Douglas43

Hi rcarle, more experienced players try to help by contributing but can sometimes get carried away. A reminder like yours never goes amiss. By the way, I have posted a few example hands for our local improvers (and anyone else who wants a look), just search the forum for "Manx" if you want to take a look.

It just had 1 diamond

Reluctant pass. Double would be second take-out and might be right, but could be lead to a phantom sacrifice. Partner hasn't got much, but with lots of red cards might have scraped up a bid over 1♠. I think partner could have some values in clubs.

Not in this case, 2♣ was an opening based on void, AKQ, AKQxxxx, KQx. Which Is why I found the pass somewhat disappointing (just to add insult to injury the Bot has A♣). Unfortunately neither does GiB seem to play a 4NT opening as "name an Ace", as I've played it for 40 years and never needed it before.

Thanks spade7, that's what I thought, but I was beginning to wonder if I was imagining it when GIB didn't recognise it.

Thanks Glithin, and sorry the "hcp" was lazy typing. I've never really got into the "add points" methods of valuation suit contracts, and tend to count points only when looking at no-trumps, using LTC with a trump fit. So when I see a point count I tend to assume hcp without even thinking about it. Should have engaged brain!

Oh yes, I had missed that, thanks!

Yes this looks like a double then 4♠ hand, but I might bid 4♠ direct opposite a passed partner. 7-2-2-2 is not quite as good as it looks. North and West have not more than 11 hcp between them and you probably need North to have two Aces for slam. As the actual defence shows you need quite a lot opposite to make a slam solid. Six can be made on a minor suit lead. You win AD, CKQ, D ruff, JS, AC pitching heart, concede a heart. This works if clubs are 3-3 or the hand with two clubs has only got one trump. Don't know if I'd find that line at the table though . I wouldn't call bidding 4♠ here psyching a pre-empt, for me it just shows a hand that wants to bid 4♠ and has no slam ambitions, a bit like a 4♠ opening opposite a passed partner.

Just found out the hard way that in GiB standard 2♣- 2♦ -4♦ is apparently not forcing. Left sittting in 4♦ with grand slam looking very respectable.

I too would see it as invitational, but tend to focus on Losing Trick Count (6 losers) rather than hcp.

Partner could have cue bid over 3♥ but hasn't. That does not bode well for slam. I'd chicken out.

I wouldn't, it's an eight loser hand with no lead directional value. Sometimes it will work, maybe you get to 3♠ -2 undoubled when opps have a part-score. Next time though, will you miss game when your partner bails out short of game and you have a decent minimum?

You were clearly constrained by the system. It does seem odd that after two-suited intervention it prioritises a gadget for showing different types of fit at over the ability to introduce a new suit.

Completely agree with you about the transfers. They are pretty common and defence is easy-peasy. Even in the UK where 5cM is not standard, it's club-level stuff. The challenging aspect of the OP's system is the two-way bids that are not actually transfers (like the 1NT response). hence my suggestion that the OP might supply a suggested defence to them to speed the game up.

I would probably bid: 1♦ - 1♠ - 3♠ - 4♣ - 4♦ - 4NT - 5♥ - 5♠. Think RKCB is justified on South hand once North has confirmed a diamond control, and not sure 4♥ really added much? Avoids the hopeless spade slam and usually makes. Misses the excellent club slam though.

And all the EBU congresses are online, so you get a day's bridge for a tenner or so

Short answer yes, it's too complicated for an event that's presumably short rounds and designed for simple systems. I don't play in the Acol room either, but I do play Acol. It's quite common in congresses or event like Lockdown League to play against prepared clubs and transfer responses, inverted raises, muiderberg, multi, weak jump shifts whatever But those events are six to eight board rounds with enough time to prepare. Generally I like playing against transfer responses, I get extra space for a free double, there's a cheap cue bid plus the chance to overcall, what's not to like? However, some of these responses are not transfers, so not susceptible to overarching principles on transfer defence. The 1S is two-way (presumably with a puppet rebid of 1NT?) and might or might not show diamonds, the 1NT response is two-way and might or might not show both majors with unspecified strength. If somebody turned up playing that in a two board round on a random club night I'd be a bit hacked off. I'm sure I could come up with a defence, but if you caught me on a grumpy night I'd make darn sure I'd bottomed it out with my partner before we touched a card. If you missed a board, while I nailed down what a double of a 1NT response means, and whether 2D over your 1S is diamonds or a cue bid, well that's life. My suggestion would be, to test the system properly, enter it in events with longer rounds where the opponents can prepare without missing half a round. You might also offer a ready-made defence to the bids that are not actually transfers? (It used to be a requirement of an EBU licence application that you supplied a plan for the defence to use). Good luck with the system though!

I agree with TMorris. It's worth looking again at partner's initial pass as dealer. You are playing Acol with three weak two's so that is a pretty routine non-vul weak 2♠. Now the auction is an easy 2♠- 4♠. I think the later 2♠ was an attempt to compensate. So I would mainly focus on what constitutes an acceptable weak two. In this situation you "know" that partner has not got an opening bid. So they are limited to 11 hcp and don't have six spades. With an experienced partner I'd bid 3♣. With a beginner I'd hog with 3NT if trying to win matchpoints or bid 4♠ if wanting to give them practice.

Not guilty, North was declarer at our table

I sat west and my opponent played the AS. Is there an emoji for wailing and gnashing of teeth?

If anyone is interested, the EBU posts pdfs of all its old magazines here English Bridge magazine and diary | English Bridge Union (ebu.co.uk) If you go to October 1958: sceye PDF-File Reese's quote is on page 48. You will see that FSF was already the popular choice of the panel. The editorial on page 5 is interesting context on the "ban conventions" attitude prevalent amongst some players at the time.

I would absolutely alert it as it is not "natural" under EBU Blue Book requirements: 4 C ‘Natural’ bids and passes 4 C 1 The following are considered ‘natural’ for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings (see also 3E1):(a) A bid of a suit before the opening bidder’s second turn to call which shows that suit and does not show any other suit. A natural bid before the opening bidder’s second turn to call shows 4+ cards, except for a minimum opening or response in clubs or diamonds which only need show 3+ cards. Bids later in the auction also only need show 3+ cards.Preference bids, completion of transfer bids and raises may be on shorter suits Fourth suit forcing ("FSF") (not showing the suit) is played by just about every Acol player, and we all alert it. Or look enquiringly at bidder's partner until they wake up and alert. Norman Squire might have thought otherwise but I suspect he was in a minority of one. Many British players in the 40's had a distrust of conventions, so I think this was a bit of flim-flam. Ten years later in 1958 Terence Reese infamously called FSF a "pitiful crutch". He later changed his mind and adopted it. As for forcing I play: At the three level it's forcing to game. At the two level it is forcing for one round. Squire's 12 point hand is enough. Partner's minimum bid can be passed. But if partner's bid shows extra strength, or if I bid again, it's game forcing.

Have just played in a congress where the time allowance was 45 minutes for 6 boards and generally it seemed to work. The TD had to adjust scores occasionally on incomplete boards. I think we were late twice out of 16 sets.

BBO has free competitions every day where you play with the robots. These are good for practice and if you hover over a bid you are considering, they telll you what it would mean. If at all possible I'd recommend lessons with a teacher. And depending where you live, perhaps try to use the methods that are popular in your home country.

I reckon the differences are pretty marginal, so wouldn't over-think it. Ask yourself, and your partner, which style you enjoy more and feel most comfortable with.