glen

and when does this occur?

So players have no way of confirming (and/or knowing) a late adjustment has been recorded? It seems then that TDs could make changes that players would be completely unaware of. This is a bad process. Instead whatever is being given to the ACBL should be accurately reflected in the results posted by BBO. At our local clubs, the TDs post the final results on the Internet after all adjustments have been made. I suggest BBO consider something on these lines too.

Tonight playing in the 6:30 eastern ACBL Pairs, on board 12, with the opps in 3NT and we had three tricks already and I claimed down 1 with two more high tricks. Declarer rejected the claim and let the time run out so the tourney was over. I asked the TD for an adjustment, and I saw the board changed to 3NT -1. However in the hand records it is still recorded as A-: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...46781864-380587 Did the TD need to do something else to ensure the correct result was recorded for this board? Have other pairs lost adjustments on the last board, or is this just a one time thing? Note: a change will not (should not) change our placing - I raise this issue to understand how TDs handle last board problems.

I'm confused - initially did you delete a whole thread, as you said you did, or one post? Assuming it was one post, I believe the offending link should have been removed, the rest of the post kept even if the gist might be lost, and the poster informed not to use the link again. Deleting a post should not be done if an edit will fix the problem, even if the post loses some context. Likewise deleting a whole thread should not be done if removing a post will fix the problem. To Justin, I suggest you keep a copy of lengthy posts you make, if you continue to make them on BBO. Then if/when one is deleted, you can post it on your blog (and/or rec.games.bridge), with a note that it was censored. Since censored material gets a larger audience, you will find it gets read by more than would have done so without censorship, thus defeating the delete. I've been a victim of a clearly unreasonable mod in a sports forum, and despite the efforts of a whole bunch of senior members to have the mod see the light, it did not get resolved quickly. So I ended up at another forum, and it turned out to be much better. Having said that, I think BBO forums are well worth the investment in time, and one should not allow some temporary aggravation to stop your posting here.

How about: 1♣: 15-17 Bal or ♣s unbalanced, could have longer major if less than 18, non-forcing but can have near game force values. 1♦: ♦s unbalanced, could have longer major (if ♥s, 14/15-17) if less than 18, non-forcing but can have near game force values. 1♥: Strong artificial, either any game force or balanced 18+ Bal or 18+ with a 5cM, or 15-17 with a 6cM or both majors. 1♠: 10-14, 4♠s can have a longer second suit, or 6+♠s. 1NT: 11/12-14, Bal. Can have up to 5♥s but not 5♠s. 2♣: 10-14 5+♠s and 4+♥s (Reverse Lower Flannery) 2♦: 10-14, 4+♦s and 5+♥s 2♥: 10-14 6+♥s 2NT: 21-22 Bal Rest: Preempts After 1♥: 1♠: negative without 5+♠s 1NT: balanced or semi-bal positive 2♣: negative with 5+♠s 2♦: unbal positive without a six card major or any 5-5 2♥/2♠: positive with 6+ in other major 2NT+: 5-5+ positives After 1♥-1♠: 1NT: 18-20 2NT: 23-24 2♣: Both majors, below a GF. Responder assumes 15-18 and opener bids over signoff if stronger. 2♦ asks for best major 2♦: Strong multi - 15-17 with 6+ in a major, or GF major or GF bal 2♥/2♠: 18 to near GF, 5+ major, not 4+ in other major 3X: Natural GF The structure and the responses are ACBL General Convention Chart legal though your local club TD can ban anything they wish in club games. Edit: this is wrong, the 1♥ bid is not legal under the GCC outline

Exactly the right practicing situation, and yes, you do need to practice them, both doing them yourself and having your opponents or partner doing them. So look for 3 other players who want to play anything-goes never-a-dull-hand quick bridge, and have lots of fun, including a few psyches, by all of the players. For online, you can open a late night table, with "anything goes total fun quick bridge" type comment to attract the right players. These tables are also a good time to try out things one might not normally play such as 10-12 notrumps, 4 card majors, canape, heavy preempts, walking-the-dog bidding, and fast arrival slams.

