glen

I strongly like (1x) 1M (p) 2NT as a raise, if you define the 2x cuebid differently than usual. What we have being playing is (points are "support points"): 2NT: 13-16 3+ card raise, not appropriate for splinter game forcing raise cuebid: a.) 11-12 raise (we play Bergen even after overcall so this is often just 3 card) b.) 17+ raise c.) natural 2NT d.) natural 3NT with reasons to explore e.) GF without any other good bid Now (1x) 1M (p) 2x (-) 2M can be dropped by some of the hands that would have had to bid (1x) 1M (p) 2NT in more standard methods. Therefore (1x) 1M (p) 2x (-) 2M (-) 2NT is a "serious" natural 2NT, still non-forcing since in our style an overcall doesn't promise a lot of points.

In NABC would play in pairs, perhaps would not attend fall NABC but a subsequent one. When one plays "an obtuse card", one wants to follow all the appropriate policies and guidelines, so I would like to know what they are. At this point, I haven't seen the requirement to "carry around a card for the opps", and I don't know even if we did whether the opponents would like being presented with a card or not.

Actually the system as given (now) is 2-board mid-chart legal starting with this summer's chart change. As to the 2-level vagueness, point taken. I've used the Fantunes approach as a model, but needed to extend the two bids to 14 points since mid-chart requires 15+ for the strong bids. To counterbalance that, I've taken out the 4♠s second suit possibility out of 2♣/♦/♥, and kept the Fantunes idea that if the two bid is only 5, it is a 5-4-3-1 or 5-5 shape. The concept is if you open 1X with these 10-14 hands, it can often let the opponents in with a 1♠ overcall - opening on the two level changes the risk/reward for the opponents introducing ♠s, and allows 3X to be bid with 3 card support if they do overcall 2♠.

Hopefully we will see FN play more than just the trans-nats - oh, wait, the trans-nats are trans-gender

Yes, I didn't see that edit before now. Under the "All weasels are equal, but some weasels are more equal than others" provision, I like 1♦ as: a.) 10-17, 4♠s, unbal b.) 10-14, fewer than 4♠s, unbal, a hand with too much playing value to open just 2m or 2♥ The starting post is now edited to reflect this.

Thanks - I'm using the charts you noted in: ACBL Convention Cards - starting on page 15 of 60 2NT is legal as GCC #6 "opening bid at the two level or higher indicating two known suits, minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits" I guess I could convert 1♦ into 10-17, catch-all that shows a hand not covered by other opening bids, and the 2m bids could deny an 8 card or longer suit.

I'm surprised we haven't seen this twist yet: 1♥: 8-11 not 5+♥s - subsequent free ♥ bids show ♠s 1♠: 8+ 5+♥s (1♣-1♠;-2♥ shows ♠s, 1♣-1♠;-2♠ shows ♥ fit). Rest: 12+ Of course not best to include this in a thread about learning Precision

I would like comments please on why it would be wrong for me to playing the following system in mid-chart NABC pairs events starting in the fall. I know that you will likely not want to play such a system, but I'm looking for comments on why it would be wrong/bad idea/stupid/silly/unproductive/ineffective etc. for me to play it, given I want something unique to the field. 1♣: either: a.) 13-15 Bal NV, 11/12-13 Bal V or in 4th seat NV b.) 10-14 1-4-4-4 exactly c.) 18+ unbal any d.) 19+ bal 1♦: (edit: WAS exactly 4♠s, 10-17, unbal for first 7 replies below), catch-all: a.) 10-17, exactly 4♠s, unbal b.) 10-14, fewer than 4♠s, unbal, a hand with too much playing value to open just 2m or 2♥ 1♥: 15-18, either: a.) 15/16-18 Bal, not 5♠s b.) 15-17 unbal without 4♠s 1♠: 5+♠s, 10-17 1NT: 10-12 NV, 13/14-15 V and in 4th seat NV. 2m: 10-14, 5+, fewer than 4♠s, singleton/void if just 5 in the minor 2♥: 10-14, 5+♥s, fewer than 4♠s, singleton/void if just 5♥s 2♠: 5-9, 5+♠s NV, 6+♠s V 2NT: 10-14, 6-5+ in majors The Balanced ranges less than 19 can have 5♥s in a 5-3-3-2 or 5-4-2-2 shape (4 of a minor), and can have 5 or 6 card minor with no singleton/void (6m is optional). After 1♥-1♠(waiting/negative);- --1NT: 15/16-18 Balanced or near balanced --2m, 2♥: like openings, but 15-17 --2♠+: 15-17 shapely with 5+♥s Please feel free to be harsh.

... and if ♣s were 3-1/1-3 instead, then what would you say?

