Echognome

Not much to add other than the fact that several experts disagree, makes this a clear non wtp for a BIL discussion!

It's BAM, so a gamble. Maybe the other table is saving in 6♠. So I'll pass and take my chances.

Sorry. I thought the question was whether *we* had doubt as to the minor. I agree that partner won't know that we know the minor. Of course I'll still stick with my answer. I was just confused as to what was being asserted.

4♦. I don't understand Josh's comments on whether diamonds could be their suit. If partner's 3♦ bid wasn't natural, then he should state that in his write-up.

Too many "WOW" bids to go around.

Crockpot ideas -Chili -Stew (cheap to buy the meat at the store as well, just throw in some potatoes, carrots, and stock and add some flour later) -Pork Shoulder (pull apart with a fork after then throw in a pan with some enchilada sauce and brown sugar)

For what it's worth, I played the Stevenson 1♠ opening for several years when I lived in England. It has a definite purpose. Consider our 1-level openings at the time: 1♣ ART, 16+ hcp 1♦ 4+♥, 10-15hcp, may be canape 1♥ 4+♠, 10-15hcp, may be canape 1♠ no 4cM, 10-15hcp, unbal --> one or both minors 1NT 12-15 bal or semi-bal So the 1♠ opening freed us up from having to use 2♣ and 2♦ to show constructive openings (and indeed we used them for preempts). It was a very constructive bid. We played over 1♠: 1NT GF Relay 2♣ Pass/Correct 2♦ 5+♥, INV+ 2♥ 5+♠, INV+ etc. Then we could relay out partner's exact shape for game/slam purposes. We had a low level pass/correct. Basically it fit nicely into the system. It may not be what a particular pair enjoys playing, but we certainly did and I'm thankful someone had applied for the license.

Maybe AJxx Kx Kx Jxxxx? But I take your point. It's going to be rare to be 4=2=2=5 My point was mainly that 3N shouldn't imply 4=3=2=4, unless you are always raising diamonds on xxx. Maybe a more common hand might be: AQxx Kx xxx QTxx After 1♦ - 1♠; 2♥ - ? are you bidding 3♦ or 3N?

Are you always raising diamonds with three small when you are 4=2=3=4? Are you always showing a bad five card club suit when you are 4=2=2=5?

David, I think you are just being a bit outdated here. I think Adam has pretty much nailed it above. Playing an informal game of kitchen bridge with friends may not be "bridge", but it is certainly enjoyable and not a waste of time. I can tell you that I have played many informal games like this on BBO against top quality players and learned a lot. The idea here is more one of saving time. Rather than having a long conversation about what we do and do not play, we bend the rules, knowingly rather than waste our time discussing intricate agreements with someone we may rarely play with again. I understand your point about playing with a pickup partner and that certainly happens. But let me give you an example of typical occurrence on BBO: I want to practice with a regular partner. We can either beat up on random opponents or, wait, there are two people we know that are good players not playing. So we ask them to be our opponents. Rather than have them have a long discussion about what to play to this or that convention that we play, we say "We play some complicated conventions. Please feel free to discuss as they arise." I agree with you, it's not "bridge", but it certainly allows us to get to doing what we enjoy doing sooner and that's playing the cards. No one thinks this would happen in bridge at the table. But we're not at a tournament and I can tell you the level of play is plenty high. We don't get any enjoyment or practice out of opponents playing in a silly contract because they haven't agreed something basic. Nor do we get any enjoyment out of listening to long conversations out of agreements. So basically, I think the rules that apply to a sanctioned game are quite different to the informal rules of playing with friends. In the end, it may not be "bridge", but it can certainly be a heckuva game. -Gnome

Often, the meaning of your bids as an unpassed hand would be impossible if you are a passed hand. Take a simple 2/1 GF bid. As a PH, you cannot have a GF, so most lower the requirements of the call as a PH to invitational values (Drury not withstanding). For us, the 3♦ IJS is "impossible" as a PH, as you would have opened the bidding with a preempt or would have a natural 2♦ call now. Thus, we assign an alternative meaning to those calls and play all jumps by a passed hand as fitted. You can assign alternative meanings such as mini splinters by preference.

Don't get me wrong. I can understand the benefits, but they have to be defined. I personally prefer to use 3♦ as a bid to make up for using 2/1 forcing to game and 1NT as semi-forcing. So 3♦ shows a hand that would have bid 2♦ then 3♦ if playing that as non-forcing. But there are plenty of useful alternatives, depending on your preferences and the rest of your system. I can imagine using 3♦ as: SJS IJS (my choice) WJS Mini Splinter Fit Jump Bergen Some other raise of partner's major

Using FD as a memory aide in a "competitive" match is silly. Using it as a training exercise is fine. I'm not too bothered however, since we are generally talking about "friendly" games on BBO.

