glen

Some gadgets are specifically designed to prevent this. I.e., better structures over 1NT, encrypted bidding sequences, etc. And transfer oriented relay auctions often leave you completely nearly completely in the dark about declarer and with complete knowledge of the dummy as compared to standard where both hands disclose a fair amount. Yes, but the starting post did not mention "transfer oriented relay auctions" - I was just answering the question, assuming the "highly artificial, very gadget filled, uber-discussed cuebidding" would communicate information not necessary at pairs. Also note that my answer applies to pairs events only, as the "highly artificial, very gadget filled, uber-discussed cuebidding" system at IMPs would mean: 1) Disclosure of information, but when it costs, it is often just a trick, and not a contract 2) The ability to reach game and slam contracts not found in straight-forward methods is far more important at IMPs. At pairs if you reach a slam and it makes, its a good board, and then, after you drop a trick on the next board, you lost the advantage. At IMPs, the slam is big when it makes, and losing the trick on the next board doesn't cost much.

I'm posting a reply here (after the ACBL kicking has finished), as there is a good quote of Benito Garozzo in another thread: To answer the question in the starting post of this thread, I would expect that "gadget filled, uber-discussed cuebidding set of methods" would do significantly worse at pairs (matchpoints), for two primary reasons: 1) disclosing useful information to the opponents on the way to normal contracts 2) lack of focus "to concentrate on declarer play and defense" as many brain cells are dedicated to gadgets, cuebidding rules etc.

This proposal just matches the Vista paradigm. You click on a card. A pop-up asks "Are you sure you want to play this card? To continue click Play" with buttons "Play", "Cancel", and "Quit Bridge". Using the ideas of the full disclosure cc, some pop-ups might be: 1) "Are you sure you want to play this card, as it gives a ruff-n-sluff? To continue click Ouch" with buttons "Ouch", "Escape", and "Pay $1 for GIB to play my hand". 2) "Are you sure you want to play this card, as another card will set the contract? To continue click no-set" with buttons "No Set", "Set the Contract", and "Play card and say lol" 3) "Are you sure you want to play this card, as it does not match your carding agreements. To continue click Confuse Partner" with buttons "Confuse Partner", "Wait another card before confusing partner", and "Pay $10 for online version of Lawrence book"

For the Cayne Camp, 2♦ showing ♦s and ♥s

I've been trying to figure out why I missed Josh's point of "But it's as though people don't notice that he in fact settled on an explanation of majors" I think I focused on: 1) RHO "eventually decides in all honesty he cant remember." 2) "At this point RHO leaves the table and his partner conveys that it is natural preemptive with clubs" 3) We now know what the bid means 4) RHO rejoins the table 5) "Partner now doubles 3♣, you don't alert" 6) "RHO now asks what the double was." However while 1 to 3 are okay, we actually have: 4) "RHO now returns to the table and believes that he was initially correct it is the majors." That is RHO, who was sent away from the table so his partner could explain the actual meaning of the bid, has now returned, and somehow decided to give the rest of the table the benefit of his updated view on the bid, even though he knows his partner just informed us of the real meaning.

In this TD-absent contest, I would lob it back at the court of the RHO, asking: "do you want me to tell you what it would be in some possible cases, or do you want me to tell you what it is based on your partner's information provided to us when you were away, and then you will have UI?"

Were you removed because you raised this issue to the TD, or what were your actions after the TD ruling?

I still believe it is better to start these on the half hour

Note the blog has now been updated in reply to this forum: Ulf Nilsson - Views from the bridge table

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sq743hj93dakj973c]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Pass-1♠(11-16, 5+♠s)-? Overcall or not? For the story, please see: Ulf Nilsson's Bridge Blog Do you think this theory is valid?

A Disciplined Diamond (L.S. Torkelson, Bridge World Oct 75): 1♣: Big, if bal then 18+ 1♦: 15-17 Bal OR 4cM + longer minor OR 3 4-card suits 1♥/♠: Five card majors 1NT: 12-14 Bal 2♣/♦: No 4cM, Six+ minor, or 5-4 in minors