Awful ruling. Report it to abuse@bridgebase.com, of course not to get the ruling changed now, but just so BBO staff can help track cases where the TD needs to improve. ---- Here's some cc fun from last night. Opps using a sayc cc, with five card majors and natural carding, after strange carding during first hand and a four card major opening shows up: glen: opps, signals are standard? opp1: odd even opp2: odd even ->glen: Automated message: Director ACBL_TD is now at the table as requested by glen glen: hi TD, opps play odd/even discards and perhaps 4 card majors glen: could you help them out with a cc opp2: no td misc int opp2: sorry glen misc one sp..i meant 1nt.sorry p and opps glen: np on hand, just want to be playing with cc that reflects your agreements < we continue on with no word from TD, no change to cc, so I finally call TD back> ->glen: Automated message: Director ACBL_TD is now at the table as requested by glen glen: hi TD, cc still reflects sayc, not their agreements ACBL_TD: u there? ->ACBL_TD: yup <TD now doesn't say anything more, and we continue on> opp2: typ opp1: glp <I try a private message> ->ACBL_TD: let me know if cc will be updated or if they will continue to play with misleading cc opp2: sorry again misc...but that happens you know)) <opp had another hand where their opening did not reflect their hand, hence this comment, even though we said nothing> ->ACBL_TD: they told us they play odd/even discards ACBL_TD (Lobby): and? ->ACBL_TD: and not on their cc <TD says nothing> ->ACBL_TD: so you are going to let them continue whole tournament with misleading cc? ACBL_TD (Lobby): I am in process of looking into it. Thx for reporting ->ACBL_TD: okay, didn't know what was going on Never heard another word. This is clearly not worth reporting, but repeated here for whatever entertainment value it might provide those who ran into same thing.

Playing this we used to cringe everytime the 1♦ opener came up, which was lots and lots of cringing.

To answer your question, yes. Also to take advantage of the new chat-to-the-whole-tournament-while-it-is-going-on feature, send a message to "tournament" saying "Opponents should have alerted!". If everybody does it, the TDs will get the message, so to speak. However sooner or later somebody is going to say "7NT was cold partner!" before the rest has played the board, and then it will be hasta la vista feature. Yesterday was interesting when one of players chatted to "tournament" and swore at the TD. It seemed a good chance for the TD to try out zero tolerance.

Straightforward case. a ) A+/A-. b ) Notify table of ruling immediately. c ) Warn offending pair to read rules provided at start of ACBL tourney. Not doing this was poor work by the TD, and I'm sorry nobody can say sorry for this. By contrast, my wife and I were at the Toronto regional this long weekend, and there was such an excellent set of TDs there - great TDs certainly add a lot to the enjoyment of tournament play, whether online or live.

T-Walsh is ACBL legal at Mid-Chart+, and with clubs that permit it. This is reasonable given the bulk of ACBL membership is out of their comfort zone on most artificial bidding, even when the bids show a suit by proxy. In my opinion, having 11-13 and 17-19 balanced and natural ♣s into 1♣ overloads the opening, whether or not the balanced hand types promise 3+♣s or not. This overloading can be handled by the response structure if there is no interference, but is flawed when the opponents get into the auction. One resolution (of many alternatives) is to concentrate most of the 11-13 in one of the minor openings, and most of the 17-19 in another. For example: 1♣: 11-13 Bal with 4/5♣s or 17-19 balanced without a five card suit except possibly ♣s, or natural ♣s unbalanced. 1♦: 11-13 Bal with 3+♦s or 4=4=2=3 exactly, or 17-19 Bal with 5♦s, or natural ♦s unbalanced. Over 1♣, 1♦=4+♥s, 1♥=4+♠s, 1♠=4+♦s, 2♣=4+♣s and less than a game invite, 2♦=♣s and game invite or better, 2♥=5+♠s and 4+♥s less than game invite, 2♠=5♠s & 4♥s game invite. 1NT can be used to ask, often a balanced or semi-balanced hand. Over 1♦, if opener jump rebids 2NT (17-19 with 5♦s), use 3X as transfer, so responder can transfer to ♦s or major to signoff. In placing the balanced hand types, system designers have a considerable number of choices, and a partnership should strive to find what works for them.

