glen

Also GI with 5-4 in the majors is poor - it seems 4-4/5-4/4-5 all go via 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠. A common problem in a number of NT structures.

The system in this thread is definitely viable. Here’s what I’m been considering (“working on” would be too strong at this point) and my thoughts relatively to this and the system above. 1♣: 14+ with at least one 4 or longer major, or 17/18+ balanced. Forcing. - Adding the four card major requirement if not strong & balanced makes the opening less susceptible to interference, and the rebid structure easy. 1♦: No four card major, either 10/11-13 balanced or unbalanced with one or both minors up to just below a game force. Non-forcing. - Here if responder bids 1♥/1♠ or 1NT, this is to be passed with 10/11-13 balanced. - The “no four card major” specification helps with knowing what to do if interference, and allowing opener’s major suit bids to show stoppers moving towards notrump. 1♥/1♠: Four to six in major, 8 to 13. Only exactly 5 if balanced/semi-balanced (5-3-3-2/5-4-2-2). Only 6 in major if not a very good/great suit. If balanced 10/11-13 (pass if less & balanced). - High frequency and tightly defined, so responder can rapidly place contract, or investigate to find best spot. - I love having the 10/11-13 balanced with a four card major in this opening – the opponents now have to worry about having game in the major opened! 1NT: 13/14-16 balanced. 2♣: Both majors, at least 5-4 either way, 8 to 13. - So one doesn’t have to open 2♥/♠ with length in other major. - 2♦ asks, so best major fit can be found. 2♦: Multi, weak with a major, maximum of poor 10, or both majors 5-5+ 12-13. - This keeps the range of 2♥/♠ up. - Having both majors 12-13 allows the 2♣ opening not to have great playing strength, and the paradox replies (e.g. 2♠ if likes ♥s) will get to right strain, albeit sometimes a level too high. 2♥/♠: 10-13, five or longer in suit. If five, then a singleton/void somewhere and a four card or longer minor. If six then very good/ great suit. - This specification allows responder to bid 2NT to ask for minor or very good/great major, to find best spot to play. 2NT: GF with ♦s and/or ♣s, and no four card major, unbalanced.

