Trinidad

Players can also hold 765 playing standard signals. The agreement is simple: the 5 is more discouraging than the 7. For Italian signals it is the same. From encouraging to discouraging the order is: 3-5-7-9-even. So, if you want to discourage with 753, you play the 7. No need to think. I really don't understand why odd-even signals (when following suit) are disallowed and odd-even discards are allowed. In my experience, there are far more BIT issues on the first discard than when following suit. After all, when following suit, you simply have to play the card that sends the clearest message (e.g. the 7 from 753), but when you are discarding you have 3 suits to chose from. You may discard an odd card in the suit you want or a high or low even card in a suit you don't want. If you discard on diamonds and want hearts, you need to check whether you have (and can afford to play): - an odd heart (3, 5, 7, 9) - a high spade (♠8 or ♠6) - a low club (♣2 or ♣4) This thinking is more complicated than in standard discards. There you are looking for: - a high heart - a low club or spade And it is also much more complicated than in odd-even signals (3-5-7-9-even). So, the most BIT sensitive (the odd-even discard) is allowed and the not BIT sensitive (the odd-even signal) is disallowed. SAD! ;) Rik Edit: removed redundant line.

Anybody can write an internet article with references to The Lancet, Nature, Science, or the Bible, for that matter. It doesn't say anything about the value of the internet article. Rik

That may be the case (and I agree with Gordon that we have to investigate that first), but why should this result be Ave+/Ave+? Perhaps opener already won the board by choosing a 1♥ opening (e.g. instead of pass or 2♣). When the possible outcomes range from 60% to 100%, there is no justice in giving them the "benefit of the doubt" by awarding Ave+ (which usually means 60%). We need to turn this Ave+/Ave+ autopilot off. Rik

Rik was referring to this 3NT bid in combination with this opening hand. Minimum hands usually don't bid over this kind of 3NT. I fully agree with MrAce that this is not a sign-off, but I tend to get a lot of minimum hands (certainly when partner has about 12-14 balanced), and, hence, will usually pass. Should I be so lucky to have a nice hand (in HCP or distribution), I will certainly make a descriptive move, but then I am also telling partner that I have a nice hand (plus whatever I am telling him with my descriptive bid). Rik

Just my $0.02. To me 3NT means: "I don't want your input, unless you have a special type of hand (usually slemmish)." I don't have a special type of hand, so with this hand (and many others) partner shouldn't expect any input from me. Rik

I think that is reading too much in "a small spade". If West led the normal 4 from 42, I can easily see that declarer thinks that it is from a four or five card suit. But, as Hrothgar pointed out, leading a short suit with a weak hand and a long suit with a strong hand is an encrypted lead, according to the definition. There are more situations where every expert will play signals that are encrypted - according to the definition - simply because the "default" signal won't help partner and partner can see that the default signal won't help him. In some situations, the key will be available to declarer and in some it won't. To me it seems very difficult to make a good definition that properly describes what the regulators want. Rik

No, "strong" does not mean that. The Blue Book "strong" means "'strong' for a definition of regulating the legality of a convention". At the bridge table we use the bridge players' meaning of the word "strong", which is different, because it has a different purpose. As an example, a "strong NT" rarely meets the EBU definition of "strong". And if someone tells, before starting the play that they play "a strong NT", when their 1NT range is 20-22 then that is MI. So, the correct explanation would be "strong, but could be as weak as...". As I said earlier, regulating conventions and explaining them are two different things. Rik

There is still the letter of Law 40B6a: Usually, regulating authorities write in their regulations something to the effect that a pair needs to be forthcoming and try to understand the opponent's problem when answering to questions. I assume that the Blue Book does the same, even though Law 40B6a basically says it all. And to be clear: No, the fact that one is allowed to open this hand 2♣ in the EBU is not general bridge knowledge. So, on the "Only a retard..." phrase, SB is simply wrong. How come this guy is still playing in North London? With how much money is he sponsoring the club? ;) Rik

The biggest problem with LSD is that it causes hallucinations. And though it isn't harmful to the liver like alcohol or to the lungs like smoked tobacco, hallucinations are dangerous. In Amsterdam several tourists are killed each year from the use of magic mushrooms. They do not get poisoned, they do not get addicted. They simply discover that taking off from the balcony works well, but that the flying and landing are more difficult than anticipated. But other than that, they are "harmless". Rik