Yes more to it - not posting a spoiler - edit: note the next post right below this does contain the spoiler

That is the neatest problem I've seen in a long time and very fun to solve without using DF etc. (resist the temptation - keep working on it, as it is worthwhile) - involves lots of "this must be this, so that must be that" thinking. Thanks for posting this (and now I'll be late to work).

Repeating the above, http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2006spring/db7.pdf Of interest to Canadians is CNTC Silver Medalists Nicolas L’Ecuyer and Zygmunt Marcinski are in the round of 8, playing as a four bagger - you would think the CNTC 4 bagger experience would have been enough! Many years ago Bruce Ferguson (on the Hollman team) was asked if he was nervous playing in a CNTC final - he replied it was nothing compared to a Vandy. In the bulletin article "Devious defense" the text mixes up a suit so says "You’ll need something good to happen in the minor suits, however, as you’re looking at two spade losers, and probably two diamond losers and two club losers" - however clubs are A9x opposite KQJTx. Below that article we see:

$49 per year + ok member price for up to 6 masterpoint tourneys per day Given I play at least once a day for 250+ days of the year, it seems this would be a reduced cost from BBO. However since Ok has to pay the ACBL for the tourney rights, I wonder how they can afford to charge just $49 for a whole year?

Very nice

As of April 13, here's where we are at: Here’s what I like best over the Kaplan Inversion/Granville. It assumes you play an opening at the two level to handle 6+♥s and up to 12 HCP, such as Trent Twos, Goldilocks, or Fatnuns. This is just a work in progress at this time, but here’s the current look. After 1♥-1♠: 1NT: Maximum of 14. Balanced, semi-balanced or with exactly four clubs (not 0-5-4-4). Now 2m is to play, 2♠ is an artificial game force, 2♥ and invite with 2♥s and (or poor invite with 3♥s), 3X natural invite. 2♣: Five or longer ♦s or 0-5-4-4 and any strength, or four ♦s and 15+, or 6+♥s and no second suit and either 13-17 or 18+ with flat hand or short ♣s. 2♦: 4+♠s, up to 16 (not 5♠s if 14-16). 2♥: 4♣s with 15-18, or 5+♣s up to 16, or balanced 15-17. 3NT is to play, 2NT is a signoff with either minors or just ♦s, and is to play in ♦s if 3-3 in minors. 3♣ is a signoff with 5+♣s, but opener can continue to bid with a 5-5+ fit or good maximum. 3♦ is a game invite with 6+♦s. 2♠ shows a game invite hand, and opener bids 2NT with 15 or poor 16, and 3♣s if 5-5 up to 14, and bids above 3♣ establish a game force. 2♠: 4+♠s, 16/17-19 if 4♠s, 14-16 if 5+♠s. 2NT: 18-19 balanced. Now 3X is a transfer, with 3♥ showing long ♣s and 3♠ showing both minors. 3♣: 18/19+ with 4+♣s. Now 3♦ asks hand type, 3♠ shows long ♦s. 3♦: 17/18+ with 4♠s or 16/17+ with 5♠s. Now 3♠ shows ♦ suit or stopper, and 3♥ asks for further description, with 3♠ showing weak ♣s. 3♥: 17/18+, ♦ singleton/void and no other four card or longer suit. 3♠: 17/18+, ♠ singleton/void and no other four card or longer suit. 3NT: 17/18+ with solid suit, stoppers or semi-stoppers in other suits. 4♣/♦: Distributional 6-5 or better, good playing value but not strong. 