Let me modify this above example to bring it more in line with the complex cases that occur. Suppose, playing online bridge, your partner opens 2♥ on A987xx, the opponents reach a 4♠ contract, and your partner leads a ♦ to your ace. The lead looks like a singleton to you, based on your holding and dummy’s. You hold Qx of ♥s, and nothing in ♣s. You play some non-standard carding, including reverse suit-preference (following what Meckwell does). Although your carding methods are somewhat marked on the convention card in the very limited space available, in the interest of explaining your methods, you private message the opponents to tell them you play “reverse suit preference”. Looking at your holdings, and the two small ♥s in dummy, it seems dangerous to signal for a ♥ back, since this partner tends to lead from a AK headed suit, to have a look, before switching to a singleton. The middle ♦ cards, showing no preference, might be confusing to partner. So you play back a high ♦ spot, indicating a preference for ♣s, using reverse, or upside-down, suit preference. Partner sees the signal, but knows from the bidding and his hand that you are very unlikely to hold the ♣ ace. So after ruffing the ♦, he exits passively with a trump. Later declarer decides to finesse in ♣s to make his contract, losing to the ♣ King held by the weak two bidder. Finessing the Queen in ♥s, twice, instead would have allowed him to make the contract, as it turns out. Declarer, from his point of view, considers he might have been a victim of misinformation or of some miscommunication, based on you saying you had a preference for clubs, but seeing both you didn’t have one, and your partner didn’t assume you did. In this type of situation, it could easily be not clear to Declarer what had happened. For resolution of this type of concern, I think the recommended approach should be to involve the Director. There are several reasons for this: - For online bridge there is often little time for lengthy exchange of views before the next board or next round, and the game needs to go on. - In the follow-up discussion between the two sides, there may be subsequent miscommunications or misunderstandings, resulting in an escalating incident. - Players are under no obligation to explain their actions to their opponents, but just their agreements. - Neither side may be able to relate to the viewpoint of the other. So I think that Declarer here, with a possibly valid concern, should click for the Director (no “yelled for the Director” online as in your example). Then the next hand, or next round should go on. The Tournament Director (TD) arrives, and is informed of the situation from the perspective of Declarer. This calling of the TD should not be an ask for score correction, at least at this point, but instead just asking that the TD resolve a concern. What I would like the Directors to do in these cases is to first understand the concern expressed, and if the concern can be handled right away, then do so. However without looking at the hand and just saying “the opponents have a right to false card” does not help settle the concern for Declarer in this instance. Once the TD accepts there is a concern, s/he should indicate that it will be looked at, and the players should go on to the next hand. In this case, the TD can say something like “I’ll look at the board and get back to you.” Second, as time permits, the TD should determine if misinformation occurred, by confirming the partnership agreement involved and looking at the hand. Here, in this example, the TD might message you to ask what the high ♦ spot meant. You might reply that it was reverse suit preference, for ♣s. In the interest of speedy resolution, it would also help to indicate why you did what you did. Here you might add a note such as “I decided that I could not risk a heart return, so signalled for clubs, even though I had nothing in the suit.” Third, as time permits, the TD should indicate the resolution of the matter to the players involved in the hand. To you, this might be “you did nothing wrong”. To Declarer, this could be something like “They described their agreements accurately; the defender did not want to risk signalling for hearts so decided to signal for clubs.” So the TD becomes a facilitator in the resolution of concerns between players, leaving the players to play the game. This helps with the enjoyment of the game for all involved, and also maintains the flow of the game, including avoiding escalating incidents, which usually end awfully. The TD may also find cases where there has been miscommunication and misunderstanding. Perhaps the Declarer in this case could not comprehend what ‘reverse suit preference’ meant. The TD may suggest that the method be described as ‘upside down suit preference’ and, in the limited space on the convention card putting ‘u/d suit pref’. The miscommunication or misunderstanding does not mean that one side is right, and one is wrong, and the TD should rule on damage here. Instead the TD looks for ways to ensure the misunderstanding/miscommunication doesn’t occur again, or occurs less often. So I disagree that ‘following the “spirit” of the rule and trying to fully disclose with a reasonable time frame, then surely that is sufficient’. I believe the TD will need to look into possible misinformation concerns from time to time, and by doing this the TD will improve things, both for the present, and for future tournaments. To ensure there is closure on these concerns, the TD should inform the involved players of the resolution. With many of the concerns on possible misinformation, it will be difficult for the TD to both determine that misinformation did occur, and that it did do significant damage. Thus I believe that the TD priority should not be on the determination of damages, and/or assuming one side is the ‘offending side’, but on why the situation arose. For example there could very well have been misunderstanding or miscommunication between players. The TD should focus on how the situation can be prevented from occurring again and how to alleviate the present concern, instead of trying to reach the perfect ruling on the hand in question, which might only be possible after lengthy study and consultation with others. So in summary, I ask that the TDs look closely at misinformation concerns, to facilitate the resolution of these for both the present and the future. I ask that the TDs inform players after they have looked at a concern, so that both the immediate concerns are alleviated, and that the concerns occur less often in the future. This is what I hope for in an online game with paid directors.

The web site is: http://www.bridgebuff.com/jammer2d.htm Not sure how old it is.

