Trinidad

I like to play 3♠ as a puppet to 3NT (to play 3NT, slam try with both minors or slam try with one minor). After partner's forced 3NT (no superacceptance! since usually it means I want to be in 3NT), I bid: Pass: to play 3NT 4♣: showing both minors 4♦: I pick diamonds rest: I pick clubs, cue 4♦: slam try in diamonds cue bidding rest: slam try in clubs, cueing So, on this hand, I would bid 2NT-3♠; 3NT-4♦; 4X-5♦. I would go for the slam try since the form of scoring is IMPs. Rik

As is often the case, the answer depends on the context. If we are talking about face to face bridge (as I understand from the original post) there are certainly circumstances where it is perfectly acceptable to ask declarer to play faster. (However, I would phrase it a little nicer than "faster, please".) Declarer may not be aware of the fact that you are behind in time or he may not realize that there is still one more board to play after this one. There is nothing against drawing his attention to the round clock, as long as you do that in a polite manner. If I think we run behind, in a long team match, due to the opponents, I will certainly call the director, when he passes by. But in a two boards a round pairs game, that doesn't make much sense. The director call by itself might take 1-2 minutes. It's much easier to tell the opponents that you think that you are running behind. Some opponents will actually agree and state that they will carry the time penalty. Rik

Of course it's met. (If you NEVER bid according to an "Agreement" or you only do so rarely, then you don't really HAVE an agreement, do you? But an occasional sputter doesn't nullify an agreement.) I think barmar meant that "you" to be plural. That is, if a partnership does not bid according to their stated agreements, full disclosure has not been met. If my partnership agrees to play transfer preempts, I forget and open 3H with hearts, and my partner also forgets and passes 3H (without a bunch of hearts of his own), then we've done something (lots of somethings) wrong. Even if the net effect is that the opponents think we have had a standard auction and that understanding meets our hands, we have not properly disclosed. (Yes, I'm aware that the fact that both of us forgot would be strong evidence that an agreement does not exist, but assume the agreement is well documented and we simply had highly unlikely coincidental forgets.) I recall one occasion where both my partner and I made the same error. We had just changed from a SAYC like system to 2/1 GF (alertable at the time) and the auction started: Pass-1♠; 2♣ I opened 1♠ and alerted 2♣. Before the opening lead we were asked and I explained 2♣ as GF. And indeed my partner did have a hand that was worth a game force because of the nice club suit as well as the support for my spades. After the opening lead, RHO came in and said that our convention card said that we played (Reverse) Drury. We both had forgotten a convention that we had played for ages. Obviously, this could be taken as evidence that we didn't have the agreement that we were playing Drury. If a director would have ruled so and adjusted the score, neither me nor my partner would have objected or protested. We would have taken our loss on the board. (In this case, the misinformation didn't damage the opponents. So nothing happened, other than that four players were laughing.) (To my best knowledge) this has been the only occasion in 13 years where my partner and I both forgot our system. If it would happen again, I would consider it so rare an event that I would happily take the adjusted score for "misinformation on the convention card", even if the information on the CC actually was correct. Rik

The most horrible ruling by the Dutch national AC was in a high level match with screens. One player makes a two suited bid. As the tray is passed under the screen, he realizes that he has misbid. He writes on the paper that his bid shows suits A and B, but that it is not the hand that he has since he misbid. (IIRC he had another two suiter.) At the same time, at the other side of the screen the bid is alerted and explained as showing suits A and B. As a consequence of this mishap the opponents are talked out of their best contract. TD comes, etc and the TD rules this a misbid. The opponents know how the AC thinks about these cases and appeal. The Dutch AC ruled that there was misinformation. Their reasoning is that if a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they have an agreement. If they don't have an agreement then the explanation was wrong. If the explanation was wrong, it was an infraction. The weak link in the reasoning of the Dutch AC is the statement: "If a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they have an agreement.". They automatically assume that this statement is correct, without backing it up with any evidence. To me, it is obvious that this reasoning is nonsense. It basically says that if my date stood me up that there has never been an agreement to meet in the first place. I myself think that the lawbook has this exactly right. A TD is supposed to look for evidence to find out whether there was an agreement, what the agreement was and whether the explanation was correct. If there is no evidence (system book, convention card, support from independent witnesses (e.g. earlier opponents), depending on the level of the event) the TD will assume misinformation rather than a misbid. In other words, the burden of proof lies with the alleged offending side. They claim to have a certain agreement. Make me believe it. In the above case, as in many other cases that the AC has ruled on, the AC has ignored any evidence of an agreement. By doing so, they have ignored the lawbook. As far as I can see, some members of the AC have their own agenda. Prominent members of the AC have also spoken out against the use of BSCs (these are allowed at the highest level in The Netherlands). In my opinion, this AC is doing the bridge community in The Netherlands a great disservice. It should be relieved of its duty and a new AC should be installed. Rik

