glen

Agree with Elianna - there is not really anything standard in bridge, so saying "standard" doesn't disclose - instead simply describe the bid without using the word standard

During the last ACBL speedball, an announcement was made that finishing last in your section would get your entry fees refunded - from the look of some of the sections, there was quite a race to last!

As hotShot notes, what is all this about opening bid range, for an overcall?

In the move to less ACBL alerts, most style alerts (or alerting anything non-standard, if you could figure out what standard was) were eliminated - thus, for example, if you frequently open weak twos with five card suits, but not awful suits, it is no longer alertable. As mentioned above, all style implications should be disclosed if the bid is asked about (BBO provides a short white text box for this full disclosure - I guess short was the old full). Also it should be marked on their convention card, imo.

This, and aging customer base

Thanks for the link. This article appeared in the September 06 issue of The Bridge World, with typos such as 'This puts “active ethics” to the text' fixed (since BW editing is close to perfect). Thus the article predates Cohen's decision to retire from top level bridge, disband his partnership with Berkowitz, and leave Berkowitz alone at the altar of January's Master Solvers' Club (note how BW editors still keep that quote after Solvers). It seems to me that Cohen is following Bergen's path, moving out of top level bridge and into more teaching, but I don't know much of the details. As to Berkowitz, he is one of the top US world class players, and I will be interested to see what partnership he forms in the future, and whether it is a big club partnership.

First, if it was up to me, either/or openings, that are non-forcing and one of the options is 4+ length in the suit bid, would be banned. Thus you would not face case 1. I don't believe cases 2 and 3 should stress a world class partnership out. Second, at the top levels, strong teams have supporting individuals including non-playing captains, coaches, and advisors, and some of these are assigned the task of reviewing the methods of the opponents and preparing countermeasures. Two of the best pairs in the world for doing this are Eric Kokish/Bev Kraft, and Chip and Jan Martel. If you were to represent your country, I hope you would have the appropriate support for your team, and you would have had the opportunity and time to participate in practice sessions that involved some of these strange methods. Third, for all openings that involve a suit bid (i.e. not a notrump bid, or a call) in an either/or variation, such as in cases 2 and 3, the base countermeasure is relatively consistent and straight forward (double as value showing, or passable takeout, depending on the situation, mostly natural bidding, see Countering Vexing Bids). After a little while, you will find that your opponents, while good and experienced, are being placed in uncomfortable spots by their systems, and soon, instead of being stressed when an opponent "opens 1♠ which shows 0-8 HCP and any possible distribution" you are looking forward to a good result. And then you realize these nasty methods of the opponents do not actually fundamentally change bridge, which is about bidding to your spots, and nailing the opponents if they are in a bad spot. So your partnership is still "trying to win by using our best bidding methods and judgment", except your best bidding methods include countermeasures to the opponents methods, which is nothing new to the demands of top level bridge. There was a reason why I quoted my musical reference on the morning of the 25th. As to your reference, I vastly prefer the overproduced Don Was Bonnie to the Was Not barebones Bonnie. And this response was composed to the sound of the US scoring their third and fourth goals.

Actually its not as clear as you make it out to be. For example, the Hacketts are tougher to prep for than Jianming-Lixin's Precision.

1) Because unusual is not the same as usual, or even the same as ususual. I bet you and your regular partners have discussed your defense to mini, weak, and strong 1NT openings. You may even play diffferent defenses based on the strength of the opening. Which defense applies when a 1NT opening is split range? Are you sure your pard is on the same wavelength? Yes, with my regular partner I'm sure that we are on the same wavelength. We play agreements that are not focused on being optimal, but on being certain. No, I agree that preparing 1 defense is easier than preparing 3. However that does not "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests", but just makes some contests easier than others. Even the systems that "standard" experts play require some prep work on understanding. For example in the 08 Worlds, we had: England - J&J Hacketts: natural. non-weak NT France - Bompis-Quantin: mostly natural, non-weak NT However their systems & style are very very different: J&J: 14-16 NT in 1,2, 5cM possible 4 card majors, can be canape if weak frequent light openings semi-forcing NT response to 1♦/♥/♠ 5 card weak twos 2♦/♥/♠, very wide range B&Q: 15-17 NT, usually no 5cM 5 card majors, 4♦s unless 4-4-3-2 exactly likely playing forcing NT and 2/1, but cc does not state - there is mention of 2♣/♦ relays, no details given 2♦ Multi in 1,2,3 positions, 6 card major, 5-10 2M 5-5 weak in 1,2,3 positions, 5-10 3X openings are transfers in 1,2 positions Thus prep work for two mostly natural systems is quite different. Still allowing J&J and B&Q in the event did not result in your "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests". Note this post was written while listening to the Vince Guaraldi Trio.

