TimG

I agree that it is penalty. But, someone is going to tell you that 2NT is weak takeout and DBL is takeout that can stand a conversion. Never mind that they would be converting in front of opener's hearts.

I think north is to blame -- one defensive trick and a doubleton trump is not enough to make a penalty double, or even suggest penalties.

Agreed. It just seemed like an omission.

I believe the opposite of "natural" is "artificial" rather than "conventional". So, I agree, the call in question is both natural and conventional.

I second that.

I would have guessed that double showed values with some lack of an obvious bid while 2♣ showed pretty much the hand given: 45 in ♥♣ and a desire to compete.

You also can make 5 tricks if the suit is Jxx+K.

It seems to me that there are some terminology problems in this thread. Here "preempt" is used to mean an opening bid higher than the one-level, other places "preemptive" is used to mean a weak bid. My preference would be for preemptive to mean "taking up lots of bidding space" while weak means, well, "weak". There has also been some problem with "disciplined". It can mean either "good suit quality" or it can mean "conforming to guidelines". I don't think F-N opening 2S with Jxxxx x AKQx Kxx is "undisciplined", I think it conforms to their definition of a 2S opening bid. (I also think this 2S opening is preemptive, even though it is not weak.)

So, opener has a 3 or 4 point range for his 1NT opening bid and is supposed to chop that into 3 strengths?

I think that the common range for a weak-two is more a product of common systems than a proof that this is the most effective range. Bergen-Cohen enjoyed quite a bit of success with a different range (that included weaker hands). Fantoni-Nunes are enjoying quite a bit of success with a different range (that includes stronger hands).

While I may agree with your point of view, citing MOSCITO methods neither proves the soundness of the method, nor demonstrates that the method is reasonable.

Reasonable? Perhaps. Optimal? Far from clear. Twenty years ago, Bergen-Cohen were dominating national pair events with (amongst other things) a preemptive style that might have been described as "n-1" relative to traditional preempting. At the time, I'm sure people thought the "n" approach had been shown to be reasonable. What the math so far presented in this thread has shown is that a 6-card weak-two has the expectation of an 8+ card fit about 74% of the time and a 5-card weak-two has the expectation of an 8+ card fit about 53% of the time. Nowhere has it been indicated how often we need to have an 8+ card fit to make a preempt worthwhile (or reasonable). I doubt math can answer that question. Nor has the advantage to being the first side to get into the bidding been considered. It may be true that a five-card weak-two is unsound looking at all four hands, but that it works out OK because of the difficulty opponents have in coping with a weak-two.

Going to be sort of embarrassing if one of opener's 2 keycards is the ♠K. This is a good hand for old-fashioned-four-ace Blackwood.

I can tell you what the reaction has been. "Forcing the issue" is a long process. I don't believe this is due to any conspiracy* by the committee members to prevent unusual methods, but rather merely a matter of time and effort. The committee members take seriously their job to make sure suggested defenses are appropriate for the type of event where the method will be played. I have only played bridge outside of ACBLland once, so I'm just speculating, but the sense I get is that the masses in other parts of the world are more tolerant towards new or unusual methods. The ACBL masses are not tolerant, and the committee has the masses in mind when reviewing methods. I was once playing multi in the District level Flight A GNT event. The defenses as given on the ACBL website were provided to the opponents. The opponents were, none-the-less, a bit perplexed and became frustrated at the inadequacy of the defense provided. It was later determined that a large part of the frustration resulted from not being aware that "3m" meant "three of a minor" -- if the defense had instead used "3C or 3D" much of the problem would have been avoided. You may suggest that any Flight A player ought to know what "3m" means, but in ACBLland this kind of study is not required of Flight A players. Now imagine this method being played in a pair event where a couple dozen opponents might be presented with suggested defenses. Imagine some of these frustrated players are ACBL or District officials (who have some power over determining which events are played under which convention chart) or customers paying "important" partners to play with them. The approval process requires a back and forth between submitter and committee and this takes time, especially since committee members have real lives. Two of the defenses in the ACBL defense database are a direct result of submissions I made. Average time from submission to approval was over a year. Part of the reason for this is that the committee often wants to discuss the methods in person, rather than electronically, so they wait for meetings at NABCs. Meeting time is short and understandably there are more important matters than one pair's pet method, so the matter is deferred to the next NABC. If a method is submitted in June, after a bit of back and forth, it may find it's way onto the agenda for the Fall NABC meetings. If it gets deferred to Spring that's already nine months in the process. The methods I have had approved have both been restricted to use in events with at least 12 boards per segment. This severely restricts the number of events in which they can be used. It's frustrating going to a Regional, getting eliminated from a mid-chart KO event, then having to use a different system in the other events being offered. In some cases, this is not simply a matter of not being able to play something of an add-on convention (like multi) which can be added or dropped without change to the fundamental system -- when you switch from natural to transfer openings, there isn't much that isn't affected, you've made a fundamental system change. I am not currently an ACBL member, so I don't feel I have any right to use committee time to force the issue. When I rejoin (it will likely happen someday), I will revisit this issue if the convention approval process is still in place. Tim * There have been some notes from committee members that suggest an effort to block certain methods -- to not approve methods that would open the door to other methods. They recognize the "forcing the issue" bit-by-bit approach. I think they have what they believe are the best interests of ACBL members in mind when they do this. The submission that prompted these comments was eventually approved, so while the ramifications may have been considered, they were ultimately not a prohibiting factor. Though it may have slowed the approval the process.

