glen

After 13 rounds in the Open Final we have 5 pairs close to .5 IMPs per board or better: 1) +1.13/220bds 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) +.77/180bds 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 3) +.48/180bds 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) +.47/180bds Gromov-Dubinin: 1NT 12+-15 1-2, 15-17 3-4. 1♣=16+ (18+ Bal 3-4), 1♦=1-2 4+ Unbal 11-15 (can have longer ♣s), in 3-4 as 1-2 OR 10-14 Bal OR 4-4-1-4 10-15. 1M=5+ 11-15 OR in 1-2 4-4-1-4 11-15. 2♣=11-15 6♣ OR 5♣+4cM, 2♦=5-10 6(5)M, 2M=M+m (3-7 5-4+ NV, 6-10 5-5+ V), 2NT=6-10 5-5+ minors 5) +.46/120bds 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 Gromoller-Kirmse use a neat trick 2♣-2♦;-2♥ is 19-20 Bal, 2♣-2♦;-2NT shows ♥s GF or near GF

Now to confuse the Butlers we have the partnership of Versace-Sementa playing Holland (no, not the Netherlands, but the English partnership of Holland-Armstrong).

Thanks for everybody's comments. I've been wondering about a Big Multi approach, a change to 3): 1♣: 15+ no five card major, if balanced 15-18 or 22+ 1♦: 15+ and at least one five card major, or 19-21 balanced I like the 1♣-1♦;-1M sequences showing exactly 4, and if the opps compete over 1♣ opener's M bids still showing exactly 4.

and what stat by pair would you suggest they put their faith in then?

Say you have a system where both 1♣ and 1♦ will handle all the 15+ hands (only), and both openings need to be forcing. How do you split the hand types? Here are a few starting options, but there are lots more to consider: 1a) 1♣=18+, 1♦=15-17 1b) 1♣=15-17, 1♦=18+ 1c) 1♣=15-17 or 21+, 1♦=18-20 2a) 1♣=15+ bal/semi, 1♦=15+ unbal 2b) 1♣=15+ unbal, 1♦=15+ bal/semi 3) 1♣=15+ bal or a five card major, 1♦=15+ not balanced, no five card major 4a) 1♣=15-17 bal/semi or 18+ unbal, 1♦=18+ bal/semi or 15-17 unbal 4b) 1♣=18+ bal/semi or 15-17 unbal, 1♦=15-17 bal/semi or 18+ unbal 5a) 1♣=15-17 bal or 15+ with a four card major, 1♦=18+ bal or no four card major 5b) 1♣=18+ bal or no four card major, 1♦=15-17 bal or 15+ with a four card major

Was the double alerted as a penalty double?

I found myself evaluating the structure based on what I like/don't like, as opposed to its merits. Here's my feelings: 2m: very nice 1NT: never bought K's Power idea (I bought the book, not the idea), and even K doesn't use the range anymore - so I would play 1NT 14-16, 1♦ 13/14+ ♦s or 17-19 Bal. 1M: I like including a 4M minimum here, in order to keep the opps concerned that they are missing their own M contract. I believe Kokish would think that this opening style would make it harder to judge some competitive decisions. 1♦: as is, or if modified for 17-19 Bal, very nice 1♣: doing a lot of work but it is the lowest opening so it can be the workhorse - I would be tempted to move all ♦ hands below a game force into 1♦.

Sementa-Angelini in Pau - Butler of -.69 IMPs before being benched. Fantoni-Nunes Butler in Shanghai +.84 (1st) in the round robin Sources: Pau: After 19 Butler (see just after Pizza of San Marino) Shanghai Bulletin 9 (see page 18) Edit: Sementa-Angelini now unbenched to play against Iceland

After 19 joining the pairs close to 1 imp per board (and a few of our top 6 slide from there) were: 3) Nilsson-Wrang: 1NT 14-16. 1♣=16+, 1♦=11-13 bal (can have 5 card major) or 11-15 unbal 5+m (if second suit, almost always a major) or a 4-4-4-1. 1M=5+ (not a 5-3-3-2 in 1st or 2nd). 2♣=5-4/4-5+ minors 11-15, 2♦=10-12 6M, 2M=weak, 2NT=11-15 6-4/4-6 minors 4) Kholomeev-Khyuppenen(Khiouppenen): 1NT 15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=4+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly, 1♣=3+, 2♣=strong (22+ if bal) or 5+♦s weak two, 2♦=18-19 balanced, 2M=weak, 2NT=20-21