I experimented around with assumed fit bids in the late 90s. For example see: http://www.bridgematters.com/etmpairs.htm Here the ‘DONT NO’ openings of 2♣ and 2♦ showed “4 or longer in suit bid, may have a second suit, a weak hand, 3 to 10 HCP in first or second seat, can be a little stronger in 3rd seat, minimum or sub-minimum opening values in fourth. If no second suit, then suit is good enough to rebid on the three level (a semi-solid six or seven card suit would be appropriate).” The reason for not promising a second suit was to ensure it was a legal opening – that is it was natural. Since the assumed fit openings have a relatively high frequency, one quickly becomes aware of both the positive and negative sides of these bids. The problem with assumed fit bids is when they don’t fit, which can be often in some styles. In long spade Jammer, approximately 38% of the time an insufficient trump fit will be found. In my opinion, the risk/reward ratio of this opening is flawed, since not enough “good stuff” will occur to compensate for the not-enough-trumps times. In short club Jammer, only 28% of the time is an insufficient trump fit reached, so now the risk/reward equation is more balanced (these percentages, such as 38% and 28% come from the Bridge World article). In addition, since both majors are promised, there is an increased possibility of the rewarding case of bouncing in a major. In my opinion: - The risk/reward equation of short club Jammer IS sufficient to make the opening viable/playable. Short club Jammer occurs about 4% of the time. - However there are other uses for the 2♦ opening that provide far better risk/reward ratios and collateral benefits, such as Multi. A six card Multi weak two will have really insufficient trump only 4% of the time and occurs about 2% of the time. However allowing 5 card majors when Multi is not vulnerable really opens things up – only 16% of the time is the fit 6 trumps or less (the 7 trump case is frequent, but often a 5-2 major fit at the two level) – and this will put the Multi frequency higher than the short club Jammer (when not vulnerable). So my view is that the short club Jammer, compared to Multi, will encounter less rewarding situations, and will face more risky situations. Of course this is just my opinion based on my experiences (e.g. lots of great results from Multi). Certainly don’t allow my postings here to discourage you from having your own experiences :blink: For more information on assumed fit bids, see Chris Ryall’s site, in particular this page: http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/we...assumed-fit.htm My recommended approach to defending against these bids is to use double to show opening values and takeout of a suit that: a) can be held by the opponents b ) is not the suit bid. This “takeout” does not promise shortness in the takeout suit, just 3+ length in the other suits, so it contains many balanced hands. So if defending a SPAMMER (long spade Jammer) 2♦ opening, double would be takeout for ♠s, ♥s or ♣s, and always with 3+♦s, which allows the double to be passed (i.e. threatens responder with this possibility in order to see if it might induce fleeing to a worse spot). If defending against CLAMMER (short club Jammer) 2♦ opening, the double would be takeout for ♠s or ♥s. After this “takeout” double, a subsequent double by either player is negative – that is for takeout but passable with length in suit doubled. After two doubles, all further doubles then become penalty. If the opponents end up in a doubled contract, frequently lead trump, though do not continue to play further trump without considering what the best approach for the defense is, now that dummy is seen.

It will not work well at expert levels, since one will end up in a considerable number of 4-3 fits without a lot of compensating values, and the opponents will repeatedly play trump, reducing these contracts to, in effect, 2NT with few points. They are some other flaws as well: - It will provide a roadmap to the play of the hand, when the opposing side chooses to declare the contract. - The opening will find few better contracts than normal bidding would reach. - There will be less opportunity to preempt the bidding to the three or four levels, compared to other preemptive bids. - It does not direct the lead as well as other preemptive bids. However it would certainly be fun to play!

If you "have to rebid 2NT to invite with or without four spades" then there are three approaches: 1) Opener doesn't open 1NT with a minimum and 4-4 in the majors. Instead open 1♣ (playing 1♣ can be as short as 2, 1♦ promises 4), and have the 1♣-1NT response promise 8-10 or 9-11 etc. so opener with 15 & 4-4 in majors can take another bid. 2) Don't invite without a four card major - either pass 1NT or jump to 3NT (or show long minor etc). 3) Do invite without a four card major, but if 2NT is rebid by responder, opener can rebid 3♣ to ask for type of invite - with or w/o 4♠s and if distributional or relatively flat. Opener always asks with 4♠s, so sometimes getting too high if an invite with no four card major but that just returns to the point that 2) would be at.

