glen

Larry Cohen (Florida one, not Vegas) has said, when doing the commentary for previous Cavendish, that he considers the IMP pairs format somewhat of a lottery, and that he dislikes this format. Edit: on May 12, Larry just said "got frustrated by the huge luck/randomness element."

It covers fit3 and fit4, and inv and GF. However it can't have fit4 with a limit raise since we Bergen that. It can't have GF fit3/fit4 with a splinter type hand. So it is fit3 inv OR fit3/4/5 non-splinter minimum GF. 1M-2NT--3M says pass with fit3 inv, bid 3NT (choice of game) or 4M otherwise. 1M-2NT--3C says big or awful -> awful being even some GF hands will not have enough for game -> after 3C responder rebids 3M or stays low, and then big hand cuebids as a slam try. It may not be appropriate for expert events, but in the events we mostly play in (ACBL BBO, club games, sectionals, regionals), it pays to bounce to game (e.g. 1M-2NT--4M) and hope they misdefend often. Note that 1M-1NT is semi-forcing for us, very rarely with a 3 card fit.

A whole bunch of times one doesn't ask questions about an auction until it is over. This is not one of those times. To answer "is the E-W bidding OK" one would have to know their agreements. Also for South to make an informed call over 3♦, s/he needs to know the EW agreements. So regardless of whether 2♠ or 3♦ were alerted or not, on this strange auction, South should ask about 3♦ first, and then 2♠, and finally make a call. Besides just knowing what is going on, since you would ask about the auction on many hands that would double 2♣, you should ask here just so partner has no unauthorized information from the double-then-quietly-pass sequence. If you ask "is the E-W alerting OK" (as opposed to the bidding), my answer would be no.

Okay, here's the sadder update. Some of you might not have seen the site, since after the Britney strip squezze deal we were getting too many hits. Then Paris took a break, went to court, and never came back! It turns out the judge is not a bridge aficionado. So our 1st attempt at celebrity bridge is offline. I'm now looking for a bridge player with last name Demi, to launch our next attempt, www.demi-and-ashton-play-bridge.com

This is clearly a sad attempt to stop our new site: www.Britney-Nicole-Lindsay-Paris-Play-Bridge!!!.com Just after we had convinced all four to quit clubbing (aside from ♣ bids) and play rubber bridge, and now BBO puts a stop to this upcoming expose bridge site.

Where is maximum & no major - are these in the 3♦ or higher rebids?

Their 1♣ opening seems to be a double-edged sword (not sure if single-edged swords were at one time popular). Sure you can preempt it, but they can preempt right back. For example: 1♣-1 of a major overcall-3 of a minor-? They can play this 3 of a minor bid as 6/7-10 with 4 or longer in the minor, so it will come up a lot. So now advancer (partner of overcaller) has only one way to support partner's major below game (3M), and otherwise has to bid game (or cuebid 4m). So if the opponents use an active style over 1♣, overcalling 1 of a major on a wide range of hands, they will be faced with a considerable number of impossible guess situations. And there is the double part of the edge, where it goes 1♣-1 of a major overcall-3 of a minor-bid-double= 18+ balanced hand type. As to how often something like 2♦-2♠-P-P-X happens, in the last regional we played, the auction on one hand went P-P-3♣-3NT-P-P-X-4♦ making 4.

