david_c

Yep. That's a standard notation, though I think it's one of those things that you wouldn't use in a paper without explaining what it means. (Whereas with the simple factorial n! it's safe to assume people know what you're talking about.)

An inspired guess on the last question saved me from getting 0% ...

For what it's worth, if someone forced me to interpret the ACBL rule, I would agree with Jan. I don't usually like referring to dictionaries to interpret regulations, but here I think it helps to explain how I would interpret it; my dictionary defines "all-purpose" as "Used for many different purposes." (Some dictionaries give a second, more literal, definition - "used for all purposes" - but that can't be right here because it would mean we would be opening 1m on any hand!) I would say that a 1m bid showing spades is not "used for many different purposes" - it is used for the single purpose of showing spades. So, by my interpretation, the GCC does not allow a 1m bid showing spades. I readily admit that the definition is unclear. However I think that if you accept that some bids are "all-purpose" and others are "not all-purpose", then these transfer bids must belong to the second category.

If you're just looking for a way to write 1 x 3 x 5 x ... x (2n-1), then you can do this by (2n)! / (2^n)n!. But if you're actually trying to write the series, then do what PMarlowe said.

What's wrong with playing a diamond?

Maybe I'm missing something here - I can see partner has to hold the ♣Q, but why does that mean we have to play clubs now? Declarer only has eight tricks, so why can't we exit in one of the red suits? Indeed, if declarer has three clubs then playing ♣K, ♣J is fatal, whereas declarer has big problems on a more passive defence.

Yes. IMO any decent system should avoid lumping in good single-suiters with random minimums. Most of my systems use opener's 2NT rebid for the good single-suited type.

Actually, that gives you less space with the good hands, does it not? In a pure relay system (which I think is close to optimal on this sort of sequence because responder so often has a strong balanced hand) this scheme would have opener's good hands resolving exactly one step higher than his weak ones. In a more natural system the difference is less extreme but it still looks to me like you are losing space on the good hands rather than gaining it.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sq65ht7da94caq732&s=skj2hak9dkjt5ct85]133|200|Scoring: IMP p 1♣ p 2NT(F) p 3NT AP Lead: ♠T East plays the ♠4[/hv] I found a way to go off here. What was the best line?

I've played around with this a fair amount; a few thoughts: 1. For 1♠:2♦ - Obviously the extra step is helpful, but people have different ideas about what it's helpful for. In particular, you could use the extra space to allow you to stop in 2M when both hands are minimum. Thus: 1♠:2♦,2♥ = most minimums ... pass = good hearts but dead minimum ... 2♠ = mild invite, typically a doubleton spade, NF ... 2NT = invite, typically a singleton spade, NF ... 3♥ = natural invite 1♠:2♦,2♠ = minimum with 6+ spades, NF This allows you to bid those difficult hands with 5/6 hearts and 9-11 points better than any standard system. On the other hand, if you go down this route then your bidding on game-forcing hands is scarcely any better than SAYC or Acol. (With a single-suited game force you may need to invent a 3m bid.) In fact the reason I didn't list continuations on my blog is that they are exactly the same as a natural "light 2/1" system. (Actually I had 1♠:2♦,2♥:3♠! showing a game-forcing single-suiter in hearts; hands with spade support would make a different response to 1♠.) Alternatively, there are systems like Adam's above where 1♠:2♦,2♥:2♠ and/or 1♠:2♦,2♠ are artificial. Compared to my first approach, this gives you much better bidding of game-forcing hands (likely to be better than standard 2/1), while still being able to add a few invitational hands to 2♦. Personally I've moved from the second approach to the first, because of the frequency of hands which would like to bid 1♠:2♦,2♥:2♠ non-forcing. 2. For 1♠:2♥ - I've never been able to work out a system I'm really happy with. But it has always struck me that it's opener who is affected by the loss of a step, not responder. So removing hands from 2♥ (for example making it promise 6 diamonds) doesn't really seem to help all that much.

A three-and-a-quarter-point range somewhere inside 14-17. Why? Well, 15-17 is too strong and 14-16 is too weak.

