glen

I wonder if Phil considered this a variation?

Pioneer (undated notes), thumbnail summary: 2♣: a) 21+ balanced at most 3♠s b ) GF, unbalanced, at most 3♠s --2♦: 4+♥s ----2♥: 21-23/24 balanced ----2♠: both minors, 5-4/4-5 (notes dont say 5-5 but only place for it) ----2NT: GF balanced ----3♣/♦: six card suit ----Rest: support --2♥: 0-3 no 4cM OR GF 5+♠s no side suit * OR GF 4-1-4-4 ----2♠: 21-23/24 balanced ----2NT: GF balanced or 5-4 hand --2♠: GF, at most 3♥s, at most 4♠s --2NT: GF, 5+♠s, 4+♥s --3♣/♦: GF 5+♠s and 4+ in m --3♥: GF 3-2-4-4 6-8 or 11+ --3♠: GF 2-3-4-4 6-8 or 11+ * I believe 5+♠s without 5+♥s weak (less than GF) has to respond 2♥ regardless of side suit or not - notes do not provide a place for this 2♦: a) 11-13 5+♠s, 4♥s b ) 21+, balanced, 4-5♠s c) GF, unbalanced, 4+♠s --2♥/2♠: preference ---- Bidding now shows the big hand types --2NT+: GI or GF opposite the a) hand type You would need the full notes to play it as is

What I like about this is that 2♦ could be weak or strong in ♥s, allowing the 2♥ opening to be used as something else, such as weak with both majors. Edit (and posted after the post below): to avoid adding another post, the scheme could be: 2♣-2♦-? --2♥: GF balanced, or a minor without a four card major ----2♠: waits ------2NT: GF balanced ------3♣/♦: Natural without a four card major ------3♥/♠: Shortness with 5-5+ in the minors --2♠: 5+♠s --2NT: 22-24 balanced --3♣/♦: Natural with 4♠s --3♥: 4-1-4-4 GF --3♠: 9 tricks, long ♠s 2♣-2♥ would show a bust, but would only be passed by 22-23 balanced with 5♥s - thus responder will be able to show support if opener's rebid hits a fit 2♦-2♥-? --2♠: 5+♥s --2NT: 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-4-1 --3♣/♦: Natural with 4♥s --3♥: 9 tricks, long ♥s --3♠: 1-4-4-4 GF Not exactly a parallel structure but close enuff

Ken's 1st example is board 21 in: BB Semi-Final Norway-Netherlands In the style I play it goes 2♣-2♦--2♠(4+)-4♣(splinter)-etc. Ken's 2nd example is board 16 in: Venice Cup Round Robin - Denmark-China Given the other room reached 6♠ down 2, I'm not sure why Denmark reaching 4♠ after the 2♣ opening is a problem, or why this would be considered a gain (i.e. "yielded major swings and were difficult for the pros") for Ken's suggested methods. The other examples do not provide country names, so I'm not going to bother finding and linking to them. As to the method, I believe if you are willing to use both 2♣ and 2♦ on the big hands, then Ken's method will work well. However I remember going to the NABC in Montreal in the mid-80s, playing 2♣ and 2♦ as big (in a gadget-laiden system called Toys R' Us - 2♦ handled the 5m+4M hands and a certain two point balanced range) and getting no nice swings from the 2♣/2♦ use - this reflects some frequency comments above.

This is the first time I've heard of MotherF values used in bridge, but it seems quite a distinct and well defined term. At the club, best to keep it short: "show those MF values already!" With my wife and I, we would jump to 3♠, at the second time for responder to bid, to show 4+♠s and a good hand with some slam interest. Thus the 2♠ bid shows exactly 3, and suggests opener shape out or ship out. I would bet that Paul would recommend that responder show the ♠ support at the 2nd time to bid, regardless of whether 3 or 4. Best to reveal that MF support as soon as possible.

hope this is fast arrival

You could check out this site: Richard Pavlicek - Pavlicek System Here we see that 3NT over 2♦ is to play, after not finding the major fit.