Two things I would be concerned about: 1) 1♦(forcing)-Pass(ambush)-1M-Pass--1NT-Double(Big hand) 2) 1♣(forcing)-2♠-Double(values)-Pass--? -> is there room for opener to unwind all the hand types now? So I would want to exchange some meanings between the 1♦ and 1♣ openings, such as moving the 5-4/4-5 in the minors, and say, 11-14, to 1♦, and moving the 21+ unbalanced hand types into 1♣. If I was worried about having artificial replies to the 1♣ opening and it still being covered by the ACBL General Convention Chart (GCC), I would move the 5-5 minors 11-14 out of 1♣ and either to 1♦ or 2NT, and I would start the 6+ any suit openings at 15 for the 1♣ opening. So a method that allowed artificial replies to the 1♣ opening, and was still covered under the GCC could be: 1♣: Multi-meaning, 15+, forcing, either: 1) 18+ balanced 2) 15+ 5-4/4-5/5-5 minors 3) 15+ any six card or longer suit 4) 21+ unbalanced 1♦: Non-forcing, either 1) 12-14 balanced 2) 5-4/4-5/5-5 in the minors, 11-14, if 5-5 some values in the majors 2NT: 11-14, 5-5 in the minors, values almost all in the minors Rest: as before --- ---- However their approach of parking the 5-4/4-5/5-5 minor hands into 1♣ has advantages. From their system summary, they seem to play a sequence such as 1♣-2♠(overcall)-3 of either minor as non-forcing with 4 or longer in the minor, enough values for the 18+ balanced to be able to bid 3NT. Thus the 1♣-2♠-Double is not overloaded, and they likely use the same approach as the Negative Free Bid folks - double is either traditional negative or considerable extra values. All this may make the second scenario less of a concern. --- ---- Another idea to avoiding the ambush of the first scenario, would be to exchange the balanced ranges of 1NT and 1♦. So: 1♦: Forcing, either 1) 15-17 balanced 2) 21+ unbalanced as before 1NT: 12-14 balanced Now one could allow 14s to freely upgrade to the 1♦ opening, especially if 4-4 in the majors. However if one keeps 1♦ strictly at 15, then one can play artificial responses to 1♦ under the GCC, such as using major suit flip-flops (1♥=♠s, 1♠=♥s), in order that the 15-17 balanced most often plays a major suit contract, as the rest of field will do. If 1♦ was 15-17 balanced or big, I would likely want to take advantage of this by limiting the 1M openings to 18, moving the major bids with 19+ into the 1♦ opening. This is for the reasons that davidc covers well.

This is their system profile for the US team trials: System Summary Form: Jim Munday - William F. Hall Let me try a summary here: 1♣: Multi-meaning, forcing, either: 1) 18+ balanced 2) 11+ 5-4/4-5/5-5 minors 3) 14+ to 20 with any six card or longer suit 4) Rarely, 21+, 4-4-4-1 or 4-4-1-4 exactly 1♦: Two-way, either weak balanced or big unbalanced, so: 1) 12-14 balanced 2) Any unbalanced 21+ except not 4-4-4-1/4-4-1-4 exactly (and perhaps not 5-4/4-5/5-5 in minors - not certain about this) 1♥,1♠: 11-20, 4-5 cards in the major, can be just 4 in the major with a five card minor (not longer) 1NT: 15-17 balanced 2X: 10-14 (not good 14), 6 card or longer suit 2NT: Not defined on system summary Anybody have further details on this system and/or have seen it in action?

No, not correct. 3♠s, and not some 4-3-3-3, and not soft values, equals 3♠ bid. However another consideration is if the weak two can be good, we could have a nice 4♠ contract: ♠: KQxxxx ♥: Axx ♦: xx ♣: xx So if this hand would not be rare for the partnership style, I bid 2NT, assuming it asks.