Hidden: Hidden: (hmm, these "hidden" discussions get a little silly after a while, don't they? :) )

Yes, it is possible; I won't post it in case people want to have a go, but there is a fairly well-known construction where (hint hidden)

The question wasn't whether it IS alertable, but whether it SHOULD be. I.e. do you believe he ACBL and EBU regulations in this respect are appropriate? Oh, I think it is definitely right that Puppet Stayman should be alerted in the EBU. Mainly because ordinary Stayman is alerted as well. :) I think if ordinary Stayman is not alerted, then there is a good case for not alerting Puppet. But it would be totally crazy not to alert [responder's] rebids.

I used to play this with Mark, but we used Symmetric Relay over 2♣ which I felt was not working (there's not enough space - plus I don't like relaying with unbalanced hands). Since then I've played around with various ways of making better use of the available space (such as this), but I haven't ever tried them out at the table. Currently my thinking is that while having 2M-1 as a raise is nice, it's not worth the extra layer of complexity that it adds to the 2♣ bid.

We play a wide-ranging 1♦ opening (open 1♦ unless game-forcing), and I would highly recommend it.

1♥ unless the suit is terrible. I would open 1♥ with the example hand. I bid this way with unfamiliar partners because I feel it simplifies the auction. With a regular partner it might be better to do something different, but since I would never play Acol with a regular partner the situation doesn't arise.

I'd never play ELC. Pass.

It seems that there are two different styles (three if you count using it to show 19 HCP balanced). In England it's fairly common not to require a solid suit - just a single-suited hand too strong for a jump rebid of the suit. Whereas I've seen many people (like the two posts above) say that they would expect a solid suit for the bid.

First of all, let me say that if I was running a committee I would certainly make use of a public forum to help come up with defences. But it seems like your system is designed with a primary aim of keeping the committee in check. That's understandable if you don't trust the committee. On the other hand, if the committee is trustworthy then I think it is better to allow them to decide which methods are under consideration. Otherwise you are creating an expectation amongst the players that their methods will be dealt with, which you may later find you are unable to meet. There is a danger of your scheme disintegrating into a free-for-all where methods are not given the scrutiny that they deserve. I don't understand David's objection. An important responsibility of the committee is to ensure that each new method comes with a defence. It seems sensible to insist that the innovator provides an adequate written defence for opponents, who won't have time to prepare for all eventualities. There will not always be an appropriate generic defence. I was imagining something like this: "1♥ opening showing 5+ spades. This defence applies to an opening bid which: - is forcing, and promises a minimum of at least 10 HCP; - has a 1♠ response which is non-forcing and includes all hands which would pass a standard 1♠ opening." So, not exactly a "generic" defence, but still something which leaves a little room for variety. The defence on the ACBL site specifies SAYC-style responses, which is going too far. You don't want to have to write out the same thing again when someone comes along wanting to play 2/1. If the committee had to approve separate defences for every minor change in the continuations then their workload would indeed quickly become prohibitive.

The problem is (or was) that which things should be allowed has been something of a moving target. Defenses to methods which were allowed were solicited and then the methods disallowed. No, that's not the problem. That is a consequence of asking the players to write the defences. As I said, it is the committee that should be doing it (though that's not to say they can't ask for help). The committee shouldn't find it too hard to aim at the moving target, since they're the ones who are moving it!

Correct, the committee should: 1. decide which things they will allow; then 2. sort out the defences to those things. What's the problem? Why doesn't this happen? No, I'm not going to accept "it's far harder than you may think". I've written enough system in my time. It's hard, for sure, but it's do-able - and the people on the committee are supposed to be the people who are best at it.

As fun as it might be, I wasn't actually suggesting that the committee should be completely replaced by BBF regulars. :) But I do think we could teach the committee a thing or two about: - writing clear regulations; - making sure that the conventions that are allowed (or are under consideration) have good suggested defences; as well as good procedure and communication.

You're not half as pleased as I am! :rolleyes:

is going to be removed. The "any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit" clause is the one that proponents of transfer openings have been citing as making their methods legal (and making it very frustrating that approved defenses are very slow to come). Removing this section will do just what you suggest: amend the chart so that the method is not allowed (the charts are written such that methods not specifically allowed are disallowed). Actually I thought that had been done already. Yes, it was an excellent development. But it really shouldn't have taken so long.