Trinidad

There are two conventions that are twins. One convention is a variation of checkback Stayman. The important feature is that the convention doesn't ask but describes responder's hand. It applies in the auction 1x-1y; 1NT where 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦ and 2♦ is a GF inquiry. The 2♣ bid is made either to sign off in diamonds or to make another bid. The 2♣-2♦ relay is used to give different meanings to the direct bid and the bid through the relay, similar to the Lebensohl 2NT-3♣ relay. Since the auction that it applies to is 1x-1y; 1NT, the convention is named 'xy NT'. Its twin sister is a replacement for the fourth suit forcing convention through a mechanism that is similar to that used in the xy NT convention. It applies after 1x-1y; 1z. The 2♦ bid takes the role of a GF fourth suit inquiry, while the 2♣ bid, again is a relay to 2♦, either to play 2♦ or to take another bid distinguishing between the direct bid and the bid through the 2♣-2♦ relay. Obviously, since this convention applied after 1x-1y; 1z, it is called 'xyz' (not capitalized). In the cases where the convention is used to distinguish between hands of different strength, I have only seen these conventions used in such a way that the direct bid is a sign off while the relay bid shows the invitational range. Rik

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2 "if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), " This law still does not distinguish between trick one and any other tricks. But of course it does. Just because you do not see the quote "trick one" or "trick two" in this law that doesn't mean that this law doesn't distinguish between planning the play of the whole hand at trick one and thinking with a singleton in trick 7. In short, this law says that if you have a bridge reason you may think. If you don't have a bridge reason [] you may not. Planning the play of the whole hand at trick 1 is an excellent bridge reason to think. Virtually all bridge text books recommend to pause and plan the play of the whole hand at trick one. This is for bridge technical reasons, known to anybody with a little bridge experience. You will not find a single text book that will recommend you to suddenly start thinking in trick 7, before you follow suit with a singleton. There is no bridge technical reason to do that (other than to mislead opponents). Rik I completely disagree with this post. The same "bridge reason" to plan the subsequent play occurs at every trick up to trick eleven. Indeed it does, but to a lesser extent. In the case of the playing of a singleton in trick 7, the extent has gone down to 0. After all, you could have done this planning in trick 6 (or 1 :D) and you can still do it in trick 8 without giving up any of the options that you had at trick 7. At trick 1 this is entirely different. You didn't have the possibility to plan at trick 0. There is another reason why there is a distinct difference between trick 1 and the other tricks. By playing a card to trick 7 you are only committing to play that card. In the case of a singleton that will never be a problem. It is inevitable that you play that card anyway. But by playing to trick 1, you are not only committing to playing the card (which, again, is a meaningless right if you have a singleton). You also forfeit some rights (e.g. the right to ask for a review of the auction). Already thinking about the auction and the meaning of the various calls and evaluating whether dummy is as expected is a good enough bridge reason to take a pause. In trick 1, you have a bridge reason by default, since after your play to trick 1, you have limited your options, even if you were holding a singleton in the suit led. Rik

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2 "if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), " This law still does not distinguish between trick one and any other tricks. But of course it does. Just because you do not see the quote "trick one" or "trick two" in this law that doesn't mean that this law doesn't distinguish between planning the play of the whole hand at trick one and thinking with a singleton in trick 7. In short, this law says that if you have a bridge reason you may think. If you don't have a bridge reason [] you may not. Planning the play of the whole hand at trick 1 is an excellent bridge reason to think. Virtually all bridge text books recommend to pause and plan the play of the whole hand at trick one. This is for bridge technical reasons, known to anybody with a little bridge experience. You will not find a single text book that will recommend you to suddenly start thinking in trick 7, before you follow suit with a singleton. There is no bridge technical reason to do that (other than to mislead opponents). Rik

I would rather say it is the other way around. 1NT-3M to show a (13)(45) pattern is bid to pick the correct game (3NT, 4M or 5m). It is not a slam tool. That means that the need for slam try bids is highly uncommon. For the few cases where you want to show an exceptionally good hand, you can use the bid of 4 in responder's short major. This is not because you really need a bid for slam tries. It is because there is no sensible other meaning for bidding partner's short major. With slam going hands, responder will bid differently (I guess starting with Stayman) and take his time in the bidding. Rik

