Impact

Partly out of habit (never underrate that), Partly so my bridge partner can vent his antisocial tendencies and angst in a relatively palatable fashion :-) , Partly for the sheer intellectual and theoretical interest (it is a different sort of intellectual interest from the practice of law) and stimulus, Partly to escape for one night most weeks, partly because my bridge partner is also a friend.... and the sheer love of problem posing and solving....which perhaps explains my interest in and creation of "weird" methods which means that I will not automatically accept that method which has been in place for an eon is either optimal or even satisfactory! regards

Congratulations to Norway - winner of Bermuda Bowl, and to the US as winner of Seniors and I'm just not sure who to congratulate for winning the Venice Cup (the players I guess since they wish to disown affiliation???). I will not enter into the merits of the sign itself or of the current administration/President of the USA. No one here has suggested that the sign held up was anything less than poor taste - and as I believe Voltaire is alleged to have said "There is only one great sin: vulgarity". The action should be condemned for bad taste at the least. Freedom of speech is NOT a worldwide right: quite the reverse in a multitude of countries. It is an egregious mistake to take for granted and assume that in which you believe is believed/revered or even given credence by others. Even in those countries which do promulgate "freedom of speech" it is constrained by common law eg sanctions apply for shouting "fire" frivolously in a packed movie theatre... As in so many cases you may hold any opinion you like but your right to promulgate the opinion is not unfettered. In this instance the players of the victorious Venice Cup team were present in a representative capacity, and the obligation is to the group they represent. There is also a wider obligation IMHO: not to politicise bridge or indeed to use a representative capacity for limited purposes to pursue your own hobbyhorse (whatever it may be). Whether it is accurate or not, the making of "motherhood statements" (and obviously from the comments there are posters who would regard criticism of the current President of the USA as a motherhood statement) is similarly inappropriate, unless they have some fairly direct relationship to bridge/the championship. I echo the views already expressed by others as to the capacity for what one group calls "obvious truth" to be deeply offensive to another. As to any sanction to be applied, that will depend upon:- a) who had prior knowledge of the holding up of the sign; B) the existence and terms of any code of conduct/terms signed ; c) the intestinal fortitude of both the administration and the participants. Presumably there will be an inquiry (almost an inquest) and were I engaged to provide advice to the participants, I would recommend a pre-emptive apology both to the sponsoring bodies (WBF and Chinese Bridge Federation, and to the ACBL and USBF) for any offence given, the poor taste exhibited and an undertaking to act appropriately in future if provided with the opportunity to represent the USA. I note that euphoria might be an excuse but what may be excused more easily when done by teenagers (perhaps athletes), is harder to excuse by mature adults who have just won a world championship which as a representative unit - which world championship was based on intelligence and judgement!! Of course to play devil's advocate, some might argue that given the aforementioned requirements of judgement and intelligence, any need to specify the sign's contents is rendered superfluous (but of course that only furthers the argument of bad taste at the least!). regards,

A lot depends on your agreements but even opposite a superaccept (assuming 14-16/15-17 NT) it takes a pretty perfect hand to make slam a strong favourite (and that may be because one of your J is working). Hands which do not hold shortage, require 2 running suits or perfect placement of controls to make 12 tricks when holding fewer than 29 HCP as a general rule. I'm sure ken or someone will have commented on whether other superaccepts (and their meaning) was available. The HQ is almost certainly wasted: to superaccept partner will usually hold 4+ cards or a perfect prime with 3 card (then Kxx). Your Jx in the pointed suits will be working opposite strong Honour combination and length only. Probably one of those J is wasted. This is a marginal slam invite at best - and then only assuming you have reasonable methods to allow opener to further evaluate his hand. It only makes sense to look for slam if you have a good method for evaluation - and quite frankly Keycard to establish both location of Honours and sidestrength is NOT it. One try with 4C is reasonable, if optimistic. Most would use it as a cue but the basis of cue and methods thereafter is in the realm of the individual:- generally I would use it as the lowest 1st or 2nd round control denying S control ; on that basis 4D from opener should promise both a S control and a D control since you were prepared to get to 5-level by making a slam try (4H would deny S control, and without D control but with S control bid next control). Note that this risks getting to the 5-level opposite a hand which lacks D control (2 losers) and may only hold SK so could be cold off eg KQx KJxx Qxx KQJx which doesn't look like much of a superaccept to me even if you are just a pointcounter, but perhaps KQx KJx Qx KQJxx is closer!!! Realistically a superaccept should be a hand which is better than the top NT pointcount for the particular suit and hence is a hand which responder should not play you for or envisage when evaluating whether to invite. IMHO neither of the above hands qualifies as a superaccept despite the pointcount and trump support as the controls are lacking and they are relatively normal hands for H. By contrast a hand like Kx KQx xxx AKJxx or in this context Kx KJx AKQxx xxx is a GREAT hand opposite long H and far too good to be called 15-17 now... In any event, you do NOT have enough to bid above game yourself and should content yourself with 4H: the mildest of slam tries despite the good cards shown by partner: he will now know he needs great cards to continue - presumably a source of tricks. In very old-fashioned cue-bidding where you just bid your lowest A, you have bid your all (and partner knows less about what is needed) and I don't see how you can locate the information you need. regards,

