Impact

1. pass at MP clearcut (MAYBE if I thought we needed a scoreand we were playing a weak pair it could be right to push for the big top with 3NT - but then you are probably going to collect most of the matchpoints by making the extra trick against this pair anyway) 2. Yuck: Pass quickly and hope his suit is decent as there is no reason to believe we can make 3NT: my 4 QT may be enough to get him home if they don't cash D and his suit stands up...maybe some idiot balances ? 3. 4C: 3C is too few and 5C says "double me". At this vul partner should be taking the appropriate action: my bid of 4C is a huge statement about my suit quality/length Oh dear, my answers look mainstream from the other comments so I must lose... regards,

Yes - encrypted signals are banned: first there was a request about 4 years ago for an explanation of encrypted signals from the then ABF tournament committee chairman. As a matter of courtesy I responded at considerable length. The only feedback I received was that my partnership was the only one (admitting to) playing encrypted signals. Two years later - and without the courtesy of an explanation for the decision from the committee, or an opportunity to defend the use of the signals under law, the ABF amended their rules/regulations on the website with a blanket ban:- http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFSystemRegs06.pdf at 2.7 I believe that such restrictions are really contrary to the laws of bridge but bizarrely are permitted variations by the general leeway granted sponsoring organisations. The only rationale I can see is that it might actually force a few players encountering such to THINK outside their usual parameters (or perhaps at all!). Obviously that would be contrary to the desires of any bureaucracy - much less an established status quo. regards,

Hey, given what we used to pre-empt on for a while when we were juniors many aeons ago, CMOBDOR (cheaper minor over black double over red for takeouts) enjoyed brief popularity! Mind you those were the days when someone might pre-empt with a 4333 5HCP hand and decide at their next turn based on table action which of the various "pre-emptive options" they held!!! when playing Myxo/sychosuction type pre-empts... We all grow up. Mind you, like the Italian Blue Team I still play one remnant of that style: I use the cheaper minor as a "gap" take-out double (circa 12-15) in the balancing seat against 1 any passed to 4th.... AFAIK that is the sole remaining use in Oz or Europe of cneaper minor for takeout in tournament circles!

Yes, it's banned. No, I don't know why. They lift the bans for unlimited national events, but if you're playing at that level, you're probably doing it for money. Can't sell books on systems that are banned, can't get hired by a client who'll know these systems. And, of course, 99% of ACBL members don't play exclusively in Superchart events. MOSCITO is not "banned" in the ACBL. The only things "banned" in the ACBL are =illegal= methods such a encrypted signals. (and yes, cheating should be illegal. Encrypted signals are cheating because they violate the basic tenet that everyone ATT should be able to use logic to decide what the best course of action is.) The ACBL uses 3 levels of conventions: GCC, mid-chart, and superchart Depending on what form of MOSCITO you are playing, some parts of it may or may not be allowed under the GCC. Encrypted signals are NOT cheating- albeit they have been rendered illegal. No one is entitled to know what you hold in your hand, but they are entitled to know your agreements. If declarer shows out in a suit, the defenders know exactly which pips the other holds. They can, and should, disguise their signals form declarer by playing less obvious middle cards if they can afford so to do: forcing declarer to guess whether it is high or low. Failing to signal count when declarer's handshape has been revealed by the bidding is not "cheating" - yet on a strict interpretation of encryption a partnership which played "count" as their primary signal might be said to do so when they fail to give unnecessary information here. Changing your signals based on information from the play and bidding is similarly sensible. Once the bidding or play gives you information and your partner has it too, the fact that you are on defence should not preclude your options at all. To the contrary - like complex bidding systems this is a large part of the fascination of the game. Classic encryption occurred following certain knowledge such as the showing out by declarer at trick one and the changing of signals depending upon whether opening leader held (say) an odd or even number of even pips in the suit. Similar positions arise following Stayman response by declarer, where defenders know how many cards in a particular suit declarer must have (and hence how many partner holds). It is often sensible to communicate based on such information -and it is not cheating. Of course, you must disclose the basis of the key to the opponents and cunning declarers can then make discovery plays (se Woolsey's Partnership Defence from recollection) to uncover more information ie deciphering whether you are giving normal or reverse count in a sidesuit may give the clue as to whether opening leader holds an odd or even number of cards in the Stayman suit etc. The tenet of using logic is correct: but not necessarily to get the right answer. You don't have the right to perfect information : you have the right to knowledge of opponents' full methods, and then have to make your own decision as to how to work out how best to counter those methods and/or discover additional information. THis was another example of mindless banning of the sophisticated method because the "average" person found it all too hard!

