glen

This was in The Bridge World quite a while back (Mike Massimilla, "Three Method Twists", March 00 BW), and Karen & I (and others with weak twos in ♦s) played it before and still do - we define Pass-1♦/♥/♠;-2♣ as a "weak two" in ♣s. I still would like (albeit unlikely to happen here - if it doesn't I'll blog it later to cover it) bidding theory discussion on 1) is showing degree of fit important on first response 2) is showing less than a limit important via a non-2M raise --- --- > Jim Hudson, "On Passed-Hand Raises", August 05 BW main value (of two-way Drury) is judging what to do when opponents compete - not necessary if responder has limit since opps have not enuff values to compete 2♣: limit 3+ trumps, 2♦=single raise 3 trumps, 2M=single raise 4+ trumps > Gary Bernstein, "TATA Drury-Fit", December 04 BW "tell-ask-tell-ask" Drury Fit - 2♣: 3 trumps, 2♦: 4+ trumps. Cheapest new suit bid ask, step replies involving no shortness or shortness > Alvin P. Bluthman, "All-Purpose Passed-Hand Major Suit Raises", August 06 BW 1NT: includes 3 card limits, 2M: single raise, above 2M: various 4+ raises

Did I see this correctly: Bidding 1♦-Pass-2♣-X;-2NT-All Pass You are on lead with ♠ KQJ102 ♥ 52 ♦ 97 ♣ QJ86 and you lead the 2 of spades, and partner (who doubled) has: ♠ 5 ♥ Q7643 ♦ A543 ♣ K7 What in the world is your point here? It can't be these players are cheating, since why would they lead the 2 to the singleton 5? And to not want to them to play just because they are bad is not your call. Or was the 12 card double hand completed by the ♠ ace?

The other interesting question about bi-Drury is whether the split should be on trump length or strength, for non-disclosure reasons. For example one could play: 2♣: limit Drury, 3+ trumps 2♦: constructive Drury, 3+ trumps 2M: I have a "raise"

Some of the advantages point to knowing if responder has just 3 trumps ("degree of fit"). However that assumes there are no follow-ups to determine trump length with not-bi Drury (or the follow-ups cost too much bidding space). For example one could play: 1M-2♣ (3+ trumps);-2♦(some game interest at least)-? 2♥: 3 trumps 2♠+: various hands with 4+ trumps Likewise one can use Lawrence style Drury.

Bocchi-Duboin: 2♥: waiting 2♠: 5+♥s 2NT: 5+♠s 3♣: 5+♦s 3♦: 5+♣s In 04 and 05 was 3♣=6+♦s, 3♦=6+♥s See also ETM Gold pages 30 and 92-93. However do you perhaps mean 2♦ is strong, unlimited, and natural?

that's great, thanks!

Would it be possible for the final results, including all post-game adjustments, to be posted on the tourney results site, not the intermediate result before the TD makes additional adjustments? I would like the tourney results to reflect what is sent to the ACBL if possible.

In ACBL tourneys (online or f2f) your examples are not alertable (regardless of "alien to anyone only familiar..."), so are you talking about other events where these bids might be alertable, and, if so, what are these events?

By MYXOs you mean? Chris Ryall's Weak Two Archive: Myxo That is you don't mean a sound weak two, you mean quite a strong hand, and that these bids are forcing, artificial, openings? The thing I like about the idea of the OP, and the idea of multiple weak hands, is that the opening bid is non-forcing, yet no suit is known, putting a lot of pressure on the opponents. Likewise, though you can't play it much anywhere (in the link above, scroll down to the bottom to ""Wilkosz" -the Polish 2 diamond"), 2♦ as unknown major and unknown other suit, weak. That would be my first choice if allowed in Australian events.

This reminded me of this thing years ago: 2 Way 2s It was: 2♦: either: a.) decent weak two in ♦s, no four card major, 6-10, or b.) anything goes preempt in a major, 0-7, not good six card suit if 6-7. 2♥: either: a.) decent weak two in ♥s, 6-10, or b.) anything goes preempt in ♣s, 0-5, at most one of top three honors in suit 2♠: either: a.) decent weak two in ♠s, 6-10, or b.) anything goes preempt in ♦s, 0-5, at most one of top three honors in suit

What about iphone speedballs - what is the speedball's chance in cell?

a.) I find this very annoying as well B) b.) It forces the use of a period

Thanks - generally it helps to have these (relevant details) in the op. How did the ZT work out?

often the TD "hangs around" until South bids to help get things back on track - I don't like that the TD left, imo, early

Fantoni, East, just had: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqt864hj987d92cq5]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Nunes opens 2♣, 10-13. Fantoni, with 5 points, relays with 2♦

I dislike this type of table action

t-walsh is mid-chart under "3. * All other constructive rebids and responses are permitted" See charts in this document No doubt anything unliked will be ruled as "non-constructive". Thus it appears the ACBL Defense Database (ACBL Defense DB) will be oriented to just allowing (aka stopping) opening bids.

I've played this as 6+ opening minor, too strong for 3m rebid. In Victory I had: 1m-1M;-2NT rebid by opener shows 6+ in the minor, 2 or 3 in M, no other four card suit. If not 3 in M it shows a hand stronger than just bidding 3m, about 17/18+ HCP, with some spread out values (if concentrated values then make a reverse or jump shift into suit with values). If 3 in M has a hand that would bid 1m-1M;-3m in standard or stronger. Over 2NT: - A bid of 3m shows a poor hand, up to 7 HCP, and denies 5+ in M; opener will usually pass unless holding a near game force in own hand. - 3om is an artificial asking bid and gives room for opener to describe hand type; it is GF unless responder passes opener’s rebid. ... Opener with 3 in M can bid 3M to show a minimum (15-17), or bid 3OM (artificial) to show a maximum (17/18-22). So 1♣-1♠;-2NT-3♦;-3♥ shows 17/18+ and 3♠s. - Jump new suit bids by responder over 2NT show shortness and fit for opener’s minor.

I get some nice hits on this seaching for "Transfer Walsh" in google, with the double quotes around Transfer Walsh. http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22transfer+walsh%22

You picked a fine time to go mini mum

How is 16 balanced handled? Is 2NT-3♣ a non-forcing ask?

First, to echo most of the others, not a stupid question. I played a modified Polish system for a bunch of years, where: 2♣=Precisionish 1♣=all the usual hand types, minus hand types moved to 2♣, plus all the hand types in a standard 2♣ Other options include using 2♦ to replace 2♣ - this 2♦ opening sucks, but doesn't come up a lot - in the July ACBL bulletin, you can see some of what would be involved to use 2♦-2♥(waiting);-2♠ as GF balanced or ♠s - another idea would be to play 1m as forcing, including a GF in the minor, so that 2♦=22+ balanced or a GF in a major. If you have Multi available you could: 2♦=22+ balanced or weak2 in a major (also could include GF in a minor if you want) 2♥/♠=natural GF

It means a step closer to $1 per board per player

ACBL site says "all regionally-rated events will consist of 24 boards per session". Cost is either $15.50 or $14.50 per session. Good to see NABCs are not competing with regionals.

We are seeing a general trend towards moving Lebensohl to the scramble: - Better Minor Lebenshol: (2x) - Double - (pass) - 2NT asks doubler's better minor - lhosnebel, Mike Cappelletti notes in the July BW: Once 2NT asks for better minor instead of puppets in all former Lebenshol situations, it can be employed consistently as a two-suited scramble