ulven

Thanks Phil! Will you be commentating? Then you may be eligible for a copy of our system file B)

You should play X as FG and let this discussion evaporate... That's the agreement for all 3 big-club pairs in the Swedish Open Team (as if anyone cares ;-) )

Relay points means A = 3, K = 2, Q = 1.

There are hands where showing your longest suit immediately, identifying a 5+suit, are going you give you the best results in the long run. And, there are of course hands where showing possesion of 4-cards hearts are going to serve you best. You have to choose approach. The bridge world at large always puts a premium on the unnamed major, for good reasons, because it's important to find a fit here after an overcall. The question here is: is this really going to give us the highest expected value? How often do we have a fit? Will we be able to find that fit after naming our longest suit instead? For bidding our long suit to be wrong, two things need to occur: a/ we have a 4-4 fit in unbid major b/ we will not find it or play at incorrect level because the next hand raises to some level making the auction awkward or go 'downright out the window' If the next hand raises, jumping or not, and we don't have a 4-4 fit, you can be sure that showing a 5+suit will serve you much better. So it comes down to this: How do you estimate the percentages for [a+b] compared to not [a+b] ? Can you handle the post-mortem, partner/teammates/psychologically, if you don't X and the fit gets lost? If you can't, you should keep X-ing regardless of percentages...

Of course I meant 2H ;-)

X is the 'theory' bid and mainstream choice. My experience is that 2D works better in practise and that's how we do it. This was brought to my attention by Johan Bennet (Cavendish winner and Bermuda Bowl semifinalist) about 15 years ago. For most, the double is so obvious that noone reflects of the alternative outcome. So, I agree with S...

Not bidding 2H with the North hand is really bad bidding, seriously. At that point there is no reason to downgrade xxx in hearts. Nothing wasted in hearts, great! We have a cheap way of showing a good raise, great! How can a simple hand like this generate so many different views? Don't bother to answer that one ;-) Edited after remark below.

Pass. Heart queen and spade jack too soft.

6H. While may not make, if I bid 5H, I'd want partner to raise on a hand like this.

How likely is it that partner leads away from a K into a 1NT opener? That answer may differ for each partnership but provides a clue. In my current primary partnership, the 8 would be indicated for this reason.

Didn't this one get worked out in this thread? http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=15252&hl=

7-c suit, good playing strength, lacking top cards. Something like x/QJTxxxx/x/Kxxx. Pass.

I am apparantly viewing this matter entirely differently than the majority so far. 1) Pass. No reason to bid on. 2) Pass. No game is odds-on vs my 3C-raises, but may make. By bidding on we will reach too many non-making ones.

Spade. No 2nd choice.

Yes, this is an improvement. It's also old news in this part of the world. Anders Wirgren - Mats Nilsland used that in Rosenblum 1986 in Miami (bronze) and Wirgren still uses it today in his partnership with Johan Bennet. They played it notably in Bermuda Bowl in Beijing 1995 (lost semi to Canada). It's been published in book form (Super Standard, named after system) in Swedish and is available in English as ebook from Wirgren's site (http://web.telia.com/~u40906024/eng/index.html) for ca $20-25. Super Standard evolved to Pioneer as it's called today.

X - warts and all. My experience is that should reopen when faced with a choice, if shape is satisfactory. Highest EV.

Removed.

Great stuff! Really appreciate the effort.

Spade for me. Garozzo.

My view is that whenever someone creates UI (a break in tempo is not sufficient, but a break in tempo and pass when their partner still has a call is usually sufficient) that it is prudent to notify the director, or at least get an acknowledgement that a BIT occurred if that's the cause of the UI. Of course it's ok to call the director when there's been a break in tempo AND the player passed AND the partner bid something. But then I would ususally just establish an agreement that there had been a BIT (only calling the police if we're not in agreement) and 'check-the-evidence' to decide if an infraction did occur or not. Last time I called the director on a BIT-auction was 15 months ago and it was after dummy hit (declarer broke tempo in the auction). My point was that your letter should at least have clarified that you meant pass and bid auctions. I think the wording was unfortunate and that we still differ on our view of the matter.

So, your view is that whenever someone breaks the tempo in the auction, i.e. thinks, the director should be called? Your letter comes across as if thinking isn't really allowed. Like you should have made up your mind already when opening what to do through the auction. Your view of "fun and fair for everyone" and standard practise differs a lot from my view it seems.

Without adding to much to this problem, but yes I agree with Justin, let me add an observation about the newly finished BB in Shanghai. I've worked my way through most BB's in the last 30+ years, at least the hands preserved, and I've never seen such a flurry of penalty doubles as in Shanghai. So many marginal, speculative and sometimes plain silly doubles. There were lots of successes and a fair number of making contracts and a few redoubled making ones as well (check the final for a couple of them). Was this a statistical aberation in BB history or has the expert community changed their attitude? Time will tell.

Agree. I've thought about this as well and unclicked that useful feature for this very reason. I want it back!

As a very good friend and long-time teammate of Gunnar Hallberg, I must say that finding him posing as a bidding scientist made me laugh hysterically!!!!

I would really like the possibility to avoid all those team match invitations from random players. Can this be achieved? If not defined as friend, then filter them out?