Trinidad

I have always felt that doubles shouldn't be alerted, as long as they are on a sliding scale between take out doubles and penalty doubles. So, take out doubles, responsive doubles, action doubles, competitive doubles, cooperative doubles, (suggestion to) penalty doubles do not need to be alerted. They are all "Do something smart, partner"-doubles where the flavor varies from 99% take out to 99% penalty. However, doubles that have a much more specific meaning than this general "Do something smart"-idea should be alerted. Examples of these are DONT doubles, Lionel doubles, support doubles, Rosenkrantz doubles, lead directing doubles, lead inhibiting doubles, colorful cuebid doubles, stolen bid doubles, Lightner doubles, Snapdragon doubles and other. The only double that falls a bit in both categories is the negative double. One can argue that it is "take-out-ish". Another may argue that 1♣-(1♥)-Dbl saying: "I have exactly four spades" is fairly specific. But I would be happy if the people at the top would adopt the approach that specific doubles are alertable and "do something smart" doubles are not. I would gladly accept any decision on where to put the negative double. Rik

There are two reasons why you shouldn't use the names of conventions when explaining. The first reason is that you cannot be sure whether your opponent properly understands "Walsh", "Michaels", "MAFIA" or "DONT". He might think he understands it (the real possibility that you left out) and never ask for a clarification. The second reason why you shouldn't use the names of conventions is that you cannot be sure whether you understand it properly yourself... Rik

When I was reading the discussion, I had the feeling that the 3♣ bidder was Swedish. It is a popular treatment in Sweden to play that 1NT-2♣; 2♦-3♣ asks about opener's three card major. The convention is called "repeated Stayman". It is widespread among club players in Sweden. My guess is that over 80% of the older players between "social" and "advanced" plays it and I can easily imagine that there are older experts who play this. Your partner obviously suffered from the same disease that at least 50% of the bridge players suffer from: Thinking that their way to play is the only right way to play. (This is not exclusive for bridge players. Generalized: Most people suffer from the idea that their way to do something is the only right thing to do it.) About your 1NT opening. I don't mind opening off shape NT openings (5422/6322/4441). But you have to have a reason to do that and not do it for the sake of opening 1NT on as many hands as possible. In this particular case, you don't have a reason: You have an easy rebid and if your side is playing a NT contract it would be better for your partner to declare. Rik

Why is this a weak hand? You have 2 Aces and only 6 losers... I also play 2♥ opening this way, but I'd never do it on this one. You have to bid the hand that you are dealt. (I would prefer to have 2x KJT instead of 2xA.) But you are VUL vs NOT at MP's. 6 losers is ok. Rik

In my favorite system, I can open 2♥, showing a weak hand with both (54)+ majors. Partner will bid 2♠, to play. Rik

Father's day and Mother's day are on different days in different countries. I'm Dutch, my wife is Finnish and we have "parents" in the USA. When we used to live in Sweden, it was impossible to buy the mother's day and father's day cards on time. They are just not out in the stores yet. In the end, we decided to just send them according to the Swedish calendar with the idea that it's the thought that counts. And no, it is not so much a difference between the USA and Europe. There are differences between European countries. But then again, there are lots of small and useless differences between countries. One typical difference is the place (and number) of the holes in paper. Different countries use different binders. We have Dutch, Swedish, American and Finnish binders and we have 4 hole punches. Rik

And so should you. While DOPI is a great convention (it provides a solution when you have a genuine problem) ROPI is hopeless. It provides a solution where there is no problem. At best it doesn't lead to confusion and you get the same result that you already had. Jan Jansma invented a "conventional double" of a 4NT ace asking bid. It is called JAT (which is Dutch for "swipe" as in slang for "steal"). What is the meaning of this double? It doesn't mean anything. Oh, by the way, the acronym stands for "Jansma Agreement Test". Rik

This reminds me of something I heard in Sweden about 8 years ago. They had (have?) a radio program there where a panel of comedians have to respond on the spot and finish a story that the moderator starts. This time, the moderator presented the title of the story and one comedian came up with an immediate answer. The title was: "How did the guitar end up on the camp fire?" The instant reply: "When I was a scout, one day my troop leader told me: 'Get the guitar and make a camp fire...'." Trinidad

