Echognome

I think you have some nice ideas in here and I can see how they could be effective. As Han describes though, it would be good if you had some notes down on how to handle interference. The 2♦ bid seems especially vulnerable to sort out after interference.

I actually used to play relay for several years. I think it has some great aspects to it and know that several of the top pairs incorporate relay into their system. Relay is also general enough in my mind to include what I would consider "partial relays" as opposed to "full relays" (where a full relay would mean that an exact shape is known and a partial relay might show say a 6-4). I personally believe a system where you can either take control and relay or revert to natural bidding quickly would be a good one. One I experimented with was a natural 5-card majors system, where 1M - 2♣ was artificial and you could have the option to relay after that, whereas all other sequences would yield natural continuations. The difficulty I found in making such a system was when you had to deal with not only shape, but a wider range for opener. Still, I think such a system is interesting if you had the time to really study and work with a partner. At the moment, sadly I do not. ;)

<Awaiting Richard to use the word "transitive".>

Or a 3=1=4=5 or a 1=3=4=5, unless you are systemically opening 1♦. I prefer to keep the methods as showing 1-3, with 1 being rare and used for these hand types, with judgment allowed to rebid a good 5-card suit (which is what I might do in standard when deciding whether to rebid 1NT or 2♣). Say you have K AQxx KJx Jxxxx and the bidding goes 1♣ - 1♥ (showing spades). Wouldn't you rather rebid 1♠ than 2♣? I would certainly rather rebid 1NT in standard if it went 1♣ - 1♠. We practiced bidding a lot of hands and found that the difficult ones were often difficult in standard as well. So yeah, on the rare occasion you will play in 1♠ or 2♠ when it's better to play in NT or you lose some of the accuracy when you don't know for sure that it's 2-3 spades, but we treat it as 2-3 spades, because when it's a singleton, it's going to be an honor. (Since with x AQxx KJx KJxxx we would suck it up and rebid 2♣.) You just have to find a line to draw.

So is the solution to make an insufficient artificial call (such as 1♦, since 2♦ would be artificial in their system) and then correct it to 2♠ thus banning partner? :D :D :blink: B)

1) Because 2/1 auctions often flow more smoothly than auctions that start 1♥ - 1♠, I think it's worthwhile to consider allowing for 4-4 black hands (and even to consider all balanced GF hands) a systemic 2♣ response. In my experience, it has not been very difficult to find a 4-4 spade fit after the start 1♥ - 2♣, but some discussions are needed to sort it all out. 2) Even without having made such an agreement, on this particular hand I would bid 2♣ anyway. Josh and Han have made ample arguments why this is so.

I actually like the idea of a low heart as well in case partner has the stiff A, K, or 9.

Congratulations Gonzalo! A great accomplishment indeed.

I also like Richard's suggestion as a start, but I think an important point to cover is how to prevent a large number of submissions that would thus put an onus on the C&C to address them all. I know that the C&C must address all the submissions now (or choose to ignore them), but it would seem that submissions should first have to pass a "smell test" or "laugh test" (or whatever you want to call it). There just needs to be something. I mean this could be as simple as making sure the convention isn't already allowed by GCC or banned already at midchart or has already been submitted by someone else.

I can just see the headlines: "Due to the recent economic woes, BBF has decided to eliminate the Youth and Junior forums and merge the Italian and Slovenian forum. Talks are still ongoing whether to merge the Adv/Exp forum with the Interesting Hands forum. Experts are concerned whether the Italians and Slovenians will get along or have border disputes. Some others are concerned that the Juniors and Youth will not know where to go and start frequenting the other forums that may be unappropriate for them. Finally, there are murmurs that people with uninteresting hands that want to post in the Adv/Exp forum will have no place to go." More at 11.

I'm still waiting for one of yours to work... :rolleyes:

Arend - The answer is that it will obviously depend upon your agreements. Why wouldn't you, for example, redouble?

Good exercise for a simulation... :rolleyes:

Of course I would think that fx means "effects" as in "special effects" in movies. At least that is how I've seen it used. fx as for example is weird, when we already have the abbreviation "e.g."

Playing 2/1 I presume? I bid 4♣ and even pass 4♥ from partner. Any other move (such as 4♦) and I'm heading towards slam.

I'd actually be surprised if our views differed greatly on the matter. I definitely take your points as well. I also know you well enough to know it wouldn't be an issue with you as you are a completely ethical player. (I suspect Ken is as well, I just don't know him.) I didn't mean to pick on Ken's example per se. Just grinding an axe in general on people claiming that it was obviously a psych when it wasn't.