1. Vienna Club seriously tweaked (forerunner of Polish) 2. Acol but with a lot of different material 3. 2/1 almost GF a la BWS but VERY different inferences/Romex 4. Blue Club (perhaps closer to Purple Club?) 5. Danielson's Relay Precision tweaked 6. Regres/Delta: forcing pass systems with assumed fit corollaries to twos 7. Antipodean Club (based on symmetric relay) 8. Impact (both forcing Club and Forcing pass varieties) I created Aspro Twos, leptospirosis Twos, transfer doubles, many shuffles and relays in their entirety, and have designed many systems for intellectual pleasure while admitting their inherent lack of feasibility in competition (including complete encrypted bidding systems...). Bidding is fascination for me, but I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that few share it to anything like the same extent. If I sat down with a pick-up partner of requisite standard I would prefer to have just a few general principles to guide auctions, than tacking on conventions at all eg 5 card major, fit-showing jumps in all situations, multicues, and slow shows when forcing situations arise. I would play Stayman and transfers but NOT any form of Blackwood/KC!!! That forces both players to think about every auction from the same basic set of principles and you know what: it can be FUN, particularly when it is seen as light relief from a very structured partnership! If it is longterm, I like so many weird but logically consistent things- and will still keep tweaking till I die....which may be sooner if various partners and ex-partners could so contrive it!

HISTORICAL NOTE:- With respect, the 4D "endsignal" was developed at least 30 years ago by various Poles to my knowledge (I first ran across it in 1977 in a very poor translation). Prior to that time under some of the weirder (Polish) systems operating, the "reverse endsignal" ie 4D puppet and then "weak invitation" slam try had been in vogue. There was also a graduated scale which used all 4 level bids in these types of sequences as puppets either for signoff or (when converted) from mild slam-try to slam -force depending on conversion base! Some of these used the different base transfer (when converted to another suit) to initiate different types of ask (although I have forgotten the details eg agreeing one suit but asking about sideK or concentration of strength in another suit - there were so many variations including KC, responses to include key Honours in next longest suit despite agreeing the converted suit,depending on base transfer etc eg 4C puppet to D converted to S differentiated from 4D puppet to H converted to S...) Over time the now standardised 4D end-signal (albeit bids of 4NT up after puppet to 4H are non-standard generally) with the others as RKCB/SLAM for different suits by length became standard. regards,

Mixed strategy is best - including the occasional transfer to a 4 card major: you would be surprised at the extent to which that can muck them (or us) up... Not infrequent Stayman with the right distribution ... regards

I still note that no one else has commented on my note that 4D by Opener over 3NT is a better use for COG, which then allows 4C setting trumps and on-going (consider a hand with doubleton empty D which might has now found that responder has a D card allowing slam investigation etc). Admittedly it also depends on your options over 3C (eg 4C sets C and asks for cues, 4D Kickback etc).

I agree with your conclusion - and would not play 3S as n-f. However if looking for COG here - why not 4D over 3NT - which is the bid I would have made. I would have assumed that 4C is a strong move setting C (not as strong as 4D jump over 3C, which is either Kickback or some form of cue/splinter by agreement). Once you failed to bid 4D over 3NT, I consider 5C is now foisted upon you as partner SHOULD take 4S as a further cue agreeing C.... regards,

Yep , I also play it as fragment style - and have for about 20 years....for that reason and also because my general preference has been to bid length rather than shortness:- my responses 3NT: T 4m: good with definite choice of suit: sets suit 4fragment: T 4 shortM= slammish asks for SHORTER minor eg with both minors 4NT= slammish asking for longer minor 5m= T min placing contract after picture bid Bear in mind that I tend to use these bids with hands which cannot afford to relay as room insufficient to find opener's shape and concentration below 3NT, hence there is a ceiling on my use of the picture bid which may not be applicable to others. regards

Should we not be more than a little concerned that East may have a H void? West has bid 2H missing all top 3 Honours and we hold 6H...it seems to me the risk of ducking the S to West's putative singleton top S and his then leading a H for East to ruff is as great as the 0-3 S break on the bidding as opposed to mathematically!