I am with Ben. The one difference is that I would let the board be played out before I call a TD. It may be unlikely, but it is not impossible that the 6NT (or equivalent) bidder is actually serious. May be your partner has psyched and he does have an impossible hand to bid. It is even possible that everybody has their bid. [hv=n=sxxxxxhjxxxxdxxxc&w=sxxhkqxdkqjxxxcqx&e=skqjxxhxxxxdxxxcj&s=sahadacakxxxxxxxx]399|300|[/hv] Once I see that the player actually has gone down n tricks redoubled then I will call the TD and report the whole thing to abuse. In that case, I expect the TD to give our side Ave+. Rik

Maybe you should start playing kickback for all slam auctions. Then it would certainly come up more often. (I myself find that the advantage of kickback is largest when hearts are trump. You can safely ask for keycards owning only one yourself without getting surprised by a 5♠ 2+Q response.) For many players, kickback appears to be a hopeless and complicated convention. When does it apply and when doesn't it? What is the ace asking bid and what is natural? In real life, it is exactly as complicated as RKCB. All the problems with kickback are based on uncertainty about the trump suit. So, you will go wrong with kickback in the same situations where you will go wrong in RKCB. The difference is the consequence of the mishap. In kickback, you will not know whether the last bid was a natural (cue)bid or kickback. In RKCB you won't know what the trump suit is and you will show the wrong king as the fifth ace or you will show the wrong queen. (Yes, you may luck out and have both kings or none. But don't tell me that this is good bidding.) If you don't have these kind of problems with RKCB, chances are slim that you will ever have a problem with kickback. Rik

Partner's 2♠ is certainly not forcing (he should bid 2♦ to force) but it is highly encouraging. Therefore, I will bid 3♠, despite the poor placement of my honors. Rik

I agree that East probably thought that West's double promised four spades. If I would think that and I was playing in an individual, I could well finish the auction immediately with a 6♠ bid to prevent any confusion. I don't think the double promised four spades and you don't think the double promised four spades. But if all the players in Germany who do think the double promised four spades would pay me 1 Euro, I could buy a nice German car, even after having paid Dutch taxes over the amount. Rik

If I would play against an opponent like that, I would call the TD since I have Unauthorized Information. ;) Rik

In my experience, in general, "natural" players are less forthcoming than those who play artificial systems. The explanation for that is quite simple. The "scientists" have been talking and thinking extensively about their system. Almost always they have had to put their ideas into words, otherwise it is impossible to discuss the system. If that is the case, it is rather easy to describe the bid as it was discussed. "Naturalists" have built up their system, not through discussion, but through partnership experience. Natural systems are not as efficient as scientific systems which means that naturalists have to "invent" more bids. Naturalists know (through partnership experience) what bids could be slightly less than natural and what bids are absolutely reliable. I have not yet met a naturalist who explained unprompted that a certain "natural" bid will often be made on a three card suit. After all, by agreement, it shows four. It just happens to be so that there are no agreements for an aweful lot of hands. Natural systems have holes all over the place, but they are rarely disclosed. A funny thing happened to me when I started playing in Sweden. We came from the USA and played 2/1 GF with a few gadgets. (Believe it or not, in this story, it will function as the artificial and unusual system.) My partner opens 1♣ and I didn't know that it needs to be alerted and explained as "could be three". Of course, my partner has a three card suit. There is clearly no damage, but the opponents are upset, call the TD and make sure that I get a stern warning. (I didn't even speak Swedish at the time, so I guess it shouldn't have come as a complete surprise that I hadn't mastered the Swedish alert rules yet.) On the very next board, they open 1♠, respond 2♣ and end up in 4♠. Dummy hits with about 14 HCPs and 3343 distribution (4 diamonds, 3 clubs). I smile, dummy sees it and reacts: "Obviously, everybody knows that 2♦ and 2♥ show five and it's obvious that 2NT is a forcing spade raise with four card support. And, obviously, everybody knows that 2♣ could be a three card suit. What else should I have bid?" I didn't ask what they would bid with 3442 distribution and I didn't say that I would have bid a conventional 3NT ... obviously. :) Rik

Fortunately, the Laws of Contract Bridge tell us what should have happened. Here is Law 17D: "D. Cards from Wrong Board If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call, the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90 for penalty) when offender's substituted call differs in any significant way from his cancelled call . If offender subsequently repeats the cancelled call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores (see Law 90) when offender's call differs in any way from his original cancelled call." So, the TD is supposed to let the dealer take the correct cards out of the board and let him make a bid. If it is 1♠ then play continues as it was. In all other cases, the board is cancelled and an adjusted score is given. Rik

