pbleighton

I am interested in estimates of the systems used by the world's top 100 pairs. How many play: 1) Natural, 4 card majors 2) Natural, 5 card majors 3) Strong club, 4 card majors, not primarily a relay system 4) Strong club, 5 card majors, not primarily a relay system 5) Strong club, 4 card majors, primarily a relay system 6) Strong club, 5 card majors, primarily a relay system 7) Weak/strong club, 4 card majors, not primarily a relay system 8) Weak/strong club, 5 card majors, not primarily a relay system 9) Weak/strong club, 4 card majors, primarily a relay system 10) Weak/strong club, 5 card majors, primarily a relay system

What do you recommend as the meaning of a 4th suit shown in a 2/1 auction (already forcing to game), such as 1S-2D-2H-3C? Choices I can think of are real suit, stopper for NT, ask about stopper for NT, and waiting bid. Would the meaning vary by context? Playing with a pickup partner, what would you assume if he did it, and you hadn't discussed it?

I have noticed references to Checkback in several threads. I am aware of Checkback Stayman, according to one definition: "The bidding sequence 1 Club - 1 Heart - 1 No Trump - 2 Clubs asks the opener to give preference to Hearts, or to show an unbid four-card Major Spade suit. If the opener can not support Hearts and has no four-card Spade suit, the opener rebids Diamonds. If the opener rebids either 2 Hearts or 2 Spades, this rebid is purely invitational and not forcing. Some partnerships use the 2 Diamonds rebid as a game-forcing Checkback Stayman, and 2 Clubs as a weak Stayman. If the rebid is 2 Clubs in this partnership agreement, then the responder shows invitational values if he bids again." Are there many types of checkback? Is reverse drury a checkback? Is a checkback any artificial bid which asks partner to clarify his hand?

"I am far from certain that the instructions you have been given regarding rebidding 2S anytime you hold six is correct. With a second suit you certainly should show it. " The instructions (3 sources) just said rebid with 6, and din't specifically deal with 2 suiters. You and Roland both say to show your second suit if you have one, by implication minor suits too. Would you do this with 4 small and a good 6?

You open 1S, partner says 1NT. Discussions I have seen say to rebid spades if you have 6. When (if ever) is it appropriate to show hearts instead. Would you rebid 2H on any of these? 1) xxxxxx-AKxx-AQ-x 2) xxxxxx-AKxxx-AQ 3) Qxxxxx-AKxxx-Kx 4) xxxxxx-AKxxxx-A 5) Axxxxx-AKxxxx-x Would you open 4) 1H?

"Qxx xx AJTxx Kxx (to come up with your 10 HCP). It is reasonable to assume your partner has something like 4-1-4-4 for this double (may not of course). So you have 9 card fit, they have 10 card fit. The law of total tricks would suggest that if you can make 11 tricks, they can make only 8 tricks. So if you are making 5D they might well be down 2 in 4Hx. And if you are down one in 5D they are down one in 4H. You didn't give the vul, and they might not have a 10 card fit, or you might not have 9 card fit. So all in all, I would double 4H. Your double is not a demand that your partner pass. He still has another bid. " Never would have thought of doubling with two small hearts - but of course that's why I post these questions. Your guess as to my hand is accurate. As to my partner's hand, I said "I had 10 hcp, with the AJ10xx in diamonds and 2 small hearts, and felt I had to bid. I bid 5D reluctantly, and we went down . My partner had 12 hcp, including KJxxx in spades, and 3 in the other unbid suits, and 2 in H. " If you were my partner and I doubled, would you have taken the message that I had some strength, and no suit? Or a suit, but it wasn't hearts? Or I had takeout double shape? As to vulnerability, both NV, as I should have specified. BTW, pickup opps too, no convention card or alerting so that my p would know 3S was Bergen (though it must have been given the hcp). The key point I see (in retrospect) is that our side shouldn't play the contract unless we have a spade fit, or I have an excellent 6 card minor. If I had had 4 spades and 5 diamonds (with say an A or KJ in spades), should I have bid 4S?

Playing online with a new partner, the bidding went: 1H-P(me)-3H-Dbl-4H I had 10 hcp, with the AJ10xx in diamonds and 2 small hearts, and felt I had to bid. I bid 5D reluctantly, and we went down . My partner had 12 hcp, including KJxxx in spades, and 3 in the other unbid suits, and 2 in H. 1) Should I have bid or passed? 2) I think partner should have had 16+ hcp to double at the 3 level. Agree?

