david_c

Well I voted 1NT. Unfortunately, on closer inspection it appears that I have four spades. Oops! Okay, 1♠ is probably better in that case. :P Mind you, I don't think that 1NT is a bad bid. It could easily be the right place to play, and we might not get there if partner has five clubs. Perhaps it's a reasonable shot at MP. As an aside, my preference when playing better minor is dbl = 4 spades, doesn't promise any hearts 1♥ = 4+ hearts 1♠ = 5+ spades That would work well here.

I never agree with Mark, but my initial reaction was to bid 2♣ here, so something must be wrong ... What's wrong is that we're playing a weak NT. If we were playing a strong NT then it would be clear to bid 2♣ in my opinion. But in a weak NT system opener rates to have a 15-16 balanced hand on this auction, in which case the hand probably belongs to us in 1NT. So probably 1♥ is best. But I think 2♣ is an intelligent bid, and pass is also very close.

A question for those of you that play AKQ-points: how do you adjust for honours being in short suits? (For example I've been playing that a singleton K or Q counts zero, but a singleton A is still 3.) I'm particularly interested in the value of a doubleton queen. I'm beginning to think that a doubleton queen should not count if it's in a long two-suited hand (ie. 5521 or 6520). For more balanced types I'm not so sure. Any thoughts?

c.f. 1S:2D,2H:2S

I think the TD is wrong. The player can see that FD has misexplained his bid and should correct it when it happens. If they don't do that, then they've given misinformation. A bigger problem is when a pair has no agreement, but the FD file claims that they do. Because of this, I think that it is important not to make the "basic" standard FD files too detailed. However a system with detailed notes like BBO-Advanced is a different matter; I do not think that this is the cause of the problem here.

Oops. Partner has misbid. Never mind, it's still an interesting problem.

I disagree (and I'm a relay player). There's more to defence than the auction, and a well-built relay system will make the ("totally" unknown) relayer declarer. Hmm, I was trying to make a distinction between (i) Methods which are hard to defend against no matter how well-prepared you are; (ii) Methods which are hard to defend against because you need time to prepare and discuss what your calls mean. My opinion is that it is reasonable to ban methods because of (ii) but not because of (i). This is why I don't like the ban on relay systems. It looks like I didn't make this clear enough. Or maybe I did, in which case, well, you are entitled to disagree :P The problem is that that part of the regulation doesn't work. It depends what strong options you use, but there are some types where it is still attractive (and legal) to pass 2♦ a lot of the time.* So even under the current regulations, opponents have to be prepared for this. [NB. Some people who play a mini-multi will pass it when non-vulnerable on weak hands even if they don't have long diamonds. But this is not allowed under EBU regulations (you may only pass 2♦ if you have reason to believe it is your best spot), so opponents would not have to worry about this possibility even if mini-multi was legalised.] (*)The most extreme case is where your strong option is "Acol Two in diamonds with a suit of ♦AKQxxxx or better". It's debatable whether this is actually allowed, but you get the idea. (If you think this is illegal, then just move to the next best thing...)

You say it's not a MI problem, but if you can't bid 3m because partner might interpret it as natural, doesn't that mean you possibly have been damaged by the MI?

I strongly disagree: this information is only useful in very specific circumstances. Most of the time the possible outcomes are "♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ NT Def" and this string clutters up the display. (If you don't believe me, try unchecking all of the possible outcomes - the display is so much more readable!) Also, even in those situations where the information is useful, there are better ways of presenting it. For example, if your bid agrees hearts as trumps, you could write "sets ♥". This is much easier to understand for the reader than changing from "♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ NT Def" to "♥". (It also neatly avoids the question of whether you can get back to other suits after agreeing trumps.) If you're using FD primarily as a tool to help you learn your bidding system, then fine. But I believe its main use is as a convention card, and then you have to question whether displaying this information for every bid is really helpful.

I'm bidding 1♠ on all of them too. I don't object to 1♣ in principle, but I'd want weaker spades for that. Swap the black suits in #1 and you could persuade me to open 1♣.

