TimG

I forgot to include 3=4=3=3. I'll include that shape and rerun to see if my numbers come closer to yours. Tim

I didn't look at any of the hands. There might be some combination that biases this in favor of DD more than typically, but I don't really think responder's hand suggests that.

Giving south a balanced 1♣ opening without four spades (4432, 4333 or 5332; 1C with (23)44), I get slam to be 12 HCP = 22% (9,495 deals) 13 HCP = 48% (6,362 deals) 14 HCP = 74% (4,143 deals) on a double dummy basis. On the auction 1♣-1♠-1N-6N, I would expect declarer to have only a slight advantage over double dummy, probably small enough to ignore. edit: added missing 3=4=3=3 shape to sample and increased sample size

I'd like a team league, too. But, I think the hurdle is in the organization rather than the software's inability to compute VP, maintain crosstables and assign matches. I'd be happy to handle that sort of administration if you get the teams for a league assembled.

On the first hand, I considered 1♠; however, ultimately rejected it: My hand is 4=3=3=3. Between this and the weak spades, I wasn't sure whether Spades or NT would play better. I figured that a 1♦ would let partner show their hand hand easily. If partner rebid in a major, I'd know that she had an unbalanced hand and would be well positioned to explore either a Spade slam or a club slam. If partner rebid in NT (as she did), I'd be in a good position to investigate range easily. This sounds a bit like masterminding to me. Spades could easily be the right place to play when opener is 4(32)4 or 4423, and opener can't show an "unbalanced" hand by rebidding 1♠ on either of these hands. And, once you've started with 1♦, why wouldn't opener be converting 6♣ to 6♦ with (23)44 or xx45 shape if you go slamming in clubs? The mention that your spades are weak doesn't sway me. Won't opener rebid 1♠ with 4xx5 shape even if her spades are Qxxx? That is, opener bidding them first does not assure that the combined spade holding is adequate for slam. FWIW, I'd respond 1♠ and raise opener's 1N rebid to 6N. Though, like you, I might regret not having invited with 4N instead.

Did you have available a strong jump shift? That may influence whether partner will expect a single suited slam try if you bid 5♥. Wouldn't 5♠ at this point generally ask about a heart control for slam? What would 4N be?

My experience is that those who are truly interested in the pre-alert appreciate the cards. I think it is easier for someone to read at the speed with which they process the information rather than process at the speed with which someone verbalizes the information. I do not think the cards serve to take the place of a verbal pre-alert. But, I do think that saying something along the lines of "we have to pre-alert X, Y and Z, the details are on the cards" serves to meet the regulation that pre-alerts must be verbalized.

I like reviewing hands in the Web client because they can in the same window as the current hand. I find that more convenient that switching windows.

Fantunes is a shortening of Fantoni-Nunes.

Isn't an old-fashioned strong, natural and forcing 2♥ opening bid alertable in ACBL-land?

But, most humans don't say the bid shows 4, they say something like "usually 4". And, some humans will always find something else to do without 4.

I found it unnatural that the cards in a suit shifted left to fill up the space left by a selected card; it seems natural to me that to enter AQ I would click the Ace and then move two spaces to the right to click the Queen. But, maybe after using it a bit this way will seem natural. Nice feature to have available, I'm glad you mentioned it in this thread or I would not have know it was there.

Thanks, sorry I missed the other thread. In this and similar situations, the methods don't really matter to me, I just find it a bit frustrating that GIB's bidding does not meet the description. The other situation that comes quickly to mind is the 1m-1M-2M auction where GIB's description says 4M when it seems like it should say 3-4M.

GIB describes 3M as 6+M and 8+ TP, but in my experience GIB often has only 5M. The most recent example is tournament #2346, deal 3.

At my one and only Junior Trials/Junior Camp experience, I know there was drinking going on before and after the Trials.

Not if East covers the Queen, and even if he doesn't, North has to lead low to the A on the second round, rather than repeat the finesse. Even if the spade is not ruffed, after east covers the ♣Q, west is subject to a black suit squeeze when the second top heart is cashed.