Right now we have: Players will need to devote their time and energy towards making defenses to all the systems of all the potential opponents. I don't see why adding the word unusual (or the less used ususual) and bolding the word "all" twice results in: "change the fundamental nature of bridge contests"

extras, no clear direction

"Repeated Jacoby Transfers" is on pages 651-652 of Bridge Conventions Complete by Amalya Kearse, 2nd edition, 1990. It might be in the first edition (1984). Kearse does not reference the source article, but I believe it dates from the 70s in The Bridge World, or perhaps early 80s: In the Sep. 1981 issue, in the What's New in Bridge series: Extending Jacoby Transfers by Jim Hicks In the article, 1NT-2♦;-2♥-2♠ is a flat game try/slam try, in the table "Details of Second-Round Transfers"

This is the kind of post that makes me wonder why I bother posting to these forums. ... Yet I get this attack, accusing me of some sort of attack on Justin and being somehow jealous of him having a bridge convention named after him. Yes, Han should not have taken a shot at you on this. Justin, in his blog posting did say "This is why I have come up with transfer extensions." Hopefully Han will retract. Justin's Transfer Extensions This was Justin's thread on the subject: BBO Thread 8685

A form of two-way transfers was published in The Bridge World in the 70s

World class weak NT pairs that use transfers include: Martel-Stansby Dubinin-Gromov Pazur-Zawislak (in a 10+-13-) For Martel's thoughts, see what he said here: Martel Interview starting with:

I never saw much point in this on bad hands - finding a major fit just spurs the opponents into action. I would prefer: 1NT-2♣-;any-3m as bad invite or close to it. A weaker hand with a 6+ minor just signs off. Good invites just bash game. Using this approach, one can take out the ♣s invite out of the 2♦ response in the above structure. 5-4/4-5 major invites are troublesome in many NT structures. If you play: 1NT-2♦ as ♥s weak, or 5+♠s invite+, one can bid it with 5-4 in the majors invite (i.e. 5♠s) if opener always super accepts with 4+♥s, such as: 1NT-2♦;-? -- 2♥ denies 4♥s, and now 2♠ NF invite -- 2♠ 4+♥s, would not accept ♠ invite -- etc. Likewise: 1NT-2♥ as ♠s weak or ♥s invite+. After 2♥: -- 2♠ denies 4♥s, and now 2NT NF invite with 5♥s -- 2NT 4+♠s, would not accept ♥ invite -- etc. Even without these considerations, I like the structure as posted and hope to see it in action.

There is a considerable difference between: 1NT-2♥ transfer; and 1NT-2♥ various In 1NT-2♥ transfer, either opponent can act with short ♠s. In 1NT-2♥ various, the player after the 1NT bidder is frozen - not enough to take direct action over 1NT, and now not enough to compete after 1NT-2♥;-2♠ since risks finding out that responder has a nice hand without primary ♠s.

Well if this was available, I would pick the best player in the world, and then ask "what system partner?"

Wow, and England was not even on the Fred/Santa Claus list of "Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Poland". Has this sensible set of regulations resulted in a lack of talent development?

imo, the regulations need to be more open and more consistent. In particular, for top level bridge: - Since current regulations allow point showing bids in various forms and spots, make it consistent and allow all point showing calls that either show no particular hand type or a balanced/close-to-balanced hand type; - Since current regulations allow for transfer bids in many circumstances, allow them for all calls – any call that shows four or longer in a known suit is allowed. These are simple, consistent, open regulations that top level bridge players can handle, albeit some will be grumpy for a while.

Another reason for the USBF instead of the ACBL was that the ABA (American Bridge Association) was not involved in the ACBL.

The human side: The Madoff scheme hits home How I Got Screwed by Bernie Madoff

p-1♠;-3♣(fit showing)-3♦®;-4♦(void)-!, as KRex recommended, not including his BTW details

This is completely aimed at HUMs and contradicts other rules... Consider a standard system. Pass = 0-10hcp any (obviously 2-level and higher openings excluded). So pass cannot be defined as balanced, and the player isn't obligated to pass with AQJxxx-x-Qxx-xxx for example. So I'm not sure if this is the approach you're suggesting. A normal 0-10 pass is covered under 1 (bid shows a point range, does not imply specific hand types) - there is such a variety of hand types for pass that the partner of the passer can't assume anything.

imo, in strong competition, these two generic bids should be allowed: 1) A call that shows that a particular point count range, and this call can be pass or, if the opponents bid, double, or if the opponents have doubled, redouble; 2) As with 1), but the hand can be further defined as balanced or close-to-balanced. However except for 2), 1) should not be legal if the hand type or types are explicitly or implicitly known, and fall outside the legal limits, such as the partnership will only use the opening with specific hand types, or will not open with many specific hand types such that the remainder, that does open, is a predictable set of hand types that would not be a legal bid. This means that a 13+ pass is legal, a 0-7 2♣ opening is legal, a double that promises 16+ is legal, a double that shows 6-9 is legal, a 1NT opening that shows 2-5 is legal etc. This means a 0-7 2♣ opening would not be legal if the partnership could also pass 0-7, and thus 2♣ implies a random opening with some decent shape. Partnerships would be expected to know how to defend against point showing calls, assisted by the publication of recommended methods.