Impact

As an outsider form a galaxy far, far away:- 1. The Republicans were always going to be in trouble: too many things going wrong on their watch; 2. McCain took a high risk strategy when he fell behind in the polls, rolled the dice ....and crapped out; 3. I do not know what happened to the left wing of the Republican party (relatively progressive as defined perhaps by Rockefeller) but they are unsighted these days - maybe it was the Goldwater effect? 4. Obama has campaigned on "hope" - but query whether that has not raised unrealistic expectations....which will be doomed by disappointment. 5. Neither candidate appears to have any economic savvy whatsoever - in fact economic illiterates, appears a closer description. It also appears bizarre that combinations of legislation which allow (indeed encourage) debt on the basis of "no recourse beyond the asset" remain in place, particularly when combined with other legislation which encourages lending to "disadvantaged groups who do not/may not have the capacity to repay". 6. Jimmy Carter was unquestionably one of the more intelligent recent US presidents - and perhaps one of the worst because of a tendency to micromanage and an inability to attract top quality advisers. I fear that may be repeated. 7. As part of the rest of the world, I am bemused by our willingness to criticise US presidential nominees in a fashion that would breed enormous resentment if the process were reversed (ie US newspapers carping about our putative leaders). 8. THe US tendency to believe (or at least pay lipservice to) the concept that God looks after them and invocations to blessings by God by every politician is bizarre: it might be comforting but surely you can't believe a) that any putative God would care; ;) that each of the competing views is sanctioned by the putative God; c) that each of the competing religions is similarly sanctioned (to the exclusion of the others)... 9. To date if someone tried the same act (invoking God) in Oz, they would be laughed out of office - this despite the relatively privately held strong religious views of our last 2 PMs. 10. OTOH after all the theatre, I am really disappointed that the "race" looks as if it has been determined, depriving us of last minute drama... We got the convicts; you got the Puritans - and we got lucky! regards

Whether it was right to move on the particular hand, or not, the most important thing is that when I hold fair values - having shown nothing - and my (sane) partner shows a rock, I don't wimp on him. I always try to tell my partners not to bid my hand - if they show a rock I will come to the party. For the sake of partnership comity I would always make another bid (almost certainly 3D), with the given hand. I would consider 2NT as a stall, which should show a S stop (else commits to wrongsiding any 3NT), while 2S cue does not necessarily confirm H for me but could be values with no 2nd suit and only doubleton H... eg same Honour distribution but 3-2-4-4 regards

With due respect, the OP stated "MP" as the form of scoring - and I think that obtaining a reasonable positive should be pretty good when a lot of pairs will be overboard on this hand!! For that reason either a transfer to S (which optimises the prospect of a superaccept) or a Stayman auction (which maximises prospects of reaching H) could be right. I slightly prefer the Stayman approach as if he bids H, I am prepared to get excited and push towards game (as I can show the shortage), whereas if he shows S we will definitely be in game but if he denies a Major I will merely invite in tepid fashion in S. Of course - were it imps there would be more to be said for the aggressive view which locates a fit (and at imps I would be inclined to relay it out as H may well be right). THe pips are great but we could easily end in a 5-3S fit with VERY weak trumps - which may not be a success at game level: at MP I doubt that is worth the risk. regards