We might also belong in 4♦ or 4♣. Are you saying that you will be driving to game if opener bids 4m over your double? Won't opener very often have a balanced 12-14? I don't think we should be too optimistic about making 3N or 4♥ (unless we have a 9-card fit), nor can we be particularly confident about beating 3♠, when opener has sort of what he's expected to have. Maybe you're saying that -50 or -100 is the result we're aiming for against a making 3♠, or at least that this is a possible way doubling can win even when we go minus?

Item #12 on the Mid-chart: would tend to mean that this method is not legal in GCC events (else why include it on the Mid-Chart). Further, I recently asked whether #12 could be expanded to include 2♥ showing 5+ hearts and any undisclosed 4+ side suit (in other words, 4♠+5♥ is one of the possibilities). The C&C Committee discussed the matter and determined that it was intentional that the possibility of majors was not permitted and decided not to change things. So, 2♥ showing 5+ hearts plus a 4+ side suit is not mid-chart legal.

I'm assuming that the negative doublers (everybody!) expect the double to lead to 4♥ on a 5-3 fit with some frequency. What considerations go into opener's choice of whether or not to bid 4♥ when he holds exactly three hearts? I'm guessing that with a spade stopper along with the three hearts, opener would tend to bid 3N. Certainly with a non-Ace stopper such as Kx, Kxx, QJx. What about Ax or Axx? Does the quality of the three-card heart suit matter? Without a spade stopper, what is the typical minimum three-card holding with which opener would bid 4♥?

I think it is quite likely that in the past it has been easier for an up and coming male player to find partners and mentors than it was for an up and coming female player. Male-female partnerships, even in the junior ranks, often carried with them rumor and innuendo that same-sex partnerships did not have to deal with. This made it harder for females because it severely limited the pool of prospective partners. The bias was not in the selection of the team, but in the development of players who might someday compete to be on the team. It quite likely still exists, but it has been many years since I had anything to do with Junior bridge, so I cannot say.

I was asking about other categories, but was also curious about examples within the categories and am glad you gave a few. If you think of more and want to share, feel free! In regards to CC redesign: I would appreciate more latitude in modifying the existing CC. Anyone who uses a 2NT opening to show something other than a strong balanced hand will know that the 2NT box on the existing card is next to useless with the stayman, jacoby and texas boxes taking up much of the space. I'd like to be able to wipe out those options and use the space to describe my 2NT opening. There is software that makes this possible (any image editor will do), but once the card is modified, its use is technically illegal. In general, I think it would be better to have far fewer default options and more blank space.

Can you give a couple more examples? How much space (ACBL CC = 1 unit) do you think would be needed to provide the sort of in depth carding agreements you would like to see?

Neither side vulnerable. ♠ 6 ♥ AT743 ♦ Q6 ♣ K7642 1♦-(3♠)-? Is this hand good enough (and otherwise right) for a negative double? I have intentionally left out the form of scoring, if it makes a difference, please answer for IMPs and MP. Please also mention if it would make a difference if 1♦ is limited to 10-15 (Precision-like) or 11-17 (Polish-like).

It was my intention to make a suggestion for improving the events without regard for scheduling; it is my opinion that the schedule should be worked to fit the premier events rather than the premier events designed to fit the scheduled. If this means losing one of the "secondary" events, so be it.

The description of the Natural Variant is "15-17 HCP club-based hands which are not suited for the 1NT opening". There is no example or mention of 4=4=1=4 hands. In the section "How do you show a medium variant of the 1♣ opening (15-17)?" there is mention of the auction 1♣-1♥, 1♠-1N, 2♣ with the description that this shows 4 spades and 5+ clubs. I suppose you would raise 1♥ with 4=4=1=4, so this doesn't mean that this shape is excluded. But, there is no mention in the section involving 1♣-1M of opener's rebid to show support in the 15-17 range. At least none that I see. I have agreed with my WJ05 partners to play weak and strong splinter raises after 1♣-1M, similar to the approach after a 1M opening. The "weak" splinters correspond to the 15-17 1♣ variety and the strong splinters to the 18+ 1♣ variety. We have not explicitly said that these weak splinters may include 4=4=1=4 shape, but it seems to make sense. I guess we have incorrectly been describing the natural 1♣ variant as 15-17, unbalanced with at least 5 clubs.