Trinidad

For me, 2♠ is already a game forcing bid. The logic is as follows. By doubling first and then bidding a new suit you show a hand that was too strong to overcall. If you want to express it in hcp, let's say that it shows 17+, if the double would have been in direct seat. (I know it wasn't here. But we'll get to that in the end.) The responder to a take out double has several bids to show a positive response. All single jumps in a suit show about 8-11 hcp. If, like me, you like to double aggresively when the shape is perfect, a 1NT response should also show good values. (You don't want to bid 1NT with 6 points and a stopper when the doubler can have a 4441 with 10 nice points. Thus, again for me, a 1NT response to a direct seat take out double shows about 8-11. If you add the 8-11 from the positive response to the 17+ from the Dbl + new suit, it is clear that you have the strength for game. Thus, a takeout dbl, a positive response and a new suit is GF. In this case, the Dbl was in the balancing seat, rather than the direct seat. The system stays the same, but the point ranges change. The standard is that the balancer borrows a king from his partner. That means that North should value his hand as 6 hcp and than the 1NT response is an overbid. The key thing in this discussion is whether you value a 1NT response as a positive action or not. If you do, that makes these auctions (Dbl-1NT; new suit) simple. And if you are an aggressive doubler the 1NT response has to show values. (You can also look at it another way: The double tells partner to pick a suit. Not obeying your partner [bidding 1NT is not pickking a suit] shows extra values.) Rik

In a strong club context, I would only put the weak options in the multi. It allows you to raise the preempt frequently, because you don't need to fear that partner has a strong hand. It also makes it possible to pass out the 2♦ bid. This means that the opponents cannot use the often succesful sit-back-and-wait-what-opener-actually-has approach. Rik

Yes they can. Last I heard the ACBL did not write the system regulations for the Bermuda Bowl. No, ACBL doesn't. The WBF "lawyers" do, under the strong influence of the ACBL "lawyers". (I posted because Ken didn't seem to realize the difference between Laws and regulations which is a common misunderstanding in the USA. I didn't realize this difference when I lived there either. :blink: ) Nevertheless, as far as I know, HUM systems are still banned from the round robin of the Bermuda Bowl. The same goes for encrypted signals. So if a Swedish mathematicians glasses are labeled HUM, he cannot use them at the round robin of the BB. And as I explained to Ken, HUM systems are not banned by Law. (My bridge club allows them and that is perfectly legal.) They are banned by regulations. And I am of the opinion that these regulations shouldn't be there in the highest level bridge event in the world. Rik

This is a false description of what is going on. ACBL does not decide on the rules of bridge. In bridge there are two kinds of "rules". There are the rules of bridge (as described in the bridge laws) and we have the regulations that the individual SO's (such as the ACBL) come up with. The rules of bridge do not ban any systems and I cannot believe that they ever will. (To make things absolutely clear: The ACBL doesn't decide on the rules. It can only decide on the regulations.) So, the "mathematician" comes up with an improved system that he wants to use. After that, ACBL "lawyers" ban it and come up with a regulation for that ban. One half of the mathematicians try to fight the new regulation. They will loose this battle loose since fighting over regulations is something lawyers are much better at. The other have of the mathematicians adapt their system to fall within the new regulations. The lawyers come up with a new regulation to ban the adaptation. Either way, the mathematicians loose. This is not because of the rules of the game. It is because of the regulations in the ACBL, set up by ACBL "lawyers". So your comparison about the speed of light is not correct. The speed of light is universal (just like the bridge laws). What is happening is that mathematicians from around the world come up with a new type of glasses to use the properties of light. This gives them an advantage over the lawyers. The lawyers in the ACBL will ban these glasses in all ACBL events. Then ACBL will put all its weight in the WBF to get them banned in WBF events. Now, mathematicians from e.g. Australia or Sweden can use their glasses over there where they beat the lawyers, but they cannot use them in the Bermuda Bowl. Who do you think the Swedish captain will send to the Bermuda Bowl? The mathematician who cannot use his glasses in the event or the lawyer who is allowed to use all his skills? What do you think the mathematicians in Sweden will do when they want to compete in the Bermuda Bowl? They will not put their time in the development of new glasses, despite the fact that the laws of physics specifically give them that possibility. In short, US lawyers manage to overpower all mathematicians in the world before a single card has been played by banning systems that according to the bridge laws are perfectly legal. Rik