4♥: 7+♥s, extra playing value but not super strong. After 1♥-1♠--2♣: Pass: Possible with long ♣s and awful hand. 2♦: For opener to pass if 4♦s and 15-16 or 5+♦s up to 14. Up to 9, 4+♦s or 3♦s and short ♥s. If 6+♦s can have values expecting opener to bid again with 6♥s and for the opponents to bid if the contract is left in 2♦ with great fit. Now: **** Pass: 4+♦s, no game interest. **** 2♥: 6+♥s, 13-17. Now bidding is natural, except 2♠ shows a good hand with ♦s, and 3♦ is weak with long ♦s. **** 2♠: 4+♦s and game interest, forcing just to 2NT. **** 2NT: 6+♥s, flat hand, or with 4+♦s, 3♣ asks, 3♦ and 4X showing 4+♦s, 3♥ to 3NT showing flat hand with degree of strength (3NT=best). **** 3♣: 18/19+ game force with 4♦s. 3♦ asks hand type. **** 3♦: 17/18+ with 5+♦s, game force. **** 3♥: 17/18-19, 6+♥s, short in ♦s. Not forcing. **** 3♠: 19/20+, 6+♥s and short ♦s. **** 3NT: 19/20+, 6+♥s and singleton ♦ honor. 2♥: Up to 9, 2 or 3 ♥s (not 3 if 8-9). Now: **** Pass: no game interest. **** 2♠: Shapely game invite with 4+♦s. **** 2NT: Semi-balanced hand with 4♦s, game interest. **** 3♣: Game force with 4+♦s. **** 3♦: Game force with 5+♦s. **** 3♥: Game invite with 6+♥s. **** 3♠: Game force with 6+♥s. **** 3NT,4♥: To play. **** 4♣: Singleton/void in ♣s, 6+♥s, slam interest. 2♠: Most hands with 9/10+ and no clear direction or with ♦s. Now: **** 2NT shows 5-5 in the reds, not forcing - responder can pass, or bid 3♣ with long ♣s or bid 3♦ with a fit/semi-fit. **** 3♦ shows 4♦s, 15+, game force. **** 3♦ shows 5+♦s, 14/15+, game force. **** 3♥ shows 6♥s, 13-14, non-forcing. **** 3♠ shows 6+♥s, game force. **** 3NT to play. **** 4♣ is slam try with 6+♥s, short ♣s. **** 4♦ with big 6-5+. **** 4♥ to play. 2NT: 9/10+ with 6+♣s. Now opener bids, 3♣ with any minimum, 3♦ with ♦s and 15+ (now game forcing), 3♥ with 6+♥s and 15+ (now game forcing), and 3♠ if weak and/or short in ♠s with 2+♣s. 3♣: Six or longer suit, up to bad 9. 3♦: 3+♦s, 2+♥s, 11-12. Asks partner to bid 4♥ or cuebid on the 4 level with 6+♥s, pass with 5-5 and minimum opening, or bid 3X with ♦s, using 3♥ to show a ♣ stopper. 3♥: Game invite with 3♥s. Opener only passes with minimum 5-5. 3♠: 5-5 in the minors, 9/10+. 3NT: Game going with 3♥s – offers opener the chance to try for slam by cuebidding. 4♣/♦: 6-5 or better in the minors, 9/10+. ------------------------------------------------------------ As of April 5: If 2NT is an invite opposite only top of range, then many 2NT contracts will have 12-13 opposite not enough points. It seems better to play 2NT as an invite with only bottom of range not accepting. In reply to inquiry, I don't like Riton 2♣ but another thread is better for that debate. Since the last post I’ve tinkered with the mappings, to produce the following. Since these posts will have limited interest, I’ll continue any future updates here: http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/blog.html The structure, keeping 2♣ rebid for a minor or balanced, often 15+. After 1♥-1♠: 1NT: Maximum of 14. Balanced or with exactly a four card minor (not 0-5-4-4). Now 2m is to play, 2♠ is an artificial game force, 2♥ an invite with 2♥s and (or poor invite with 3♥s), 3X natural invite. 2♣: Four or longer minor and 14/15+, or five or longer minor any strength, or 0-5-4-4 any strength or 15+ balanced. Structure below. 2♦: 4+♠s, up to 16 (not 5♠s if 14-16). 2♠: 4+♠s, 16/17-18 if 4♠s, 14-16 if 5+♠s. 2NT: 6/7♥s and no void/small singleton 19+, or 5+♥s and 4+♠s and 19+. Now 3♥ asks if 4♠s, with 3♠ saying yes and 3NT no. 3♣ asks hand type, with 3NT denying 4♠s and 3X shape showing with 4♠s (3♦ if 4-5-2-2). 3NT is to play, 3♦ shows long ♣s and 3♠ shows long ♦s. 3♣/♦: 16/17+ with 6+♥s and void/small singleton in suit bid and no other four card or longer suit. 3♥ is non-forcing but opener bids again with extras. 