glen

Well Justin does not need to post here if he keeps hitting home runs like this today: the-negative-effects-of-professionalism-on-bridge-pros

However when overcaller bids immediately over the forcing pass, responder can get involved since opener will either have a spade fit and/or extra values based on HCP. With your examples: 1♣ - 1♥ - X - 1♠ PA - 2♥ - X 1♣ - 1♥ - X - 1♠ PA - 3♦ - X 1♣ - 1♥ - X - 1♠ PA - 2♥ - 3♣ 1♣ - 1♥ - X - 1♠ PA - 3♦ - 3♥ Opener's forcing pass does not show "no suitable call" (double does that), it shows a spade fit and/or extra values based on HCP, not shape.

Generally the best defence to baby psyches is that pass forces double, on hands that will either pass the double or show extras. All immediate bids show what they usually do but if they show or can have extras these are based more on shape. Double is a balanced hand without a stopper in the suit that might be a psyche, or a hand with no other good bid with 2 or 3 cards in the suit doubled. Key to all of this is that it makes runouts harder. Let's continue to use 1♦-1♥-X-1♠ as the example. Compare first to when X is penalty: 1♦-1♥-X-1♠-X-P-P-? Now the 1♠ bidder can redouble, or bid 1NT, or a suit, all which expose the psyche, or at the very least prevent ♠s from being a possible strain. Instead after 1♦-1♥-X-1♠-P-P-X-? Now the 1♠ bidder does not know if opener is about to pass the double, and any runout can hit the chainsaw. In addition it puts the partner of the 1♠ bidder in a bind if there is a runout that is doubled. 1♦-1♥-X-1♠-P-P-X-2♣-X-?. Does the 1♠ bidder have the blacks, and a preference should be made, or was the 1♠ a psyche? Here are a few more details: 1♦-1♥-X-1♠-? Pass: forces double Double: a hand that would rebid 1NT or 2NT, but does not have a spade stopper, or a hand with no other good bid (such as having ♦s and ♥s unbalanced with 2-3♠s). 1NT: natural, no extras, spade stopper 2NT: natural, spade stopper, values for 2NT based partly 5/6♦s. 2♣/♦: natural, if non-minimum will be shapely 2♥: cuebid, shapely hand, both minors 2♠: 4♠s, minimum and shapely hand etc. and after 1♦-1♥-X-1♠-P-P-X-P-? Pass: to play 1NT: natural, extras, spade stopper 2NT: natural, spade stopper, values for 2NT based on HCP 2♣/♦: natural, extras based on HCP 2♥: cuebid, both minors, game force based on HCP 2♠: cuebid, asking for stopper, game force based on HCP etc.

My recommendation for Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup pairs that have available a 2♦ opening bid for any use, is that the best is the Energy Sapping 2♦ convention. Just before the final deadline to submit cc's, send yours in with the 2♦ opening bid having at least four strange never-seen-before vague meanings, depending on seat and vulnerability. For example, you might have: 1-2 NV: 4+♠s and another suit, 0-10 HCP, must have ♥s as second suit if does not have ♣ ace. 1-2 V: Any solid suit without outside A/K, or a weak two in ♦s with exactly two of the top three honors. 3-4 NV: 15-17 balanced with exactly 2♠s, 3♥s. 3-4 V: 13-14 with either 4♥s and a longer second suit, or 6+♥s and no second suit. Note that these openings are optional based on the state-of-the-match. Define the 2NT response as "asking", rest of responses "to play", except provide a few exceptions where responses are pass/correct. If asked for further details, point out your partnership has never played these meanings before, and don't have any notes beyond what is on the cc. If asked at the table, point out the convention has never come up before. Now the energy sapping happens. The coaches (e.g. Martels, Kokish/Kraft) have to investigate (finding no previous hands), and prepare defenses. The players have to learn these complex defenses. They may have lots of questions about negative inferences and tendencies (answer to anything: we don't know, has never come up before). The coaches and players will focus a lot of energy in preparing to defeat the convention. Try as much as possible to find another call with any hand that accidently matches the 2♦ opening, and let the convention work as it does.

I can confirm it has something to do with Mexico http://www.acbl.org/about/hall-of-fame/biography.php?id=60

The Bridgefiles version seems to be scanned pages under copyright (without the copyright notice) posted online. Of course as csdenmark (Claus, the owner of bridgefiles) said in this thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/2705-censorship-of-forums/

This BBO thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44231-match-point-precision-1nt-bid-no-4-card-majors/ has a discussion and link (http://www.usabridge.com/html/precision__1.html) to the most famous of the 1NT without a four card major systems: Match Point Precision. This link has a picture of the book but should have mentioned that 1NT is without a four card major: http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/match_point_precision_opening_bids.html Many pairs using the system played 1NT as 12-15 instead of 13-15. In a regional pairs over 30 years ago (i.e. when the events were large), it seemed 40% of the field were using the system. Within five years, most had abandoned the system. Some reasons: 1) 2/1 (Hardy) became the new fad. 2) Precision systems such as Meckwell were more successful and were designed for all events, not just pairs. 3) The 1♦ opening had too many hand types, ranging from 1-1-7-4 to 4-3-3-3 to 1-4-2-6, and it was a mess if the bidding got competitive.