The results list are for "Senior Teams" - see top of page: http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05T...16&qtournid=502 It's sad that Fred and Sheri have gotten so old so fast...

Thanks Justin for setting up your blog - I look forward to reading it on an ongoing basis. There's good news and bad news about the second transfers. The September 03 Bridge World has an article titled Double Transfers by Frank Lipniski, which employs like-minded methods. Also many many years ago I've seen the same type of approach in another BW article. So the bad news is its not new, but the good news is others have liked it and used it before. I'll discuss your ideas a little more below. For the ETM NT methods (referenced above), I'll have an update (the 2005 structures) out sometime in the 3 to 8 weeks range. What I've found out about NT and NT structures is this (which also applies to systems too): - Players seem to get the most effectiveness out of one particular notrump range - I've had partners who are best with 10-12, others with 11-14, and others with 14+-17. When these players switch to another range, they don't seem to do as well (its not that they do awful, just they don't do as well). - Just like NT ranges, players should pick a structure they feel comfortable with. I believe a partnership can be quite comfortable adding the "double transfers" (more transfers after the first transfers). I like the retransfer methods as they allow responder to shape out, showing a singleton or fragment, which is key for opener to evaluate. For example after 1NT-2♥--2♠-2NT--3♣, responder can show shortness or fragment. Also playing 1NT-2♣--2Red-2♠ to show GI with ♠s allows distributional invites to be shown. The retransfers to the major is great, as it can show 6 or longer in the major, with game invite values or stronger. Now choice of game can be offered. For example 1NT-2♦--2♥-3♦--3♥-3NT: here 3♦ shows 6+♥s and invite+, and 3♥ declines the invite, and now 3NT offers choice of game. You don't play retransfer to spades after the spade transfer, but should (so 1NT-2♥--2♠-3♥ should show 6+♠s, invite+). I would play the 3♠ rebid after the transfer (to either major) as showing a semi-distributional choice of game with 5 in the major. This allows the 3NT rebid by responder to show a flat (often 5-3-3-2 or 5-4-2-2 with spread out values) choice of game. Choice of game bids can produce many swings (combined with judgement). Given all this, I'm still moving towards using Italian re-asking bids after Stayman, in the ETM IMP NT structure, which require that 1NT-2♣--2♦-2♠ and 1NT-2♣--2♥-2♠ be available as an artificial GF asking bid, for shape. This would then prevent the GI with 5♠s being included in Stayman, which then means that 1NT-2♥--2♠-2NT can no longer be a transfer to ♣s. The most fun I've had with retransfers was with the ETM mini/weak notrump structure (http://www.bridgematters.com/weakmini.htm). With those methods we were retransfering all the time and it was fun! Again, best wishes for your blog. I've thought of setting up a blog around my ETM stuff, but I'm not sure the older players relate to blogs as much as the younger ones do.

Certainly going to an appeal committee, if one existed for online play, would be frivolous. However calling the director is usually the wise and preferred course of action in potential problem cases (one can refer to numerous articles that encourage players to call a director). In the particular case, with the next hand already underway, there is little time to determine the ramifications of what just transpired (e.g. is showing suit preference for clubs silly given the bidding and dummy, or do the opponents need to indicate to each other what suits to guard). Instead, the director is called, it is explained there is possible misinformation or possible miscommunication, and then it’s on with the next hand. The director then takes a look at it, and, at some point, hopefully reports back on the situation and any resolution, if appropriate. If some misunderstanding was found, the director might suggest something to the players (e.g. putting “revolving Lavinthal” on the cc, or for players to ask when playing against Lavinthal), and this could very well eliminate other problems in the future. If there doesn’t appear to a problem to the director, after looking at, the director should indicate such, and provide guidelines on when s/he is to be called. However most guidelines I’ve seen recommend calling directors in cases of doubt, in order to facilitate resolving any potential problem and moving on.