Transfers after Opener rebids 2NT to show 18-19 balanced. When opener rebids 2NT to show 18 to 19 balanced, responder can use transfers on the three level to describe hand. There are two cases when this applies: 1) Opener starts with one of a suit, responder bids one of suit, and opener jumps to 2NT, which shows 18 to 19 balanced. 2) Opener starts with one of a major, responder bids 1NT semi-forcing (or forcing, or not-forcing as per agreement), and opener bids 2NT, which shows 18 to 19 balanced. After opener’s 2NT bid to show 18 to 19 balanced, all suit bids on the three level by responder are transfers. So, 3♣ shows ♦s, 3♦ shows ♥s, 3♥ shows ♠s, and 3♠ shows ♣s. Of course 3NT directly over 2NT would be just to play there, and 4♣ over 2NT would ask for aces. The transfers can be used just to play at the three level in a suit contract when having a weak hand and holding a six card or longer suit, or a good five card suit. Simply transfer to the suit and then pass opener’s completion of the transfer. After a minor suit opening, if responder has both four spades and four hearts exactly, responder will bid 1♥ first. If opener jumps to 2NT to show 18-19 balanced, responder can find a 4-4 spade fit by next bidding 3♥, transfer to ♠s to show four spades also. Example: 1♦-Pass-1♥-Pass--2NT-Pass-3♥(transfer)-Pass--3♠-Pass-3NT(4-4 in majors, choice of game). If responder has a five card or longer major, responder’s first task is to transfer to that major. The only exception is when responder has five or longer spades, and four or longer hearts, with spades at least as long as hearts: in this case responder has bid 1♠ already, and next transfers to hearts over 2NT, showing then five or longer spades and at least four hearts. In this one case, where responder has shown five or longer spades and at least four hearts, opener’s task is to pick the major where the better fit is, as in these example sequences: 1) 1♦-Pass-1♠-Pass--2NT-Pass-3♦(transfer)-Pass--3♥: opener likes ♥s better. 2) 1♣-Pass-1♠-Pass--2NT-Pass-3♦(transfer)-Pass--3♠: opener likes ♠s better. Example hands: West -------- East ♠ AQ986 --- ♠ 2 ♥ KQ9 ----- ♥ JT43 ♦ K4 ------ ♦ QJT862 ♣ KJ8 ---- ♣ 75 1♠-Pass-1NT-Pass-2NT-Pass-3♣-Pass-3♦-All Pass. Using transfer to signoff. West -------- East ♠ AQ8 ---- ♠ T5 ♥ K6 ----- ♥ AQJ42 ♦ AQ43 --- ♦ KT82 ♣ QJT8 --- ♣ 75 1♦-Pass-1♥-Pass-2NT-Pass-3♦(transfer)-Pass-3♥-Pass-3NT-All Pass. Here responder transfers, then bids 3NT to offer opener choice of contract – now opener knows responder has five hearts (for using transfer first), and can bid 4♥ when right. West -------- East ♠ K98 ---- ♠ AQT53 ♥ AJ ----- ♥ T4 ♦ KT4 ---- ♦ AQ832 ♣ AQJ83 -- ♣ 7 1♣-Pass-1♠-Pass-2NT-Pass-3♥(transfer)-Pass-3♠-Pass-4♦-Pass-4♥-Pass-4NT-Pass-5♥-Pass-5NT-Pass-6♥-Pass-6♠-All Pass. Responder transfers to ♠s to show five or longer spades, then bids 4♦ to show ♠s & ♦s, good hand. Opener cuebids 4♥ to show control of ♥s and likes hand. After finding out aces and kings, responder bids 6♠. West -------- East ♠ AJ96 --- ♠ KQT2 ♥ KQ9 ---- ♥ JT43 ♦ K2 ----- ♦ Q862 ♣ AJT8 --- ♣ 7 1♣-Pass-1♥-Pass-2NT-Pass-3♥(transfer)-Pass-3♠-Pass-3NT-Pass-4♠ Responder uses the transfer to show four spades, so partnership finds 4-4 spade fit. West -------- East ♠ AQ ----- ♠ KJ982 ♥ KQ92 --- ♥ JT43 ♦ K42 ---- ♦ QJ8 ♣ KJT3 --- ♣ 7 1♣-Pass-1♠-Pass-2NT-Pass-3♦(transfer)-Pass-3♥-Pass-3NT-Pass-4♥ Responder uses transfer to show four or longer hearts with five or longer spades. Opener picks hearts, responder offers choice of contract with 3NT, and opener places contract in 4♥. If opener had one more spade and one less heart, opener would bid 3♠ instead of 3♥ so that responder would know opener liked spades better than hearts.

This is a good approach - I've used this in the recent Mazzilli - see: 6MIA, TIM and Mazzilli PDF I like your 1♠-1NT--2♥ as a transfer.

The Douche Club system document was updated a few days ago: Douche Club pdf This is a system by Mark Abraham, Griff Ware and Daniel Geromboux. Among things to look at, check out section 5.6, the Witch's 2♣.

