luis

I think you are wrong. a 6-4 hand without values outside of the two suits USUALLY does not qualify for 4♦. The hand in your example only qualifies for 3♠, because pd could have wasted values in black suits (Q, Js) (Qxxx, QJx, xx, Kxxx or even worse, xxxx, Kxx, x, Kxxx) not enough for game. When you bid 4♦ you are tell pd that as long as pd has 4 ♥s and ONE useful card (with "normal" distribution), you can make game. I t depends on what you agree, if you can either have values in hearts Or clubs what does your pd do ? Flip a coin?

It was an oversight, 4 is better than 3... so has been adjusted I strongly think 4♠ deserves a negative score, 3♠ is better even if non forcing since if pd passes with nothing you missed a game and not a slam, in 4♠ pd will pass every single time you have a slam. 3♠ may gamble on pd following up and thus have better room to find about slam. 4♠ is not bridge. Just my opinion.

Hi Richard, I didn't vote for 4♣, I think the problem of 4♣ is that it should denote interest for a 4♦ cuebid, 4♣ is a great bid when you have or AQJ, KQJ in diamonds and need to see if pd can cuebid 4♦. I think it's probable that pd will pay more attention to his diamond holding than his values in clubs if we bid 4♣. My ideal hand for 4♦ is a 6-4 hand without values in hearts or clubs. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe this needs a partnership agreement, I consider KJxx, xx,AKQJxx, x a good 4♦ bid. The point is that 4♦ takes away a lot of bidding space so it's important to know how to continue. 4♥ asking for the singleton seems to be a good idea for hands where you need to know if pd has a singleton heart or club. I really don't think you can include many hands in 4♦ and have a way to get out of the mess in just 2 bids. I also think that this hand and many others are not exactly a piece of cake to bid so fundamentalist views saying that 4♦ or 4♣ is "da-bid" are just poor thoughts, there're many options and we may never know what is best but reading what we think about each option will surely help us make a better choice in the future. Luis

There was a very similar hand in our South American championship two years ago. North held: AJxx AKQxxx AKx - And south held: KQTxxx xx xx xxx In the women tables the bidding was identical at both tables: 1♥ - pass - pass -pass Making 7 No Swing! In the men tables the bidding was identical at both tables: 1♥ - 1♠ 5NT - 7♠ Making, No swing! Interesting isn't it?

I'm following this close and I'm very interested with all the bids and ideas posted. I had a creative moment when answering this hand so I'm probably going to score 0 but after this discussion I feel quite happy with my selection. For the record I think 4♦ is bad and I prefer 2♥ to 4♣ but I bid something else so.... (You'll see soon)

5♣

Abstain, 2♣ is quite a horrible bid, and now if 4NT is not RKCB then I don't want to know what it was, I'm not interested.

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by highest minimum. For example, with five questions: Person A gets 20, 40, 100, 100, 100 for a score of 360. Person B gets 40, 80, 80, 80, 80 for a score of 360. Do you want Person A to win, because he has the highest number of scores that are the minimum of the 10 (positive) scores, (it could be so, following your example)? Or, by looking at the words "highest minimum", do you want person B to win, because the minimum of his scores is greater than the minimum of person A's scores (that makes more sense to me)? Or is there another interpretation that I am missing? B wins because his minimum is 40 and A's minimum is 20. As I said I think it's good to value a consitant entry. Againts what Justin says I'm strongly agaisnt time based tiebreakers since with that will be unfair for some particular timezones.

I would let the entry with the highest minimum win, I think it's better to be consistant, 4 60s should be better than 3 80s and a 0. If there's a tie there then the player with more 100s wins. If they are still tied then let them both be on the panel :-) I woudn't use time since we are in different parts of the world.

Don't do this Ben it will be confusing.

1. Is this a good system in your opinion? I think it is 2. What are its strengths and weaknesses? Strengths: The obvious ones, better rebids after opening 1♥, etc, Weaknesses: Pd tends to forget it, and they double 1♠ with spades and compete more often. 3. Does one need to play Flannery using it? What is Flannery? 4. Assuming you like it, how would you advise playing it? What does responder need in spades for a 1NT bid, and how should opener carry on? Naturally.

In a strong field play a spade, wins automatically if pd has KT of spades and if not declarer can still misguess. In a weak field play a spade if you need a swing, play a club if you need "protection" everybody will continue clubs in a weak field so you will be protected, specially if declarer is going to misguess. Luis

While I agree with most of your comments about rulings I have to disagree with this one. First of all you are right there IS an infraction since player X did not want to disclose the meaning of 2♦, so let's start with a procedural penalty to that pair which is quite automatic. In your tournaments a PP can be a warning, a suspension, whatever you want to use. Then I think that giving 4h to the non-offending side is wrong. I'd rule 4h making against the offending side but only av+ for the non-offending side since I don't think the MI or lack of information has anything to do with the damage. The fact that a pair does something very wrong does not automatically mean that the other pair should magically get a superb result.

Well... One option is to bid 2♥ and pass the 4♦ splinter bid by pd :-) Can you run fast enough if pd stands up from his chair? Just kidding... 2♦ is quite logical.