That is not quite true. The laws distinguish between having a bridge reason and not having a bridge reason for the hesitation. Planning the play of the whole hand at trick one is a very valid bridge reason. There is no good bridge reason for suddenly hesitating in the middle of trick 7 when you don't have to think about the card that you will play in trick 7. So, since there is a good bridge reason for a hesitation before playing to trick one, in effect the Laws do distinguish between the play to trick one and the play to other tricks. Many SO's have gone so far that they explicitly mention the trick one hesitation in their Conditions of Contests (which also are rules). Often these CoC's will state that declarer should wait with the play to trick one and if he doesn't RHO has the right to plan the whole play, regardless of the cards he holds. Rik

Yes, it does exist. It means that partner wants to be doubled in 4♠. Whether he'll be happy at the end of the board after his wish has come true is an entirely different question. ;) I have had the fortune to have played with some true expert partners who were excellent at these types of auctions. This is a way to win lots of IMPs or MPs against average opponents, who will double "on the bidding" without asking themselves first whether the opponents are indeed insane. The key thing is that you need to be reasonably sure that you can predict what your opponents will do. Therefore, the time to make these bids is when you know your opponents (or you have recognized the 'type'). These type of expert players do not only play the cards, they also play the opponents (without any exception they have a good table presence too). And no, I will practically never bid like this myself. I am the unlucky expert type of player. I can only play my cards and my conventions and not my opponents. But the fact that I can't play my opponents doesn't mean that there aren't any other players who can. Rik

I am with Gerben. The easiest way to remember this is to play 2♦-Pass-anything-?? the same as anything-??. So, play 2♦-Pass-2♠-Dbl the same as you would play 2♠ (wk two)-Dbl. Rik

Only evil people do... :) Seriously, good and evil are religious terms. Most western, non-religious people believe in good and bad behavior and most of these people are well aware of the fact that what they themselves see as good or bad behavior, might not be viewed the same by someone else. If you support that point of view, it is quite obvious that there is no universal good and evil. But if you are religious, then your spiritual leader will have told you that there is good and evil and that might settle it. Rik

Close enough to your preference, I think, but the point is that there is an official definition, and we should all use it. This is exactly what I meant. This WBF definition is much better than something like "30% of the peers would take this action". So I am strongly in favor of the WBF definition. You seem to be quite sure that this definition is universal. I thought, however, the WBF definition was from the WBF conditions of contest (CoC). That means it is used in all competitions where the WBF is the SO. However, other SO's are allowed to have different CoCs, meaning that this definition is not universal. But I may easily be wrong. The WBF Laws Committee also publishes how the Laws should be interpreted. These interpretations are universal. Rik

There are other "definitions" of LA. I am in favor of including any bid that a majority of the players polled would seriously consider (but might not choose) as an LA. As an example, take the auction where your choices are between passing the opponents' bid or bidding one more yourself. If you poll 10 players and all players polled say that they will have to choose between passing and bidding one more and that it is a difficult choice, then both are LA's. To me, that answers the question. That answer doesn't change if, after long consideration, all 10 players would choose the same action when forced to actually make a choice. Where the "polling method" would suggest that there is only one LA, it is blatantly clear to all players polled that there are two LA's. To me, the common procedure of asking what a player would bid is not logical. The TD wants to know what the LA's are. But he lacks the bridge knowledge to make that decision. Now he goes to a good player and asks what he would bid. But that doesn't answer the TD's question. Why not ask the player polled the question that he needs answered, i.e. what he would consider an LA? Good players are perfectly capable of indicating what actions would be LA's. And there you have your answer. If you want to know whether you should take a rain coat don't ask the weather man whether it will rain. If you get "No" for an answer, don't blame the weather man if you get wet because of the snow, sleet and hail. Instead, you should have asked whether you needed a rain coat. Rik Rules differ in different countries, but in which country do they still use this concept? I know your apporach had been legal in the US, but I thought that they changed it even there. (But this is more a question then a statement). If a LA is defined in this way by your laws, fine then it is as it is. But I have my doubts that you will find this apporach in the current laws or in the wbo minutes. And I am quite sure that here where I life, some peers must choose this bid, it is not enough to think about it. And I really don´t like "your" approach. When I think about a hand, I always think about all possibilities- so in this case, any bid would be UI and this would basically forbid your partner to think for a while about a bid and pass. I doubt that this is in the spirit of the law. If all say, it is 60 % for 3 Spade and 40 % for passing and they choose to bid, then passing is no LA. But in my (limited) experience this does not happen. If the call is so close, there will be peers who will chhose to pass. Roland, This is not a rule. The rule is in the Lawbook. There it says that you may not choose, from logical alternatives, one that demonstrably could have been suggested by the UI. When the case is brought to the TD, it is up to the TD to determine what the LA's were. The absolutely easiest way (often overlooked) is to ask the player who (allegedly) used the UI what bids he was considering. If that gives you an answer (and it surprisingly often does), there is no need to do any polling. If that doesn't work, the director has to find another way to figure out what the LA's were. He can do that by himself, or he can ask the help from others. Since the range of possible LA's may very from 1 to 2 to 10, it would be plain silly to fix conditions as to when a poll is suggesting that an action is an LA. (Some SO's have guidelines, but I would definitely not see them as rules.) There are cases where 2 out of 10 will pass out a game bid (but strongly consider making a move towards slam) and the other 8 will make 8 different moves towards slam, some simply bidding it and others probing for a grand or giving a choice of slams. If those 8 will tell you that they could imagine making another kind of move towards slam, but never to pass it out in game, is passing then an LA? (Hey it did get most votes.) And there are cases where there are only 2 possible alternatives (bidding 3♠ or passing). You cannot possibly set the same criteria for these cases and fortunately TDs and ACs (and most SO's) don't. In practice, a good player recognizes the LA's when he is asked. If four good players all state that they could choose bidding 3♠ or passing, they are both LA's. I don't need to force them to pick one. I already have all the information I need. Rik