And you consider this a credible explanation when North passes 4♥ with a hand that really cannot have more than 6 losers? I think it would be appropriate to add "Though the auction is mechanistically forcing to game regardless of my hand (except after a 2NT rebid by opener), opener doesnot need the values to make a game force sensible." or "It meets the EBU definition of a strong bid, but it doesn't need to meet the sensible bridge player's definition of a strong bid." Full disclosure is something that you don't hold back on. Rik

Being allowed to have a certain agreement and explaining that agreement are two entirely different things. Rik

North does have UI, albeit weak: South didn't alert 2♠. (It is weak since North didn't alert 2♥ either, so NS may be habitual non alerters.) But no matter how weak the UI. It is UI. Obviously, 4♠ is an LA over 4♥, and, equally obviously, the UI suggests 4♥ over 4♠. So, I would assign an AS based on 4♠, and, since I used the word "obviously" to describe the LA and the suggestion, I think a PP is in order. Rik

That could do it. After all, with a high dose of ethanol, you wouldn't be able to get the card out of the bidding box. (Which one of the two?) ;) Rik

Perhaps you should refresh your chemistry. Very few people enjoy consuming large amounts of Ethanoic Acid. This is, next to DHMO, Dihydrogen Monoxide (also known as water), the main ingredient of vinegar. I assume you meant ethanol, which is the characteristic ingredient of many "fun enhancing" beverages that some people enjoy consuming in either moderate, large or enormous quantities, with - as a consequence - moderate, large or enormous effects on their behavior and their judgement. Rik

And no one at the forums would rule Ave+/Ave-. Rik

You're more awake then I am... Rik

Use of UI, Pass is an LA. There is damage. AS: 100% 4♥= (Everybody will lead the ♦A (or K) from the West hand.) I do not often hand out PPs for the use of UI, since often: at the table it is not as clear what the UI suggests as it is when a TD looks at it objectively (and often seeing all 5 hands) in complex situations, it is difficult to separate the UI and AI in your brain often the player at the table tried to do the right thing, but failed In this case, however, the situation is clear: The suggestion from the UI is clear: I have values and I would like to bid. The situation is simple, it is easy to separate the UI from the AI. It is inconceivable that East was trying to do the right thing. PP to EW for East's use of UI. Rik

I would do exactly the same... if partner had opened 1♣. But he opened 1♦. I trust that in that case you would pass, just like me. :) Rik

I don't have any problem doubling with 6... if I am sure that there will be a playable contract. And if you have that certainty, you still want to play in game with the hand from the OP (e.g., ♠Qxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Jxx ♣xx). Rik

If partner has a one suited heart double, he will (okay, should) have enough values to be able to play game opposite my hand. bacause the negative double means that we can play a contract in 2♦, 2♥, 2♠ or 2NT, opposite a minimum 1♦ opening. We have considerable extras, so we should be able to play in game. This could be in hearts, NT or diamonds. You do not make a negative double on ♠Jx ♥AJxx ♦xx ♣xxxxx. (What would you do after 2♠?) Rik

This is what happens in many other countries in the world: At the end of elementary school the kids undergo a nation wide test. This provides stats on how the school is doing. At the end of high school, the kids have their nation wide standardized final exam. This provides stats on the school and it serves as the entrance key to colleges nation wide. But, of course, this will require a national agency to prepare these tests and a centrally coordinated system to evaluate them. Unfortunately, "national agency" and "centrally coordinated" are four letter words in American. Rik

Personnaly, I am not really worried about people who tell that Hillary is running a child sex ring in a pizza house. I am worried that there are people who believe it. But if critical thinking isn't taught at schools (and instead is viewed as "annoying adolescent behavior" by teachers when critical thinking is practised and mistakes are made) we are only producing brain dead adults. Rik

I don't get this. Suppose you have the East had and partner opens a strong (15-17) 1NT. Wouldn't you at least be tempted to look for a major suit game? In this case, West has shown 15-17 HCPs, a four card spade suit, an unbalanced hand with a diamond suit, and either short hearts or clubs, where either shortness fits your hand well. That is one and a half trick better than when West opens 1NT. Even if 3♠ wouldn't be forcing (not my idea) I would bid 4♠ without blinking, certainly at IMPs. Rik

Same here. (And for hands without a major) Rik

It's simple: If you have a problem with the opponents, then you call the TD. If you don't call, then you don't have a problem. Rik