Just for a bit of variety - a. penalty b. take-out I think a is well-known as being a penalty situation. b doesn't seem clear but I would interpret it as take-out unless I had agreed otherwise.

Sorry, but system gets none. One of the advantages of playing limited openers is the ability to make ambiguous-style 4M bid like this one, which put a lot of pressure on 4th player. You misunderstand - saying that system gets some of the blame doesn't imply that the system is bad. It just means that this is a bad hand for the system. Call it "bad luck" if you prefer.

Doesn't this make Drury a HUM ? Depends how you define "basic methods". Probably this is supposed to refer to things like changing from a strong club system to a natural system.

Why not ? Who said moscito isnt blue ? I dont see any resson for it. Surely the transfer openings make it red?

Like it or not, familiarity plays a part. People are used to defending against natural weak twos, so there is no problem with them being allowed. The same cannot be said for assumed fit pre-empts, so (on general principles) these should be allowed if and only if you believe it is reasonable to expect the opponents to know how to defend against them. This depends on the level of bridge being played, but you can easily imagine opponents having misunderstandings about what a double means, or whether it is possible to play in hearts. So it is not unreasonsable to ban this convention. The EBU allows any 2-level pre-empt which shows 4+ cards in the bid suit, even at the lowest level. Personally I think this reg is bad. The underlying assumption seems to be that there is a generic defence which works against any bid of this type. But this is not correct, as while takeout doubles work against natural pre-empts, the same cannot be said of bids which tend to have precisely 4 cards in the suit. Thus I believe these things should be banned from average-level club duplicates (ie. EBU L3). Admittedly there is a problem here - we're disallowing things because opponents are not familiar with them, but the only way that they can gain familiarity is if these conventions are allowed. Is this an argument in favour of having fewer restrictions? Not necessarily. It does mean that if a convention would be played by a large proportion of bridge players, then that is a point in its favour. But as for where (approximately) the line should be drawn, no, it has nothing to say on that subject whatsoever.

So a 1♥ fert doesn't need special preparation? I don't believe you.

I love this topic ... It's all a matter of personal preference. The laws allow for regulation of conventions, but don't specify what the regulations should be. So there's no right answer. We have to resolve these things democratically. So here's my opinion: in a perfect world I would like to achieve two things: (i) Players should be allowed to play any methods they like. (ii) Players should be able to prepare for their opponents' methods in advance, and have enough time to develop and practise good defences. For major teams competitions both of these things should be achievable. The situation described in the original post seems excellent: players are receiving details of their opponents' systems well in advance, and so they have enough time to prepare. If they complain that it's too difficult then, well, tough - if you're playing in the top league you have no right to expect an easy time. For other competitions - less serious events, or pairs events - there is not so much time to prepare (or it may just be unreasonable to expect players to bother), so there is a conflict between (i) and (ii). You could choose to keep (i), and require players to come up with generic defences so that they can cope with anything their opponents do. But personally I think (ii) should take precedence, which means introducing system regulations. So, it should be recognised that the purpose of system regulations is to exclude things which are too difficult to prepare for in whatever time there is available. Certain things follow from this: - Conventions should not be banned for any reason other than being too hard to defend against. (The ACBL ban on relay methods fails here.) - If a convention is trivial to defend against it should be allowed in all competitions, regardless of how complicated it may appear to be. (Any ban on methods which apply after opponents have both passed fails here.) - If you choose to allow a particular convention, then a similar convention should be allowed if it makes no difference to how the opponents defend against it. (The EBU ban on mini-multi fails here.) - For pairs events, the list of permitted conventions should consist of precisely those things which opponents can be expected to defend against with no preparation. (And, while I may disagree with certain apects of, say, our EBU level 3, I do think that it is pitched at about the right level.) Anyway, I've drifted off topic. The situation described in the original post seems perfect; it would be a shame if restrictions were introduced at that level. We don't have anything similar in England, which is a pity.

Indeed. And this sort of bad bid is not particularly unusual I would say. The TD certainly should not try and "deduce" a hesitation from the auction. You might take the view that unless N/S claimed there was as hesitation, there is no case to answer. I would prefer to investigate whether there was a hesitation even if N/S did not say anything about one (after all, they may not know that it is relevant). But this can be tricky, particularly online.