3♥: 16/17-18 with 6+♥s, no singleton or ♠ void/small singleton and no other four card or longer suit. 3♠ asks if short, 3NT says no. 3♠: 18/19+ with 6+♥s and ♠ void/small singleton and no other four card or longer suit. 3NT: 18+ with solid suit, stoppers or semi-stoppers in other suits. 4♣/♦: Distributional 6-5 or better, good playing value but not strong. After 1♥-1♠--2♣: Pass: Possible with long ♣s and awful hand. 2♦: Up to 9, 4+♦s or 3♦s and short ♥s. If 6+♦s quite weak Now: **** Pass: 4+♦s, no game interest. **** 2♥: 4♣s with 15-18 or 5+♣s up to 16 or balanced 15-18. 3♣ to play and 3♦ weak with long ♦s. 2NT is a non-forcing game try with 4/5♣s. 2♠ asks, 2NT shows 15-16, 3♣ 5-5 not max, 3♦ if 4♣s 17-18, 3♥ if 6-4, 3♠ if 5-5 maximum, and 3NT if 17-18 balanced. **** 2♠: 4+♦s and game interest, forcing just to 2NT. **** 2NT: Balanced or semi-balanced hand with good game interest, about 18/19-20. **** 3♣: 18/19+ game force with 4+♣s. 3♦ asks hand type. **** 3♦: 17/18+ game force with 5+♦s. **** 3♥: 6+♥s and 4+♦s, game forcing (bid 2♠ first if lesser values). **** 3♠: 5-5+ with ♣s, game force. **** 3NT: To play. 2♥: Up to 9, 2♥s & 4-5♣s. Now: **** Pass: 4+♦s or balanced, no game interest. **** 2♠: Shows ♣s suit or fragment, could be 2 or 3 only if game force. Asks responder to bid 2NT if maximum, 3♣ if minimum, then opener bids 3♣ to signoff (or passes 3♣) or bids 3X to shape out, 3♦ being a suit or a stopper. **** 2NT: Balanced or semi-balanced hand with game interest, about 17-18. **** 3♣: 3♣s (often with 4+♦s), game invite. **** 3♦: 5+♦s game invite. **** 3♥: Game invite with 6♥s. **** 3♠: 5-5+ with ♦s, game force. **** 3NT: To play. 2♠: Most hands with 9/10+ (see 2NT and 3♥+ alternatives). Now: **** 2NT asks, not super shapely except can be 5-5 non-game force with ♣s. Responder bids: ******** 3♣: Nothing to say. Now opener can pass if minimum 5-5 or bid 3NT to play, or bids 3♥ to show ♣s or 3♠ to show ♦s or re-asks with 3♦: 3♥ says fairly flat, and now 3♠ asks if extras (3NT=no), 3♠ shows 5♦s, 3NT shows 6+♦s with 3♣s. ******** 3♦: 6+♦s and fewer than 3♣s. ******** 3♥: 5♣s. 3♠ asks if 4♦s (3NT says no). ******** 3♠: 6+♣s. ******** 3NT: Maximum without 5+♣s. Opener can now continue with natural slam try. ******** 4♣: 6+♣s and 4+♦s. ******** 4♦: 6+♦s and 4♣s. **** 3♣ shows 5-5 in the reds, not forcing - responder can pass with long ♣s or bid 3♦ with a fit/semi-fit. **** 3♦ shows 4+♦s, game force, and either 5-5 or 6-4. 3♥ asks, and 3♠ shows 5-5, all other bids showing 6-4 or better. **** 3♥ shows 4+♣s, game force, and either 5-5 or 6-4. 3♠ asks, and 3NT or 4♣ shows 5-5 (the latter with considerable extras), all other bids showing 6-4 or better. **** 3♠ shows weak doubleton ♠ or shorter, asks partner to bid 3NT with ♠s stopped or to explore for a best minor suit game or slam. **** 3NT to play, responder should pass even with 12. **** 4♣/♦ with big 6-5+. **** 4♥ with 6+♥s, 4♣s and 18/19+. 2NT: 10+ with 4-2-2-5 exactly and a hand that wants to play 2NT opposite 5♦s up to 13. **** 3X is now natural and forcing to 3NT or 4X. 3♣/♦: Six or longer suit, up to bad 9. 3X by opener is now forcing to 3NT. 3♥: Game invite with 3♥s. Opener only passes with minimum 5-5. 3♠: 5-5 in the minors, 9/10+. 3NT: Game going with 3♥s – offers opener the chance to try for slam by cuebidding. 4♣/♦: 6-5 or better in the minors, 9/10+.