I actually invented Hamilton in 1979. I gave it to my partner, we played it at the club. A couple of days later, playing it again, we bid it and get: "Oh, I saw this before, I think its called Cappelletti" Two tables over, we bid it again and get: "Oh, I saw this before, I think its called Hamilton" Oh well, I knew it should work at this point. At least I didn't spend any time naming it. Perhaps they could have blended names to get Hamletti. --- --- I'm looking forward to the Bocchi-Duboin split: it will be interesting to see what they keep from their system and what is new with their new partners.

Clear 1NT. Pass the 2♥ transfer. Combine with the 1NT w/ singleton thread.

After 11 rounds and the Butler at Pau, we have these pairs at +1 IMPs per board, or close to it for pair 6: 1) Bocchi-Duboin: partnership spliting up due to leading the field, 1NT 15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=4+ unbalanced, 1♣=natural or 12-14 balanced, 2♣=18-19 balanced, 2♦=GF, 2M=weak, 2NT=20-22 2) (same average, less bds played than 1) Kopecky-Volhejn: modified EHAA (some Fantunes), 1NT 11+-14 can be semi-bal (5M, 6m, 4441, 5422, 5431) except 3rd seat (14-17), 1M=(13)14-20, 2M=5+M 9-13 (not other major ,not 5+ minor), 2♣=6-13 both majors, 2♦=6♠ 6-8 or 5-5+ ♠+m 6-13, 2NT=9-13 5-5+ ♥s+m. 1♣=natural or 18-20 bal or 21+ any, 1♦=natural or bal 15-17 (10-13 if 3rd seat) 3) 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) 4) Zhukov-Timakhovick: 1NT (14)15-17, 1M=5+, 1♦=5 or 4-4-4-1 with black singleton, 1♣=natural or balanced 12-14 or 18-22 (that's what cc says but 2NT is 20-21(22)), 2♣=GF, 2♦=weak 2M or 22-24 Bal or 19-24 any 4-4-4-1, 2♥=5-5+ ♥s + any 5-10, 2♠=5-5+ ♠+m 5-10 5) 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 6) Piekarek-Smirnov: 1NT 15-17(18), 1M=5+, 1♦=5 or 4-4-4-1 with black singleton, 1♣=natural or balanced 12-14 or (18)19+ any (not 21-22 bal). 2X all 5-11 (excluding 2♦ strong type): 2♣=5+♥s + 5any, 2♦=Weak two M or 21-22 bal, 2♥: majors (perhaps 2♥ often has just 4♥s due to 2♣ opening), 2♠: 5+♠s and 4+m, 2NT=5-5+ minors

Certainly I like 1NT 6+, may be GF 1M-? --1NT: 6+, forcing, less than GF will be flat or short in M with 3+ length in other 3 suits ---- after opener's rebid, cheapest bid by responder not M is artificial GF ---- pass, cheapest bid in M show less than an invite ---- raise of opener's last suit, jump to 3M, 2NT (if not artificial GF) are all invites ---- other bids, not including the artificial GF, are natural GF --2X: 5 or longer, up to an invite, non-forcing --2NT: natural invite, fewer than 4 in the other major

If you define 1NT as "INV+ Relay", which to TDs will mean "Relay" and "Invite or bettter", I promise you ACBL TDs will decide you are playing a "Relay" without GF values, and will not allow it in Mid-chart events. In other words, they will not agree with your "interpretation of the rules". Edit: Here's a term that might produce another reaction: 1N: Waiting, Inv+. No TD, not a relay, just one of those waiting bids everybody uses. Oh, you read the non-natural & out-2-lunch BBO forum - I didn't know TDs did that

If you have two groups, and drop a bunch of teams at some point, why didn't they: Round 1: Play n boards against each team in your group -- end of round 1 - equal number of teams dropped from each group Round 2: 2a) Team plays n boards against each team left from Round 1 group 2b ) Team plays 2n boards against each team that joined from other group. Net result: team plays 2n boards against each other team in Round 2 In the current format, does Round 1 boards count at all in the top placement?