What we often see, if bidding the hand above without a forcing raise available, is - puzzled look - 40 second pause for thinking - 1♠ response (they are not certain if 3♦ would be a splinter or would be weak and a long suit) If 3-3-2-5 shape, one gets the first two (puzzled look, 40 second pause), then 3NT. As to inverted minors, I prefer not to play them, using instead: 2m: single raise, can be just 4 in m 3m: invite raise jump in om: forcing raise There are all sorts of versons of "criss-cross" approaches, including: 2m: constructive raise, can be just 4 in m 3m: weak raise jump in om: limit+ raise

1. Flawed, yes. Seriously flawed... well, that's probably an overstatement. Many people in Europe still play without forcing minor raises. Well he does say (until he edits it), that the system is flawed if you have a forcing diamond raise, so the many people in Europe are bidding flawlessly. However you need to have a forcing minor raise, which you would use here, and if not, then you post here.

The frequency of 10 card support for partner's 5 card major opening is very low, even in B/I bridge. However I agree with the intention, and wish that Jacoby 2NT would stop being taught, or included in SAYC. We need a simple scheme like: 2NT: Limit Raise in major 3NT: Game raise in the major, no singleton/void, not lots of extras Double jump suit bids: Splinters, not lots of extras 3M: Weak raise, 4 or longer in partner's major 4M: To play, 5 or longer in partner's major, has a trick (or two) somewhere 2/1: Handles raises with extras -> learn how to bid out hands to explore for slam Easy to learn, easy to play, develops bridge skills.

Is this the same Ron Klinger who was playing this cc in 2005? Ecats: 2005 Australia Klinger-Neill pdf "1NT Openings: 15-17 (maybe 14, 5 card suit). Maybe 5/6M, 6m, 5422."

How important would cost be as a reason for popularity: For the Gatlinburg regional, lots of space was available in the $55-70 range (and some lower, and some relative luxury at higher). Session rates were $10. Nashville rates are: "The host hotels are the Renaissance Hotel ($119 plus taxes), Sheraton Downtown ($100 plus taxes) and Courtyard by Marriott ($107 plus taxes)." These are quite reasonable compared to the upcoming fall NABC: "The host hotel is the San Francisco Marriott with a rate of $149 plus taxes s/d. Additional guests are $20 per person". Session rates at the NABC for ACBL members are $18 (national event, no upper limit), $16.50 (national event with upper limit), $15.50 (regional events), $14.50 (other). So if one stayed in Gatlinburg Tues to Sunday night, and played Tuesday to Sunday two sessions, one would pay, say $60 a night and, for two people, $40 a day in session fees, for a total of $540 (not including food, extra taxes etc.). In Nashville, at the Sheraton, playing in regional events for six days (five night stay), one would play $100 a night, and $62 a day in session fees, for a total of $872 (not including the other stuff). For the fall NABC, assuming the $149 room rate covers two people, cost for a Gatlinburg-type stay would be $1117. Edit: these costs do not include parking which will be quite expensive in the middle of a big city.

Karen and I have been trying something out the last two months that I haven't written about since I'm not certain how effective it will be. It is called the Majority raise, and targets these 90%+ hands only. Essentially 2NT is 10+ to 14 with a hand not appropriate for a Bergen raise (which cover game invites with four+ trumps) or a splinter or a direct raise to game. With 14/15+ one uses 2/1 with 3 or 4 trumps, and with 5+ trumps one uses two-way Bergen - the constructive Bergen does double duty and handles these, since if opener jumps to game after the constructive Bergen, responder if 14+ and 5+ trumps can take another bid. The main idea is to have lots of 1M-2NT;4M sequences. I got tired of 1M-2NT followed by showing or denying shortness and then ending in 4M, or 1M-2/1;rebid followed by show M, then end in 4M. It seemed we stopped in 4M on a whole bunch of hands, but only after telling the opponents more about what opener had. We now find that the sequence where responder bids 2/1, then rebids M, which shows 14/15+, is quite useful - opener knows responder has at least a little extra, and so cuebidding is helpful now, not just a courtesy. Just to repeat, this is something we are using for better or worse, and it may not be the best approach to raises.