Perhaps the best Otvosi story to my personal knowledge was Erwin playing in 4H with 17 (or maybe only 15) top tricks painstakingly making 13 tricks - and Stephen Burgess "Erwin , Well done - you took 13 tricks and all on the one hand": Otvosi beamed and took another puff on his cigar.....

I have had quite a lot of experience with this style as the first bridge I learnt form my parents was modified Vienna:- 5 card suits (11/12-18) , except 1C which was either a weak NT, 4441, 19+ short of GF and 2C strong. Over the mainstream openings there was a first step negative (< about 9 but something, noting that you must reply to 1C), other non-jump bids were natural 8/9-11, and jumps in new suits were GF, 5+ cards (!!). So 1D was non-forcing but the responses were: 1H=6-8 nebulous not suitable for a raise, or 8-11 balanced unsuitable for raise 1S= 8/9-11 natural, constructive but non-forcing 1NT= 8/9-11 showing H but non-forcing! 2C= 8/9-11 natural non-forcing limit raises, but 2NT response was strong and GF (might conceal a balanced raise) Similarly over 1M opening with next suit a combination forcing NT!! Oddly enough this "natural" bidding is pretty easy to learn, encourages flexibility and judgement (are you negative, constructive but non-forcing or GF). It was not mainstream but easy to learn, and I think probably for social bridge and the very occasional duplicate they played, well ahead of its time! Note that the 1C was likely to be a weak NT, but effectively all Acol 2 type hands and superstrong NT (19-21) could be handled cheaply and effectively: 1C -1D (0-7any, 8-11 no Major and no 5 card minor) ? 1M was only 4 cards and either 4M441 or weak NT 1NT= no 4M, weak NT strength but could be 2-2-4-5 2C natural limited to about 15 2D= 19+ with main D 2H= 19+ with main H 2S= 19+ with main S 2NT= 19-21 natural 3C= natural but non-forcing limited to about 18 Higher= forcing with C and nominated 2nd suit!!! 1C -? 1D= as above 1H=8/9-11 natural 1S= 8/9-11 natural 1NT= GF balanced or indeterminate minors 2minor= 8/9-11 natural 2M= GF 5+cards nat 2NT= GF both minors 3C= GF sets C 3D= GF sets D 3M= natural Invitation sets suit 3NT= to play (???) In retrospect the structure could have been improved but my parents weren't young and it was the early 1970's... It sounds crude but was very effective indeed, albeit when used by a neophyte like me, fraught with disaster given my lack of judgement and playing skills... When you look at it, the losses were negligible (the greatest perhaps being 1D-1H when you had a weak hand with D & 4H, and didn't want to bid 2H when there was a 44fit, and the equivalent when having opened 1H you received a 1S response and he actually had S, particularly only 4), but there are gains and losses in any methods and they just look foreign. By contrast there was a lot of room to stop accurately in partscores, but the worst auctions started 1S- 3H (5+H GF, could be only 12+HCP....!!!) Funnily enough I think it would be easier for beginners to understand since they bid their own suit except for an opening of 1C and everything is value showing except next suit up (with a substitute bid). You get used to thinking of every hand within context as weak, moderate or strong for your response, and for opener's potential rebid while HCP quickly become just a guide. My father told me he had learnt Vienna in Vienna as a schoolboy before WWII, then not played until postwar in London, and had settled on this version in the early 50s when he left London and came to Australia!

I don't think there is a "right" answer to this one, and 4D is probably the percentage bid - except for one little problem - if the next hand bids 4H or they get to 4S and you have never bid your 6 card solid suit, and it happens to be right to save/make 5m how do you explain that to partner? At least that is a greater problem at imps, which is why I think that 4D is likely the better MP bid, but don't ignore the dangers!! I think I bid 4D at MP but 4C at imps... regards