It seems like you don't know what an encrypted signal is. What is legal and what is not is written in the bridge laws. There is nothing in the bridge laws that says that encrypted signals are illegal. Apart from that, SO's (read "lawyers" :P ) can decide to ban certain bidding and playing conventions. In the case of encrypted signals SO's have chosen to pretty much ban them universally. Thus, encrypted signals fall in the same category as e.g. forcing pass opening systems, or a Wilkosz 2♦ opening. An SO can choose to allow them. (They are actually allowed at my bridge club.) They are not illegal, they are banned. A quick introduction to encrypted signals: Suppose the opponents bid to 4♠ through a Stayman auction: (1NT-2♣; 2♠-4♠) or after a negative double auction like 1♣-(1♥)-Dbl-(Pass); 2♠-(Pass)-4♠-All Pass. You can be fairly sure that they play in an eight card fit. If you look at two trumps, you know that your partner has three. At the same time, partner sees his three and knows that you have two trumps. Declarer doesn't have this information and you can use it as a key to the encryption of your signals. Say declarer leads clubs. Now you could simply signal count and tell everybody whether you have an even or odd number of clubs as is standard. On the other hand, you can also signal count not for clubs, but for the black cards. Given the fact that partner knows that you have two spades, he will know that you have an even number of clubs when you signal an even number of black cards. Declarer only knows that you have an even number of black cards, while partner has the - generally more useful- information that you have an even number of clubs, since he already knew about your two spades. This is an agreement that is simple to disclose: "Partner shows an even number of black cards." (The whole agreement in 8 words!) Encrypted signals don't even come near cheating. A well known problem with banning encrypted signals is that in real life people use them all the time. Suppose again that the opponents have an eight card spade fit and that I have two of them. Now partner signals an even number of hearts and on the next round an odd number of diamonds. Effectively, on this last round partner has signaled an even number in the blacks. This passes the encrypted information to me that partner has an odd number of clubs. Declarer doesn't get that information. But this encrypted signal is "obviously" allowed. It is beyond me why one would want to ban encrypted signals... and at the same time allow them. And these signals are not just banned at the club level where my grandparents are playing. They are banned in the Bermuda Bowl too!

I beg to differ: every single one of my bridge friends, and almost all of the people I know that play bridge, are associated with mathematics in some way. My main teacher is in his second year of a mathematics PhD (majored in mathematics as undergrad) My secondary teacher is in his third year of a chemistry PhD (majored in mathematics and chemistry as an undergrad) My main partner at the club is in his second year of a physics PhD (majored in mathematics and physics as an undergrad) My other partner is doing honours in Astrophysics (majored in mathematics and physics) My main partner's other partner is doing honours in mathematics (mathematics major as undergrad) My boyfriend did an actuarial degree (never became an actuary though, manages a bridge club) though he is too good for me to play with All the random people at the university bridge club study either maths or physics, except for two doing medicine and one doing actuarial studies (which is just maths anyway) And of course there's me, science degree majoring in mathematics and physics. No bridge player I have ever met is studying law or is a lawyer. (the australian national university is the best or second-best university in the country for studying law by the way, it's not because it doesn't offer law degrees!) Maybe it's just a co-incidence? I guess, if anybody can determine the odds for that being a coincidence it will be you or one of your bridge friends. :) Rik

I fully agree with your post. But the original post postulated that lawyers were better bridge players than mathematicians. To me that is obvious if you don't allow the mathematicians to use their skills while allowing the lawyers to use theirs. Rik