Please look at the wording of Wignall's original statement on this matter: It is far from clear whether Wignall was responsible for this decision. It is entirely possible that the Conventions Committee reached a decision that Wignall doesn't happen to agree with and he is merely conveying this decision. My apologies to Mr Wignall. It seems like I was shooting the messenger. Nevertheless, we completely agree that farcical is the right word for this decision. Rik

This is the exact problem: Mr. Wignall doesn't follow the rules that apply but makes up his own on the fly. This makes the problem even bigger. These Dutch pairs have filed their system notes, according to the system rules. Then after they have filed their system notes, the rules are changed: All of a sudden a 2+ 1♣ opening is considered natural, the WBF System committee rules that the pair now has too many BSC's and they cannot play any BSC's. Note that the ruling is not: "No BSC's after a 2+ 1♣ opening." No, the ruling is: "No BSC's at all." This is the equivalent of changing the rule so that BSC's are also applicable after the opponents open 1NT and subsequently saying that you cannot play Cappelletti (where 2♣ would clearly be a BSC). And since you filed that you are playing Cappelletti, you cannot play convention XYZ either. The deal is: Make the rules and stick with them. For a new event, you can come up with new rules. If in the next event, the 2+1♣ opening is going to be considered natural, fine with me. But it is not acceptable to send out the rules, allowing BSC's against the 2+1♣, change the rules after the systems have been sent in and then bar a pair from playing their system when this system is according to the original rules. Rik

LOL. How much more rope does the WBF systems committee need to hang itself? But at least now it is clear that the 2+ 1♣ opening is not natural. The only way for the WBF systems committee to get out of this mess is to make an exception for 1♣ (and possibly 1♦) openings, similar to the Multi 2♣/♦ exception. I think it is clear that the players do not want more rules with even more exceptions. The Multi exception is already viewed as highly unfair since it specifically benefits those countries where the multi is popular. Now, we are creating an exception to protect a conventional opening against BSC's where other conventional openings do not enjoy that protection. If my favorite system would be Polish club with a Wilkosz 2♦, I would be incredibly @#$@#. Rik

I agree with Adam. His analysis only supports the point of view that the 2+ 1♣ opening is a convention. If you describe the 2+ 1♣ opening on your convention card, it should say something like: Meanings ranked in order of frequency: I) weak NT, no 5M, not 4♦ (if applicable: "(23)44 possible") II) Natural, 5+, suggesting a club contract. III) 18-19 NT, no 5M, not 4♦ (if applicable: "(23)44 possible") There are three options, of which only one is natural. The other two are entirely conventional which makes the whole 1♣ opening a convention. Rik

Against Ekrens, I prefer to play Dbl as takeout of hearts (or strong) and everything else as natural. (OK, a jump to 3M asks for a stop.) In sixth seat, a Dbl is takeout of spades and 2NT shows both minors, suit bids are "balancing". I think it is important to keep a bid of 2M as natural. Just because an opponent has shown a four card major, that doesn't mean that we have to give up on getting to 4M. In fact, if we get there, I will be ahead of the field since I know of the 4-1/5-0/4-0 trump break. Against a Flannery 2♦ opening, it is fairly standard to play 2♠ as natural. And then the opponents have actually shown an opening bid. Against Ekrens, the odds that you belong in 4M are considerably higher (since the Ekrens bid is weaker than Flannery). Therefore, it is only logical to play 2M as natural when defending against Ekrens. Rik

West has led ♦Ax, a clear doubleton. He is trying for a ruff. He won't do that with ♥Qxx. Therefore, assume west has ♥xxx and play ♥AK with the queen falling from east. Pull the last trump and run the diamonds discarding clubs. You loose a diamond and a spade. If the queen doesn't fall, continue diamonds and discard spades. Someone can ruff, but you will continue discarding spades on diamonds, losing a diamond, a trump and a club. Rik P.S. I think South's bidding was excellent given the form of scoring (assuming NS play support doubles).