Over Majors:- SingleRaise+1= fit with singleton (no good long sidesuit) next bid (SR+2)=fit showing jump in that suit OR suit one under Trumps of either limit or minimum GF (stronger hands via relay) SR+3= fit-showing jump strength as per above SR+4= limit double raise (DR)= "pre-emptive"/mixed DR+1=minimum GF fit balanced (stronger via relays) DR+2/3/4= switched (one under) void-showing splinters of minimum GF strength with no good side-suit Note I do not need strong jump shift as transfers over Major suit openings with the single-suited (self-supporting) GF and outside shortage which will make slam opposite no wastage (again next jump is switched splinter for own suit) Over utility bid: 2M=natural good suited weak 2 playable opposite misfit in terms of suit 3minor to play 2NT= at least 4-4minors pre-emptive (as guarantees fit) (many possibilites after start with relay) Playing standard many years ago: similar to Soloway Jump-shifts In a Blue Club context their JS have much to recommend them in that the single-suited hand missing a key Honour singleton is located immediately... My view is that modern bridge should focus on getin get out quickly with fit - hence the orientation prefered over Majors - and that is FAR preferable to points and 4 card support! regards

Totally agree with Free. You have snookered yourself. 3S would be forcing now, so that is what I bid and pull 3NT to 4C. Except that when partner bids the expected 4♦ (or 5♦) over 3♠, will never be able to get out of the hole we dug by doubling. Well over 4D, I bid 5C - so that is not the problem. I have some difficulty working out what sort of hand would make only a simple 3D bid after my takeout double, but then jump to 5D over my forcing 3S (which presumably cancelled the message of the original double as to support for all unbid suits). To give you an idea of how bizarre I would consider such, I would assume that his 5D bid is actually a cue for S (too good a hand to merely bid 4S, no H control since the 3S bid is effectively unlimited now!!!) eg Axx xxx KQxxx xx is certainly consistent with the bidding (or interchange a H with a C etc). Of course he might even be better eg AK xxx Kxxxx xxx or similar!!!

I don't like doubles on 5+5+ hands as I generally consider that with extreme 2-suiters you should show the 2 suits (5530 with a void in their suit MAY be an exception when the hand is worth only one bid) and the level is LOW. However, you have been lucky. After the free bid by advancer, my new suit bid of 3S will be forcing.....wtp? regards

Offhand if the trumps are 4-1, it may be crucial to get the C ruff in early, so it appears to me that the next move is a C towards the K. It looks very complicated, but if the ST is a true card, the only time you pick up the SQ directly is if S are 2-2 (relevantly likely 2-2-4-5, 2-2-5-4, 2-4-5-2, 2-4-2-5 ignoring 6 card suits for LHO as unlikely on the combination of bids and play). Of that subset, the absence of D "raise" and assumption that the DK would be KQ tight probably means you eliminate 2-4-2-5. Of the hands with ST singleton you want to avoid the risk of anearly pitch by RHO of a C (if C are 5-3), so play the C now prior to even considering a second trump.... You are down if the CA is not onside (2C losers and 2 D losers or D ruffs) off the top. I think I would play to engineer the H ruff, then the C ruff before leading the 4th H off the board...but almost certainly insufficient thought

If vul:- 1C= 16+ 1D=0-7 any, 8-9bal or 20+ 1H= 19/20+ 1NT=5-7, 4+H 2C= relay 2H= 4+C not bal, <4S 2S= relay 2NT=4H & 5+C 3C=relay 4C= 3-4-0-6 or 2-4-0-7 4D= control ask 4S=K 6C If n/v and HUM permitted:- P=0-4 OR 16+ 1C=0-7/8-9 bal OR 20+ 1D=0-4 OR 19+ 1S=5-7, 4+H not flat 1NT=relayGF 2D=4+H, 4+C 2H=relay 2S=4H & 5+C 2NT=relay 3NT=3-4-0-6 4C= control ask 4H= K 6C Any symmetric relay system makes it easy as should ANY system which allows you to locate at least 6C in responding hand. regards

On the original topic it is wrong to splinter with this hand for each of the following reasons in order of importance in my opinion:- a) you are too strong: a splinter should show so that you can abide by partner's decision: but this hand is driving to at least small slam unless awfully adverse information comes to light; :) you have a very good potential source of tricks in your side suit - and the DK is potentially crucial to GS ambitions, so you might as well introduce that now so that partner can value his DK - noting that HKQxxxx DKx and a few C will be an excellent GS regardless of minor black Honours! c) Partner has no convenient acceptance of the splinter when you hold all the side first round controls - even if you played Last Train 4D, he would be reluctant to try with NO first round controls as it requires too many perfect cards risking 5-level... d) unless you have specific bids which specify voids, ambiguous splinters are notoriously bad. regards