ROTFL! :) Richard is frankly "full of 'it' " here; where 'it' is something I used to clean out of barns on the farm. The most popular bidding system currently in use, 2/1 GF, is based on huge amounts of "analytical rigor" by players of the caliber of the Dallas Aces (specifically Bobby Goldman and Mike Lawrence in this case) and analysts the caliber of John Lowenthal, the inventor of Borel, the first serious analysis and simulation tool. Not to mention millions of boards of ATT RW play. There is a sizable community of very talented theorists thinking about and adding to the body of Bridge Theory all the time. WOS and FPS are !not! the only systems or methods based on analytical rigor. To some extent, I do agree with Richard that some Sponsoring Organizations, especially the ACBL, have been too conservative in what methods and treatments they allow. But the "All this innovative work that is the only innovative work in years was banned in a political purge" attitude is way too extreme. The reality is that many of the methods Richard is enamored with simply don't stand up to RW testing as well as Richard claims. NZ Symmetric Relay looked like a superior system until someone came up with the defense of passing quietly with strong hands. Relay systems in general have the bad property of exchanging less information per round of bidding than two way communication systems. Allocating too many bids based strictly on frequency ignores and violates the need to do so based on =utility=. Systems that are too aggressive start being Destructive and Dominant since the chance of being able to bid your own cards well has dropped too low. Etc etc. And of course, there's the fact that Tournament Bridge is first and foremost a =product=. Specifically an =entertainment product=. There always has been and there always will be a tension between "mad science" and what the majority of people willingly accept or put up with in their quest to have a good time. I won't judge what Richard is full of or not. I could agree with you that he is a little extreme. But the fact is that it would be a tremendous coincidence if the currently allowed systems where bids in clubs mean "I have clubs" and bids in spades mean "I have spades" were anywhere close to "the optimal bidding system" (if such a system exists). Odds are that if the mathematically optimal bidding system would exist, it would currently be banned by more than 99% of the SO's. Any quest for this optimal bidding system is a complete waste of time since you will not be allowed to play it in real life. The mathematicians realize this. They stop seeking and they are turned away from the game. The reason why 2/1 GF is so popular is not because this is the best system and so many theorists have worked on it. It is because in the ACBL this is the only type of system that is allowed. Why would theorists spent their time on systems that won't be allowed anyway? There are excellent players in other countries that have developed other systems and/or conventions. These systems cannot develop because they are barred on an international level. A well-known example is the Wilkosz convention. The Polish think it is better than the Multi. Evolution doesn't get a chance to prove them right or wrong. The bridge lawyers are Anglosaxons and have banned Wilkosz. To clarify matters: I am against playing different from standard just to confuse the opponents. But changes from the standard that are an improvement to the system should be allowed, (under the condition that the system can be disclosed properly). Most sponsoring organizations do not reason like that. A simple example of banned systems that are clearly superior to existing systems and that can be disclosed to a decent player in a matter of seconds are defensive signaling systems which use encrypted signals. In this area, the mathematicians have advanced the game of bridge significantly. But the lawyers have put a stop to this by getting these systems barred. (Is there any SO that knowingly allows encrypted signals?) Mathematicians might have tried to stop the use of encrypted signals by devising bidding systems that give away as few keys as possible. It may be obvious that -in principle- I favor the evolution with the aid of mathematicians (... as well as psychologists and others) over the banning that the lawyers achieve. This banning leaves the game in the stone age but -I must admit- has the advantage that the lawyers can still understand the mathematics of it. (1$, 2$, 3$, ..., 12$, 13$. :)) Rik

To summarize hrothgar: The lawyers managed to get the mathematics banned from bridge. No wonder lawyers are better at it than mathematicians. Rik

Partner made the classic error of believing that I showed spades when I bid 2♠. Well, I didn't show any spades. I picked the suit that he already showed and it could just be the least of evils. I could have had a 1561 distribution for my 2♠ bid. To me partner's 3♠ bid doesn't show a maximum hand. It shows the minimum version with extra distribution, happy that you picked spades and suggesting a save against their contract. A save is automatic, given that you have (undisclosed!) three card support for partner. If partner wants to show a maximum hand with 5-5, he will double. If partner has a nice freak, he will cuebid or show his minor. As an aside, I also play Michaels as weak or strong and partner's hand couldn't be more "in between". A simple 1♠ overcall would have been much better than a Michaels cue. Rik