Too close to call: it depends how light we open. I might rebid 2♥, or I might rebid 2♦ intending to raise 2♥ to three. I don't think it's relevant that 2♦ is less likely to be passed. The only question to consider is whether we're strong enough to raise to 3♥ after 1♥:1NT,2♦:2♥. If not then we should rebid 2♥ rather than 2♦.

I agree with Richard's numbers. You have to take into account the fact that you have 4=4=4=1 shape, and this really does make a significant difference to the percentages.

Hmm, it seems I've been doing that. You're right, it doesn't make any sense. Must remember to speak to partner ... Matt also makes a good point, but it's only relevant to people who play that particular style of pre-empting. i.e. hardly anyone :P

Why? What on earth were you thinking - he's rejected my claim the first seven times but maybe it's worth trying again? You've got to change tack.

Maybe this is a problem hand (though I think it's a clear 2♠ rebid), but I don't agree on what the cause of the problem is. Suppose you change the suits round a bit: ♠ KT3 ♥ 6 ♦ AQT74 ♣ AT93 Now there's no problem: if you consider the hand too strong for 1♦:1♠,2♠ then you can rebid 2♣ instead. So with the original hand the cause of the problem is a hole in the system: 3154 hands are biddable but 3415 hands aren't. It's not so much a problem of having different methods of hand evaluation, because unless you're a big fan of off-shape 1NT opening bids you're going to be opening 1♣ on any hand of this shape regardless of strength. Anyway, if this sort of thing bothers you, then it seems to me that frequent off-shape 1NT openings actually make the problem worse. That is, you'll be giving partner very accurate information about "NT strength" on hands where it is fairly likely that some other metric would be more appropriate.

I've been playing Keri "by the book" for a while, and the game-forcing 1NT:2♣,2♦:2NT sequence is upsetting me. It's too slow, giving away lots of information about opener's shape which responder often doesn't need to know. And it often takes seven or eight bids to reach 3NT or 4M, when it would only take four bids playing Stayman. After a while you get fed up with explaning all these bids to the opponents. So I've tried rearranging the responses to make these common sequences faster and less revealing. I'm giving up the ability to raise to 2NT invitationally (which many people seem to think is worthless anyway). Here is how it might work: 2♣ = (i) wanting to play in 2♦ (ii) invitational with 4 or 5 cards in a major (rebid 2M) (iii) forcing to game with 5+ diamonds (rebid 2NT) (iv) any "splinter" (rebid suit below the singleton, or 2NT with 5 diamonds and short clubs) (v) balanced slam try with no major (rebid 4m) 2♦/2♥ = transfers 2♠ = transfer to clubs (includes the invitational type) 2NT = 4+ hearts, GF 3♣ = 4+ spades, GF (not 4-4 in the majors) 3♦ = invitational with 6+ diamonds 3♥/♠ = slam try with long clubs/diamonds The 2NT and 3♣ responses are the interesting part. Over 2NT, opener will rebid: 3♣ = not 4 hearts, not 5 spades. 3♦ = 5 spades 3♥ = 4 (or 5) hearts So if all responder is interested in is heart support, he can bid 3NT over 3♣ or 4♥ over 3♥, and all the opponents know is whether or not opener has four hearts. Alternatively, after 1NT:2NT,3♥ responder can bid 3NT to offer a choice of games with a 4-3-3-3 or 5-3-3-2 hand. Transfers over 1NT:2NT,3♣ are used to deal with the hands which need further exploration (e.g. 1NT:2NT,3♣:3♥ would show 4-4 in the majors). Any good?

Well, I decided to pass it out in 3NT, thereby achieving the unusual score of +350: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakq74h82dakt965c&w=sj65hq543d7432c98&e=st8ha6dqjcakq7652&s=s932hkjt97d8cjt43]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I was worried that double would effectively commit us to playing in 4♠ or 5♦. But maybe I worry too much! We lost 4 IMPs on the board.