Board 14: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=s92ht85daqj7cak72&w=skj654h742d932cjt&e=sqt8hkqj93d865cq4&s=sa73ha6dkt4c98653]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding was 2♥*-All Pass * weak, could be just 5♥s It is silly to claim this bidding is confused or derailed. Before you toss out claims against world class players, get a clue.

Board 13: [hv=d=n&v=b&n=s4hakj986dq8732c7&w=sqt92h2djt4cqt962&e=sakj63h43dak6ca53&s=s875hqt75d95ckj84]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding was 2♥*-X-3♥-Pass;-4♥-4♠-All Pass * 10-13 6+♥s It is silly to claim this bidding is confused or derailed.

Board 11: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=s62hq64dj4caqt542&w=skj53hjt75da82c63&e=sq7hak92dq3ckj987&s=sat984h83dkt9765c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This had some big results elsewhere, but was +1 IMPs for Sweden in this match. Bidding at our featured table Pass-Pass-Pass-2♣;-2♠-All Pass -100 At other table 3♥ made for EW It is silly to claim that 1 IMP swings are a sign of being confused, or being derailed.

So let's start with Board 9: [hv=d=n&v=e&n=s94ha87da976caj97&w=sq73h954dk42ckqt2&e=skj852hkqjdq3c865&s=sat6ht632djt85c43]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding was 1♦-1♠-Pass-2♠-All Pass +110. Result from other table: 3♦ by NS down 1. It is silly to claim this bidding is confused, or the pairs are derailed.

Say one makes a system that maximizes (somehow) partial/obstruct since these might be considered the critical success factors - couldn't this system be hurt in the game/slam area, beyond the 1.5+-%?

I see you are unable to provide the board numbers to back up your shots. I accept your implicit retraction. Edit: attempt to PM about "shots" to C did not work - he has that shut down Shots = critical, insulting comments You said, about two world class pairs: - they were confused - unable to come back on track You need to provide the board numbers that you feel show that - the various attempts to avoid this just confirms the implicit retraction

Great! So, moving along to the next step, which boards were you talking about? Remember that you were taking shots at: BALDURSSON Jon JONSSON Thorlakur 0.32 89 280 Iceland CULLIN Per-Ola UPMARK Johan 0.12 26 220 Sweden So make your shots count (or take your shots back)!

Did the links work for you? Did you get the pairs wrong?

"That was probably the easiest user interaction ive encountered in the last year. So simple my parents could do it." Posterous Written about here: Techcrunchies on Posterous If you are in IT, here's a funny video: Website is down

Here's the link to the Ice-Swe match: Iceland-Sweden Open Final match Also see Friday's bulletin starting on page 7: Final Friday bulletin Now point out the boards where "To me it looked like they had some kind of special defensive both different to what is used by standard classic players and that caused problems for them" applies, and tell us what to consider. --- --- First you suggest a complex statistical analysis, but now you doubt it will be able to produce some kind of proof - cancel my request for the raw data.

This " looked to me" and "to me it looked like" is pretty vague - could you post or refer some hands here at least? I do think you missed the point of showing the systems of the top ten Butler, but that does not surprise me based on your posts in this thread and before. Although it is annoying in this case, I do appreciate your unique views on subjects, and in this case, the idea of sys vs sys comparison. Now if you just figure out some way to get me the raw data.

I'm sorry it was confusing to you - please just focus on the counts at the bottom. If additional counts or groupings would be useful, please post them to this thread once you've worked them up. As to how x plays against y, I would need the detailed data for this in a raw data format such as .txt or .xls - I would then generate the corresponding database and get the result sets necessary.