As I noted in a 2006 thread this is what we were playing in the early 80s: In the early 80s my first system off-the-blocks (i.e. in play in regular partnerships) was Arctic Power Precision, partly named after a laundry detergent and meant to show some "Power Precision" ideas blended with Canuck stuff. 1♣: 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced 1♦: 15-16 balanced or 11-15 multi-suited (5-4-3-1/5-4-2-2/4-4-4-1/5-4-4-0/5-5-3-0) with no minor void and no five card major. 1♥/♠: 10/11-15, Five+ majors. 1NT: 11/12-14 balanced/semi-balanced, no five card major, no singleton/void. 2♣/♦: 11-15, Six+ minors. 2♥: 11-15, Flannery (omg!) or 4=4=0=5 or 4=4=5=0. 2♠: weak-two At the time I had not heard of "The System" (Dick Reed and Stormy Horn) and had only subscribed to Bridge World from 80 on. When I later ordered a whole bunch of BW back issues I was thrilled to see "A Disciplined Diamond" (75) and a few other articles about attempts to restructure the big club systems.

Lawrence in the January 08 ACBL Bulletin (page 54) gives this hand: [hv=d=s&s=sq8hak953dkqt8c73]133|100|[/hv] On the auction 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥, opener rebids 4♥ as "does not have much interest in anything higher. 4♥ is not a strong bid." He says 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥ is "16 (or so) points with specific values which include three (rarely four) excellent trumps and a good suit (in this case diamonds), and shows slam interest." Yes, he did say "in this case diamonds" even though responder had bid 2♣ - he likely meant clubs, as his typical hand is: [hv=d=s&s=sq8hak953dkqt8c73]133|100|[/hv] He says 1♥-2♣-2♦-4♥ is "game values and three (rarely four) trumps, but no controls in either of the unbid suits" (yes, there is only one unbid suit at this point, so he must mean unbid suits by responder)

Generally when faced with the "no agreement" or "don't know" or confused replied, reach for their cc. Sometimes even before you start reading it, they will remember. When you do read their cc, don't look puzzled even if it is the cc derived from a kindergarten finger-painting class - instead look like it tells you what you need to know and then keep the cc in front of you (if the opponents attempt to get it back right away, explain you will need it for the rest of the auction). Base your bidding on the cc, and then if that turns out wrong, call the TD, describe what happened, and how you acted based on their cc. Good TDs will protect you.

In this event did the opps have a cc, or were they not required to have one or two?

good spot. I see Robinson uses 2M-3M by opener to show a minimum, while immediate cuebidding shows extras.

I have the following three problems with the immediate cue approach: 1) It seems relatively poor for choice of game, which is a very underrated success factor. It seems one is locked into the major suit game or a higher contract, and one can’t play 3NT, which can be a better place to play. 2) It seems poor in the choice of slam strain, as it can’t clearly distinguish the degree of secondary fits. 3) It discloses a lot of information on the way to game. In the 80s some local mad scientists were using this approach against us, and had a cuebid bonanza on the way to 4 of their major. We were presented with a roadmap from the opening lead on. Non-disclosure on the way to game is another underrated success factor. However it is not like I’m thrilled with the patterning out approach. To use analogies in this thread, for me picking between immediate cue or patterning out is like deciding whether to hit a 6 or 7 iron on the par 5 tee, or like picking the very best sword to use against the approaching tank. In Hardy 2/1 (blue book) he had the 2M rebid by responder show 12-15 or so, no singleton, and thus places opener in charge of investigation or not. In the evolved style, where 2M covers a wider range of hands, the number one thing the partnership needs to sort out first is do they actually need to explore for slam. Thus some bid must be allocated to opener to show not much extra, and it needs to be something that does not disclose much as opener will play contract in the major. This bid needs to be low enough that responder, with extras, in HCP and/or shape, can show slam interest. However the bidding approach available for responder also needs to be able to offer choice of game. Methods that disclose too much when the partnership doesn’t have the assets for slam are flawed imo, and methods that don’t offer choice of game possibility will be long term underperformers.

