once you get one you can't deny having gotten one sometimes.

Worse than useless, when it is, in fact, false. A Latin long i would sound like "seek". To sound like the bridge word it would have had to be spelled "saec."

I would correct that to "it's a tiny bit faster," to the tune of something like 10 seconds per board or 5 minutes per set. You rapidly lose all those time savings and then some, the first few times cards spill out of the boards that open. We not only had the occasional board open up, but very frequently had a few cards fall out of the pockets while being passed because the board had an extra millimeter of slack in it. By "frequently" I mean on the order of once every other round -- several times per session, every time we used those boards, until people learned to handle them very gingerly. We still own the boards, and reluctantly use them when we need extra boards for a special event or we have to deal a whole weeks' worth in advance, but it is our very strong recommendation NOT to buy the dealer-compatible boards.

Not exactly the same, but in the same ballpark: in round figures, $4000 for a dealing machine, and $150 each for one to two dozen scoring machines (you need one on every table, in addition to the base station.) Most small clubs in my area are on a close to break-even basis: that would represent a few years worth of saving up and fundraising, unless a generous member came forward with a big contribution to help make it happen right away. (That's the only reason the club I play at has them.) No, but the Swiss Teams at our annual tournament will be reverting. In addition to the great time commitment to make so many boards with one dealing machine, and the usual resistance to new change, we had many complaints about overhearing results from adjacent tables when an interesting board was in play.

Surprised at all the votes for 3D and 4D. If I am not playing Gambling, you can put me down for 5D-and-its-not-close, at favorable. The void is a flaw but it would not stop me from 3NT if I am playing Gambling (or from 5D). Funny that there are now 'not-close" votes for so many different openings.

Don't sell yourself short now. GIB says it was legitimate. By the time I started paying attention, it was a double squeeze, but looking back, it was apparently compound, East deciding with his discard at Trick 7 which suit would be in the center of the double squeeze at Trick 8.

1) I might have opened it 2H but no way am I sticking my nose in again now. 2) I stick with the standard heart. 3) Double first time is reasonable. Pass now. 4) North might bid 3NT rather than 3H but I see why he's nervous. 5) Unanimous.

I think "rebiddable suit" and "solid suit" are, in the classical version, the "same type" -- bid and rebid your suit. Responder is never allowed to show a 2-suited hand, but he is apparently allowed to have 4 of something else if his first suit is solid.

They did profit from people reading the Bridge World, I imagine. But they did not push their count on people in all their books the way Goren did. Rubens wrote several excellent books, including some golden chapters on hand evaluation, without even mentioning "his" system. If you want facts as to how different mechanical evaluation methods compare against each other, the material is out there. See, for instance, http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/valuations/original.html which confirms Kaplan-Rubens is an excellent evaluator of offensive strength in a suit contract (but only fair for defensive strength or notrump bidding -- no method is a one-size-fits-all perfect evaluation system.)

The opening chapter of Roudinesco's Encyclopedia of Suit Combinations was a concise description of the principles and the rules of thumb for remembering 99% of the combinations, the like of which I've never seen elsewhere. The rest of the book, as a reference, has largely been supplanted by tools like Suitplay, but I wish that one chapter explaining where "Roudi's Rules" came from would be reprinted.

And you are lucky it does, or even the simple transfer meaning would be illegal, as it is after a natural suit overcall.

Returning to A=even, K=odd... Do you also lead K from KQxx? Or is this done in conjunction with Rusinow from Q downward, or Q=even J=odd, or...? I like the idea for aces and kings, but am not sure I see how it fits into the rest of a system.

If you are the type who always opens 1S with 5-5 and 5-6 hands, 2S now just shows concentrated values in the 4-card spade suit and denies 3 hearts or a diamond stopper. But don't do that unless you've discussed it first. As it sits, it's a poster child for always asking with 2C, so a cheap noncomittal 2D bid is available. (But there are lots of other hands where you want to go back to 2 of opener's minor.) If 2S implies 5-6, 2H is probably the least of evils.

First time ever that the ACBL includes what the English call an "infelicity" in the Alert regs. I would prefer to see it simply say you alert unless you promise 3, if we were voting on it. Generally I dislike picky little exceptions in the rules. If 3+ is natural, and we don't alert natural bids but do alert conventions, we just delete the offending sentence entirely, and people start alerting their 2C bids more often. Obligatory nitpick: 4=5=2=2 is the *most* common Flannery shape, if suit order counts, ahead of 4=5=1=3 or 4=5=3=1 by a ratio of 18:11 on my abacus, and more extreme oddities by much more. Not that that has any bearing on the rest of the argument, really.

When partner opens 2S, raise to 4S immediately. When partner opens 2H, can consider raising to FIVE hearts, if you are confident your opponents are about to bid and make 4S if you don't. (Against weaker opponents who might miss game, you can consider bidding just three to leave them the option of stopping short.)

So I guess this really comes down to my usual GIBberish complaint, wishing the bots would be explicit about what they intend as forcing. Some time ago the line "forcing to 3n" got added to FSF explanations. The same might be handy in a few other places. If 3D IS going to be forcing, it does still need some kind of definition added to it, so I know what the difference between 3D,3H,3S,3N by responder is (without discussion I would take 3M as "I have this major stopped but am afraid of the other" - not sure I'd ever make that bid in real life for fear of helping the opps find the right lead though.) I can live with not having non-GF escapes (though I WOULD like 1D-1N-2N-3C to be to play), since GIB isn't nearly as fond of cute 4-HCP responses as most humans.