Team Baze is listed as Grant Baze, San Diego CA; Steve Beatty, Mill Creek WA; Michael Whitman, San Francisco CA; Krzystof Buras, Chorzow St. Lucia; Grzegorz Narkiewicz, Bielsk

wow this is wonderful - thanks thanks thanks for posting and updating! Note that Fred is playing as part of this team: Ron Rubin, Miami FL; Russell Ekeblad, Providence RI; Brad Moss, New York NY; Fred Gitelman, Las Vegas NV; Geoff Hampson, Los Angeles CA; Eric Greco, Philadelphia PA Justin is in this team: Melanie Tucker - John Kranyak, New York NY; Justin Lall - Hemant Lall, Dallas TX; Guido Ferraro, Torino Italy; Agustin Madala, Buenos Aires Argentina - hopefully he will have a great 4th Q

This subject and the related subject of how to handle 1♠-1NT forcing (in particular how to combine Bart and Gazzilli – one attempt is in ETM Gold Premium) holds great interest for me – however a recent rec.games.bridge posting asking about Bart/Gazzilli had zero replies so most do not find it so absorbing, so I’ll understand that most will skip the rest of this or skim unread it. To avoid repetition below, all sequences that begin 1♥-1♠ are using the Kaplanville Inversion, where 1♠ acts like a proxy “forcing notrump”. In this style, 1♥-1NT shows 5+♠s. Most of the design work in this area involves mapping hand types to opener’s rebid, and deciding what works or not. For example I considered 1♥-1♠--2♣ to show either 4♠s or 6♥s (opener's 2♥ rebid shows ♣s - thus a remapping). Now responder can signoff in 2♥ or can bid 2♦ to ask. However some hands want to invite opposite 6♥s but pass opposite 5 (i.e. if 4♠s), so the scheme has flaws. As noted in a posting above, Vincent Demuy and Gavin Wolpert play (or played?) a method where 1♥-1♠--1NT shows a balanced hand or ♦s. This allows them to play 1♥-1♠—2♦ to show 4♠s (sort of a delayed Flannery). The problem with this mapping is that the range of 1NT is considerable, forcing responder to move on when a pass would be better. Also the distributional ♥s & ♦s hands might place a notrump contract by the wrong side. Currently I favour this approach: After 1♥-1♠: 1NT: Maximum of 14. Balanced or with exactly a four card minor (not 0-5-4-4). Now 2m is to play, 2♠ is an artificial game force, 2♥ and invite with 2♥s and (or poor invite with 3♥s), 3X natural invite. 