I like that idea. Just consider it a UI case. Again, my post was to point out that to simply complain something isn't right without providing an alternative... is simply not helping to address a problem. Maybe you had treating these as UI cases in your mind the whole time, but rereading your post and the others in this thread hasn't lead me to find any such alternatives. It would certainly seem more apt to force the worst logical alternative on defender's partners in these cases rather than an arbitrary highest or lowest card at the discretion of declarer.

It might be harsh here, but change the hand to: [hv=n=sqj&w=sk&e=saxx&s=st9xxxxx]399|300|[/hv] North leads the Q from dummy and say that East doesn't know whether south has a six or seven card suit and is debating whether to take the Ace and try to give partner a ruff or hope that partner has the K. Now West contributes the K. Wouldn't we think making East play the A is a punishment that fits the crime now? If so, how do you word the law to make it appropriate in this case and not in the former? The "punishment" is meted out for the action "playing out of turn". What do you propose the punishment be? This is the changing laws and regulations forum after all.

I guess I'm a bit confused. To me it seems a somewhat redundant use of bids to have both 2♦ as natural GF and 3♦ as a SJS, unless I have defined certain hand types that fit under the SJS category that would be denied if I started with 2♦. If that is the case, what are those hands? As I have not played a SJS in years, I would definitely start with 2♦, planning on showing my spade support next round and then reemphasizing my diamonds. I'm driving to slam, but I think partner should be allowed to evaluate as well. It's certainly possible partner has short diamonds and we should still be in 7.

I think there are definitely gradations here and making an unnecessary emphasis crosses the line. Compare the following statements: 1. "Play the top heart winner" 2. "Play the high heart" 3. "Play a top heart" 4. "Play a high heart" 5. "Play the heart ten" I don't think it's right if you purposely vary your speech to gain an advantage. I think it's perfectly legitimate to play different spot cards or honor cards for a psychological advantage, but view that as entirely different as varying your speech in calling for the same card. To me, that is the difference between something being ethical and unethical. If you call for different cards with touching honors, say you hold JT9 and call: a. "heart jack" b. "heart ten" c. "heart nine" There is simply no issue.

I haven't thought about the distinctions too much, but I do like to be able to get out of partner's way when possible. Maybe Justin avoids it by playing 4th suit as natural? Here's what I mean. Say you have: KJTx xx xxx KJTx And the (uncontested) auction starts 1♦ - 1♠; 2♥. I would hate to have to bid 3NT with this hand or else what is partner supposed to bid with 5-6 in the reds? He will have no idea whether to pass 3NT or let you play there. However, if you can bid 2NT then 3NT, then partner can get his hand off his chest by bidding 3♥ and you can happily play in 3NT. Of course 3NT should have a meaning as well. Just noting a problem I see with jumping in this auction, unless you have discussed it with partner, so he'll know what to do with his various hand types.

I like the bidding. You are definitely a limited hand and it certainly doesn't sound like you are trying for game.

In support of Josh's point, I recall a hand as dummy where I noticed one of the defender's revoked and my partner did not. I waited until the end of play (as I understand that I should). In the meantime, the defender that had revoked had taken his quitted tricks and started piling all the cards up together. It looked more like a nervous habit than any deliberate attempt, but made reconstructing the play impossible. I mentioned after the hand that I thought there was a revoke and my partner (declarer) said he didn't think there was. I didn't pursue it, but it bugged me. I talked to a TD friend of mine later who said that if the defenders had bunched up the cards, then they would likely be found to have revoked. But it seems much, much easier if the TD could have investigated right away.

Happy Birthday! Hope it's a great one.

Am sorry to hear he had a stroke, but happy to hear he is recovering. John is one of the funnest TD's around. When I was living in England, I would play the first Sunday teams with John every Brighton and we had an awesome record. The first time I met him at Brighton, he wasn't sure he wanted to play with me. He looked at my convention card at the time and said "anyone that plays a mini NT at all vulnerabilities is mad enough to play with me."

Have had one about a year. Great for surfing the web and email is pretty easy to read. Problem is that it's not that great to type on it. So my next phone I'm switching to one with a keyboard. I assume you are going Blackberry for work? Otherwise, I would go for an iPhone.

I can certainly understand this as a MP gamble. It's these type of bids that I find hard to adjust to when playing MP's. That is assuming it's a no brainer pass at IMP's as I think it is.

Generally a bad idea to kibitz while directing. If you see any irregularity as a director, your duty is to take action. Instead, why don't you work on our system notes...