I suggest you pin (and lock of course ) a new thread to this forum with this information (got a problem with ACBL BBO - email acbl and they will help you...). Here are two recent tourney starts: Given the above, they would not know to email acbl if they have a concern. As I noted before the TD handled it well - this was just a communication issue on the player learning how problems were handled by the TD in speedballs. Btw when I see the Multi etc. annoucement, it is tempting to invent a GCC legal convention called Milkosz.

How does a 1NT GF relay change the need to stretch (i.e. Josh's "passing is terrible"), aside from perhaps making it harder to do so?

Wei/Ewen Precision had a 8+ requirement for responder opposite the limited openings. Field testing by everybody, including Wei, proved it a poor idea.

First a comment: If 1M starts at 10, it will be Keith Urban's "Days go by" before you get the benefit of the 1NT GF auction to a neat spot. No kid man. If you allocate 1NT to the GF hands, and are stuck in ACBL GCC and quasi-mid land, you could try: 1M-? --cheapest suit bid can be as short as 3 if fairly flat --other suit bids below 2M are 5 or longer, non-forcing, but up to invite with 5 --jumps in suits are decent 6 or longer suit, invite After 1M-cheapest suit bid;-? --Opener's 2M shows the cheapest suit bid -> thus 1♥-1♠;-2♥ is ♣s, 1♠-2♣;-2♠ is ♦s --The cheapest suit bid shows 6 or longer in M and no second suit, or 4 in responder's "suit" or, if 1♠-2♣;-2♦, flat hand. After 1M-cheapest suit bid;-cheapest suit rebid-? 2M: flat hand, only 3 in first bid suit, less than invite values fourth suit: 4 or longer in first suit bid, invite values only if flat or will bid 3M over 2M 2NT: flat hand, only 3 in first bid suit, invite rest: natural invites with natural 1st suit bid For examples: 1♥-1♠(could be as short as 3);-2♣(4♠s or 6+♥s)-2♦(4+♠s, invite only if flat or will bid 3♥ over 2♥);-2♥(6+♥s, no second suit) 1♠-2♣(could be as short as 3);-2♦(4♣s or 6+♠s or flat)-2♥(4+♣s, invite only if flat or will bid 3♠ over 2♠);-2♠(5+♠s, no second suit) 1♥-1♠(could be as short as 3);-2♣(4♠s or 6+♥s)-2♠(5+♠s, invite) For the 3-card suit, there are other approaches along the same lines, such as: After 1M-cheapest suit bid;-? --Opener's 2M shows a 4 card raise in responder's suit - only passed by flat hand with just 3 in responder's suit and less than invite -> thus 1♥-1♠;-2♥ is 4♠s, 1♠-2♣;-2♠ is 4♣s --The cheapest suit bid shows 6 or longer in M and no second suit, or 4+ in the cheapest suit or, if 1♠-2♣;-2♦, flat hand. After 1M-cheapest suit bid;-cheapest suit rebid-? fourth suit: asks hand type rest: natural bidding Example: 1♥-1♠(could be as short as 3);-2♣(4+♣s or 6+♥s and no second suit)-2♦(asks);-2♥(6+♥s, no second suit)

In the speedball, nothing stops the board from being adjusted by playing on For example 1NT-(2♦)-2♥, transfer to ♠s - 2♦ bidder now delay alerts 2♦ as both majors - call the TD, put in box "misinformation, big problem" - say bidding continues -P-2♠-Double-3♣-Double-All Pass and you go for 1100 - the TD arrives, you say "I bid 2♥ transfer, then found out that 2♦ as both majors - I called for you" - the TD will review the facts, and then will adjust the board to Avg+ - even better, if you make 3♣ doubled you could say "everything is cool now"

To return to this, as you can now see (and/or bet), it is not a fairly reasonable extrapolation of "expert standard". I think what you were missing in the sample was the use of Bridge World's Master Solvers' Club. If you read 20 years or so of MSC, you get a good understanding of expert standard thinking, and this is very valuable investment of your time. As to pclayton's "I'm sure Jeff Rubens will love to read all your swell ideas" - actually I'm not so sure: he loves card combos and never-seen-before clever hands a lot more than inspecting gadgets.