Hi JoAnne, The incident was blown out of proportion. Your opponent's reaction could have been a lot calmer, more polite, ..., etc. And the director might have told her that too. However, it is clearly against the rules to take an opponent's cards out of the slot. To do so without the opponents present is an even worse infraction. Your opponent was absolutely right to react to that. After all, if you would have dropped a card / put a card upside down or make somekind of other error with it, she would have been the one to get the penalty for it. (And at an NABC she would have definitely gotten a penalty. Who knows, maybe she had gotten one already?!) Therefore, stay a way from an opponent's cards. If you have a reason to ask for them (check for a revoke, possible use of unauthorized information, ...) ask them to show your cards to you. At an NABC you do not have any other reason to look at another hand. After the session you will get hand records. Then you will see all hands. Finally, what would I do if I would see someone take my cards out of the pocket while I was walking away from the table? I would probably retake my seat, show my opponent my hand, and ask a nearby director to come to explain the rules. It hasn't happened to me yet. I realize it looks a lot like your opponent's reaction except for the yelling. This may be an important difference. B) Greetings, Rik

In both these cases, the proper procedure is to call the director and let him sort it out. In case 1, you need to call him before the opponent in question mixes his cards. That is not entirely true. You must call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity. In these cases, there is only a suspicion of an irregularity. There is nothing wrong with asking an opponent to see his cards, him showing you them, you concluding that nothing is wrong and going on with the next hand. Rik

There are different situations where a double can be a balancing double. The obvious situation is when you are about to pass out the hand. If you extend this principle just a little bid, you also use it for situations where it is likely that the opponents will not bid again. A clear example is: 1NT-Pass-2♠ (natural, sign off) You do not expect opener to make another bid. In such a situation, if you feel that they are in the right contract, you need to Balance in Direct Seat. You typically feel that they are in the right contract when you are short in their suit. The situation that you give (1♠-Pass-1NT-Pass; 2♠) is not as clear as my example. However, in 90% or more of the cases the 2♠ bid will be passed out. (That is also true if 1NT was forcing.) Furthermore, it is rarely right to double an opponent at the two level for penalties when he has shown a six card or longer suit. Therefore, this is a Balance In Direct Seat situation. For some players that would only be true after discussion. For others, this would be part of "Bridge logic". Rik

These transfers are still in use in Sweden and are called Wohlin transfers. They are named after Jan Wohlin from Stockholm (Sweden). He was European champion in 1952 and 2nd in Bermuda Bowl in 1950 and 1953. As an aside, Jacoby transfers also originate from Sweden. Rik

The fact that my partner might have been making a slam invitation is not a good reason for me to describe my hand further. After all, in 95% of the cases it was just a game invitation. That means it is a reasonable, but borderline game and you are giving the defense a road map. However, there is a possible compromise. Say that the auction starts: 1♣ - 1♠ 2♠ - 3♦ and you want to accept the game invitation. Normally you would have jumped to 4♠. But if you play 4♣ with the meaning: "I am accepting the game try." then your partner still has the four level to explore for slam In 95% of the cases, he will just bid 4♠, but in the remaining 5%, he will cuebid (or use any other method that you use to investigate slam). Rik

I pretty much agree with this analysis. The only thing is that I think that East can still be aiming for a diamond slam (rather than clubs). But in that case he will correct 6♣ to 6♦. Rik

A few days ago, I saw the following start of an auction (EW were playing a form of 2/1 GF): W -(N) -E -(S) 1♦ (1♥) X (2♥) 3♣ (P) 4♠ (P) What does East's 4♠ bid mean? What should West bid with: ♠ J ♥ 2 ♦ AJ763 ♣ AQ9843 Thanks, Rik

There is a difference between a reverse and a jump shift. Reverses are showing extra's but are only forcing for one round. In this case opener has to show his second suit in a non economical way. If he wants to show his second suit he can't do anything else but raise the level of the auction. Jump shifts are GF. Opener can show his second suit economically but chooses voluntarily to raise the level of the bidding. He must have a reason, other than just some extra's. Therefore, jump shifts are GF. This is even stronger for the given auction (1♦-1♥; 2♠) since the non jump shift auction (1♦-1♥; 1♠) will rarely be passed. Contrast this with e.g. 1♥-1♠; 3♣ where some people (not me) would make a case that it is not GF because 1♥-1♠; 2♣ will be passed quite often. Rik

The most important skills for a director: 1) People skills. These are necessary to run the tournament properly, and on time. They are needed to give the players a good time for their money. They are also needed when a ruling is needed. 2) Again people skills. 3) Did I mention people skills? 4) Integrity. 5) Knowledge of the Laws. Of all the necessary skill for a TD, this one is by far the easiest skill to acquire. Off all the books that I ever had to study, the bridge law book is the thinnest of them all. And hey, you can even take the book with you when you make a ruling! 6) Bridge knowledge. It helps to know what the players are talking about. :) But if you feel that you lack the bridge knowledge to solve the problem, just consult somebody who does have that knowledge. Rik