No, I call the TD when I have only 12 cards. As to the correct hand, I think waiting (and waiting and waiting) for 20 points or so for the traditional "Strong Jump Shift" is ineffective. The better method is to use the strong jump shift on hands that have some slam interest due to good shape and extras, but no way to really show this on a slower auction.

I agree with that I disagree, as I like methods that start this hand 1♥-2♠

So they will go with the compromise: decrease the price on all housing by 1/4 (with semi-massive temporary dislocation) and inflate all money by 1.5 (again with semi-massive temporary dislocation) ... So time to search for the semi-massive temporary dislocation methods

This analysis of Keri seems dead on to me. In my last go at a NT structure (everybody who reads the non-natural forum invents their own - its the price of admission to this discussion), I stated these objectives: The key objectives of this (ETM 06) structure are to: > Provide plenty of choice of game auctions > Allow responder to show singleton/void on all game going auctions > Find 4-4 and 5-3 major fits on game going hands > When finding 4-4 and 5-3 major fits do not reveal too much about opener’s hand > Let responder show major suit weakness to opener on game going hands > Permit game invites with 6+ in a minor and 4 in a major > Have minor suit signoffs as transfers at 2NT or higher to avoid double of 2♠. There was another one I didn't mention at the start, which is permit game invites with a five card major to stop at 2M.

Dating 2000 (but played in the 90s), there is my: ETM (Everything That Matters) Weak/Mini Notrump Structure 2♣: Asks for 4♥s (but does not promise ♥s, just asks). 2♦: Asks for 4♠s (but does not promise ♠s, just asks). 2♥/♠: To play, often not four in the other major. 2NT: GI, no four card major. 3♣: Signoff, both minors. 3♦: Asks for weak doubleton major. 3♥/♠: Singleton/void in other major, at least 5-5 in minors. 3NT: To play. 4♣: Gerber. 4♦: Both minors, singleton/void in both majors. 4♥/♠: To play. 4NT: Slam invite. 5♣/♦: To play. After 2♣ and 2♦ asks, 2NT & three level suit bids are transfers to the next suit bid. After the replies to 2♣ or 2♦, responder can bid: 2NT: transfer to ♣s. 3♣: transfer to ♦s. 3♦: transfer to ♥s. 3♥: transfer to ♠s. 3♠: transfer to notrump (choice of contracts). 3NT: To play. 4♣: RKCB in major suit that was asked by responder. 4♦: Ace ask (Gerber) 4♥/♠: To play. 4NT: Slam invite. 5♣/♦: To play.

In this version of the Blue Club, what does this hand open with: [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sq2hak3dj32ck8542]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Starting speedball and slowball BBO ACBL pairs at the same time is not a good idea. Sunday, 11 am (eastern): Speedball: 71 pairs Slowball: 3 pairs (it appears a pair agreed to move to the slowball to get to 2 tables) --- --- 11:10 - the slowball appears to have disappeared, perhaps moved into the Individual. The Individual has 8 tables, and the total of 35 + 8 tables has 1 TD so I have not asked the TD what happened to the slowball because he must be quite occupied. --- --- When I sub into the middle of a hand, is there anyway to do a review of all the tricks before I guess what to do next?

Instead of posting the draft midchart here, I suggest the committee, or a technical rep for them, set up a blog that allows comments. One of the first postings could be the draft midchart.

I saw the above on Ray Lee's Bridge Blog and I can't wait to read this book.