In a speedball there is not enough time for the traditional bring the TD over ("DIE-WRECK-TORE PLEEZZEEEE"). have a court case, get a ruling, and proceed with the bidding. 1 or more boards are lost in a speedball with this method. Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board. The TD will arrive when they can, and, unlikely other bridge, still continue to play out the board when the TD arrives. The TD will collect the necessary information, and then adjust the board as appropriate. In short in a speedball, trust the TD and play to the clock. I think this unwritten rule is quite sensible, and has worked out well. Thus I believe the TD actions in this case were correct for the event type.

We can map the possible non-GF hand types with a matrix. Across the top we have: --- Weak --- Constructive --- Invite --- Constructive is defined as game is possible opposite the right maximum Along the side we have: Balanced without 4 in other major --- Balanced with 4 in other major --- 5-4-3-1s/5-4-4-0s short in opener's suit, not exactly 4 in other major --- 5-4-3-1s/4-4-4-1s/5-4-4-0s short in opener's suit, exactly 4 in other major --- 6+ suit, without 4 in other major --- 6+ suit, with exactly 4 in other major --- Support Then we start mapping the matrix boxes to bids/sequences. At some point, many designers have then given up on 1NT as a GF relay, and instead have used the cheapest suit bid as the GF relay, in order to have 1NT handle much of the less-than-GF hands. If you continue with 1NT as the GF relay, the next question is whether you are in ACBLland, and if not, can one or more of your 2/1s be artificial with less than GF values. If they can, you might consider: 2♣: intended-as-forcing less-than-GF range check with 1) long ♦s 2) balanced, constructive or invite 3) exactly 4♥s if 1♠ opening 4) long ♣s invite The 1♠ opener bids 2♦ if minimum, 2♥ or 2♠ if extras, 2♥ or 2NT+ if great hand. Over 2♦, 2♥ by responder shows exactly 4♥s. If this seems workable, you could use 1♠-2♦ as a transfer to ♥s, and 1♠-2♥ as 1=3=4=5/1=3=5=4 exactly, and 2NT as transfer to long ♣s constructive, 3♣ as long ♣s weak. If you are in ACBLland, I would give up using 1NT as the GF relay, as you can't use any 2/1 artificiality to assist in handling all the hand types, but you can use 1NT "forcing" or "semi-forcing" to artificially handle stuff, thanks to those methods being played by many before they closed the barn door.

You could play modified Meyerson (mM): Double: Major/minor two suiter --2♣: asks longest suit (pass with long ♣s) --2♦: asks best major --2♥/♠: to play 2♣: Both majors or ♣s (the lol adjustment, though they just alert it as majors and then ♣s get introduced later) --Pass: either I have ♣s or I bet you do --2♦: bid your best suit --2♥/2♠/3♣: Pass or correct --2NT: describe your hand, 3♦=weak, both majors, 3NT=♣s & extras 2♦/♥/♠: natural This handles all combos, assuming 2NT=minors. Personally I found it a bit frustrating playing the any M+m bid - I never knew how to evaluate the hand. And I don't like 2♦ natural - it gives either opener or responder a good chance to steer to a major suit contract if right. Thus I mixed everything up to produce ""Confuse a Cat" (Concat): Double: ♠s & ♥s OR ♠s & ♣s OR long ♦s --2♣: asks longest suit (pass with long ♣s & shorter ♠s) --2♦/2♠/3♣/3♦: pass or correct --2♥: to play, except overcaller to raise if ♠s & ♥s 2♣: ♥s & ♣s OR ♥s & ♦s or long ♣s --Pass: either ♣s or betting overcaller has ♣s and/or opps have ♠ fit --2♦/2♥/3♣/3♦: pass or correct --2♠: to play 2♦: ♠s & ♦s --2♥/2♠/3♣/3♦: to play 2♥/♠: natural This is just like Kleinman's Super Natural after 20 adjustments.

Isn't missing 5♥+4m and 4♥+5♣ missing 2 (or more) combos?