People playing these methods, albeit not named "Boston Jacoby", commonly use the sequence 1NT-2♣;-2♦/♥-2♠ as a game invite with 5+♠s. This frees up other sequences (1NT-2♥;-2♠-2NT) to be used to explore for the best game/slam, and it works well on 5-4 major game invites.

I was just about to post multiple hands to highlight the "man with no name" trilogy using a long stream of font symbols, when somebody changed the terms of service.

Both links seem to be a 13-15 1NT, not the 11-13 as op. edit: He is now adding more links, perhaps he will hit one with a 11-13 1NT (or maybe not as it turns out below)

Here's an example: www.bridgematters.com/express.pdf

If one reads the complete article, you would see the sequence 1♣-1NT;-P would not be used on that example. Ulf question: near the end of the article was "a minor inefficiency" a deliberate pun and/or an edit by Rubens?

Continuing the off-topic extravaganza bonanza, "their is noting wrong" gets 1,460 hits in google, in double quotes with that exact spelling, even though there is nothing wrong with it

Summary: 1♣: 17+ unbalanced, 18+ balanced 1♦/♥/♠: 4 or longer suit, 11-16, unbalanced 1NT: 13-17 (can be 12+ or 18-) balanced 2♣: 6 or longer, 11-16 2♦: three-way multi 2♥/2♠: five or longer major, four or longer ♣s, 13-16 2NT: five or longer ♦s, four or longer ♣s, 13-16 They may have changed the 2♥/♠ openings to now be 11-16, and they may not promise the second suit to be ♣s

and 1NT is?

There's an 80-20 rule (the Pareto principle, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) that applies to bridge discussions, but some consider that Sturgeon's Law (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law) applies the best.

Btw I had nearly the same auction in the Mississauga (near Toronto) regional a few years ago. I was in 2nd seat, and neither the 2♠ opener, the 2♥ responder, or my partner noticed anything wrong at anytime during the bidding, because opener bid 3♦ at their next turn, instead of trying to find a second 2♠ bid in the bidding box. The search in the bidding box could result in UI at the table. My partner passed because they had nothing to bid and was not paying full attention to the opponents bidding. At the table once partner had smoothly passed over 2♥, there was nothing to say anymore.

Since we don't know how the bidding ended we don't know "declarer's side", though I assume it was opener's. On this hand, the NOS is the NPEAS, or the not-paying-enough-attention side, and they suffer the NPEAS penalty, which in bridge can be significant. That's the way the bidding crumbles.

Generally speaking, investing a lot of bidding (actual bids, bidding space, schemes, memory, notes etc.) into finding the best partscores every time has a low return relative to efforts relating to games and slams. Most systems will find themselves in Burns-law-breaking (opps have more trumps) contracts occasionally. For example in standardish, responder would pass 1♥-1♠;-2♣ with 5-1-4-3 minimum, yet 2♣ will contain some 15-18s with no other good bid, sometimes having just 3♣s. Part and parcel of conventions like Gazzilli is that you don't expect the best result always, just that the gains outweigh the losses. However even when responder has to rebid 2♠ over Gazzilli, and not the easier 2♦ and 2♥ rebid sequences, doesn't mean you are in misfit city on all hand types.

Will be fun to cheer on FrancesHinden in today's semi-finals! :D update: sadly, board 23 was a 4-1 trump split

Op never confirmed that s/he determined by communication with the vugraph operator that there actually was a tank, and until s/he does that, this thread is hypothetical, and is merely a discussion of theory

and you confirmed with the operator that the tank took play? There can be gaps in internet connectivity when using wireless to connect to the net, and this would show up to everybody but the operator as a tank when there really was none.

imo, the best resource is: http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=editorial_dept&f=edgarkaplan/ksupdated.html Thanks to The Bridge World for making this available to all.

how about 1NT=15-17 and you invite with the same hands that the field will when they open a 15-17 1NT? Then for the 2NT rebid, you don't pass with the same hands that the field will not pass after 1x-any;-2NT.

Predating Segal & Robson, there was the concept of "Offensive Premium", which "determined how worthless the hand is on the defensive relative to its playing value". In reference to Ken's post, OCD predates bidding, but bidding added the necessary structure.