goodwintr

allocute

In The Bridge World, circa 1967-68, Kaplan decried the "statistical" mode of bridge analysis, saying something like: "What if it turns out that we lose IMPs on deals where we open one diamond: are we supposed to stop opening one diamond?" Looks like somebody here is about to take up Kaplan's suggestion!

Arthur Ashe vs. Jimmy Connor? Not the technical tour de force of yesterday's match, but for pure drama . . . .

Second double (now that diamonds have become clubs :( ) just means the original double was very good, certainly with hearts and clubs, and probably with spades as well. Partner's two hearts, when he couldn't act over one spade, says he hasn't got much, and maybe hasn't got anything. Pass and hope for the best.

Did you say "You bid one diamond? I double one diamond," to make sure partner would understand that this was a penalty double?

As far as I know, they've never explained what an "all-purpose opening bid" IS, as opposed to what it ISN'T in particular instances. Maybe I've just missed the explanation. I guess an opening bid of one club (or one diamond) that means "I open the bidding" would be an all-purpose opening bid. Then an opening bid of one heart or one spade would mean "I DON'T have an opening bid: I would have bid an all-purpose one club (or one diamond) with that." Good regulation.

I cannot for the life of me see the attraction of a 2NT opening bid on this hand. It doesn't have a single one of the "must-declare" holdings (Kx, AQ, A10, Qx, that sort of thing); it has a good six-card suit that might well not come to light in the bidding after opening 2NT (I suspect the 2NTers are hoping to wow unsuspecting opponents in the play of 3NT, and maybe nobody will notice that they've missed a good slam in diamonds); and it has one truly terrible holding, a doubleton KQ. Opening 2NT is just a confession that you don't have good methods (starting with a forcing rebid in diamonds) after opening 1D.

Re-redouble, 1st-round control. Seriously, partner probably would (should?) have bid 5H (instead of redouble) if he had a heart control. If that is right, 5S now. And if it isn't right, still 5S now. I am having trouble visualizing partner's hand, though: isn't he supposed to have good clubs and good spades to bid 2C, then 4S?

Jdonn: you mean playing in 1NT (as opposed to 2H) is a viable alternative after 1H-1S; 1NT, but defending 2D (in the original sequence) isn't a viable alternative when you have two-card "support" for hearts? I guess you have a point, if you just want to focus on what your side can make by playing the hand, without regard to whether you might do better to defend. In the original sequence, if you pass over 2D with a doubleton heart, partner is still there, isn't he?

One vote here for two hearts. This shows real support, not strained preference on a doubleton, and therefore more than an original raise to two hearts. (With just a raise to two hearts, you would/should raise to two hearts.) In fact, the two-diamond overcall has made your job easier: without it, you would have been more or less compelled to bid three hearts, to distinguish your hand from "mere preference." The sequence (including the "free" raise to two hearts) is a lot like 1H-1S; 1NT-2H, which shows more than 1H-2H.

No, of course, no difference, if you accept the explanation that the Berlin wall was erected to keep the fascists out.

The suggestions (above) that North might have produced a "mixed raise" are baffling: doesn't the term mean a raise with both high-card and distributional values (hence "mixed"), not one based exclusively on one or the other? And isn't it a stretch to imply that a 4-3-3-3 hand possesses "distributional" values? What if advancer has the same hand, but with only three spades (and any other suit the four-card suit)? Is that a mixed raise, too? Isn't game still good if that is what advancer has? In the original question/sequence, North has said (accurately, IMHO) that he is worth a single raise in spades, but he hasn't promised any particular number of trumps. (Sure, he would probably do more with four trumps and some shape, but he doesn't have that.) Maybe he has four trumps and a balanced hand, and maybe not; and if he does have that, maybe he is planning to take a push to three spades, and maybe not. The trouble is that South, by bidding three spades, indicated no interest in game, no matter what North might have. So, 100% to South.

Does "all-purpose opening bid" really mean "anything you want under the sun"? I'm just asking, because I really don't know what the answer is. The drafters could have been clearer. (Have you heard that sentiment before?) I suspect that they thought they were referring to opening bids like "nebulous one diamond," which means something like, "I open the bidding, and my hand doesn't qualify for another opening bid in the system;" or, "one club, could be short." But who really knows? It does seem to me that if the bidding police meant, "you can play that one club or one diamond means whatever you want it to mean," they could have said so. I would like to use the 1C opening bid to show exactly four spades, but I have been told (informally, not formally) that I can't do that in ACBL-land. Anybody have an opinion about that (about its legality, that is, not about its wisdom)?

That's what it meant in old-fashioned Acol: a hand improved by partner's response, and therefore some sort of fit for spades. But that was because with just hearts and a hand good enough to bid 1H-1S; 4H opener would have started with 2H, an Acol two-bid, not 1H.

Why do all of these look like mug shots of people arrested for drunk driving?