As to GOI - Get Over It - I'm not looking for a decision or views that the particular ruling was right, wrong, black, white, grey or pink. I asked that: - Zero Tolerance (be) enforced. - Directors inform players of decisions once they are made, including notifying when zero tolerance actions have been made, and when a "ruling" stands. - Directors look closely at misinformation concerns. Certainly the TD enforcement (i.e. beyond just the rule) that you can play only what is on your cc (in a tournament today, in reply to "let's use your cc" by one opponent, the other asked "what's a cc") goes a good way towards helping resolve misinformation problems. Also the guideline not to just use the name of a convention when explaining a bid helps too. In signalling, though, the box on the card is small, and names are often used (Lavinthal, Rusinow, Foster echo, Smith echo etc.). My wife and I play Rusinow, and we pre-alert with "rusinow (2nd from touch honours) thru out hand" so we explain what Rusinow means. Most "O/E" players use Odd to show encouragement, and Even to show suit preference, but some reverse it and use Odd for suit preference. Somehow we need to get beyond using "names" to describe signalling methods, and replace it with methods that describe the signalling. Thanks all for your comments.

Let's take the "solely" out of there and see what we have: "those that rely on the messages from the opponents signalling methods are usually too mentally lazy to work out the problem on their own" So players who include information from the opponents signalling in forming their line of play are "too mentally lazy"?

Neither of us asked about the carding (though declarer had checked the convention card) - about the time the ♠2 was played, he sent by private message: DiscardingOpp: we play laventhial discards See posting above for this and other chat - spelling as per actual message.

Thanks for the detailed reply. It does make a lot a sense that ♣s would not be a suit to signal for, and thus the 2♠ discard would be just saying nothing about ♦s, and in which case we would have no complaint. However when I asked for a reason for the ruling I was told by the TD: "he claims that he was out of correct cards to show a C". Which left me more confused. Certainly I will have wrong rulings in the future, and I will have right rulings that I disagree with; in this particular case without knowing the actual partnership agreements I don't know what the right ruling is. The problem I had was not the ruling itself, but: - No follow-up from the director (e.g. "I looked at the hand and he would foolish to signal for a club, so result stands", or "result stands, I will explain after the tournament if you like to know the reasons"). - After asking about the board when the tournament was over, several times, then just being told "board will stand". It would be better if players could get closure. I do understand that the director has lots to do, and hence I waited until the tournament finished before following up. ------ Return to "Jerk" for a minute, perhaps the TD could ask them "it has been reported you may have called your opponent a Jerk - did you do so?". Then: If answer is no, inform them that it will be double-checked with abuse to confirm, and that there will be no problem if they didn't. If answer is yes, take immediate action with regards to the event, and later action as deemed appropriate.

Thanks for the details on the zero tolerence. On the signals, here's what we had. DiscardingOpp: we play laventhial discards DiscardingOpp: gto gdp MeMeMeMe: so what's was this about lavinthal discards? MeMeMeMe: 2 of spades discard? DiscardingOpp: low spade was neutral for lower !d ->MeMeMeMe: Automated message: Director TDTDTDTDTD is now at the table as requested by MeMeMeMe MeMeMeMe: hi, problem here TDTDTDTDTD: how may I help pls MeMeMeMe: on previous board, DiscardingOpp sends message "we play lavinthal discards" to us opponents in middle of hand MeMeMeMe: however 2!S discard does not indicate !Cs, as in lavinthal DiscardingOpp: yes MeMeMeMe: but we are now told "it is neutral for lower !D" DiscardingOpp: !d is lower MeMeMeMe: !C is lower than !D MeMeMeMe: so either unusual form of "lavinthal" or suit confusion or something Names changed to protect, TD is the director, Me is me, DiscardingOpp is you know. The first chat line was sent at point of discard, the second "gto gdp" was sent at conclusion of play, and the rest is as we moved on to the next board. So do you think the opponents properly informed us of their agreements? ---------------- Btw if I had to guess what they were playing, it would be that they play suit preference not by the suit ranking, but by in a rotating method with the suit being discarded in the middle, such that if they had three suits: C S D A low spade would indicate D, since D is lower than S. A high spade would indicate C, since it is "higher" than S. If they were discarding in Ds, then: S D C Now a low D indicates C, and a high D indicates S. If discarding in Cs: D C S A low C would indicate S, a high C D. Informing opponents of this method would require something more than just 'Lavinthal'.