I will reply in two posts – this post will discuss the lone wolf versus the establishment concern (the crackpot versus the rest of the civilized world etc.). First let me quote from Michael Lewis's MoneyBall Actually what Bill James faced was not just one famous baseball player, but the combined school of thought about baseball developed over many decades. Here we have a similar situation, the vast expert consensus versus a few “random non-famous” types suggesting possible improvements. I don’t think anybody should feel offended by Fred’s postings here, as he clearly speaks the truth, even though it might not be nice to hear for some. Lone wolves just have to accept they are not running with the pack. In particular: >> Fred is not rejecting the idea on the basis of its merits (or lack of them) – he is dismissing it for an advancing player solely because it is not commonly played in the expert community – this is quite typical with the introduction of new approaches and lone wolves need to accept that it happens all the time - Bill James faced this, and so did those, for another example, who believed in aircraft carriers instead of battleships. >> Fred is not “condescending” when he points out the lone wolves have no proven track record in which to authenticate their ability to discuss these matters. This is simply a reality check. In bridge we have seen quite poor players attempt to pass themselves as world class professionals. I’ve personally seen, nobody in our present company of course, a number of somewhat clueless people write bridge books presented as expert advice. >> Kind and sympathic reviews of an idea (or a set of ideas), in book and article format, are not sufficient to elevate an idea into best-of-class or better-than-the-experts status. It just means that the book or article presented thought provoking ideas in a decently written manner. Endorsement of the ideas arrives when the top players use the ideas. I think it is fair for Fred to have made his comments to the person looking for advice. I also believe those who have taken offence from his comments are out-of-line. While it is disappointing for inventors that Fred has decreased the number of guinea pigs available to try out new ideas, he is giving advancing players good advice to stay on the well-trodden path instead of trampling through the untamed forest. Take an advancing partnership that takes up cuebids as in this thread, and assume that the partnership, at some point, finds themselves unable to reach a good slam on a hand. Afterwards, they consult with a local expert, and guess what they find out – not how to cuebid the hand better, but they are playing the “wrong” methods. If they had used pattern showing methods, and were not able to reach a slam, the expert could provide valuable input into how they could have judged the mesh of values on the hand and suggested a potential sequence to get to the slam. Thus playing the expert consensus methods confers an advantage beyond the method itself. I believe inventors need to leave the taking up of their ideas to the early adopters, who get enjoyment at being the first to try out the very latest. It is a poor service to the bridge community for inventors to present their ideas as mainstream ready when they are just a few years off the drawing board. Instead the inventors need to understand what the current practices are, accept (and relish) their status as lone wolves, and live with the put downs of their ideas simply because they are new. It’s all part and parcel of being a “mad scientist” leading the way.

For tourneys, if the round changes and a hand is on trick 13, the software should not assign AVG-, or in some cases AVG+. Just play out trick 13 and score the board up.

I would use the Meckwell inversion on this. Double=optional Suits=single suited Pass=partner please double unless quite shapely. After partner doubles, a suit bid now shows that suit and another With this tool kit, I would pass, and then pull partner's double to 4♥, showing ♥s and another

Sure - for example in my 2002 Victory notes (Victory link) it was called partly serious 3NT, with the direct cuebid showing serious interest. It worked fine, and others have tried this approach as well.

Right, we have a free shot on finding west with the singleton ♥A. I think we should cash ♦KA (and ♠K) before we lead a heart up, though, so we don't lose to west's 5224 with ♥Ax and ♦Jx. If west then wins his singleton ♥A, he will have to play a spade and squeeze partner. Yep, that is an improvement. I don't see any better line for the contract. Phil, how did the play go at the table? I'll hold off responding. I think there's a lot more variations than that are being presented here. To give credit where credit is due, how about "I don't think there's a better solution to this hand than 655321's."

For Speedballs, we need a new button - "Request Adjustment" and it prompts for board number. This will hopefully reduce the amount of Call Director button clicks that do not need the TD at the table.

Switching to Deep Finesse, it shows no winning lines on hands where West has ♥ Ax, ♥ AJ, ♥ AQ etc. except for the stiff ♦ nine mentioned above (or the ♦ jack dropping). Of course there are many lines that make when East has ♥ ace or West has singleton ace, as discussed above. If, given the chance, West trumps 2nd ♦ instead of 3rd that is fatal on many hands, so I assuming that does not happened. Please don't have a "scratching the surface" line that has East with ♥ ace, or West with singleton ♥ ace, or ♦ jack dropping, or West ruffing 2nd ♦. Due diligence please.

Since most real variations (i.e. not the just-add-water-instant-claim) are defeated if West ruffs the 3rd ♦ and exits a safe card, about the only other thing to try would be ♦ Q at trick 2 to see if the J or 9 drops. Later edit: can't seem to produce a stepping stone etc. even if 9 or 9x, assuming West has ♥ ace not singleton (losing line in the winning line given above). The stiff 9 can be handled by leading the ♦ T as the first ♦ - at trick 4 or on this line - ruff ♠, ♣Q, small ♣ - if West returns ♠ next play ♦ T and if West returns red then 11 tricks