david_c

5♣ is obvious Matt :) No, only joking. I'd probably compete at the 3-level like everyone else. But perhaps a more interesting question to ask is: "Please rate the bids 3♣, 4♣ and 5♣ out of 10. Now do the same if their overcall was described as (a ) weak, (b ) strong."

heh - I think you may be right. I'm a purist :)

Also agree with Free. However, switching from HCP to a 6-4-2-1 evaluation might work. It's when you start adding lots of points for distribution that you might become unstuck.

Just on this point - it's a good thing that 1x-1y-2NT is rarely passed when it shows 18-19HCP. You don't want to play 2NT contracts if you can help it. Agree with others that a 14-16 no-trump is best suited to systems where stronger balanced hands are opened 1♣. The Welland-Fallenius system is a nice example of this.

I've made a start on the book version. [rest of post deleted: there is a newer version below.]

I was watching a table with a FD convention card loaded. The description of one bid on the convention card was "4+ ♥s, 6+ HCP", but the pop-up explanation said "4+ ♦s, 6+ HCP". Edit: Actually it seems all the suit symbols get transposed.

Yes, and although "Why you lose at bridge" is an excellent book, this thing has always really annoyed me. I can't see any difference between the meanings of the phrases "best possible result" and "best result possible". Of course I know what point he was trying to make, but I don't think the word order does it (except that it makes you think).

Well, to take an example, there was a discussion recently about the sequence 1♣:1♦,1♥:1NT,2♥:3♦ in WJ05. I think it's fair to say that there wasn't any definite conclusion about what this sequence meant. If the files are to keep growing, then eventually you're going to have to look at sequences like this. But personally I think that "no agreement" is the best explanation. Even for someone who is reading the file in order to learn the system, they ought to be aware of which bids are clearly defined and which aren't. How about producing two different types of file, say for example: WJ05 - basic system. WJ05 - detailed agreements discussed on BBF.

Against Polish, or any other system where 1♣ is forcing, I like this: X/1♦ = 5+ hearts / spades, constructive and unlimited 1♥/1♠/1NT = two-suiters - colour / rank / odd, less than an opening 2♣ = either constructive with (5)6+ clubs, or weak with diamonds. 2♦ = constructive with (5)6+ diamonds. [Could add a weak option to this too.] 2M+ = pre-emptive, fairly aggressive With a good balanced hand, or a good minor-oriented hand not suitable for 2m, I'd start with a pass. The two-suiters are useful both because they get in the way when the opponents have most of the strength, and also as a good start to defensive bidding if opener has a minimum balanced hand. (You're basically getting your DONT bid in before they have a chance to bid 1NT.) I wouldn't play this against a non-forcing short club. Then we play normal methods, except that double is major-oriented (doesn't promise anything in diamonds). I would usually play (1♣):2♣ as Michaels, but natural is OK - the important thing is to have discussed this explicitly!

Seems to me that Blackwood is a problem because it can be applied in so many different sequences. So the file will contain some instances of Blackwood being defined, but we can't hope to list all the sequences where it applies. So from the users' point of view, some of their Blackwood bids are automatically alerted, but others aren't. Is this going to cause problems?

I'm wondering what the aim is for these standard system files. How many sequences are they supposed to describe? I can see three three different options: 1. Aim to define everything. The file will be constantly added to as more and more sequences are defined. If we come across a call where there is some doubt about what it means, then we will have a discussion about it, decide on the proper meaning, and put that in. 2. Aim to define only the sequences that all players of the system would agree on. This would include sequences which are deep enough that no-one would ever have discussed them with their partner, but which have only one logical meaning. 3. Only define those sequences which are an intrinsic part of the system (i.e. those which are defined in the system notes.) My preference is for the third option: if the idea is that these files will be distributed to all BBO users, then I don't think it should claim that they have an agreement when they don't. But on the other hand, producing a detailed system file would be useful for other purposes.

What sort of hands are suitable for the sequence 1♣:1♦,2♣ in WJ05? Clearly it shows at least 15HCP. But is there an upper limit on strength? And does it deny a 5♣-4M hand?

The summary says "Bergen (3♣ = limit)". I'm fairly sure this means 3♣ is the stronger raise (10-12 or so) and 3♦ is weaker.

why? what kind of hand without spades would pass the first time, then double 2S to balance? a 1444 10 count? double the first time.. ♠x ♥Axxx ♦Kxxx ♣JTxx ♠xx ♥KJxx ♦Axx ♣Qxxx ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦AKxxx ♣xxx etc. etc.

I'd imagine a hand without spades is much more likely. Probably didn't double the first time because the hand wasn't strong enough. Hands suitable for a penalty double here would likely have overcalled 1NT on the first round. (That's not guaranteed of course, but a spade stack is less likely after the raise.)

Good judgement is measured in IMPs. <_<

OK, I thought that a PP always meant some sort of score penalty. There's nothing wrong with a warning or reminder. What's bad is when directors give out A+/A- for any sort of alerting violation. Then the players feel unfairly treated, even if it's applied consistently.

I doubt it. But they might stop playing in your tournaments, and/or complain about how bad a director you are. And you can be sure that the next day, two dozen new players will turn up who don't alert properly either.

There's a more complex scheme described in Fred's articles on 2/1GF, which deals with those if you're worried about them.

I suspect it might be better to start off with something which isn't very deep, as there are probably lots of standardization and style issues that have to be sorted out. You don't want to post a very deep file and then have everyone say how it should have been done differently ...

But nor is it possible to force everyone to use one particular definition, when there is disagreement about what the words mean. For example, I think the second Bridge World definition of "transfer" is seriously misguided (it's a puppet, not a transfer), but I'm not going to be able to stop people using it.

I'd call it a "non-forcing relay". But we don't have that as an option; being forced to choose, I prefer "non-forcing" to "relay". I certainly agree with Richard that this sort of thing is definitely not a puppet.

Obvious bug in 1.0.8 - the final three dispositions should be "Relay" "Asking bid" "Asking bid response" but instead they are "RelayAsking bidAsking bid response" "" "" Edited: and the no-trump dispositions are all messed up now. :D Edited again: Don't use this version on an important file until Fred fixes it, as it will make all your no-trump dispositions wrong.

Completely agree with awm. 2♥.

Aha! Yes, I can get it to do this too now, but it only happens for NT bids. For suits it saves correctly, with "A" in place of "10" and so on.