2♣: Four or longer minor and 14/15+, or five or longer minor, or any 18/19+. Structure below. 2♦: 4+♠s, up to 16 (not 5♠s if 14-16). 2♠: 4+♠s, 16/17-18 if 4♠s, 14-16 if 5+♠s. 3♣/♦: 5-5+, 13/14-16. Rest fairly standard. After 1♥-1♠--2♣: 2♦: Up to 9, 4-5♦s or 3♦s and short ♥s. Now: **** Pass: 4+♦s, no game interest. **** 2♥: 4♣s and 15-18 or 5+♣s up to 13. 3♣ to play. 2♠ asks, 2NT shows 15-16, 3♣ 5-5+, above 3♣ if 17-18 **** 2♠: 4+♦s and game interest, forcing just to 2NT. **** 2NT: 18/19+ Puppet to 3♣ or ♣ signoff with 6+♣s. After responder bids 3♣, 3♦ shows 4♦s, 3♥ and 3♠ show 4♠s (the latter with 3/4♦s), 3NT is flat with 6♥s. **** 3♣: 18/19+ with 4+♣s. 3♦ asks hand type. **** 3♦: 17/18+ with 5+♦s. **** 3♥ and higher: Hands with 6+♥s and a singleton/void. 2♥: Up to 9, 2♥s & 4-5♣s. Now: **** Pass: 4+♦s, no game interest. **** 2♠: 4+♦s and game interest, forcing just to 2NT. **** 2NT: 18/19+ Puppet to 3♣ or ♣ signoff. As 2NT puppet above. **** 3♣: 17/18+ with 4+♣s. 3♦ asks hand type. **** 3♦: 18/19+ with 5+♦s. **** 3♥ and higher: Hands with 6+♥s and a singleton/void. 2♠: Most hands with 9/10+ (see 2NT alternative). Now: **** 2NT transfer to 3♣ with ♣s – opener can pass 3♣ if 5-5 but will bid again if 14/15+ to show shape. 3♠ over 3♣ shows 4♠s and short ♦s. Responder does not have to accept the transfer - in particular can bid 3NT with 12 and can bid 3♦s with 6+♦s. **** 3♣ shows 5-5 in the reds, not forcing - responder can pass with long ♣s. **** 3♦ is natural and forcing. **** 3♥ and 3♠ are natural, 18/19+. **** 3NT to play. **** 4♣/♦ with big 6-5+. 2NT: 10+ with 4-2-2-5 exactly and a hand that wants to play 2NT opposite 5♦s up to 13. **** 3X is now natural and forcing to 3NT or 4X. 3♣/♦: Six or longer suit, up to bad 9. 3X by opener is now forcing to 3NT. 3♥: Game invite with 3♥s. 3♠: 5-5+ in the minors, 10+.