Here's the top 10 of the Open Final (17 rounds of 20bds each) - yes, some pairs have nn9 boards played: 1) +.83/299bds Brogeland-Lindqvist: 1NT (14)15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=4+, 1♣=2+ (suspect 3+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly), 2♣=strong (22-23 if bal), 2♦=2-7 6M (5M possible fav) or 24+ Bal, 2M=8-11 6M, 2NT=20-21 2) +.64/260bds Armstrong-Holland: 1NT 12-14, 1X= 4+ (open lowest 4 except in 3rd can open 4cM), 2♣=23-24 Bal or GF, 2♦/♥/♠=sound except 1 or 3 NV 5+suit 5-9, 2NT=20-22 3) +.55/220bds Khokhlov-Matushko: 1NT 15-17 V or NV3-4, 10-12 NV1-2. 1♣= Either 12-14 Bal OR 11-16 4-4-1-4 OR 17+ Unbal OR 18+ Bal or NV1-2 15-17 Bal, 1♦=4+ 9-16, 1M=5+ 9-16. 2♣=10-16 6♣ OR 5♣+4M, 2♦=6M 3-9, 2M=M+m (3-8 5-4+ NV, 5-9 5-5+ V), 2NT=19-20 NV1-2, Rest 6-10 5-5+ minors 4) +.50/300bds Brink-Drijver: 1NT 15-17 or 1st fav 9-12. 1M=5+, 1♦=5 or 4-4-4-1 exactly, 1♣=natural or balanced 12-14 or 18-20, 2X=std (2NT=21-23) 5) +.43/180bds Gromoller-Kirmse: 1NT 11-13, 1♠=5+, 1♥=4+, 1♦=4+, 1♣=3+, 2♣=19-20 Bal OR 25-26 Bal OR any near GF OR GF ♥s OR solid 8-9 tricks, 2♦=weak two in ♥s or any GF not ♥s, 2♥=4-4+ majors 6-11V 5-9NV, 2♠=5+♠s weak, 2NT=21-22 Bal 6) +.42/239bds Wladow-Elinescu: 1NT 15-17 (16-17 3/4), 1♣=15/16+ , 1♦=11-15 1+♦ (cc not clear on Bal range but must be 11/12-14 1-2, 12-15 3-4). 1M=5+ 11-15. 2♣=9-14 6♣ OR 5♣+4X, 2♦=18-19 BAL or 6m 14/15-18 or 6M 15-20, 2M=Fav 5M+4m 7-10 Rest 6M 10-14, 2NT=10-14 6♦ OR 5♦+4♣ 7) +.41/220bds Karakolev-Danailov: 1NT 14-16, 1♣=16+ (or playing value 14+), 1♦=11-13 BAL OR 10-15 w/o 5cM and not 2♣ opening. 1M=5+ 10-15. 2♣=10-15 6♣ OR 5♣+4cM, 2♦=4-9 6(5)M OR 24+ Bal, 2M=5M+4m 4-9, 2NT=20-21 8) +.39/220bds Isporski-Kovachev: 1NT (13)14-16, (9)10-12 1-2 vs Vul (not clear). 1♣=16+, 1♦=other bal range<16 (11-13 or 13-15), or 10-15 not 1M or 2♣ opening. 1M=5+. 2♣=10-15 6♣ OR 5♣+4cM, 2♦=4-9 6(5)M, 2M=5M+4m 4-9, 2NT=(21)22-23 9) +.35/240bds Kurka-Mraz: 1NT (11)12-14, 1♠=5+, 1♥/♦/♣=4+ (open lowest 4 card) except 1♣=4+ or 4-3-3-3 exactly, 2♣=22+, 2♦=(4)6-10 6M OR 22-23 Bal, 2♥=5♥s + 5any (4)6-10,2♠=5♠+5m (4)6-10, 2NT=5-5+ minors 6-10 10) +.35/240bds Bertheau-Nystrom: 1NT 14-16, 4th 15-16, 1st-3rd fav 10-12. 1♣=16+, 1♦=other bal range<16, or 11-15 4M+5+m or a 4-4-4-1. 1M=5+. 2m=11-15, 6+m or 5m+4om 2M=weak, 2NT=12-15 5-5+ minors Using the counts approach that effervesce was nice to provide last post (thanks!): Primary NT range: Four 15-17, Three 14-16, Two 12-14, One 11-13 1NT opening ranges Use of 9-12 or 10-12 NT sometime: Four Four big club pairs (none of top Five) Two weak/strong 1♣ openers All Six non-big club pairs play 1♦ as promising 4+ All Four big club pairs playing 1♦ as supernebulous (in particular they don't have a short ♦ opening as in Precision or Meckwell) Four full-time + Two part-time play Muideberg 2M (5-4/5-5 showing opening) Five play multi-2♦ - Three of these with a strong hand type possible Six and One part-time play 2NT as strong balanced Seven play 5 card majors, and Two play 1♠=5+/1♥=4+, and One plays 4 card majors