Even if you were playing traditional Acol where a negative is less than an A & K (or <8HCP) from memory, opener has enough information to know that with his solid suit - and at least an AK or 8+HCP opposite he has prospects at the 5-level. By contrast, responder does not know the extent to which opener's hand relies on some semblance of H support (ie 3 Losers but needs at least xx opposite, and hence his hand is lacking - he has "shown it all"). As has been commented by others, the 3D response is pretty grim - and will provide the wrong information for partner for any potential slam (positive opposite GF is slam zone prima facie), succeeding only opposite DAKQ precisely!! I would prefer 2D or 2NT even playing stone age ACOL to the 3D bid. regards

I like the 1D opening, but actually over 3S, rather than 5H ( or 4H which is likely to be passed), I would bid 4NT which still lets us out at 5D (if he bids 5C) and it is awful.... I am willing to bet on 1 cover to justify looking for slam and reaching 5 level - but not on 2 (and resonable breaks) to get me to 6 regardless... regards,

As Frances says - a flexible approach with system to cater for it will work best. Most people would prefer to open 1NT with all 5332 (and an increasing number of 6322 - at least with 6m) simply because it takes all those hands in a given range out of the equation for their other bids - and allows the remainder of their system to focus on hands excluding those shapes. Part of the problem is that by the time they finish upgrading and downgrading and adjusting they are opening not only this hand 1NT but also xx Kxx Kx AKQxxx and perhaps Ax Kx Kx QJTxxxx (!!!) - none of which makes it easy for the partnership to bid its slams (if that is a priority), but may make it difficult for the opponents to defend. Returning to the initial problem : my inclination is that when you own (5 or more) S, you should only open in the NT range if it positively screams for that action: typically a VERY weak (<Qxxxx) suit. The reason for this is principally because you have the boss suit and can show 5 in one bid, forcing them to overcall at the next (2) level - and if there is a fit you win by denomination at each level. By contrast, if you own H it is far less clearcut, and you do not have the advantage of dominating by denomination. Accordingly I have required the suit to be rebiddable or at least KJ9xx. In a relay dominated system although I show my shape, relayer will know that if I have the range for the NT shape (and I tend to call these hands balanced for other parts of the system) when I open them with a bid in the relevant major and show a 5332, he knows something of suit quality. That is a balance between the space saved by allocating all 5M332 shapes to 1NT and the judgement rule. This might not suit everyone, but seems to me to give better definition. There is also the issue of competing after you open with 1NT: the subject hand would dearly like to compete in H, but how can partern with a holding lacking any top Honour conceive (perhaps Hxxx) that this is the suit to be playing at the 3-level? Similarly once you let the genie out of the bottle with 6 & 7 card minors you are looking for disaster when partenrknows you must have a fit with his M55 etc... Don't get me wrong: QJ2 KT KT Q87652 looks balanced to me and suitable for a weak NT rather than showing a 6card C suit, and is positionally friendly too. I understand the desire to eliminate certain shapes from the other bids, but having played relay for a long time, you also have to accept that there will be times when it will be right to ignore the shape (just as you would be reluctant to make a defensive bid showing a 2-suiter when all your HCP are contained in the other 2 suits!). Whatever your view, in a pickup partenrship you can do what you like (judgement or view or shape), but in any longer term partnership it is a good idea to be on the same wavelength. regards

Ostensibly, partner has shown 5+S and a fair hand. If my RHO really thinks he wants to play 2S my pass is to play, double should be penalty oriented saying they have misguessed badly (with other suits tied up so they have nowhere to run) if that style is played. If you play cue bid doubles, that meaning is retained as it is equivalent (in my style a transfer to C). 2NT should either be natural or transfer depending on orientation and prior discussion (some play NT bids natural , other as always artificial in competition). This should just maintain consistency with partnership style.

Any hand on which West fails to show a decent 6 card suit, can hardly be a success for methods or judgement. Accordingly with this strength (working 11 HCP) the 1H bid is awful - but the 2NT in combination with the 1H bid is atrocious. East's raise to 3NT is poor, but if anything after teh double he should suspect that D are not going to break well (of course he has no suspicion of 6 C tricks or that opponents can hardly fail to cash the first 7 tricks!!). East cannot remove 3NT sensibly. regards