Playing SA or 2/1, is it ever appropriate to open a hand with a 5 card suit (and not in your NT range) one of a minor , i.e. 65432 - K9 - KJ83 - AK Would you consider a 1D opening?

At the club game today, I held 5-5-2-1, 14 hcp, and my partner opened 1NT (15-17). I bid 2C, transferring to hearts. After P bid 2H, I bid 3S. I had no idea how to show my hand, but I wanted to communicate game forcing values and 2 suits. We wound up in 3NT, down 2, and 6 spades made. The field was divided about eqully between 3NT, 4S, and 6S. My partner was very nice (this was the first time we had played together), but said I showed 5H and 4S. What do you think my bid showed, and how would you have bid my hand?

"However, that does not solve the following problem: 1S and you hold x AKJ xxxxx AJxx 2NT seems a weird bid on this, and yet if 2D HAS to show a good suit what do you bid? How would the 2C structure you play handle this?" This may be totally impractical, but what about utiilizing one the of jump shifts (the cheapest would probably be a Jacoby 2NT equivalent) to show 3 suiters with a stiff or void in the opener's suit, with none of the suits being biddable. I don't know if there would be room for a relay to clarify exact distribution, as there would be in a Precision 2D response which allows 5431 shapes, but at least the 2NT response could then guarantee 2 of the opener's suit. BTW, if pard bids 1S, and you hold 5 small hearts and GF values, would you suppress the hearts?

"With anything less, I'd probably X hand 6, AKxxxx is not worth a 5D bid opposite a min 1C opener." With X being for takeout, is it a strict takeout, or one that can be passed for penalties?

"After intervention at the 3+ level, bids natural and forcing and Xs for t/o. You pick up the penalty X by opener re opening." An example, to make sure I understand you: Partner opens 1C, overcalled 4H by his LHO. Here are some responses with different hands: 1) Almost any hand with less than 8 hcp - Pass. 2) xx-Jxx-Axxx-Axxx - Pass (if partner doesn't have spades or is very strong, you probably go down). 3) xx-AJxx-Axxx-Axx - Double - strong, can support any suit. 4) Ax-Kxxx-KJxxx-xx - Pass. 5) AQxxx-xx-Kxx-xxx - 4H (hope for 3 S from pd). 6) xx-x-AKxxxx-xxx - 5D. On 1, 2, and 4, after the pass, partner probably doubles. Is this more or less what you are suggesting?

What do you recommend for coping with high level interference after a 1C 16+ opening: 1) LHO, 2S or higher 2) RHO when LHO has passed (depends on pard's response) 3) RHO when LHO hasn't passed (depends on pard's response) My gut feeling is that I want to double for penalties a lot, but I'm not sure. Suggestions?

1) Tempted to pass, to convert for penalties, rather than bid 2C. 2) 3C if playing inverted minors, 2C if not.

"Handling of interferences is not a part of the original Precision system by Wei. It is an integral part of Belladonna/Garozzo and a Wei authorized version you will find by Goren and by Judy Radin. By Terence Reese you will find handling of interferences too, but pity like the version I understand you prefere, Reese is a private system too. " The system in Precision today is a basic, natural form of Precision. I think any books which refer to a non-relay form of Precision would be helpful. Are either the Goen/Radin or Reese books based on a natural flavor of Precision, and do they address subsequent bidding?

I practiced bidding Precision for the first time tonight (with fellow poster ejfree), and it was a lot of fun. We are both using Precision Today to learn, and it is a good book, as far as it goes. What I am looking for is a book that goes further into the bidding after 1C. This book is somewhat cursory about the 1C bid after the responder's first bid (though it does have some stuff about interference). What I need is a good book that goes into more depth, but doesn't use relays (too much at this point). More stuff on how to deal with interference would be good too.

"With 1-4-5-3 shape, bid 2D. You probably have as many or more diamonds than clubs between the two hands. You also have the extra vigorish of partner continuing with 2H if he has 5-3-1-4 and extra values, allowing you to pass and put down a nice dummy! The downside to bidding 2D is catching partner with 5-3-1-4 and a minimum, in which case you have reached a putrid spot." I thought that the suit had to be pretty good to introduce on the 2 level. What is the minimum suit you would open, with 4 small clubs and 5 diamonds, in this situation?