That the player would say "I'm sorry", or words to that effect. Given I did not report this to abuse, I could hardly be assumed to be calling for "severe punishment", so I don't know how you got on this track. I did say privately to the TD that if the player did this type of thing again to me in a subsequent tourney, I would have to report it to abuse, and the TD said that would be a good idea. Would you agree? Do you think the TD should have also put a note on the player, so that if the player does type of thing to another player instead of me, something might be done about it, or should it just continue with warnings? The other day I was subbing in a tourney, and we moved to a new table. I told the opps I was a sub (so they would understand we might not have a clue what we are doing). A player assumed that meant I was new to tourneys, and said, privately to me, "welcome to the acbl, some here are nice, others are nasty". Yesterday when parked in a tourney as a waiting sub, I saw this TD announcement in the middle of the tourney: This suggests that others may be having a problem with some nastiness in ACBL BBO tourneys. I recommended in this thread that the TDs be given a software feature, to assist them in using ZT, if BBO management wants that to be used in tourneys. I believe if the TDs had this feature, and then started to use ZT, that the open nastiness would clear up in about two weeks. On a technical note, the MYSQL database table would look like: event name event date round table player1 player2 player3 player4 chat As open chat occurs it is stored in the chat column. The TD feature would retrieve the chat column for a selected table and round of the current tourney. The table is flushed out every day.

I submitted my request just after the Bridge World editoral/letter with Steve Bloom's input about no replies to committee requests. I got a reply from the ACBL, indicating they had my email and were forwarding it to the committee, but nothing after that. I assumed Steve's experience might be duplicated.

TDs still (its been requested before) need a feature where they can review recent open chat at a table in a tourney. Otherwise ZT (zero tolerance) infractions continue to go unpunished and people are left bewildered and hurt from some of the tourney “experiences”. Take today. In the first tourney, in the middle of a hand, an expert openly called my bidding a joke, and then, at end of hand, used joke twice more, even after I asked him to stop (btw the expert had received a great result, so openly said "the joke is you can make 4♠"). This resulted in just a warning to the player. In the second tourney, I’m playing against two players marked advanced and intermediate. I’m playing the hand out to get to just trumps in my hand before I claim, since claims are not always clear to intermediates and rapid play often is much faster. The advanced player says, before I can get to point of just trumps, via a couple of open comments, that I’m rude to not claim. Then when I explain I don’t claim if the situation is not clear and an intermediate player is playing, I’m told, by the advanced player, that is “extraordinarily condescending”. [side question: is it?] I point out that “intermediate” is marked as the skill level. This results in a TD call, and the TD, without discussing it with me, and without a chat review feature, says to quit addressing the opponents in the manner that I am. When I point out the TD does not have the info, the TD says “it doesn’t matter, I should only be speaking about bidding”. I note that I did not speak first, and did not use bad language, or misstate anything. If BBO wants nicer tourneys and to actually follow ZT principles, a chat review feature is mandatory. As it was, I had a yucky two tourneys.

I submitted a mid-chart method (fully legal under mid-chart rules, I provided details and suggest D) 1 1/2 years ago. Nothing. No reply back ever.

I received the spamrock email to an account that the ACBL knows of, but I don't use at all for any other bridge activity. Thus one might draw the conclusion that somebody has obtained the email addresses of some or all of the ACBL members and are using the email list for commercial purposes. If so, perhaps there was a fee for that, which might explain the $35 cost of the book.

What do 1-4-5-3 and 3-4-5-1 and 1-4-3-5 and 3-4-1-5 open in your system? If they open 1♦, what do they rebid after the 1♥ relay?

The opponents have at least a nine card ♥ fit. I would rebid 2♣, happy to play there, if we can, opposite 5-9 without 6♦s. If the opponents compete with 2♥, I next bid 2NT to get ♦s into play.

As a sub in a tourney I find myself using the SAYC FD. It just described 1♣-1♠;-2♣-2♥ as 11+ non-forcing. Not forcing?

Does anybody play, or has played extensively, a system where one of the 1♣ or 1♦ openings promises a four card major? One example is Oakley’s The Diamond Major ("a 1♣ opening bid denies four of either major, but not five or more; a 1♦ opening bid proclaims possession of one or two 4-card majors, but no 5-card or longer major"). Other systems have tried this type of approach in a big club framework. If you are playing it, or have played it, how do you like it? In particular do you find promising a four card major helps your side lots, somewhat, or not that much, and does it sometimes hurt that the opponents know about the four card major?