As always part of the problem may be a matter of definition. Yes Stone-Age Acol was 1930's. However you can create quite a decent theoretical system with weak NT and opening lengths with minimum requirements of S - 5 H - 4 D- 4 C- 3 within the general context of opening suits DOWN the line subject to the above criteria. This is both aggressive - and susceptible to science. However it is also more involved as you have to consider at least a semi-forcing if not completely forcing response 1NT to 1S etc. Then you have to consider what that does to your 2/1 structure as between the different major openings etc. It requires some work, but I quite like the potential results for a basically natural system. Sure - it is not "Acol" as she was writ, and neither does it conform to 4 card MajorS (plural), but it is closer. As a non-teacher, I think the concept of teaching Acol is good to the extent that it encourages light 2-over-1 and focus on suits and rebids leading to early onset of judgment calls as opposed to "rules", but then I love bidding theory per se....and happen to believe that the way to encourage competent bidding is to teach people to think both logically in creation of a bidding system/sequence and from an objective point of view (as in what will this sound like it means to partner, as opposed to "this is what I wnat the sequence to mean because I hold this hand right now!!") rather than follow rules blindly (be they pointcount etc). Many are blinded by having a particular set of choices thrust upon them and only narrow options provided - so they never query the initial premise. Oddly enough there can be valid sets of internal logic attributable to different premises which can be teased out. Whether they lead to a better widget is arguable but the process of finding the logic is useful....as is the process of then testing the logic of adopting the initial premises!!! At least this latter point is all but ignored by most bridgeplayers (ignoring "mere cardpullers"), with lipservice being paid to argument for big club.... Aside from anything else, it happens to be fun (something of which too many people have lost sight and contributes enormously to the charm of the game). Now if you want to really challenge me about awful systems, let me tell you what I think of Schenken.....:-) regards

Well, I have a copy of them.... It is largely old-fashioned material now (given that it is 30 years old) and relays have come a long way since then. What it does do is give you all the CTC hands from BW in a format to test your bidding - and that is useful. Some of the decisions in auctions he recommends are rather double-dummy but the sheer array of different asking bids and relays is vast (albeit more economically useful in other formats eg symmetric relay with many relay breaks using asking bids from Danielson). The single greatest benefit he managed was to revise the 1D opening to be a utility bid which COULD be managed in competition by NOT making assumptions about D length etc. The long-lasting features are many negative free bids (probably overtaken by transfers/Rubensohl in a modern setting) and some useful ideas over high level interference following amporphous openings (and some of the NT continuations which live on in the Italian top pairs' methods). send me a PM if you are interested.. fred

The whole philosophy behind control-showing responses to 2C opening is that opener knows the combined assets (in controls) of the hands and should be able to proceed by asking bids (see various styles but simple Romex ControlAskingBids & TrumpAskingBidss are fair). Whether you think control-showing responses are good or bad, it is unfair to evaluate them without a complementary set of agreements (and relatively stupid IMHO to play them if you do not adopt asking bid structures by 2C opener for suit play when agreeing trumps). In this instance over the 5+S showing bid a 4NT TAB in S would be a good start - or alternatively as Phil suggested a 5C to ask as CAB - so that if he denies the CK you know he has the DK and can then TAB with 5NT for the grand. As Mikeh indicated, the 4D bid creates problems rather than solving them... regards,

Let's be honest when looking at "slot machines" or one-armed bandits as they are known colloquially:- 1) there is NO skill involved; 2) aside from input of coins there is no real activity and since the demise of "pulling the lever" the only exercise is pushing a button; 3) longterm both the state and the owner of the machine win as the payout is always less than 100%. I fail to see the charm in such a "game" but that does not mean I should prohibit someone else whose taste differs from mine participating (throwing money down a drain). We should resist the urge to prohibit that which does not appeal to us. Many of the same people would be disturbed to think that a similar principle could be applied to sports eg forms of football which involve attempts to maim the opposition etc and allegedly encourage people of the lowest intellectual calibre to behave like hooligans while receiving adulation for that behaviour (which is then repeated off the field)...but you don't hear (too many) calls for the banning of the game or sport. let's face it, there are not too many activities which cannot have an adverse face ...now were I to propose a cardgame which has enormous mathematical skills, the need for logic and language skills akin to computer programming and foreign language mastery together with psychological aspects, as an educational tool there is a whole group of the population that will scream that it only encourages gambling and is the devil's work: presumably because they don't perceive the charm of the game! Humans have an ability to find a way to turn almost anything to "bad use" but until we legislate against pleasure per se, the fact that something CAN be turned to an adverse purpose should not be sufficient reason to ban it (otherwise why would an allegedly civilized society condone the use of firearms for starters....but I digress). One man's pleasure is another's sin or anathema... Moral or intellectual superiority is a wonderful thing for the possessor but the recipient of the perceived wisdom may have a completely different view (see also Christian missionaries and indigenous populations for another digression!) regards