Your query as to whether this is only a mild slam interest hand is accurately handled by the reply "Yes" as to quantification. I would suggest it is worth one slam try (see below). On the other hand your self-supporting suit (solid) will not inspire confidence from opener who holds no great fit, and how does he know that CKQJxx (or even KQxxx) is gold but the same D holding is not? On this hand, you do have mild interest but your stated sequence while showing that level of interest will not help partner know when to move (looking at his poor trumps he will downgrade most hands). In fact the old- fashioned 1NT- 3H strong 3NT- 4C cue but refraining from cueing above 4H unless opener does so, is a much better indicator. This sequence should suggest to opener not merely that he should strive to cue D, but that you are willing to go to the 5-level opposite remotely suitable values so even lacking the DA he is encouraged to cue 4S..but by contrast as responder even if he cues 4D you should merely bid 4H: unwilling to proceed to the 5-level unless he views his hand positively. The subtleties of cue-bidding as both conveying location of controls but also different messages of strength have been lost with the emphasis upon RKCB- which assumes that the values for slam are already present and merely avoids the embarrassing disaster of opponents holding 2KC. Similarly a relay auction will give you some chance to find the right cards (and to go down at the 5 level!). Contrast this hand with a hand which has a similar solid suit and outside A but also a shortage: now it is easy to transfer and self-splinter so opener can judge the degree of wastage. Hands of this sort: no shortage and 28-30/1 HCP with a solid 6 card suit will frequently make slam if 10 controls are present (counting A=2, K=1) but with only 9 or fewer controls you require methods to check not being off 2 fast losers and/or an alternative source of tricks. About 28-30 years ago Rosenkranz published a series of articles on CONFI in Bridge World which assumed 2 hands were balanced (no suit longer than 5cards, no singleton) and the prospects of making slam. He contended that odds were favourable if 29-31 HCP were held, 10+ controls and a fit of 8 cards with fair trump solidity located. When holding a 6 card solid suit my experience is that it provides a compensating value the equivalent of about 1.5-2HCP in terms of a starting point if you wish to use CONFI methods ie otherwise balanced and a minimum of about 27/27.5HCP. OTOH, as I indicated the sample hand is well catered for by the very old-fashioned method (if available to your partnership). I would use relays establishing the shape of the NT hand and then controls before describing location of the controls (assuming other preconditions were met). I would expect to know opener's exact shape and control count below the 4H level. regards

Mike, my comment was obviously to counteract the recurring line : "I bid what I've got" ie H but on this auction CHO must take a H bid as a move with D support (and that is a hand which I might bid H) but it would be foolish to succumb to Alice THrough the Looking Glass temptation as the meaning of a bid is not determined by the hand you hold. Recognising the smilie, you don't really want to sit in 3D do you ?? regards

Don't know - and jammed by the auction as anything COULD be right (depends on his relative C length/D strength and H). Assume we play weak or VERY strong 2NT overcall (or maybe we wanted to keep S in the picture which I appreciate myself) but we have foregone the opportunity to show both suits so it is a guess. We know he didn't want to set up a forcing situation with 4D, but unless he has C length we have good defence (looks like 1 trick in each suit but of course he might just have 5H). When I don't know and there is no indication (but he MIGHT know) I am willing to give him a chance to do whatever is right (or pass the buck!) PASS.... so what worked...and what did he have...? regards

Forcing pass as no wasted values: it is always a mistake to say "I'm square so I must double" when partner has shown huge distribution and slam ambition. I would just about open the square 11HCP (without the SJ) so I have no wastage for my bid and should not discourage a sane partner...but not enough to express any higher opinion by bidding slam/5NT etc regards