If this was an ACBL tourney with a paid TD, then: 1) West should not have had to "defend her honor" - the TD should have shutdown all open dialogue, imposed a Zero Tolerance penalty on NS for openly suggesting cheating, and forced S to retract his/her statement if NS wished to continue playing. 2) After discussion was shut down, the TD should have quickly determined that there was no evidence of cheating, and then should have openly stated such. 3) The TD should not have "missed entirely everything else about the hand", unless the BBO software does not allow them to see the full hand. Also the TD should have investigated the NS bidding to determine if NS were relatively new to bridge - if so, the TD would educate the pair about not saying somebody was cheating, and might even rescind the ZT penalty - if the pair was not new and not alerting what should have been then some more of the book would be thrown at them. 4) "...kibitzers at the table, but none of them even hinted to the director..." - the kibitzers should stay quiet, unless the TD invites them to contribute. In tourneys with paid TDs, these situations can be quickly defused by a TD with a firm hand and the necessary knowledge of bridge and procedures. If the above was followed, then: W would not have had bad feelings after the tourney S would understand the proper way to vent When a TD does not handle the situation, then W rightly feels hurt and did not enjoy the tourney experience S feels free to openly accuse others Silliness continues...

Interesting. 2♦ could also be Multi, and handle strong hand types. Would prefer to restrict the weak hand types, so that 2♣ shows 18-19 bal or two suiter with ♠s and another suit. Then: Pass: to play 2♦ transfer to ♥s - 2♠ now shows ♠s and a minor 2♥ transfers to ♠s - 2♠ or 2NT shows bal, 3X shows two suiter 2♠ pass or correct - pass with two suiter, bid 2NT if bal and now system on 2NT strong ask 3♣ pass or correct with two suiter, bid 3NT if bal without 4/5♥s, 3♠ if bal and 4/5♥s 3♦ with long suit, to play etc.

In the suggested auction, it was based on 2NT showing a max 6-3-2-2, so the last hand doesn't apply. The first two do, and one should read: "hope that opener also has one or both of the black jacks, or that something nice happens, such as ♣s and ♠s both spliting" - that is the ♠J is important in providing another entry to dummy hopefully to set up ♣s. Also note that 6♣ on the second hand is a pretty reasonable contract - love to be there if ♠s 3-2 and ♣s at worst 4-2, or if get a black suit lead. On the first some good stuff might happen including black suits both split, or ♣Q doubleton or ♦ lead and Q wins, or ♥ ace lead, etc. Sure, there is no bullet proof way to get to all the good slams and avoid all the poor ones. However if the partnership employs two-suited RKCB after the suggested auction, responder could find out if opener is missing a key card and both black queens - that is missing the ♣ queen, and the ♥ ace or the ♠ king.

The strategy of blocking opener's rebid by a 4th seat jam is not "simply a variant of the general idea of frequent and random overcalls 2nd seat". That's like saying that two suited overcalls are "simply a variant" of one suited overcalls, or that apples are "simply a variant" of oranges. "Doing something in 2nd seat, no matter what " - actually what I've seen is that 2nd seat overcalls of 2♦ or less, or double, have no net plus position if advancer can't move these forward, especially to the three level. So in contrast to your statements, I believe that 4th seat bidding is more important than random bidding by 2nd seat.

However this is not the best overall strategy, though is effective. The best strategy aims to jam opener's rebid. This is done in two ways: 1) Jump bids over the 1♣ opening, taking bidding space away 2) Bids over the 1♣ opening that allow advancer to make a bid that reduces opener's bidding space. For example of 2), take this auction: 1♣-1♦(natural)-Double(values)-3♦ The 1♦ bid didn't take any bidding space, but the 3♦ did damage. Now, what are the ranges of 3♥, 3♠, 3NT, 4♣ by opener? Does opener go by 3NT with ♣s? How are 5-5, 5-4, 4-5, 5-3, 3-5 in the majors bid now - do some go by 3NT? How does one find 5-3 and 6-2 major fits? Method 2) can be even harder for opener to bid over with pass or correct possible. For example: 1♣-1♦(♦s or ♥s)-Double(values)-3♦(Pass or Correct) Now what is double - is it showing ♦s or takeout of ♦s or just handling hands with values and no other good bid? Does 3NT promise stoppers in both red suits, or a specific one of them? Almost all schemes over 1♣ allow for jump overcalls on a fairly wide range of hands. However only some schemes provide substantial opportunities for advancer to jam the auction while also sowing confusion.