This hand is closer to passing than to opening 2♣. Depending on your system, pass may be a frivolous option. You may get a chance to show your two suits (55+)in one bid on the next round of bidding. If you open 2♣, there is a very good chance that you will only be able to show one suit (e.g. 2♣-3♥-Pass-4♥; ??). This hand is dominated by suits, not by HCPs. So try to show the suits that you do have, rather than the HCPs that you don't have. Rik

There are other "definitions" of LA. I am in favor of including any bid that a majority of the players polled would seriously consider (but might not choose) as an LA. As an example, take the auction where your choices are between passing the opponents' bid or bidding one more yourself. If you poll 10 players and all players polled say that they will have to choose between passing and bidding one more and that it is a difficult choice, then both are LA's. To me, that answers the question. That answer doesn't change if, after long consideration, all 10 players would choose the same action when forced to actually make a choice. Where the "polling method" would suggest that there is only one LA, it is blatantly clear to all players polled that there are two LA's. To me, the common procedure of asking what a player would bid is not logical. The TD wants to know what the LA's are. But he lacks the bridge knowledge to make that decision. Now he goes to a good player and asks what he would bid. But that doesn't answer the TD's question. Why not ask the player polled the question that he needs answered, i.e. what he would consider an LA? Good players are perfectly capable of indicating what actions would be LA's. And there you have your answer. If you want to know whether you should take a rain coat don't ask the weather man whether it will rain. If you get "No" for an answer, don't blame the weather man if you get wet because of the snow, sleet and hail. Instead, you should have asked whether you needed a rain coat. Rik

No, since it is inconsistent. You considered your hand good enough to bid 6♥ (why else would you think of launching RKCB?). Usually, if you think you have 12 tricks, the opponents don't have two keycards. But is a good idea to check with RKCB for those few cases where you happen to be so unlucky that you would have had 12 tricks if it weren't for the fact that the opponents had 2 first. So, it would have been handy to be able to check whether this is one of those unlucky deals, but you can't anymore. So just bid what you think your hand is worth. You thought it was worth 12 tricks, so bid 6♥. Rik

I fully agree with Justin. I hate passing deals out when playing against palooka's. If I pass it out, I expect an average (may be slightly higher because one of the palooka's may have evaluated the hand wrong). If the hand is played, I expect a good result. Just how good depends on how good I am and how poor the palooka's are (+ the usual factors like luck, etc). If you want to score, it is worth taking a small risk to force the board to be played. This would be bad bridge against "normal" opponents, and very bad bridge against better opponents, but it is good bridge against palooka's. This is particularly true if you have a way to warn partner that you have less than he would expect (e.g. if you can pass his natural response which normally would be practically forcing). After all, if you can warn partner, you are reducing the risk. On this particular hand, I would probably open 1NT (12-14) against "the worst pair in the room", certainly if I would be playing with Gerben. Rik