With Okbridge, the TD had the ability to review previous chat on the spot, and then take action. If this feature is not available to them in BBO, then BBO needs to be changed. The TD should be able to review the logged chat, see that 'Jerk' was said, and take action. Enforcing zero tolerance online is easy if the software provides for it. As for the signals problem, I would not expect the people to be thrown out of the tourney. There was clearly some failure to communicate, so just cancel the board result, award each average, and help the people playing 'Lavinthal' discards explain their methods better to subsequent opponents, thus helping prevent future problems (which, since this was not done, will occur again).

In tonight’s ACBL tournament, the opponents had the director come to our table, and said that their last round opponents had called one of them a jerk, and had not alerted any of their special bids. The director said “I will speak to them severely”. I would expect instead, under zero tolerance, that these disrespectful players would immediately be substituted out of the event. Our opponents seem to think nothing would be done by the director. On another hand, we are in 3NT. The ace of hearts is held up until the third round, where one opponent discards the 2 of spades from a suit of 6542. As he makes the discard he sends a message “Lavinthal discards”. However he has a suit preference for diamonds, not the lower suit, clubs. At the end of hand, when asked about the discard he said it was “neutral for diamonds”. The director was called, and after hearing all of this, indicated that the board will be looked at. We never heard anything after this. After the tournament was over, I asked about the board. After three attempts with no replies, I was finally told just “ruling stands”. Another repeated attempts for a reason for this decision, was told “he did not have the cards available to make a signal for clubs.” As his spade suit was 6542, this seems impossible. So for us to continue playing on ACBL tournaments on BBO, I would like to see: - Zero Tolerance enforced. - Directors inform players of decisions once they are made, including notifying when zero tolerance actions have been made, and when a "ruling" stands. - Directors look closely at misinformation concerns. The latter is important for otherwise it will slow down the game. We will get: “We play Lavinthal discards.” “And what is that please?” “Low discards are suit preference for the lower suit, high discards are suit preference for the higher suit.” “What did your 2 of spades discard mean?” “Can you play please…” “I still have 20 questions pending, you need to answer them first”.

As noted just above look at the Viking Club. They use: 1NT: GF relay. 2♣: Any game invite 2♦: 5+♦s, less than GI 2♥: 5+♥s, less than GI 2M: Support, less than GI. 2♠: Constructive vulnerable, preemptive non-vulnerable. 2NT: Both minors, 5 to less than GI. It does leave awkard hand types if less than GI and no suit to bid. Perhaps they bid 2M on doubletons a lot if constructive values. Welland-Fallenius go half-and-half: After 1♥: 1♠: Like forcing NT 1NT: GF relay 2♣: 5+♠s, 9-12 After 1♠: 1NT: Forcing 2♣: GF relay 2♦: 5+♥s, 9-12 This structure has a 1NT forcing bid to handle both GI hands and all those less than GI hands with no suit to bid. If you don't go this way, I think it is better to try transfers at the 2 level, so: After 1M: 1NT: GF Relay 2♣: ♦s or balanced and less than GI. After opener's 2♦ rebid, 2M and 2NT show balanced hand types, 2NT if GI. etc. With 4-4-4-1, singleton in M, treat as balanced. I tried for many years to embed a GF relay into 1NT forcing. So, for example, 1♠-1NT(asking, any strength)-2♣ (♣s)-2♦ was a GF relay now. Here a 1-4-4-4 would bid 1NT, then pass opener's rebid or raise or bid 2NT. The scheme did not work.