I am not doing it exactly the same way as Martens does it -- he uses 2S as a transfer to 3C, if I recall, but doesn't have any particular use for the in-between step -- so there are several variations on a theme. What I am currently trying is this: 1NT-2C-2D... ...2H = both majors, weak ...2S = balanced invitation ...2NT = transfer to clubs, weak (4M6+C) or strong (4M5+C); responder's 3rd bid shows a singleton in a strong hand) ...3C = transfer to diamonds, weak or strong ...3D = 54+ in the majors GF (opener bids 3-card major next) ...3H = 4144 ...3S = 1444 1NT-2C-2H... ...2S = balanced inv ...2NT = transfer to clubs (but opener can choose spades instead) ...3C = transfer to diamonds (but opener can choose spades instead) ...3D = 4144 strong ...3H+ various heart raises 1NT-2C-2S... ...2NT = transfer to clubs (but hearts are usually off the table as a strain now) ...3C = transfer to diamonds ...3D = 1444 strong ...3H+ various spade raises. So we gain the ability to show a bunch of 5431 patterns exactly, and the ability to get out in either of our suits when we have a 4M6m weak hand. (Obviously we can't right-side clubs with the transfer; we are just gaining the ability to show both weak and strong club hands.) The one thing we lose is that a balanced invitation is stuck for a bid after 1NT-2C-2S. Martens recommends 1NT-2D-2H-2S with 4 hearts and 1NT-2D-2H-2N with 5, but it seemed to be that the extra step was more useful with 5.

How useful are the anti-splinters if you can only make them in 2 of the 3 side suits? I like the idea of something more specific than just min/max. In my case, I am experimenting with Martens-style 2nd round transfers after Stayman, and this forces balanced invitations with four hearts into 2D-then-2NT.

Yes, I know this is almost a "natural" question, but I am interested in possibly-complicated-or-artificial continuations, whatever you believe is best. Suppose it starts 1NT(your favorite non-mini range) - 2D (transfer) - 2H, and you do not need 2S now to show a both-majors hand. If 2S at responder's rebid were available as a usually-unbalanced game try in hearts, what should happen on the 3rd round? Should 2NT ask for shortness, or be an offer to play? What meanings would you give to each of 2N, 3C, 3D, 3H by opener? For that matter, in a plain old natural invitational 1NT-2Red-2Maj-2NT (usually balanced inv) auction, I don't think I've ever seen opener bid 3m, and don't know if it ought to be just a suit, or a HSGT, or showing a small doubleton, or meaning "I would accept a SSGT by responder in clubs" or "I would reject a SSGT in clubs."

Tonight I had this sequence with the bot: 1♦ - 1NT 2NT - 3♦ I expected the bot to have a terribly weak hand, that believed 3D was a safer contract than 2NT was. The published description of 3♦ was "5+D, 3-H, 3-S, 6-10 HCP, 7+ total points", which seemed oddly fuzzy. Either this bid is game-forcing or it is to play; 6-10 is not a range that makes much sense for it. The bot came down with ♠A6 ♥K6 ♦J753 ♣J8643 And I was the only table not in 3NT, of course. (I was also the only person who chose 1D-then-2NT on my side of the table - but I have no complaint's with the 17-18 HCP semibalanced explanation of the 2NT bid, jsut with the bot's reply to it.)

Wow, turned out to be a more interesting thread than I thought. My thinking must be coloured by the fact that I don't pass very many 11 pointers, and that my unpassed balancing notrumps tend to end at 12 rather than 11. Is it only a passed balancing 1NT that the top players are using as 10-11 balanced, or do they also play P-P-P-1S-1NT that way? I agree there is is something different about P-P-1S-P-P-1NT, in that overcaller's partner can still have 14ish.

Like it says on the tin. [hv=pc=n&e=saqt8hk765dq5ct43&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1spp1n]133|200[/hv] To me, and to most live players I think, 1NT by a passed hand is "mini-Unusual," 4-4 or 4-5 in the two lowest unbid suits. Overcalling 1NT after having already denied an opening bid is a recipe for disaster. But GIB says "Balancing notrump: 11 HCP, 12- total points." Presumably the simple intersection of an unpassed 11-14 notrump, and a passed hand.

Some of Ron Klinger's older books advocate "Extended Stayman" over a 4-HCP range which uses 2D and 2NT for 15-16 and 17-18 respectively - and similarly use some 3-level jumps to show maximums with 4-card majors. It requires 2C to promise invitational values rather than include any garbage hands at all -- and this latter objection is why I've never seen anyone but beginners use it in a real live game. Quite sure that 2C with a weak 3-suiter planning to pass any response had already become common by the 50s, and Goren didn't ever advocate a 2NT bid. I think Stayman's "Do you play Stayman?" included the weak 3-suiter too. Whether he used 2NT in the 1930s, I can't say.

Yes. Absent discussion I assume it means whatever a 2S response to a weak two means (except that it's very unlikely to be leading to a 5-3 fit.)

Yes, definitely, a global rule makes for many fewer accidents. (The only exception I and my partners ever had was 1m-1M-1N-3C and that bit us more times than anything else.) As for the history, my impression is that ALL 2nd round jumps forcing -- 1C-1H-1S-2NT/3C/3H/3S and 1C-1H-1NT-3C/3D/3H -- is what Goren used, and what "everybody" used in the 50s and 60s books. Goldman's Aces Scientific book strikes me as having broken new groud, using 1C-1H-1S-3S as invitational even though some of the other jumps were GF. That one change, by itself, wasn't a bad one, but it inspired a halfway mess. The widespread use of invitational jumps appeared to me to come in with the change to 2/1.