Hi, Richard. A method I used to find effective after 1m - 2m (inverted) was clarity itself: if opener wouldn't have accepted an old-fashioned invitational (limit) 1m - 3m raise, then he bids 3m right now over 1m - 2m (forcing); and 1m - 2m - 3m (right now) is the only non-forcing sequence. If responder bids over 3m, that is a game force, too. Thus, opener rebids 3m, not 2NT, with a weak-notrump type. 1m - 2m - 2NT (and anything else) becomes a game force. You could put in various bells and whistles (second-round splinters, asking bids, whatever), but the important thing (especially for a partnership that doesn't get to play every day) is to establish the foundation. If bidding 1m - 2m - 3m on a weak-notrump hand is counter-intuitive, consider what happens in a method where 1m - 2m - 2NT shows this hand: if responder isn't bidding toward game, he probably signs off by returning to 3m rather than by passing 2NT, because he probably has an unbalanced hand. TLG

The Americans did in fact include freedom of expression in the FIRST amendment for a reason, but not the reason you suggest. When the Constitution was ratified, it was understood that Congress would immediately propose a Bill of Rights to amend the text. Accordingly, the First Congress enacted a Bill of Rights. It comprised twelve amendments, and the one including "freedom of expression" was number three on the list. The original First Amendment, having to do with the number of citizens in a Congressional district, and the original Second Amendment, having to do with compensation for Congressmen, failed of ratification by the States. The remaining ten were ratified and became part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The proposed Third Amendment became the First Amendment, the proposed Fourth became the Second, and so on. That is to say, the ordering of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights was to a large extent arbitrary. [unless, perhaps, you think the First Congress thought, for example, that their rate of pay -- proposed Amendment Two -- was a more important matter than Freedom of Speech -- proposed Amendment Three (eventual Amendment One); or that the right to a jury trial -- in proposed Amendment Eight (eventual Amendment Six) -- was a more important matter than the right to bear arms -- in proposed Amendment Four (eventual Amendment Two).] TLGoodwin

A significant consideration is that opening 1S will correctly place the declaration in notrump in the (very likely) event of a 1NT response.

And Echognome, of course, never gets a 4=4=4=1 double opposite a 3=2=4=4 advancer. Oh, wait: that was the original hand, wasn't it? TLG

I voted for NS, but I don't think anyone did anything really stupid. NS get a mild rebuke (and full credit for their own -300) because of a faulty system agreement, playing responsive doubles after a takeout double and a raise. The disaster never would have happened if South had been able to double three clubs for penalties. And why shouldn't he be able to do that? This isn't just my opinion, because I don't imagine anyone cares about that. It was also Roth's opinion, which is perhaps entitled to some respect. He said, "Responsive doubles take place only after we overcall, not after we make a takeout double!" His theory, I imagine, was that it isn't terribly useful to respond to a takeout double that says, essentially, "I am relatively short in their suit and have support for the other suits," with a responsive double that says, essentially, "I, too, am relatively short in their suit and have support for the other suits." Incidentally, East's raise to three clubs looks like a more or less classic "mixed raise," meaning a little of this and a little of that. If that is what East-West were playing, East can hardly be criticized, even a little bit, for making the bid called for by the partnership agreement. TLGoodwin

Let's see the hand that is "weak with long clubs" and short in diamonds, that bids 1NT over 1S.

What, exactly, is the point of Americans making an "Anti-Bush statement" in China, before an international audience, in the context of a contract bridge championship? All it demonstrates is that for some people, Everything Is About Bush. There is a technical name for this: Bush Derangement Syndrome. It is sad to see an outbreak of BDS at a ceremony celebrating excellence and accomplishment in a field that should have nothing to do with national (any nation) or international politics. TLGoodwin

One answer to the "transfers-or-not" question over mini or weak notrumps was suggested several years ago by William Schramm (in a Bridge World article): it is to play "two-way transfers," either weak in the transferred-to suit or strong in the named suit. 1NT-2H means you are weak with long spades (and you will pass opener's correction to 2S), or you are strong with long hearts (and you will bid again over 2S). Opener gets to be declarer when responder is signing off with a weak hand, and responder often gets to be declarer when he is strong and heading for game (or more). If it goes, say, 1NT-2H; 2S-3C, responder has shown hearts and clubs (and a good hand), not spades and clubs as in standard transfer methods. One downside to two-way transfers is that you pretty much have to give up "superaccepting." (Not everyone would consider that to be a downside.) If 1NT-2H turns out to be strong with hearts, responder isn't going to care much about how suitable opener is for spades. We "solve" this difficulty by saying signoffs are really signoffs, and using invitational sequences (including Keri) when there seems to be a chance for game.

And I strongly disagree with 1S. Playing 2/1 not forcing to game, or forcing to game unless responder rebids his suit, I vote for 2C, then 3C. (If 2C is forcing to game, you have a problem. You might "solve" it via 1NT, then 3C.) That 1S is awful is demonstrated by the fact that you cannot stand any rebid except a spade raise. (Well, you might survive if opener rebids 2C . . . .)