At the end of the auction is likely too late. After 1♣-2♣, I would assume majors and think that both 2♥ and 2♠ were cue-bids. If the actual agreement is spades and diamonds, then my bidding may well be confused. If cuebids are considered to be self alerting, then the opponents should be allowed to ask for the meaning of any cuebid without getting in trouble. Therefore, after 1♣-(2♣), you simply ask for the meaning of 2♣. You do that always, whether you are interested in bidding or not. If you only do that when you are considering bidding then you are giving your partner UI. Rik

With North as dealer, I can't see any way to reach a club contract, in a natural system. When North is the first to describe his distribution clubs will end up as the fourth suit. However, when South is the first to describe his distribution, clubs are the third suit, which makes all the difference. This can happen if South would have been the dealer or if NS are playing a strong club system. So, if there were any pairs that reached the slam, they were probably playing a variation of a strong club system. Rik

I would double 2NT. Opponents have bid and raised clubs. It doesn't matter that they used an artificial bid for it. My double is takeout of clubs. But since my shape is so poor, this is borderline. However, I think that your partner should have doubled 3♣. After all, he knows that opponents have a fit and that the bidding will go 3x Pass if he passes himself. In that case you should be able to reach 4♠. Rik

With my favorite partner, we play: 1. 1NT-2♦*-2♥-3♣ GF, 5(+) hearts and a 4 card minor (I notice Hrothgar plays the same) 2. 1NT-2♣*-2♥-3♣ GF, asking for side suit (3♦: no side suit, i.e. 5 hearts or 3433) 3♥: clubs; 3♠: diamonds; 3NT: spades) 3. 1NT-2♠*-3♣-3♥ Slem invitation, control (but I think shortness is better) 1*: Transfer to hearts. 2*: Stayman (not GF) 3*: Transfer to clubs, club bid denies a max with club fillers. Rik

The question essentially comes to: What is the meaning of 2♠, 3♠ and 4♠ after 1♠-2♣; 2♥? My answers (which I think are fairly standard in Hardy, Lawrence and Bergen style 2/1): 4♠: a picture jump, minimum GF, 3 card support, controls in ♣ and ♠, but not in the other suits 3♠: 3(+) card support, mandates cuebidding below 4♠ (or if you like to play like that almost mandates cuebidding where opener can bid 4♠ with a real bad hand) 2♠: All other hands with 3 card support + the rare hand with 2 card support that doesn't have a decent other bid. I would say that in 99% of the cases the 2♠ bidder has 3 spades. (In the remaining 1% 4♠ in a 5-2 fit would usually not be a worse contract than 3NT.) A typical 1% hand would be ♠AQ ♥AJx ♦xx ♣KJxxxx or a 2335 without a diamond stop. Finally, the meaning of the fourth suit bid, 3♦ in this case. This asks for a fifth heart, sixth spade or a stopper for 3NT. In that case you must be reasonably sure that you will have 9 tricks after opponents knock out your stop (or you need to bring a half stopper, hoping that partner will have 1.5 stopper or that 1.5 stoppers will turn out to be 2). Since partner is supposed to bid 3NT holding ♠Kxxxx ♥KQxx ♦Ax ♣Qx, or something similar, the 1% hand (♠AQ ♥AJx ♦xx ♣KJxxxx) is not suited for a 3♦ bid. Rik

As a one of these "average" interm/adv spectators I would support this idea. For example,not every squeeze is plausible for a player like me and it would be nice if the commentators would short pointed out such "claim" situations. Robert I think this is a good idea. It might be good to give the operator an alternative or two: - just entering the number of tricks won (and showing that this is not a claim, but merely entering a score or showing a brief "lost track" message where it otherwise would show "claim".) - An irregularity button for revokes, etc. Rik

The answers are in the quote, Rik

Forcing pass by opener, now that's just brilliant! B) It's an excellent example of 'out of the bidding box thinking'. B) Rik

