glen

In the latest issue of The Bridge World, Kokish/Kraft started calling Polish type systems "Little Club systems", which I happen to like. It seems though the op was looking for big, not little.

The best version of downfall: http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononholly...ng_of_downfall/

Just in case I need to rtfm again, handviewer can access a single deal in myhands, such as, for example: ....bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-103428497-1223755219 however handviewer, at this time, cannot access a single deal in the new archive, perhaps using a format such as: ....bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?archive=archivepath,hand=1,room=CR

--wrong thread--

Its quite complex - the 2NT ask shows at least two of the top three hearts (someday somebody will write some book about this) - now responder's replies depend on whether responder is certain opener has the trump ace or not. This caused this at the club: After 1♥-2♠;2NT-4♥ Opponent: What was two spades please? Novice partner: A spade singleton or void, heart fit, any strength Opponent: What was four hearts please? Novice partner: Way One Opponent: Weight Juan? Novice partner: Yes Opponent: What's a Weight Juan? Novice partner: Its not away won, its way one Opponent: What does it show? Novice partner: Depends if my partner is certain I have the trump ace or not Opponent: Why does that matter? Novice partner: The replies are encrypted Opponent: Encrypted replies, is that legal? Novice partner: Don't know, just started playing bridge last week Opponent: What does it mean if you have the trump ace? Novice partner: I don't remember, there are thirty four encrypted replies Opponent: What if you don't have the trump ace, what does it mean? Novice partner: I don't remember Opponent: But it is Weight Juan? Me: Director, the opponent is asking questions in a supercilious tone! Opponent: What is supercilious? Me: Its cilious, but better Opponent: Director, I was non cilious! TD: Dummy is not allowed to call the director Opponent: I'm not the dummy! TD: And you don't know what supercilious means? Novice partner: I going to take up Scrabble, it only has seven letters, unecrypted too!

I prefer a non-serious approach involving multi-way splinters. For example here is the 34 way out spade splinter: 1H-2S (multi-way S splinter) 2NT asks: --3C Ways 22-34, 3D asks ----3H Ways 30-34, 3S asks ------3NT Ways 33-34, 4C asks --------4D: Way 33 --------4H: Way 34 ------4C: Way 30 ------4D: Way 31 ------4H: Way 32 ----3S Ways 27-29, 3NT asks ------4C: Way 27 ------4D: Way 28 ------4H: Way 29 ----3NT Ways 25-26, 4C asks ------4D: Way 25 ------4H: Way 26 ----4C: Way 22 ----4D: Way 23 ----4H: Way 24 --3D Ways 14-21, 3H asks ----3S Ways 19-21, 3NT asks ------4C: Way 19 ------4D: Way 20 ------4H: Way 21 ----3NT Ways 17-18, 4C asks ------4D: Way 17 ------4H: Way 18 ----4C: Way 14 ----4D: Way 15 ----4H: Way 16 --3H Ways 9-13, 3S asks ----3NT Ways 12-13, 4C asks ------4D: Way 12 ------4H: Way 13 ----4C: Way 9 ----4D: Way 10 ----4H: Way 11 --3S Ways 6-8, 3NT asks ----4C: Way 6 ----4D: Way 7 ----4H: Way 8 --3NT Ways 4-5, 4C asks ----4D: Way 4 ----4H: Way 5 --4C: Way 1 --4D: Way 2 --4H: Way 3

For bidding space (and other reasons) couldn't you play: 2♠: non-weak hand with a minor. 2NT asks, and then: -- 3♣: AK/AQ/KQxxxx in ♣ -- 3♦: AK/AQ/KQxxxx in ♦ -- 3♥: slam try in ♣ -- 3♠: slam try in ♦ -- 3NT: slam try with 5♦s 2NT: weak hand in a minor (can be played with some strong options as well) --3♣/♦: pass or correct Then you have 3♣ etc. available for things like the next post:

To show how a waiting bid (puppet/relay etc.) can be used for bidding space, let's make the proposed structure: with 0-3 pts bid the 2 level with 4+ major, or bid 2♦ first with 4-9 pts you bid 2♦ first with 10+ pts bid 3 level with 5 good card suit or bid 2NT 2♣-2♦;- --2♥: asking ----2♠: 4+♣s, no 4cM, 0-3 ----2NT: 4+♦s, no other 4 card suit, 0-3 ----3X: 4-9, natural The cost of the waiting bid, compared to the proposed structure, is that 4+♦s 0-3 ends up having to bid 2NT, instead of the direct 2♦ bid to show this. However 10+ now rebids 2NT or 3X, instead of 4X or 4NT, 4+♣s 0-3 rebids 2♠ instead of 2NT, and after 2♣-2♦ (0-9, if 0-3 no 4cM), opener can bid above 2♥ naturally. Keeping the 0-3s out of 2NT: 2♣-2♦;- --2♥: asking ----2♠: 0-3, no 4cM. If opener now bids 2NT (non-forcing), responder bids 3m with a 5+ minor ----2NT and 3X: 4-9

Please use this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_bridge and see the sections: 1) American Bridge Teachers' Association (ABTA) Book of the Year Awards 2) International Bridge Press Association (IBPA) Book of the Year Awards

I like this and the rest of the proposed structure. There is the question of bal 10-12 and exactly 2♦s and no 4cM - 2♣ or 1♥ could work - I prefer 2♣ with the 10-12 3-3-2-5.