In events with time delay, there is no chat to the table - vugraph commentators will chat only with the audience, and in tourneys, players will be left to their own talk and that of the TD. The "other features" was for tables not time delayed, like the JEC events. Also if one goes to work to provide a time-delayed feature, it would be useful if TDs, when at a particular table, could decide to view a short rewind of the latest table action and chat.

Even though it will be hard to program, I would love to see BBO with a time-delay kibitz feature, which would be useful for the tourneys as well as the vugraphs. The delay time would be 10 minutes or so (could be set by host), and, for the vugraph presentations, the commentators would see things at the same time as the rest of the audience. In other features, if the number of kibitzers at a table is greater than 10, chat by non-players at the table should default to the gallery, and not to the table.

I'm told that the ACBL Competition and Conventions Committee is considering some changes in the Mid-Chart. In particular Multi could be slated to be moved to 6 board segments. Imo, this shows that ACBL remains totally focused on their primary market, one that will mostly disappear over the next two decades. I always felt that the Mid-Chart represented a decent compromise between the GCC stagnation and the need to free things up, but with the recent seemingly refusal to approve any more mid-chart defenses, and now this, I guess that compromise is off the table.

So the Gatlinburg "regional" established a new record: Gatlinburg regional web page For many regionals, one would be happy to have the average daily table count from Gatlinburg, for the whole regional. The last day big drop-off in table count repeats what we are seeing in regionals all over. In North America, with more and more bridge players retired, one wonders if the Tuesday-Sunday model needs to switch to a Monday-Saturday + bonus day Sunday model. Also are Swiss events in the first five days a thing of the past - are Bracketed KOs the team event except for the last day? Speaking of Swiss events, Justin was on winning team in the tough Sunday Swiss (Meckwell on the 3rd place team)

Canadian expert Andy Stark wrote a book on the weak notrump, out in 2006: The Weak Notrump: How to play it, how to play against it by Andy Stark If you look at the Critics's Viewpoint, you will see a newspaper called "The Belleville Intelligencer" - it appears they missed a "you will find" near the end of the quote (and Critics's should be Critics'). Another review is on page 16 of: ABF Newsletter - November 2006 (warning: ignore pictures of the Norway Schools in this bulletin) When I saw Andy last week at the Toronto regional I asked him if he was playing the weak notrump that day. He said no, not everybody wants to play it. So you can't even get your partners to change by writing a whole book (or you can be Eric Kokish and coach teams where nobody plays the weak notrump, but they win a whole bunch of events). In the recent Toronto regional swiss, against a top Canadian partnership, Karen and I were using a version of Maestro against notrump (see links just above "Older:" on Bridgematters - click to see ). They open 1NT 11-14, I double vulnerable with 13 and a minor, they pass as forcing opener to redouble, either two-suited run-out or big. It goes 2♣ by Karen (fewer than 10 points), pass, pass by me showing ♣s, and now back to responder, who has a monster with 4-3-2-4 exactly, including AKTx of ♣s! He doubles, alerted properly by opener for takeout, who bids 2♦ and they end in 3NT. Karen had 0 points, so 2♣ doubled was going to end the Swiss match. So the ABF newsletter review note of "Stark makes the point that after a weak notrump is doubled, the redouble should be for penalties" would have been key here (or see the complex ETM Rescues where passes forces redouble, but far less weak hands are put into the pass->redouble sequence, which means both opener and responder can double for penalty on the next round). The opponents will come in over the weak notrump on some very wrong times, and there are some large numbers available. These chances far outweigh the numbers one gives up in getting nailed in 1NT, or when escaping to two-of-a-suit. The posters above have made many good points about the weak notrump. Note the discussion translates well to the mini-notrump of 10-12 or about that.

Gavin Wolpert's comments on the documentary are in his relatively new blog, at: Gavin Wolpert's Bridge Blog The documentary was shown at the same time as a Toronto-Montreal hockey game, and at the start time of the Toronto regional evening session. There is no sign, yet, of it showing up on the CTV network broadband site.