So, you are talking about auctions like: 1♥-2♣ 2♥-2♠ and 1♥-2♦ 2♥-3♣ They are absolutely forcing to game for me. In the first case responder reversed, showing extra values (and INV+ + extra values = GF). In the second case responder bid a new suit at the three level (some would call it a "high reverse"). My default agreement is that new suits at the three level are forcing to game, unless we specifically agreed otherwise. In my opinion, the only bids responder has to stop below game are the rebid of their own suit, a bid of 2NT and possibly (as in up for discussion) a raise to 3 of opener's suit. Rik

Your name may be on top of the list in the listbox with users in the chat window itself. He doesn't need to look at a lobby listing to go wrong. Quite often the scroll wheel on a mouse is capable of changing the value in a list box. So, if I play at a table with my friends West, North and East the list box will say something like: This room West East 1eyedjack 2forT 3ofakind . . . One little scroll and you just got yourself a chat message. Rik

That is also my guess. The bridge program Jack makes sure that there are some "foul deals" in the sample. That method is used to break a tie between technically 100% plays (as in really 100% unless someone revoked) and statistically 100% plays (as in 99.9 % since there may be an idiot [or a human] at the table). Without the foul deals the program would consider both plays equally good and would pick one of the two. It looks like that is what GIB did here. Rik

My favorite Multi-defense: Dbl: Takeout of hearts or a hand too strong for other action. 2♥: Takeout of spades. 2♠/3♣♦♥: Natural 2NT: 15-17(18) BAL 3NT/4♥♠/5♣♦: To play 3♠: Spades and a minor, GF 4♣♦: The minor and hearts, GF 4NT: Pick a minor Thus, we have: o two takeout bids. One for a (presumed) weak two in hearts and one for a (presumed) weak two in spades. o Natural suit overcalls and a natural 2NT overcall o Natural jumps to game o A "Leaping Michaels" type bid for strong Major+minor two suiters and 4NT for both minors We do not have a bid for a balanced 12-14 count (other than that e.g. a 4234 hand is sold as a takeout of hearts). I do not feel I miss it. With my favorite defense the Dbl has already defined that we have the spade suit, so this is not a problem. But suppose the auction started: (2♦)-Pass-(2♠). Then I treat the auction as if it started: (Pass)-Pass-(2♠ {weak two in spades})-??. The reason is that I get another turn to bid if the opposition has a weak two in hearts, but not if they had a weak two in spades. In theory, this leaves me vulnerable to a psychic pass of 2♠, but, in practice, I have never had that problem. Rik

After an overcall I play a splinter in their suit and fit jumps in new suits. The reason is that the opponents have shown length in one suit. Therefore, it will be likely that I have either shortness in their suit, or length in a new suit. It will be less likely that I will be short in a new suit. After a take out double, the opponents have shown length in all suits and shortness in ours. That is nothing new, since just the fact that I have a fit for partner already says that the opponents are short in our suit. The only additional information that the takeout double gives is that this opponent has a decent hand and that his remaining suits divide about evenly. Therefore, when it comes to the question of fit bids or splinters, there is no reason to play this different from 1M-(Pass)-??. That means that I play splinters after a takeout double. Rik

In the case of superaccepting transfers the information to the opponents can be limited to assistance with their opening lead. The general drawback of playing transfers is that the hand that is described accurately (the 1NT opener) is going to be declarer. But... after a superaccept we can untransfer ;). We can let opener do the describing and make responder declarer. Often, nothing is known about responder's hand, other than that he has 5+ in the major and that he denied the possibility to use a Texas transfer. It is much more difficult to defend against 1) 1NT-2♥: 3♣*-4♠ than it is to defend against 2) 1NT-2♥; 3♠**-4♠ (* Some descriptive superaccept, ** some non-descriptive superaccept). In auction 1) we know about declarer that he has 5+ spades and some reason to bid game. In auction 2) we know that declarer has 16-17 HCPs and 4 spades (ok, 15-17 and 5 spades possible :) ). Rik