Bergen raises have very little to do with "in your face" aggressive bidding. It is a method to help in hand evaluation with the (minor) drawback that you have to raise the bidding one level. When it comes to deciding whether you want to make a game try, bid game or stay in a part score there are several factors that play a role. A well known factor is the degree of fit in side suits. This is what long suit, short suit, help suit, fit suit, Romex and whatever trials available are based on. All very well. Another factor is the trump length in responder's hand. Opposite four card support for your five card suit, your shortness is much more valuable than opposite three card support. Therefore, when deciding on the feasibility of a game contract knowledge about responder's trump length is a key factor. Bergen raises give us a tool to get this knowledge. That is all. An advantage of an exchange about dummy's trump length is that it is an important factor for game decisions, but it doesn't help the defense much. It doesn't help in the choice of opening lead and it doesn't give any information about declarer's hand. Declarer may have bid 1♠-3♣ (7-10, 4♠); 4♠ based on an 18-19 balanced hand or on a half decent 5431. So, Bergen raises is a method to split the raises into 3 and 4 card raises, so that opener can evaluate his hand accordingly. Unfortunately, this means that we will need to play at the three level with four card support more often than the non Bergen players do. Do we like that? NO. But it is pretty rare since usually we would have been pushed to 3M anyway. And sometimes we get a preemptive advantage in return. (The opponents can make a contract or have a "down one is good bridge" contract but they had no way to find out.) But this preemptive/prebalancing effect is not what Bergen raises are about. That is only a side effect. The main effect of Bergen raises is the improved evaluation of opener's hand for game, based on the knowledge of dumm's trump length. Rik (So many words about Bergen raises and the Law of Total Tricks wasn't even mentioned. :) )

...Because the reasons are bloody obvious at the expert (heck even the non-expert) level. And have been known and discussed ad-nausuem for years. Marty's style has changed from his youth when he was an advocate of considerably more "in your face" aggressive bidding. He'll never be Al Roth, but the days of Weak Two's on J9xxx are behind him. And so are the days of him simply assuming that "n trumps means when should play at the n tricks level no matter what." This doesn't seem to be the bloody obvious reason why Mr. Bergen is not playing a lot of Bergen raises lately. :) The reason is bloody obvious even for a beginner. Mr. Bergen doesn't play any bridge at all. It's hard to play Bergen raises without playing bridge. I would like it if this discussion stopped being about winning or losing a debate. Because the truth is clearly suffering from this "trying to win the debate race". Can we please try to separate the facts from the opinions and present facts and opinions in a more objective matter? This is supposed to be an exchange of facts and opinions to get us all ahead. It is not about winning or losing a silly debate by adding misinformation to the discussion. Rik

I happen to like Ogust. But then again, we have always had an aggressive style of weak twos and that is when Ogust can come in handy. On the other hand, I think Ogust is overrated and not thought through completely. I like to be aggressive, but I will not bid on a bad hand and a bad suit. (I will open 2Sp on ♠QJTxxx and nothing else, but not on ♠QJxxxx, a king and a queen.) This means that obviously, you will have to adjust your responses to Ogust to your style of weak twos. Summarizing: You can easily do without Ogust, but if you play it, make it fit your style of weak two's. Rik

To me, this is a Michaels bid. I would bid 2♥ with any partner unless we have a specific agreement not to bid Michaels on weak hands. Rik

Penalty. Let's say 3523. The opponents have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. The score will end with two zeroes. Rik

This is an excellent way to play four suit transfers. I play it with whoever wants to. I saw the suggestion to play like this for the first time in "Precision in the 90's" by Barry Rigal. Rik

I like the Polish variation. I used to play it with a Polish partner for a while: 2♠: Invitation to 3NT or a hand with clubs .....2NT: MIN ..........3♣: to play ..........rest: as you would after 4 suit transfers .....3♣: MAX ..........Pass: to play 3♣ ..........rest: as you would after 4 suit transfers 2NT: transfer to diamonds (weak/ INV or slam) 3♣: (43)51, to play game 3♦: (43)15, to play game 3♥: 31(45), to play game 3♠: 13(45), to play game When compared to four suit transfers, this use of 2♠ and 2NT loses a little bit on the invitational hands with clubs since 2♠ doesn't ask for a club fit, but primarily for a maximum or a minimum. (However, you can obviously look at your club holding to break a tie.) But it gains a lot on the balanced hands without a four card major. Playing four suit transfers, you have to bid Stayman to invite with 2NT. In that case, you give the defense information that wasn't helping you. Playing this method, you can use 2♠ to invite 3NT without revealing declarer's shape. That is a major advantage, most notably at matchpoints. A small advantage is that Stayman now promises a major which makes it a little easier if the bidding gets competitive. Rik