You are the responder, playing 1NT forcing. The bidding has gone (opps silent) 1S-1NT-2C You have the following hands which are weak AND don't have a suit you can bid at the two level. You therefore have to pass 2C or go to 2S. What do you do on: 1) x-KJ10x-Axxx-xxxx 2) x-KJ10x-Qxxx-Qxxx 3) x-KJ10x-xxxx-Axxx 4) A-KJ10x-xxxx-xxxx 5) K-KJ10x-Jxxx-xxxx 6) Q-KJ10x-Qxxx-xxxx 7) J-KJ10x-Kxxxx-xxxx 8) x-KJ10x-Kxxxx-Jxx 9) x-KJ10x-Qxxxx-Qxx 10) x-KJ10x-Jxxxx-Kxx 10) x-KJ10x-xxxxx-Axx

1) There is a web page which privides brief summaries (mostly just opening bid structures, but it has some commentary). I have found it to be very interesting: http://www.sao.ru/~dim/bridge/biddings/bri...collection.text 2) Regarding the 2C problem, Precision Today recommends restricting 2C to 6+ clubs, and 1D to 2+ diamonds. Hands with 5C and 4M are opened as follows: a) 5440 (0 in D) - 2D :o 5422 - 1D c) 3-4-1-5 and 4-3-1-5 - 2D. They can use 2NT as an asking bid to clarify distribution on 2D bids. The theory seems to be that the 3-4-1-5 and 4-3-1-5 hands have no good answer in Precision, and that bidding them 2D, while maybe not necessarily the best solution FOR THESE HANDS, doesn't mess up other hands the way opening 1D with one diamond and opening 2C with 5 clubs does. Does anyone have any experience of (or opinions on) this approach?

Questions on these, after reading a number of sources: 1) Do most players play these as showing either weak (12 or less) or strong (17+), or do a lot play them as being only weak? Does the strength range include length. i.e is xx-x-AQxxx-KJxxx considered weak (doesn't seem weak to me). 2) The writeups imply that these are forcing over competition. If the bidding goes 1S-2S-4S, are you required to bid?

So am I.

Richard - I agree with you on cost variability depending on the approach. I have been personally involved with: a) As a primary user - a "back-end system" for an insurance company, whose original quote (1984 dollars) was $400,000/1year for initial deployment (on a Wang mini), plus $300,000 per year for support and enhancements. Actual experieince - $3,000,00/2.5 years for deployment, and about $1,000,000 per year for support and enhancements. We were a startup and had no clue as to what we were doing, but still.... :) As a line programmer, customization of a $50,000 accounting package (Windows/VB/RDB) to give highly customized inventory and order processing capacity. Initial estimate - $400,000. Ultimate cost (including a vendor-mandated back end switch >:)) - $2,500,000. c) As a systems analyst/programmer/chief cook and bottlewasher - Half a dozen custom databases (mostly with an Access front end), where total cost came in at the quoted $20,000 - $45,000. a) and B) have given me a perhaps too jaundiced view of major project cost. I understand that in a software company environment, a few highly knowledeable decision makers can dramatically speed up the design process. I have of course heard of the Open Source approach, but have no direct experience of it. The problem with it in the part of the process that I was talking about is that I anticipated a "consensus" approach being developed - thus the need for a strong central figure, iterations of multiple prototypes, etc. If a) the current (OKBridge?) model was deemed acceptable (perhaps with a few tweaks), and the vendor was willing to provide the specs, then I would agree with you that the cost could be dramatically less.