After 16 of 17 rounds in the Open Final we have 7 pairs above .4 IMPs per board: 1) +.76/280bds Brogeland-Lindqvist: 1NT (14)15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=4+, 1♣=2+ (suspect 3+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly), 2♣=strong (22-23 if bal), 2♦=2-7 6M (5M possible fav) or 24+ Bal, 2M=8-11 6M, 2NT=20-21 2) +.57/240bds Armstrong-Holland: 1NT 12-14, 1X= 4+ (open lowest 4 except in 3rd can open 4cM), 2♣=23-24 Bal or GF, 2♦/♥/♠=sound except 1 or 3 NV 5+suit 5-9, 2NT=20-22 3) +.55/220bds Khokhlov-Matushko: 1NT 15-17 V or NV3-4, 10-12 NV1-2. 1♣= Either 12-14 Bal OR 11-16 4-4-1-4 OR 17+ Unbal OR 18+ Bal or NV1-2 15-17 Bal, 1♦=4+ 9-16, 1M=5+ 9-16. 2♣=10-16 6♣ OR 5♣+4M, 2♦=6M 3-9, 2M=M+m (3-8 5-4+ NV, 5-9 5-5+ V), 2NT=19-20 NV1-2, Rest 6-10 5-5+ minors 4) +.48/280bds Brink-Drijver: 1NT 15-17 or 1st fav 9-12. 1M=5+, 1♦=5 or 4-4-4-1 exactly, 1♣=natural or balanced 12-14 or 18-20, 2X=std (2NT=21-23) 5) +.44/200bds Karakolev-Danailov: 1NT 14-16, 1♣=16+ (or playing value 14+), 1♦=11-13 BAL OR 10-15 w/o 5cM and not 2♣ opening. 1M=5+ 10-15. 2♣=10-15 6♣ OR 5♣+4cM, 2♦=4-9 6(5)M OR 24+ Bal, 2M=5M+4m 4-9, 2NT=20-21 6) +.42/160bds Gromoller-Kirmse: 1NT 11-13, 1♠=5+, 1♥=4+, 1♦=4+, 1♣=3+, 2♣=19-20 Bal OR 25-26 Bal OR any near GF OR GF ♥s OR solid 8-9 tricks, 2♦=weak two in ♥s or any GF not ♥s, 2♥=4-4+ majors 6-11V 5-9NV, 2♠=5+♠s weak, 2NT=21-22 Bal 7) +.41/240bds Wladow-Elinescu: 1NT 15-17 (16-17 3/4), 1♣=15/16+ , 1♦=11-15 1+♦ (cc not clear on Bal range but must be 11/12-14 1-2, 12-15 3-4). 1M=5+ 11-15. 2♣=9-14 6♣ OR 5♣+4X, 2♦=18-19 BAL or 6m 14/15-18 or 6M 15-20, 2M=Fav 5M+4m 7-10 Rest 6M 10-14, 2NT=10-14 6♦ OR 5♦+4♣ Wladow-Elinescu cc is not too clear - for example they likely do not open all 5♦+4♣ 10-14 with 2NT.

First on blogs and bridge theory, note Ken's excellent work at: cutebiddingatbridge (okay, its cue) and Ulf's great (when he's not too too busy playing top level bridge): viewsfromthebridgetablebehindscreens In ACBLand, the new mid-chart 15+ change will result in some interesting tri-structures - I'm posting this here as only those reading this far in this thread are likely to be interested in these options. For example, we can have: 1♣: 11-13 bal OR various unbal 1♠: 17-19 bal or semi-bal 1NT: 14-16 In a structure with two-point ranges for 11-16 with a four card major: 1♣/♦: two-under transfer, balanced only if 11-12 1♥: 15-16 Bal or 15+ unbal with no four card major 1♠: 17-19 bal or semi-bal 1NT: 12-14, not 12 if a 4/5 major Switching to 12-14/15-17/18-20 splits: 1♣: 18-20 Bal or natural unbal 1♥: 15-17 Bal or 15+ 5+♥s 1NT: 12-14 and 12-14/15-16/17-19 splits: 1♥: 15-16 Bal or 15+ 5+♥s 1♠: 17-19 Bal or 15+ 5+♠s 1NT: 12-14 If you want to comment/suggest/flame without posting, feel free to PM me.

If you want 11-19 balanced to open 1x, and you can't use 1M to handle a range, and you don't like 1NT with 11-13, your splits of 11-13, 14-16, 17-19 will be: S 11-13/14-16/17-19 c1) 1♣ / 1♦ / 1NT c2) 1♣ / 1NT / 1♦ c3) 1♣ / 1♦ / 1♦ c4) 1♣ / 1♣ / 1NT c5) 1♣ / 1NT / 1♣ d1) 1♦ / 1♣ / 1NT d2) 1♦ / 1NT / 1♣ d3) 1♦ / 1♣ / 1♣ d4) 1♦ / 1♦ / 1NT d5) 1♦ / 1NT / 1♦ I believe that d2 (as seen in Meckwell etc.) is the best: - 1NT is frequent - 1♦ 11-13 gets to finding a major fit as first priority - 1♣ 17-19 gives room for best game/slam investigation - no shared used, such as the Welland 1♣ in a c5 scheme I've wondered if it is better to flip the unbal minor suits: 1♣: ♦s Unbal or 17-19 Bal 1♦: 14+ ♣s Unbal or 11-13 Bal 1NT: 14-16 2♣: 10-13 ♣s Unbal