You point them to this thread and they say "foget 'bout it" (see thread title)

According to Fred's parameters (a basic auction, frequent, forgetting alleged agreements, serious tournaments) there are only penalties for repeat offenders. Thus, in Fred's example, the TD might say "well, this is the first time you forgot something somewhere around page 187, so you now get the preliminary warning".

Yes, there are pairs that will sometimes "screw up basic auctions" in serious tournaments. For example this will occur in the upcoming Bermuda Bowl. "Sometimes" ≠ "frequently". True, but frequently was an over-requirement for this discussion

Yes, there are pairs that will sometimes "screw up basic auctions" in serious tournaments. For example this will occur in the upcoming Bermuda Bowl.

because the field is bidding 15+10 to 3NT, and you want 13-15 to pass 1NT to avoid 15+6 at 2NT. imo, it is better to have 1♥ and 2♣ as the 3+ bids (instead of 1M). After 1♦-1♥;-2♥ you can relay for hand type and range with 2♠, and still have room to stop at 2NT. If you just have 2♥s, start with 1♦-2♣, and now opener's 2♦ is unbal, no game interest opposite 10-12 flat, and that hand type passes 2♦, since will have 3+♦s.

Learning is not a linear process. Say you read a book that teaches delaying drawing trumps on some hands. As you attempt to incorporate this technique on some hands you will delay drawing trumps when you would have been better served to just draw trumps immediately. Thus you will go down in some contracts you would have made before trying to improve your game. However after many hands of experience in delaying drawing trumps, you will gain control of this technique and your skill level will improve. Thus I don’t think the solution is to play less. Instead play lots, and expect to hit stretches, some that can last many months, where you are a weaker player than just before. It is not a linear process, so you can’t measure improvement in short intervals. I encourage you to establish one or more stable partnerships that play at least once a week. Establish a partnership even if it means you have to play with somebody who you feel is weaker than you are. Concentrate on being the best partner you can be: supportive, easy going, not results oriented. When people see that you can be a nice partner, you will start to get partnership opportunities with stronger players. Many bridge players are older, and their number one priority in a partner is not results, but finding somebody pleasant. Being super nice will get you nicer partners, and these types of supportive players can aid in your learning this complex game. Finally I recommend that advancing players consider some one-on-one teaching, from an expert teacher. The teaching process will involving some playing together, as well as plenty of discussion after each playing session. If you can afford it, one should budget for at least 100 hours of teaching time over a number of months. This one-on-one time with an expert teacher will greatly accelerate your non-linear learning process, if you pick a teacher that works with you giving you feedback, tips, and guidance during your time together. However, given you are 21, you may not have the finances to afford one-on-one teaching. However, being 21, you have the time to invest many years in getting better. Thus, please be patient with the non-linear process of becoming a better bridge player, and remember it is important to enjoy the process, putting up with the bumps and bruises we all get along the Tour de Bridge course.

GCC requirement is 5-4/4-5+ and 10+ HCP This is the same thing that makes Flannery legal. http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf Was there a rollback the prices when 3NT made 10 tricks?

Thanks - works on the iphone 3GS

Speaking of club games, and taking advantage or not, at a local club recently, we had one opponent, then the other on the same hand, have a bidding accident of some sort that we allowed them to self-correct. No problem, as they got to the final contract they would have got to without these accidents. This is right thing to do at this club. The only unusual circumstance was that we were playing in the worldwide event, and since our opponents got to a perfect-cards contract (a common occurrence in this event) they scored particularly well - thus, worldwide, there would be a considerable number of pairs that would have done very slightly better had the opponents not been able to self-correct their accidents. As to a psych at a club game, if the opponents are ACBL Life Masters or stronger, I believe that if we want to consider presenting to all that these players have mastery of bridge for life, that this includes the ability to cope with the occasional psych. At some point we have to take the training wheels off for our Life Masters.

Do you mean declarer plays the J; LHO plays low, and then declarer sits there and decides what to do? If so, I don't see why this is not classy, it just seems really annoying. It's like if there's AQ on the board, and declarer leads small to it and then thinks what to do. It's highly annoying, but I don't know if it's classless, more clueless. Yes, that is what I mean. The reason I don't think it is classy is because players who engage in this practice are often hoping that one of their opponents will eventually tell them who holds their Queen via their mannerisms. Cluelessness is another possibility as is being under time pressure and not wanting to waste time thinking about who has the Queen if it happens to be singleton on your left. But about cluelessness, perhaps I should have mentioned that many of the items on my list are examples of the type of behavior I would hope experts (who by definition are not clueless) would not get involved in. Average players frequently do some of these things simply because they don't know any better. IMO experts are supposed to know better and should be held to a higher standard. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Fred, if you had stayed in Canada a little longer, you might have faced this situation: Your expert opponent, in a top level match, when faced with a 2-way finesse for a Queen, leads the Jack and then sits there for several minutes before deciding what to do. Would you think this was not classy? Would it be possible for you to remark in a public forum, such as the bar afterwards with your teammates, that you thought it was not classy? In hidden text, is the reason:

Well: 1) I do care what you think (and I appreciate the time you take to post your thoughts) 2) I don't think subs should psych in almost all circumstances. and this was before and after this thread.

Segment 4 (of F-N, USA1) was not vugraphed

Bill: You know what happened? Barry didn't show for our team match the other night, no call, no nothing! Mary: That's not classy! National champions all agree on that. Bill: Yeah. Turns out he was killed in a car accident, but still! Update: and now for a prime example of judging without the facts, together with hit-n-run posting techniques, please see the following smashing post:

See today's bulletin: USBF2009news9.pdf $250 = nothing 12 Positioning Points = ouch!

?