I think it's more likely that declarer has a good spade stopper than a marginal one, given the free 1NT call, so I would switch to a club.

Look. I have no problem with psychic calls. I am only saying that I have seen several cases where people claim "it's obvious that the psych was revealed", when that has not been the case. I think that if in your partnership, partner tends to psych often, then it's more likely you will find a bridge reason why partner's bid must be a psych. Ultimately, it's down to a person's own ethics and a TD's determination and has to be done a case by case basis (except where recorder's are used and pattern's emerge). Again, I don't have a problem with psychs, I have a problem with fielding. I just think people often overlook perfectly good alternative reasons why the bidding may not make sense. Yes, if partner passes a 100% forcing bid after taking some prior action, then the prior call is probably a psych (or a misbid). And I'm sure there are definitely other situations. But Han brings up likelihoods. In that case, how likely must the psych be before we are allowed to cater for it? I do not know the answer myself. My guess is that is something that has to be argued to the TD.

I do not have enough experience playing in the ACBL to refute what you are saying with respect to it being "perfectly acceptable to assume partner is the one who made the psychic call." However, I do find that hard to believe. I know that there are sometimes discussions on the International Bridge Laws Forum ("IBLF") about when a psych is actually "revealed." You may think it's obvious that partner's bid may be a psych, maybe even in a baby psych position. But you should not be allowed to cater for it. So now you are saying that because of the vulnerability it is more likely to be a psych. I think it's a fine line you are trying to walk between having an understanding about when you psych and just using bridge logic. Don't get me wrong, as I understand what you are saying. In certain situations, the bridge odds change based on the vulnerability. But you also have to be careful that you are using bridge odds rather than an implicit agreement. What would happen in your exact same set-up if the vulnerability were reversed? Would you no longer be allowed to cater to the fact that partner may have psyched? What if partner hadn't psyched? What if partner had misbid and thought that there was a 1♦ opening on his right? I'm not quite sure I follow. I don't really see how you should ever be allowed to cater to partner's possible psych, unless the psych has unequivocably been revealed. I just think people automatically assume it's partner who has psyched, because they know partner's tendencies, rather than thinking through any other possibility. I've given you two possible other reasons an auction might not make sense: one of the opponents has psyched or partner has misbid. Maybe the opponents misbid? Maybe the opponents has had a misunderstanding? Who knows? Why would you assume it's partner who doesn't have his call, unless you have seen partner do it before? I agree. In fact, I've often wondered whether it would be legal to have an agreement "we never psych." I'm not against psychs at all. I think they are an integral part of the game and come in all different varieties. What's cooler than seeing a psychic cuebid or a psychic exclusion RKCB? What is a falsecard, but a psych in carding. I only have a problem with fielding and I'm not saying you are doing it. I'm just saying that people have a tendency to think it's obvious psychs have been revealed, when often there are perfectly logical alternatives that say they have not.

Let's assume you can tell someone doesn't have their bid. Why do you assume it's partner? The very fact that you think partner is more likely to have psyched than either of your opponents (2 to 1 odds) means that you know your partner's tendencies ---> "implicit partnership agreement" or understanding. Or how else do you explain it?

You would have to be really careful to define "in the dark". Of course if she has a regular partner and varies her openings between the minors, then her partner is "not in the dark" as to the reliability of her bids. The agreement to "randomize" if you will, may be an implicit agreement, but it's an agreement nonetheless. So if, on a whim, I decide to open 1♣ holding ♠ATxx ♥KQxx ♦Qxx ♣Qx and my partner would expect me to open 1♦, then fine. However, if I do it regularly, and partner would expect that some of the time I would open 1♣ and some of the time I would open 1♦, then I think that should be alertable. N'est ce pas?

That's what I get for answering without giving careful thought! I'm with you now. Apologies.

Because they would then play a third club? If you like the play can start Ace of clubs Queen of clubs ducked, another diamond discard Third club, ruffed on your right with the jack of hearts. For reasons which may become clear later, you are now worse off than you were by playing the king on the second round. No we are not. We might be able to guess trumps now. Is RHO ruffing from QJx, Jxx, etc? We know RHO has the trump length. Also, RHO may not guess to trump high.

I would lead a trump. I want to cut down on any cross ruff.

Just thinking out loud here. Why didn't we duck the 2nd club?