Surely this is worth a 4NT bid - over which opener who wishes to accept will bid minor suit length. The hand is strong enough to invite slam and all the more so in a suit. That may still miss slams with good C eg CAKQ or KQT in opener, but is probably the best bet (and passes the buck!). The problem with bidding 4C on this hand over 3D is tat you will not be able to backtrack and the suit is weak -albeit 5 cards. 4NT is middle ground (and another hand which is a good advertisement for the extra space available to big club/forcing passers with relays). regards

Reluctant as I am to stick my head into the boxing-ring with Mikeh and Ken, my initial reaction was 4NT wtp - but maybe closer to 5NT as this is a good hand with awful methods. Then I thought about it in terms of my problem with 2C opener's handtype. I confess that lacking a system which allows convenient exposition of main suit D strong hands (or even worse minor 2 -suiters) my tendency will be to open 1D on anything less than overwhelming strength (and all the more so if I have to explore other strains). Hence, a GF bid in D and then retreat to NT (as opposed to opening 1D or showing the appropriate NT strength) should be the real deal. Then I think that since I would raise to 4NT on hands with a singleton D, my Jx is huge. Let the strong hand retain control and ask about any holes via asking bids or cues: hence I bid 4D too. As an aside, with plenty of extra strength opposite a 2C opening, I agree (with Ken) that it is better to show it immediately via a splinter or raise with real support than to look for alternative games when it is likely SLAM/grandslam is relevant. IMHO the time to introduce your own suit when you have real support for 2C opener's suit and positive is when that suit may provide an unexpected source of tricks... Trying to keep the discourse friendly but discursive and edifying between educated people.....you never know we all may end up not only better informed but perhaps wiser (to abuse the well-known line of F.E. Smith). regards

Generally, from Rubens:- 1. Bids below the cue bid are natural and forcing by an unpassed hand - hence in your first example after (1C) 1H (P) ? 1S is natural and forcing with 4+ cards in the suit (but willing to be raised on 3 cards by overcaller) 2. Bids from the cue bid up are transfers My experience is to select a robust 4 card suit - bid it and then if partenr does not bid NT, or some convenient bid revert to a cue (since with no stop and only doubleton support you can stand anything else) when you have a bal GF lacking stop.. regards

After the sequence 1C- 1D 1H- 1S (0-4) ? 1NT= 19+ to22- 2C = art GF with full relay responses a la version symmetric modified 2D/H/S= nat encouraging but nf 2NT= C as above 3C= 5+5+ Rank 3D= 5+5+ Colour 3H = 5+H & 5+C nf but highly encouraging 3S = 5+S & 5+ D as above 3NT= T regards

A) I use the specific auction shown to indicate a 1/2 stop eg Jxx or Qx (and otherwise appropriate values without the other Major) so as to facilitate getting to 3NT when you have the values - and doubler knows to pull without at least the half stop. It also avoids the situation where neither partner has a stop so they get to some crazy suit contract going off on at least 2 top suit cashes and ruff(s) :P I prefer to use reverse Lebensohl so that direct bids (except C) are weak, a jump to 3NT says I have stop(s) and values and an immediate cue is a DAB (directional asking bid) while a delayed cue via 2NT is a 2 -suiter unsuited for leaping Michaels in response to the double... regards