What was responder's hand?

That seems to be a problem with many of the diamond length, club support, and some hearts constructions. If responder is something like 1453, it's hard to understand the 3♦ call.

I think what you are describing is an implicit agreement. You expect partner to understand, that is you expect that you have an agreement. The agreement doesn't have to be the result of a specific discussion of this sequence, but can come from a general understanding of "expert bidding" (along with the fact that you know your partner to be expert).

I think you have the agreement before you disclose. It's the disclosure that reveals the agreement, but that doesn't mean the agreement doesn't exist without the disclosure. I think there are two separate types of judgment. One is the judgment you use in creating your agreements, such as deciding that 5332 hands should be opened 1NT. The other judgment is deciding what to do with the bidding structure which you have chosen, such as deciding which 5332 hands to open 1NT once you agree that it is right to open some such hands 1NT. I understand that there can be a fine line (which I may not be able to define) between the two. The players in an established partnership will probably know each other's tendencies (use of judgment) better than the opponents, the extent to which this understanding must be disclosed is unclear to me. That is, how much of the understanding is based upon partnership experience and how much is based upon bridge knowledge is often a fuzzy line. As an example, I seem to recall an article in which Michael Rosenberg outlined something like 11 factors in his decision whether to open 1D or 1C when 44 in the minors. If given an example hand that is 44 in the minors, Zia could probably guess better than most which Rosenberg would open, but how much of that is agreement and how much of it is understanding Rosenberg's bridge judgment is unclear. To me, agreement should always be disclosed, while understanding of bridge judgment might not be disclosed.

♠10. Most likely to be partner's void, high just in case he can take more than one ruff. I think responder expects spades to be a source of tricks, thus he has some length there. If responder did not need to know about the spade stopper from partner, he could have bid 4N over 3♣. Maybe responder has something like ♠AQJx, red aces and xxx in clubs.

Why didn't the Blackwooder try for a grand? It would suggest to me that they're off a keycard. And, I'd hate for declarer's stiff diamond to go on the 4th round of clubs while I ruff with my trump trick.

Are the names real? Bill and Howard both have over 10,000 masterpoints and Bill has at least one NA Championship to his credit.

North didn't cover when the ♣J was led?

I disagree, this really shouldn't be a confidence builder. Just the same way that I don't keep track of the chess games I play with my 9 year-old son. The average club player really is a horrible bridge player. The only deal that seems to belong in "Advance and Expert-Class Bridge" is board 27. I agree with your decision to bid 3NT. It looks to me like a spade or diamond lead will hold 3NT to nine tricks, while it takes specifically the CA to beat 4H. I wonder which is better in an all expert field. (I imagine 3NT, because there will be some heart leads and possible 430s.) Tim PS I know Richard in real life and have even sat across the table from him, so I expect he will understand the tone in which this was offered even if it might seem to the disassociated observer that I'm being nasty.

1. Zia Mahmood – Andy Robson 2. Bobby Levin – Steve Weinstein 3. Waleed ElAhmady – Tarek Sadek 4. Fulvio Fantoni – Claudio Nunes 5. Gavin Wolpert – Vincent Demuy 6. Bjorn Fallenius – Roy Welland

I do not think it would be easy to classify the ACBL convention charts in a simple and concise manner. (I have not studied the WBF charts, so can't really comment on those.) The ACBL charts are littered with special methods and/or inconsistencies. Examples from the GCC: you can use 1♣ or 1♦ as a general purpose opening, but not 1♥ or 1♠; you can use an opening 2♦ bid to show a three suiter (with at least 10 HCP), but you cannot use 2♥ or 2♣ for the same purpose; you can use a 1♦ response to a 1♣ opening as an artificial force, but you cannot use a 1♥ response to 1♦ for the same purpose. On the mid-chart you've got the obvious: you can play a multi 2♦, but not a multi 2♣ (not even if it were to show diamonds or hearts rather than majors). I could not hope to lay out a set of simple rules which cover such oddities. If, however, I was working from scratch and could allow or disallow methods by broad class, I think I (or a committee) could come up with reasonably simple charts. They would not mirror the current ACBL charts -- they may allow some methods that are not currently allowed and may disallow some methods which are currently allowed -- and may include more levels than the current three (GCC, Mid-chart and Super-Chart). Somewhat related: I think it is easier to defend against a transfer opening (even a MOSCITO transfer opening) than it is to defend against Multi. Also, the difference between defending against a transfer opening and a natural opening is far less than the difference between defending against a natural weak two-bid and Multi, or the difference between defending a against an artificial preempt in a known suit and Multi. To some of us, the idea tha Multi is allowed while easier to defend against methods are not allowed, is questionable. Also: thanks, Jan, for taking the time to share your thoughts with this group. And, one final thought, just a reminder really: the people taking part in this thread in no way represent the mainstream tournament bridge player, in fact we are merely a fringe element.