Tough as SAKxx will give me a great play in 5S - and they could be cold for 5C (S void) or one off... I am uncomfortable but will take out insurance with 5S (note I think I would have bid 4D so that partner could be in on the act so that in your last scenario when he passes I can take the push slightly more confidently). regards

Partner MUST have S if he is sane (unless as Fluffy put it he is walking the dog), but if I bid H partner might take that as a cue for D as much as S (last bid suit as we hypothesise that he is looking at short H. It is all very well to say that H must be natural but wouldn't you bid this way with useful D cards and some C ie hoping to reach 5D?? I think you are mightily fixed with H and have to assume that he has both long D and long S .....but short H and a very good hand. Accordingly my choice seems to be between 3S (simple preference) and 4S. Is 5-0-5-3 the likely hand or even 5 very goodS -0-6moderateD-2C??? Surely if he only held 4S but a long good suit elsewhere he bids it on the previous round??? regards

North's Pass of 4S was bizarre: he is minimum for his bid in HCP, shape and fit AND he has wasted values in D: short of being loaded eg DKQJ , what was he thinking? With a good partner who passed, anticipating a likely 6 card S suit and no D wastage (and perhaps a greater C fit), I would have a lot of sympathy for a 5S bid by South in the passout position! regards

Hand 1: downside is they have already exchanged information as to suit and strength, and mostly bid so badly over their own bid that now bidding even 4H works only when we sacrifice...otherwise it places cards for them. Upside is the vul is right and if we have a sacrifice this is the only way to find it...oddly enough the better my opponents the LESS likely I am to want to bid now on this auction as they will place cards for a putative slam much better after this if I bid (whereas if they don't have a splinter they may not get close to slam/grand even though tricks are running...) Contrast with a 2nd position bid over 2C which really does make life MUCH tougher for them. Hand 2: Bidding will mislead partner and your side quacks are too useful for defence, so I think this essentially balanced hand which knpows what it wants to lead should just go quietly... regards,

choices are : double (I had a penalty of 1S, now do something sensible please) but this could be disastrous as 3H could be a make as H appear to be 6322 round the table (or 5422 as 5332 should be beaten on trump leads...) 3NT (but where are the tricks coming from?) Pass: for wimps. I'll run with double and see what happens....opener will pass with 3H and pull with <2 in which case he will hold long D ( &C?) so perhaps we will have a chance. Anyway the "pass the buck" bid is not only the most flexible but also the only way to get some insight/feedback as the other bids have no room for manoeuvre regards regards