Hehe I'm also playing 2♣ 9-13 fantunes style. I took me 5 minutes to explain the 2♣ opening to a well known internationalist the conversation was something like this: (EI=Expert Internationalist) EI: What is 2♣? Luis: 9-13 5+ clubs, not balanced in 1st and 2nd seats EI: Weak? Luis: If 13 is weak for you yes EI: But does it show clubs? Luis: Yes EI: How can it show clubs? Luis: It's natural EI: No, 2♣ is not natural, it shows clubs! Luis: If a club bid that shows club is not natural to you then I give up EI: Is that new? Luis: Well I guess clubs were clubs when the game was invented so... no EI: And can you play this (It was a top-tier tournament) Luis: You may ask the TD if we can play 2♣ showing clubs, maybe is too complicated for you. Do you think you need a defense? I may suggest double as a takeout with short clubs, 2♦ showing diamonds, 2♥ hearts and 2♠ spades. EI: .... Luis: Do you want me to write that down for you? At this moment EI's pd asked to please stop the conversation because he was feeling stomach pain from laughing....

Ben, It's clear now that the posters were missunderstanding the EBU regulations, what the law says is that if you have an agreement and forgot it you should alert anyway if you remember you had agreed something but don't know what. When you don't have an agreement you shouldn't alert and even worst if you think your pd's bid is not natural but you didn't talk about it it would be a serious fault to alert to draw your pd's atention. One thing is to say "This is conventional, we agreed something but I can't remember what is is" (then the TDs may ask you to leave the table and let pd explain the bid to the opps) A very different story is to alert and say "We have no agreement"

So the EBU enforces cheating... Interesting to know I'm surprised. When pd makes a bid that you "think" is not natural you must alert and say "no agreement" pretty interesting you say absolutely nothing to the opponents and you enlighten your pd that you are taken a view about his bid. I wonder how good can it be to know that your opponent thinks his pd is doing a non-natural bid if you don't know what it means... you should be in the same ground without the alert.... I'm 99% sure that you are missunderstanding the EBU regulations because in other parts of the world a pair behaving like you say would inmediately be facing all sorts of comitees, the ethics commitee, the systems comitee, the dead-row-appeals comitee, the save-the-cheaters comitee, etc etc. In a local tournament there was actually exactly one case as described, a player alerted a bid and when asked said "I don't know". The TD not only ruled an automatic procedural penalty, he then sent the pair to the ethics comitee, and he retained the non-offending side rights in the board. You are supossed to alert only bids that where you have an agreement and when asked explain what that agreement is. When there's no agreement there's no alert and I still don't believe this is different in the EBU, maybe the rules are different but you guys must be making a wrong read of them.

This is an amazing reasoning, every time a player makes a good bid in a new partnership and the opponents yell are you going to rule missinformation ? I [disagree completely with - edited] you rulings. -This is a new partnership. -4♣ in "bridge" may obviously be for the lead. -There was no damage Don't you see that what EW want is to force good pairs to tell them what their bids are so they won't have to reason or learn to play bridge? If they are better they are better you can't pretend to make the game more even by asking them to alert their bridge decisions. For example if I bid 7♥ missing once ace gambling on a trump lead should I alert my 7♥ bid as "missing one ace but I'm probably getting a trump lead" It's exactly the same case here. I'm really astonished and quite disgusted by the view that many posters have about this issue.

You are completely wrong. How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd. Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert" it's so ridiculous that I'm quite mad that you can post as if you were 100% sure about the EBU rules, with my respect if you don't know please don't invent because the damage is greater. You can say "In my opinion" but don't say what the EBU would do since it's quite evident that you have no clue about the rules.

But you are guessing Arend. I don't want to make an assumption, let alone a ruling, if I don't know the facts. That's elementary in the democratic part of the world. Roland And is something that we can't do and shouldn't do from the forums...

Are you serious? I think there's a huge missconception about what is alertable and what is not. For some reason I think that there's a tendency to force good players to alert good bids even if they don't have any agreement with pd. This is a clear example, a good player made a good bid without any specific agreement and here we are with a 3 page thread were people is still thinking that there should have been an alert. I strongly hope no ACBL director would even care about this case, any normal TD should dismiss the case inmediately.

No, it would be quite crazy...

1,2 and 3 are wrong. A bid is conventional if there's an explicit or implicit partnership agreement about the meaning of the bid. Explicit is when it has been discussed or it is in the CC. Implicit is when it has appeared in similar situations before and the pair has agreed about the meaning of the bid. Law 40-A: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

4♣ is not conventional and doesn't require any alert. Why it is not "conventional" ? Because conventional is a bid where you agree a specific meaning with your pd and I really doubt this pair has discussed this situation in particular. Many people confuse bids that don't show a suit with conventional bids, there're a lot of not-natural bids that are not conventional. Adjusting would be ridiculous there's nothing nothing nothing even to analyze here.

I really don't see the logic of the question. What kind of player can pass twice with this hand and then decide that you have to act at the 3 level once they have found a fit? If I were to hold this cards I would have doubled 2♣ which I think is quite logical showing 4-4 in the majors and probably 3-4 diamonds because I passed over 1♦. We can play 2♥, 2♠ or even 2♦ after that. So I think passing in the 2nd round is wrong and if somebody passed twice acting now is probably caused by a split-personality disorder or something :-)