Glen, MYXOs were designed for different systems but in a strong Club context they are NEVER forcing:- 2C= 10-15 6+C single-suited OR weak in D OR weak 5+5+ H& S 2D= 10-15 6+D single-suited OR weak in H OR weak 5+5+ S&C 2H= max non-1C in H OR weak in S OR weak 5+5+ in minors 2S= max non-1C in S OR pre-empt in C OR weak 5+5+ reds OR (optional solid 7 card solid C suit with A/K on side) THe 2H/S openings in the shown Major are to take out the hands that have extra playing strength but you don't want to upgrade to your strong opening. None of these bids is forcing (you might pass as responder because you have too much length in the suit bid and game is unlikely or conversely because you guess this as the most likely option - or simply to make them guess....with potential psyche pass at favourable!!!) regards

Advantage to playing my version of Leb: 2NT asks for the other 2 suits (here being the Majors) st NT overcaller bids 3C= no 4/5Major which allows 3D to ask for better M 3D= both M 3M= only that M advancer's other bids in this sequence will be transfers to M at 3-level with at least I at 2-level bids are T regards

The basic idea of sound (or stronger anyway) in the suit opened or weak in the next suit up (or even weak 2-suiter in the remaining 2 suits) is the idea behind MYXO twos - which have been around for 30+ years. As with all such methods the gain from being able to show different strengths is offset by the relative inability to raise the pre-empt quickly (and when you can raise the pre-empt just how much it tells about likely holdings in other suits). All such bids are legitimate in Oz - and even LOLs will play them (and certainly have little difficulty defending against them!!) Ming, I agree that your scheme is superior to the more frequently used mini and maxi differentiation. regards

North has shown at least 65 in C & S but it is South who knows he holds a double fit. The only issue is whether with such a good hand North should double 5H : do the right thing partner... I would guess as South to take out insurance with 5S...but there again I would roll the dice with a double as North to confirm my strength (and As as compared with say 66 headed by KQTs and certainly would have bid the same way ue 3C & 4S with KQJTx void xx KQJxxx). regards

(3H) 4NT (???) probably easier to bid 5NT over 5H but I hope that I might give credit to my holdings with the East hand Presumably 6C regards,

I have never understood the basis for the rule prohibiting psyches of strong bids in many jurisdictions. IF (and it is a big query) you wanted to psyche anything with this hand - the psyche you would want to make is of a strong and forcing bid (rationale obvious). The actual psyche of 1S is an odds-on loser:- - partner's raising of S to a high level will be bad (usually) - partner's assumption about your strength will be bad (usually). Any pass by you of a forcing bid will give the show away (as it always does) and you must hope that partner has a long suit on this auction. THe upside is minimal - and against opponents whom you should beat anyway (and assuming there was no need for a "max") there is even less reason than otherwise. Realistically the psyche of 1S here is worse than usual (and I am well-known for psyching all sorts of bids). The other thing about psyching is that even when /if it does work out, the first thing you should do at the conclusion of the hand is apologise to partner, as it is an abuse of partnership! regards

1. not thrilled on hand 1, but it is very much borderline double: distribution is ok and bare minimum strength with no guarantees but that is life...at this level you expect partner to sit frequently but it is also "pour encourager les autres" 2. 5H : partner holds short S, 6+ C and more than tolerance for H with extra values...C could be right but you just bid what is under your nose as 4NT is not right for me here regards

Well, what I know of the system does not thrill me but as well as Richard's subset, it could be ie some grouping of 6511s with strong Honour singletons. THe concept of the weak hand taking control in such circumstances (as opposed to showing pieces) is somewhat bizarre and would be all the clearer if there was not prime support for a 5 card suit. Ron, I think the OP uses one-level (non-NT) bids as a 1-rd force and then transfers over any puppet (which puppet I assume denies primary support) to ensure a further rebid with very strong hands - albeit this is guesswork. Not "unplayable" but relatively inefficient I concede. regards

first blush: play for dummy reversal & C 3-3 or two Honours doubleton (may also work if DKQx or KQ tight) but will require hooking SJ for extra entry and of course S3-2. That involves pitching H at T1... Alternative line of playing for H 3-3 or something good to happen but since you need to play at least 1 rd of C for dummy reversal it seems like continuing that spiel is slightly superior, since they can force you to part with next top C anyway if they get in... regards