Having almost 30 years experience of ferts:- a) vulnerable ferts are a big mistake even at imps while at mps -200 is a frequent disaster. Corollary : for more than a decade I have resisted playing any system which required a vulnerable fert. Pass when vulnerable is a great option! :P when you own the partscore, opening a fert is likely to be antipercentage and unsurprisingly makes finding the right partscore that much more difficult (pre-emption works against you here fairly obviously). These are the hands you are most likely to lose out on particularly a secondary (eg 44) fit or fit based on primary length in fert's hand; c) when you have a real dog and can up the ante with a 1S or 2C fert at favourable, your opponents labour to bid slams (much less grands) : the pre-emption works in your favour; d) against good opponents the fert can give them information in the play of the hand; e) like any other pre-empt a fert may stop them bidding some games and push them into others (which may make) thereby causing a randomisation or swinging effect; f) the only "2-way forcing pass" I like is at radical extremes of the range and is pretty much prohibited by ACBL: ie Pass is either 0-4 or 16+ so that there is an injection of additional risk in the defenders' destructive actions (their "weak jump overcall" on a tactical basis on 15HCP now looks stupid when it is their hand, or moving on some 44 generates too high an auction etc). Note if HUMs are permitted the 2-way structure is permitted but in most jurisdictions it is increasingly rare; g) other 2-way forcing or non-forcing pass systems are "hole-fillers" for your constructive system but place your side at a radical disadvantage when those hands occur in both theory and practice; h) Richard & Ron are correct as to statistical frequency of occurrence of the 8-12 HCP range on any given deal, but of course the corollary as to whether frequency of occurrence ALONE is sufficient justification for allocation of bids is a separate matter. Funnily enough it makes sense at pairs where frequency is king (but now you as superior players will be disadvantaged by rarely playing in the same contract as others) but size of result matters more at imps (clearly) and my experience is that it is less clear here (in fact doubtful). This does not mean that methods in 3rd & 4th seat should be exactly the same as 1st and second - au contraire as who would wish to fert in 4th seat to give the most obvious example! i) The experience is based on records of every auction that Bob & I have played in ANY competition and bidding competitions and practice hands over 20+ years as he maintains such scrupulously!!! It is still anecdotal but I suggest there are few if any southern hemisphere players with an equivalent database. Against better players not trying to get clever the fert at teams is an overall loser, but a frequent winner against their slams (sort of like a mini -2NT slam killer...). j) ferts appeal to juniors to get a chance to bid on really bad hands and jam the opponents but like big club/strong pass, it is the remainder of the hands (midrange) which derive benefit.; k) If you are going to fert, to do so "safely" via 1C/D is losing bridge as it gives the opponents a fielder's choice to bid to their par contract with improved information or to attempt penalties with no pre-emptive risk: it is VERY easy to design systems which take advantage of 1m fert to clarify your own constructive bidding; l) subject to the usual adjustments my view is to go fairly mainstream to allow maximum exposure with bids: 10-15HCP approximately which requires less fiddling with your judgement in responding -developed over many years as well, while allowing play in most events; m) I find it bizarre that so many organisations have placed a regulatory ban on 2-way methods and/or psyching the strongest possible bid both in terms of taking the tactical nous out of the game and placing too great an advantage in the hands of the defensive side. Finally, I find it remarkable that organisations have gone out of their way to ban intelligent system design: eg encryption, limiting the "number of systems" a partnership may play when it is clear that at unfavourable say a system based on ROMEX big bid rinciples has advantages, all vul a big club is reasonable, n/v a strong pass is playable and at favourable a strong pass and fert actually sensible!! Particularly in the latter instances fairly obviously the 3rd and 4th seat bids are different from those in 1st and 2nd which also fall foul of the regulatory requirements! Of course, being that rara avis, a system maven and designer, I see the benefits but that does not necessarily make it practical even were it allowed as very few partners are able to cope with 1 system both on memory and derivation/application of principle in the heat of battle, much less many! IMHO that is not an excuse for regulatory bodies to deny the opportunity! regards

I'm with 2S regards

Nick - they're probably legal for 18 yearolds in Amsterdam but not legal not legally able to drink in half their own home states (see my earlier post). There is a representative element but people should not get hung up about their own personal morals not being reflected by a team. Hence I think the Code of Conduct method (tweaked appropriately) works well as it lets everyone know BEFOREHAND what is generally expected of them and that they agree to abide by it as a condition of their ratification as a representative team (and the accompanying sponsorship). regards

Ron, Surely "militates" rather than "mitigates" - shame on you!! This is actually a pretty good hand for 1NT as the H values are slow, but I would like another T (S and/or C), so I think it is very close a s a judgement call between Pass which I favour, and 1NT. regards

The obvious hypothesis is that partner holds a D void and at least 6 solid C with 4 card H support : minimum hand of the order of xxx xxxx void AKQJxx (and realistically wouldn't you assume some S value and considerably more C?) or alternatively 5H with 6+C (and the D void). My concerns must be twofold: A) void in opponent's hand in non-trump suit and not on lead; :angry: opponents sacrificing in 7S. Firstly we have a known H holding of at least 10 cards (while the C holding could be as few as 8, admittedly unlikely, but far more likely to be precisely 9). Accordingly any opposing void is more likely a priori in H than C. Hence we should play in H rather than C. Against less advanced opponents there is also good reason to avoid exposing the double fit with C as that will give them 2 bites of the cherry in terms of sacrificing/doubling if there is a profitable position for them.... Hence 7H is still the obvious bid...and damn the torpedoes! regards