Richard - I read your document with great interest. As someone who has been playing for less than a year, and who played his first club game yesterday, I won't presume to comment on the ACBL, tournaments, etc., except to say that my visit to the club gave me a dramatic illustration of the demographic challenges facing the ACBL - the median age appeared to be over 65, and at 48 I was one of the 3 youngest players, out of 40. I do have some thoughts about the implementation of your proposed GUI standardization process (which IMO is a great idea, and is the critical component of your proposal), from my years as a manager/executive in the insurance industry (which has an ACBL-like attitude towards change), and as a systems consultant (my second career). My experience as a user and programmer/systems analyst has borne out the cliche that the gathering of functional specifications (the "human element") is by far the biggest danger point in any system development. From the ACBL's perspective, this is primarily a functional specifications project (the websites will do the actual implementation), though a necessary component of it will be prototypes, to enable the decision-makers to make final decisions. Once the ACBL has been persuaded of the need to do this (a major undertaking in itself), I suggest the following process: 1) A committee be set up to implement the development of GUI standards. This committee won't be a working committee, so it can be large (10-20 people). It should be large enough, with enough "important bridge people", so that its decision will carry enough force to be THE DECISION OF THE ACBL, rather than a recommendation. 2) A working subcommittee of 3-5 people will be assigned to develop recomendations for standardization. Some/most/all of these people should have a high degree of computer literacy. 3) The subcommittee itself will never have the time (and probably not the expertise) to get the job done. It will hire a systems consultant. The consultant will be an experienced bridge player, with significant online and face-to-face tournament experience. The best candidate will be someone who has his/her own small-to-medium systems development consulting firm, or who is a senior consultant in such a firm. Substantial systems analysis experience is crucial - many excellent programmers would fail in this task - this is primarily a COMMUNICATIONS job. The committee should avoid the temptation to "brand-name" its work product by hiring a huge consulting firm such as Accenture or EDS, since such a firm will charge ripoff rates, and will delegate most of the work to 25 year olds (guess what size firm I work for :)). 4) The consultant will have a budget sufficient to: a) Research the alternatives thoroughly. Use the existing :) Develop generations of multiple prototypes. c) Travel expenses to get in-depth feedback from subcommittee up front, and in several iterations of prototype generation. Input would also be sought from the online websites. 5) Step 4) should enable the subcommittee to present 3 or 4 alternatives to the full committee, along with a recommendation for which alternative to use, and an analysis of the differences between the alternatives. I believe that it is important that the full committee be made to feel that they are in fact the decision-makers, even though it is highly likely that they will merely ratify the subcommittee's recommendation, with a tweak or two. The consultant will probably need 12-18 months from start to Step 5, and may well need to extend that, if the full committee wants to see a new prototype before making its final decision. The requirements gathering/systems analysis won't be full time every day for the consultant, but there will be substantial additional costs for prototype development and redevelopment costs. Assuming a daily rate of $800-$1,000 (reasonable for a project this size, if you avoid large firms), I would estimate that the total cost for this project will be on the order of $400,000-$500,000. As with all systems development estimates, this is probably low. I think this approach will minimize the risk of failure of the GUI standardization project. If something like this approach isn't used (if a committee tries to do the job itself, or if it uses a consultant without extensive tournament experience), I think the chances of failure are high. Consultation with online bridge websites is crucial, by the committee/subcommittee as well as the consultant, as is the degree of standardization the ACBL will require. I think most or all websites won't be willing/able to support 2 GUIs - one for tournaments, and one for regular play. Therefore the implementation of standards will de facto force all online sites which wish to have ACBL-sponsored tournaments (which I think long run will be most or all sites) to have very similar GUIs. How similar (the level of detail of the specs) is perhaps more important than the actual specs chosen. I have only played at BBO and Zone, and they are quite different, even though I understand they were both designed by Fred. This process will force some or all of existing online sites to invest a lot of time and money to comply with the specs, as well as grumpy responses from many (perhaps a majority) of their users, who will have to adapt to changes for the sake of being able to play in tournaments they have no interest in. With all of the caveats above, I think that GUI standardization is a great idea.

Actually, it's Peter. To Richard: Sorry to seem dense/lazy, but I don't find the charts to be crystal clear. Perhaps it is my fundamental uncertainty with regard to what a "conventional" response to a forcing 1C means. I assume that anything which is not natural is conventional (correct?)? And what is natural? To take the GCC, for OPENING BIDS, it is clear that 3 in a minor and 4 in a major are natural, and less than that are not. Exceptions are permitted for 1C and 1D, as long as they have 10+ points. So far, so good. But what is the definition of a "natural" RESPONSE TO A FORCING 1C OPENER - is it 3 in a minor/4 in a major? In that case transfer responses which are not forcing to game are clearly not permitted under the GCC - but is that the definition? 2) To Luke - do you know of a link to a description of Svan - I saw this described briefly on Jan Eric Larsson's systems page, but there was nothing about the responses.

"1C 1D 1H 1NT where 1D shows 6+ with H (0+ in Italian systems) 1H shows 11-13 with 2/3 H. with 4 and 11-13 you bid 2H 1NT shows a balanced 17-19" Let me see if I understand: 1) Responder's first bid: A 1D response to 1C shows 5+ (4+?) H and 6+. Does 1H shows 5+ (4+?) H and 6+, 2C shows 5+ (4+?) D and 6+, 2D shows 5+ (4+?) C and 6+, 1NT shows 4333 or 4332 6+. If so, how are responses with 0-5 handled? 2) Opener's rebid after 1D response showing hearts: Do all responses other than 1H and 2H show 15+? Is the bidding natural after this, or are relays used? 3) Can you give me a link to a writeup on one of these systems? 4) Do you know if the response structure you described is GCC/Midchart legal?