My default agreement is that we play PODI after all asking bids and relays, as long as we can handle the auction. Since Stayman definitely falls in that category and since the 2♥ bid didn't take any bidding room away, the double would show four hearts. I don't see how that can be a problem: If partner is weak he has long hearts (as well as spades) and I'd be happy to defend 2♥X. In all other cases he has an invitational hand or better and he'll be well placed to decide whether to defend or to continue with our default system. With a singleton heart, it would be fairly obvious to bid on. Rik

The reason why you would want 4m to be non forcing is that you can escape from 3NT if you have a suit wide open. But the only time that 4m is really better than 5m is if you have length in the weak suit. As soon as one side has shortness there, 5m will be a good contract. It just doesn't happen that often that we have 12+ HCP opposite 10+ as well as the same weak 2-3 card suit in both hands. I will happily loose the one board where that happens since I'll win on the slam hands. Rik

1♠-P-P-X 2♥- X: Penalty, suggesting to double 2♠ too. (Could be a hand that would have bid 2NT without the 2♥ bid.) 2♠: Cue bid, INV + (normally with 4 hearts) 2NT: Both minors (see it as a responsive double) 3♣♦: Natural 3♥: Also Natural ;) (and by inference no desire to double 2♠) Rik

It might be more accurate to call these systems "limited opening systems" instead of "strong ♣ systems". We changed to strong ♣ for the limited openings and absolutely not for the strong 1♣ opening. We see the 1♣ opening as the weak spot in the strong 1♣ systems. But fortunately we never get any good cards. ;) Rik

Claus, I'm not sure whether I made this clear, but of course, I am aware that Jacoby 2NT (whatever version you are playing) is a slam tool and not just an alternative way to bid game. Of course, you will have the equivalent of 16+. With less you just bid 1♠-4♠. To bid 2NT just to show that you have a raise and can play game is daisy picking. Rik

My partner and I have played 2/1 for years. But after a while we got fed up with some of the weaknesses of the system and changed to a strong club system. We have, however, always felt comfortable with quite a bit of the 2/1 structure and kept what we liked in tact. We used to play Bergen Jacoby 2NT and we still do. For us the 3♣ rebid still means extra's, (semi)balanced or extra's with a singleton. It just means that "extra's" is roughly 14-16 instead of 17-21. Combined with the fact that a lot of hands that used to bid 2NT now bid 4♠, I can only see that as an advantage. I can understand that there may be more to get by switching to other methods. But if you get such an increase in accuracy in your slam bidding, compared to what you used to do, without having to learn anything new at all I don't consider it urgent to improve on this improvement. Rik

I've seen it before but it seems far from standard. For me a "standard" Multi shows either: ♣ (strong) ♦ (strong) ♥ (weak) ♠ (weak) or NT (strong) Well, Gerben, the difference with your "standard Multi" is very small: This one shows either: ♣ (strong) -> OUT ♦ (strong) -> OUT ♥ (weak) (+ side suit) ♠ (weak) (+ side suit) or NT (strong) I think it shouldn't be a problem at all (but I know it is a problem since the people in power have ruled Wilkosz as Brown Sticker and Multi as an exception). Rik

Partner didn't have much of an alternative. He had been planning to bid 1♥ Pass 2♣ Pass 3♣ Pass 3♥ Then he had shown a hand that was stronger then 1♥ Pass 2♣ Pass 3♣ Pass 4♥ and he would have plenty bidding room. Instead, it went: 1♥ Pass 2♣ Dbl 3♣ 3♠ ?? Now, he cannot bid 3♥. If he bids 4♥ it will show the weaker variation, so he must bid 5♥ if he wants to show the stronger hand with heart support now. His only alternative is to forget about hearts and search for a club slam (and maybe later correct to 6♥). In other words: The auction doesn't say much about partner's hand, other than that he has (three card) heart support, something in clubs (could be four) and that he is interested in a heart slam. He is not asking for a control in spades, diamonds, clubs or hearts. He just says: "How about a heart slam, partner?" The answer should be: "Excellent idea partner." Rik

You have the spades and hearts switched. The OP wrote: "My P's hand was H Q72 S Q864 D K876 C KQ and 7H was made easily..." It would have been better if he named the spades first and then the hearts, but maybe he wanted to mention the trumps first. :blink: Rik

If you wonder where you have to alert bids beyond 3NT then I can give you The Netherlands. There bids above 3NT are not alerted unless it is in the first round of the bidding, starting with the opening bid. Thus, a Namyats 4♣/♦ needs to be alerted, but also a 1♠-(Pass)-4♣ splinter, as well as (1♦)-4♦ if it shows a freak major two suiter and (2♥ [weak])-4♣, if that shows clubs and spades (Leaping Michaels). Rik