There are a number of issues:- 1. The primary role of a junior (or any) representative team is to perform for their country in the sport/activity. Hence anything which detracts from performance at the bridge table is a potential source of legitimate objection. That is relatively uncontroversial. 2. Measuring whether particular behaviour affects performance is more controversial. 3. A separate issue is the purely representative status of the team: as ambassadors of the federation/visitors in a representative capacity etc. It is important to recognise that something which is legal in one jurisdiction has the capacity to give offence in another (eg consumption of alcohol in certain Islamic countries to take a less controversial example). 4. Somewhat less controversially certain types of behaviour is generally regarded as unacceptable: eg trashing hotel rooms, physical violence, abuse of other nationals...how long a list do you want? 5. In Oz we have had difficulties in the past and have required players to sign codes of conduct. Oz-one code of conduct was a clearly desirable move and went further than the representative requirements of State and National teams 6. Personal concepts of morals should not enter into the equation: you are selecting a team for a particular purpose, not as Salvation Army missionaries (replace with appropriate jurisdictional phrase for geographic/religious area). 7. To the extent that Juniors are in a different category the following is relevant in OZ: by our law persons in positions of trust and who have attained their majority (ie over 18 for us) are not permitted to abuse that position eg sexual relations with those under age Age 18 is ok to drink etc but it is up to the individual to do so responsibly. 8. By US standards I am very liberal (possibly heading towards libertine!) but when you are sponsored byan organisation you have a duty of performance (to endeavour to give your best) and a further implicit duty not to bring the sponsoring organisation into ill-repute. What constitutes each of those matters is a matter of opinion as drawn lines will always be difficult for those just beyond any perimeter. However the Oz-one code seemed like a pretty good starting point reference: http://www.oz-one.com.au/codeofconduct.pdf regards

I am with Wayne (and the obvious inference is that cards like extra length in H and/or C lower Honours are the sort of thing that might suggest a raise to 6H over 5H). regards

Not sure whether it was traditional symmetric or an adaptation:- respond as to Extreme shape: If relayer signed off w/o range/BCC, Step 1=EXTREME 8311 treated 6322 9211 7321 BUT show "2" as sing 9310 7330 8221 5332 if good suit (o/w 7321) 8320 6331 if good suit (o/w 7330) 6610 5521 7510 5431 8410 6421 7600 6511 7411 5422 which has worked well for us over 20+ years...on the rare occasion you hold the hand AND get a chance for an unobstructed auction. regards

1H = normal automatic X now = normal If I now bid 2S now, my hand is extreme shape: at least 6H & 5S with lots of playing strength as I am forcing partner who has shown nothing to give simple preference at the 3-level! I am at least 2 cards shy of that and my S woefully inadequate.... regards

General principle should be that bidding to the agreed limit of the hand in a competitive auction after partner has shown limit+ is the weakest option. Hence I would take 3D as the minimum (with no inference of 5+D), and any other bid (including pass) is stronger. It still seems right to check out with a further move over 3NT as 5d should be ok... regards

Our auction shows a good C suit in 2/1 and must be very good given our failure to bid 3NT which implies a want of H cards. 4D should be a cue for S as:- a) opener has not given us further information of additional D length (beyond 4 - which might occasionally be only 3!!!) and :) we did not support D immediately (which should preclude 4+D given that we were in a GF auction) and c) we have gone past 3NT, and d) opener has implied a good S suit which can be raised on less than obvious support - or possibly denied any H stop eg worst hand along the lines of KQJxx xx KQxx xx in combination. If he bids 4S that will end the auction but he may be MUCH better (eg AKQxxx x KQxx xx in which case he can only move if we do more than an immediate 4S or AKQxxx Ax KQxx x in which latter case we have a cold grand, but there again he would bid again with that latter hand....). regards

Genuinely ugly methods:- -Opener says "we are going to game" (ignoring the Precision facetiousness); - Responder holds support for opener's suit, 2 first round controls, shortage and has to make a waiting bid, and then a further waiting bid for opener to clarify (4C).... -Opener says : minimum & awful; - NOW as responder I am still more likely to contemplate searching for a Grand than I am to contemplate going down in the small slam! Surely there must be some sensible standard for a "demand" opener which rebids in a suit (rather than NT). A sensible case used to be a 3 Loser hand redolent with defence...then the only question is whether my Aces and singleton are working. Note the "delightful" methods now force me to start probing for (grand) slam at the 5 level ....on Arend's construction switching the non-trump suits can result in anything (ok we don't really think that opener has singleton SK).... I expect 6C to be pretty much cold - or at least odds on and the grand to have a play in most circumstances (NO, I cannot imagine opening a GF in a minor with NO Aces, as those distributional hands are better better commenced with a 1 bid). My preferred bid over 5C is 5S in case he can bid 5NT in which case I will bid 7C....note that the rank of controls makes it difficult to put an intelligent partner in the picture (but would an intelligent partner consent to such methods?). regards

reluctant to agree with Mike, but 4S on the previous round (which avoids any prospect of playing in H!) was a fair shot for slam investigation, but now since I am subtitutung and could not argue with the attempt to find H - if I play DI, I like 4NT as a slam-try for C!