glen

Think of the manners people show on internet forums. They make a posting on a forum, then never respond to anything, to show they care a little something for anybody's replies.

would answering your questions help you to keep playing bridge?

With 5242/5224/2542/2524 the concept was that without a M fit you were heading towards 3NT. So instead the focus was just on whether OM was weak or not, since OM was the mostly likely lead. In addition m was deliberately kept hidden so if the opponents led a minor it might be responder's second suit. So 1NT-2red;-2M-3NT COG with weak OM and 1NT-2red;-2M-cheapest;-cheapest-3NT is COG not weak in OM With 5242/5224/2542/2524 slam interest there are specific auctions, such as 1NT-2H;-2S-3D 5-5+ blacks or 5-2-2-4 slam try A lot of this structure was around finding a 5-3 fit if opener has 5 in OM 5143/5134/1543/1534 go 1NT-2red;-2M-3♣, which handles shortness in OM. 5035 can go this route, but was intended to bid 1NT-2H;-2S-3D.

For the use of 1NT-2♦ as a transfer/relay, we used this in 2001-2002, and it is described in ETM Victory as Jacoby Stayman (this was me being funny) on page 63, and details starting on page 66: ETM Victory I arrived at this since Bergen/Cohen were recommending to always super accept Jacoby transfers with 4+ in M. I determined that this was viable for hearts (since if you have a 9+ card heart fit, the opponents often have an 8+ spade fit, and trying to stop in 2H lets them in). I had played Forcing Stayman back when I played a weak trump in the early 80s, so it seemed feasible to blend the two together. The ETM Victory 1NT-2C Stayman structure had "Delayed Scanian", which should have been useful but it turns out only really needed in bidding contests (where you want to avoid 3NT that everybody gets to). Later the great Jeff Rubens wrote about Inverted Stayman in The Bridge World, and I grafted that on to a complete notrump structure called EMT Notrump 06, where 06 is 2006. I didn't use the structure, and now almost a decade later, I can't remember why I made the design decisions I did, though if I studied it I could figure things out. I do know that I had identified Choice of Games was a big success factor, and if anything the structure could even use more COG. Thus Straube is more an authority on this structure that I am at this time

Your agreement should not be based on high card points (hcp), but points

this is obviously true, but the question is what is the net result, how many times is 3NT down compared to making

So let's take a look at the USA1 "fight back". Here it is: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=41228 When one or both sides bid game it is not a part score swing. None of the 42 IMPs scored by USA1 were part score swings. Not a majority, not some, but none.

You are now moving the goal posts from "Most IMPS are won or lost on the 3 level in bid-defend-double decisions" to "the majority lost on part score swings", after you admit that "It is true that most IMPS are lost on defense"

It's not old thinking, it's current thinking. As I type this I'm watching England-USA1. First board is choice of slam, 6NT makes, 6♦ fails on an opening lead ruff, 14 IMPS. Another board 6♠ comes home and 12 IMPs. There are zero imps due to "3 level in bid-defend-double decisions". Please identify matches you've seen where "Most IMPS are won or lost on the 3 level in bid-defend-double decisions".

No, and especially no at IMPS You don't want to be in 40% games at MPs, and you don't want to bid 40% not vulnerable games at IMPS Competition over forcing club reduces slam bidding accuracy

Once you find or told the code, you can see it in videos like this one, that has an overlay of the hands during the bidding: see for example, Polish Club opening with weak hand on board 19, and on strong hand board 21

With 4 teams out, we have: ENGLAND BULGARIA SWEDEN DENMARK FRANCE NORWAY NETHERLANDS TURKEY ROMANIA ITALY IRELAND ESTONIA RUSSIA CROATIA

If you drop all results of the 5 teams from the 2014 cross table (the event used to Q for the Bermuda Bowl), you get: ENGLAND SWEDEN DENMARK FRANCE NORWAY NETHERLANDS TURKEY ROMANIA ITALY IRELAND ESTONIA RUSSIA CROATIA

I think playing 1♣-1♦;-1♥-1♠ as 0-6 negative is too wide a range

I find the "dozen or so" a vast understatement, given the scope of the 3 pairs cheating. The amount of medals that need to be redistributed is staggering

Since France finished 9th in the 2014 European Teams, they might now qualify for the Bermuda Bowl since 3 of the top 6 teams have had to withdraw

People are missing a lot if they don't read bridgewinners, such as a third pair confessed today to cheating, and their team withdrew from the Bermuda Bowl

bots like to like to lead majors on auctions like 1NT-3NT and 2NT-3NT if Stayman not used and they have no decent suit

Playing with a BBO expert, auction by opponents with 1NT-2♣-2♦-3NT I led a fourth best ♥, dummy has KQT. Declarer wins K, and then on some winners discards T and Q of hearts. At the end expert discards all his hearts, keeping a winner and a loser. Discussion: me: with my discards and declarer discarding heart QT, clear i have heart ace expert: it was his three of diamonds that threw me and you also discarded the three of clubs - both were the lowest I saw

Thus these two hands bid 2♣-2♦-2♠-Pass: 2♣ Opener: ♠ J7 ♥ AQ942 ♦ 10 ♣ QT653 Responder: ♠ 3 ♥ KJ53 ♦ AQ65 ♣ K984 Consider the size of the IMP swing if vulnerable

My pickup partner held: ♠ AKQT54 ♥ A3 ♦ --- ♣ AKJ93 2♥-3♥-P-3NT-All Pass Said she passed 3NT since she "trusts her partners", and that all experts play 3♥ as Michaels

I think it is an essential convention for any world class non-big club system that opens majors reasonably light. First, almost everybody agrees you need to open one of major on 11 counts and some shapely 10s. Second, most agree you need a very strong hand for opener's jump shift, 1M-1N-jump new suit. In bridge bidding problems, some 18 counts are deemed not good enough for a jump shift. This means that 1M-1NT-2 of new suit below 2M is a ridiculous (10)11-17(18). For example it goes: 1♠-1NT-2♥-?, and you hold: ♠ 5 ♥ Q94 ♦ K954 ♣ AT542

not every player is both a 2/1 and 1/4 expert

deleted by me as not "post hand chit-chat"

one thing I like about his scheme is that 1NT-2♣-2♦-2M invites with 4 in M (often staying at two level), and 1NT-2♦-2M will often stop at the two level on a 5 major invite