That seems sensable. So that option is out . :P Rik

The website also offers the possibility to get to know even more about this wonderful system. You can get the book from the OP by sending him a check or money order for US $15... I'll leave the discussion about better ways te spend $15 to the watercooler. :P Rik

This is a more complicated situation than people see at first sight and more information is needed. The unauthorized information (UI) that you have is that partner considered bidding (or doubling) over 1NT. You are not allowed to use that information. Does the UI make it more attractive to bid 3♠? That depends on the meaning of partner's pass and the meaning of the bids that he might have considered. If you and partner play a system with very contructive overcalls of 1NT, you have the UI that partner has a decent hand. That makes bidding 3♠ more attractive. Since I would rule pass as an LA, I would not allow the 3♠ bid. But if your partner is "Marty Bergen to the extreme" (like one of my partners), who doesn't need values to bid and bids on 98% of unbalanced hands, the UI that you have is different. Then, partner's pass suggests that he has a balanced hand and therefore two card spade support, making a 3♠ bid attractive. But now, the UI says that he may not have that balanced hand and now the UI will make 3♠ less attractive. In that case, 3♠ should obviously be allowed. Rik

I pass. If you think of slamming now, I think that you shouldn't have bid 3♠. It would have been better to just bash 6♣. The new information that you got from partner's 4♠ bid is that partner is more likely to have three small spades. That is not good news. So, if you were thinking of slam all along, the 4♠ bid should make you shy away from bidding it. Rik

that's the sort of thinking that can grant you a farewell from pard in the end of the session (and rightfully so) I probably wasn't clear. I wrote: "If you won't be able to figure out what 1NT means, partner shouldn't bid it." I should have added: "If partner bids 1NT anyway, shame upon him." But there are partnerships and partnerships. Obviously, it is perfectly ok to have a partnership where you agree to refrain from giving partner riddles to solve. There is nothing wrong with that. It's the perfect way to play with a casual partner. I am all for it and it will give you good results. But when I am playing with my favorite partner, I would most certainly bid 1NT with: ♠AQTx ♥x ♦xx ♣AKQxxx And she would bid it with me. And no, we have never discussed this auction other than "1NT by a passed hand is take out.", which seems reasonable. I will trust that she will figure out what I am showing, given that: 1) This is a life auction, without a fit for the opponents. Therefore, I have a good hand. 2) I passed over 1♣. 3) I didn't double 1♥. And if you are able to solve each other's "riddles" on a consistent basis and turn out to be on the same wavelength all the time then that is very rewarding, both on a personal level and in terms of IMPs or MPs. And to be absolutely clear: I cannot imagine that I would bid 1NT with anybody else, not even my current partner that I have been playing about 60 boards per week with for the past three years. Rik

Couldn't he double to show that? Yes, he could double too, but than he would also be promising something in diamonds (4144, 4135). 1NT would show typically 4126, 4216 or a 4225 with good clubs. As to the question 'Why do partners do this?': If you won't be able to figure out what 1NT means, partner shouldn't bid it. Therefore, partner was confident that you would be able to reason logically what 1NT meant. Thank partner for having confidence in your bridge ability. Rik

I (and my partners) would open hand 1 with 1♠, even if I have a gadget to show a weak hand with both majors (which I do). I would pass hand 2. The reason? My partner passed. Therefore, he will not have hand 1. If my partner cannot have hand 1, the odds for a positive score after opening 1♣ are very small. If I could open hand 2 with a natural 2♣, I would consider it, but 1♣ will invite the opponents in to the action and 3♣ is a little too rich for me. So, the bidding with hand 1 and 2 would go: 1♠-2♣; 2♥-3♣; 3♥-3♠; 4♠ Nice contract! :P Rik

I would expect an opening with 4 spades and 5+ clubs. I would bid 2♠. Rik

I am with the minority: 3♠. 1) It shows that my hand is unbalanced. (My 1♦ opening can be balanced.) 2) I like my nice diamond suit. (It is fine to add half a loser for the ♠Q, if you then subtract half a loser for the ♦J9. KQJ9x is substantially better than KQxxx. The difference is a lot more than 1 HCP.) 3) I do have good spade spots. Rik

I am with Gerben. Partner knows that I can have this (or less). The hand is actually quite good for the bid. It has offensive values and hardly anything on defense. Rik