Given the Honour distribution and the long suit, the interesting question is whether 2NT here shows this type of hand ahead of partner.....long C but positional reason to bid NT first..as opposed to long C weak hand. I would bid 2NT here, expecting it to be forcing, but I can think of a few partners who might be scratching their heads and wondering if I held 1-1-5-6 or 1-1-4-7 or similar....at least most would agree it is long C and stronger than 3C without discussion. Thee theoretical issue has been addressed in my longterm partnership: pass and pull is strong for consistency but tends to also suggest he can handle whatever comes...maybe that is applicable here with that 7 card suit but SOME of the Major cards have to be wasted...unless playing in NT regards

Yes, me too. The "fudge" bid to say that I cannot give more distributional information and lack a H stop since we are already in GF , but 3NT may be the right spot - while warning partner that if he wants to play S he should be prepared to play opposite x. Sure, you COULD retain 3H to show a H suit but more likely that can be untangled over 2NT (promising a H stop) if required... Not by any means certain that a majority of Antipodean experts would play it that way but certainly a very significant proportion. I think the difference stems from use of 4SF initially as a stopper ASK (as well as forcing) down South whereas my understanding of US bidding (from BW over 3 decades mainly) is that the 4th suit is more likely to SHOW values there but still be forcing... Perhaps, mistaken, & Frances can confirm, but old-fashioned UK/Acol style was also "Antipodean" or Swedish in this style? regards,

So - perhaps 2NT opening on values but then you wonder why 2NT is a "slam-killer" or you cannot get to 6C sensibly...sure argue game before slam but short of rubber bridge tactics, to open 2NT on such hands is to decide bidding is not a partnership game! Sure we would like the CJ or T9, but life is less than perfect... If your agreement is that for any hand too good for a jump rebid of your minor you jump to 3NT (over a simple response), then you do so....where you draw the line on your jump rebid is a matter for your system design too... As far as I am concerned this is a pretty decent 18+HCP and a very decent suit: argue as you will but opposite xx you have a good prospect of only 1 loser, and partner is going to have a lot of difficulty "guessing" that merely from your opening. THis does not mean that you have a great system - it simply means that you are bidding within the dictates of your system... Sure we can all redesign a system to improve it eg cheapest jump-shift has multi-meanings with pivots etc but to the extent that we are asked to express a judgement call within a specified stated system , 3NT it must be. regards

late to this but:- 1) the biggest advantage of any A -asking method (including Kickback) is to check that you are not missing too many A/KC - it is a last check having established that you have the values for slam already...subject to possibly missing 2 off the top (and indubitably useful for the equivalent reasons in bidding grandslams) 2) Accordingly even the most refined such methods are blunt instruments and serve little to identify the quantification process for slam 3) retaining the option of "checking" is useful but not crucial 4) my rule in any longer partnership is that once we have commenced cue-bidding we continue to cue-bid and hence any so-called "checkbid" has a different meaning, be it cue-bid, turbo, DI or in American "LTTC" but we do not designate a bid as LTTC rather typically 4NT is extra unexpressed values on the way (assuming no suit has been left shown uncontrolled). 5) using the same idea (and say particularly after a pre-empt and natural minor bid) we can use non-jumps to 4NT to say "my hand either holds lots of first round controls or VERY strong trumps - I am looking for the other...) I agree with mikeh & Frances that although I have Keycard asks available in most auctions, if I was to be deprived of ever having such "checks" it might give me less ability to bid grandslams with certainty but I would not feel any great loss in my ability to bid small slams. Further, I have long held the opinion that if such bids were removed altogether (or at least for a few years) more players would learn to bid better instead of relying on a deficient crutch which does not encourage judgement - adn (per first point) is aimed as a checkback only.. regards,