joshs

Either a heart comes back or it doesn't, if it doesn't then there is no problem. if it does, declarer is suddenly stuck in his/her hand and will see there is no more entry and will suddenly wake up...

Another class of hands: Consider a 5431 hand and compare: a. Axxxx Kxxx Kxx x with b. Axxxx Kxxx xxx A opposite the 10 count, the stiff ace doesn't do much in a major suit contract, you rarely have the tempo and controls to 1. stop diamonds 2. unblock the CA 3. return to dummy 4. pitch diamond losers on good clubs but opposite the 20 count, the stiff ace has much more value since it increasingly likely that you will be able to use the clubs to pitch diamonds, I think opposite the 20 count b becoms the stronger hand.

Construct pairs of hands A and B where: A is better than B when partner holds's a 10 count. B is better than A when partner holds a 20 count. Where better can be measure as Total Point expectation (assume NV) in your best contract over the set of possible hands partner might have, or total trick expectation in your best strain over the set of possible hands partner might have. What hand types might have this wierd behavior?

I think you are mixing up "strongest" with "best". I also stated earlier that xx of hearts was only one of the reasons you shouldn't get excited, the other was lack of trump honors! I mean partner made one slam try below game, you used that to force all the way to slam with T8xxx of trumps, then considered yourself unlucky that partner's trumps weren't good enough? I am not mixing up anything. Strongest is in the context of the auction (in the context of your bidding, the opps bidding and partner's bidding). Its elastic and changes each turn in the auction. Exactly what hand should I have accepted with??? Also if your answer is exactly 1 hand, I dont accept that. You dont make slam tries so that partner accepts only with his best 0.02% (randomly chosen small number) of hands... So I expect to hear a range of hands... You seem to first think that I should overcall. I think its marginal. I also think that T8xxx x Ax KT9xx is a better hand (at my first turn). If my actual hand was at the cusp for overcalling, then this hand is an overcall. In any case the issues here were not about my 2 small hearts, partner has the heart A or shortness in this auction. Its about tricks, and strong trumps, and I already denied strong trumps...

Well, I was south here, as some of you know. I remained unconvinced by the arguments here. Adam has argued my point of view, which is that having limited my hand by not overcalling 1S, and then bidding only 3S on this 7 loser hand after partner makes the takeout x, I have pretty much the best possible hand. My 2 small hearts was not a factor in whether or not this was a good slam. It was the lack of trump honors....Had partner had AKxx of trumps and Axx of hearts slam would be great. From my point of view, there are 2 possible hands that can pass 1H and then jump to 3S. 1. A distributional hand, with a bad suit (the partnership style is moderately aggressive 1 level overcalls with decent suits, but not hyper-agressive just based on shape. Our michaels and 2N overcalls are sound. If partner has a weak NT, and I pass I can enter the auction later and play 2S, but if I bid 1S then partner will often cue bid me to the 3 level. In any case, both passing and bidding can gain, and I hardly think choosing to not make a marginal overcall can be used to blame a partnership for getting too high... 2. a 4 card suit and INV values, say 10ish or so. Now if I had this, the 1H opener was not just light and distributional, but it was a total and complete psych. I think the question here is a. how likely is case 2 b. If I have Q 5'th or 6'th how good is slam c. how likely is that d. can you bid in a way to get to slam when its pretty good, and not when its bad.... Now if you think a is a reasonable possibility, I have no problems with the slam try, but if its not, well I think you need to stick to bidding slams when all the partnership points are working after the opps open the hand....But I have lots of sympathy, the brain is just not used to holding that strong a hand, and hearing partner jump, and automatically work out what is going on....

All white, Imps N:AJxx AQJ KQJT Ax S:T8xxx xx A KT9xx Auction: East Opens 1H (Precision) South Passes West bids 1N (Semi-forcing) North x's East Bids 2H South Bids 3S West Passes North bids 4H East passes (alerted as x would ask for another lead) South bids 5C West passes North bids 5S East passes South bids 6S West passes North passes East x's All pass Down 1...

Personally I have had lots of success playing 2N as 5-5 in the minors and about 10-12 HCP in the context of similar systems. Yes it doesn't happen that often but you are well places when it does, and the opps have to guess a little. Since you don't want to play this as minors, then I really have no good suggestion. How about 18-19 semi-balanced with a 6 card minor?

I guess I disagree with the peanut gallery here. First, as a matter of theory, bids here Shows, not asks. I think the way to think about these auctions is: a. opener has fairly tightly showed is strength and his approximate shape (1543 or 2542) b. responder is between 5-10 HCP, and has many possible shapes. He might be 4=2 in the majors, he might be 6=2 in the majors, he might have a thirds heart with 5 or 6 spades, with 4 spades he is unlikely to have 3 hearts, but have have bid it a a descriptive bid (all his points in spades) or even as a semi-psych say a 4324 4 count. c. if the partnership has an 8 card heart fit, responder knows this, AND if responder goes back to hearts opener knows it. This is not true for any other strain. What this implies is that 3H is NOT needed as a probe for strain, but can merely be a suggestion about level. d. Josh and others have suggested that 3C should be 4216 weak (5-7ish?). I dont see this. Why can't it be 4216 strong? Or 5215 strong? Or.... These are all hands that might belong in some strain other than 3N (clubs? hearts?). I think as a matter of theory, when both strain and level are in doubt, bidding should be forcing to let you get strain right. This is especially true when you are pulling someone out of a playable (although perhaps far from ideal) contract. So from my point of view the bids here from high to low: 3N Duhh 3S 6S, 2H probably relatively weak spades, nothing special to say about the minors forcing. I would expect something like Axxxxx Qx xx Kxx for instance. 3H non-forcing. With a forcing hand and 3H just bid 4H now. 3D Stuff in Diamonds, usually 3+ Diamonds 3C Stuff in Clubs, usually 5+ Clubs For me the question on this hand is if I should bid 3C (Jxxx is really weak for this bid, but it will let you convince partner sometimes that your weakness is in spades not clubs), or 3D (thats where you live, but partner will quickly rebid 3N with a double club stopper and a stiff spade, as well as with 2 small spades and pretty weak hearts). I don't know, 3C is certainly cheaper, but when you hold AQx of diamonds you know partner is not rebidding 3D next so the space does not gain you much. Anyway, like Josh I would bid 3D here, I just disagree on what 3C means....

Do the opps play strong NT's or weak NTs? I really do not like the idea of playing RHO for passing the x holding 7 diamonds. If he has only 6, that leaves LHO with 4135 or 4234 or 3235 shape. Since there was a D lead rather than a top spade, I think a likely construction is (note some of these are only possible if the opps play a weak NT): AJxx Qx KJx AQxx or AJxx xx KJx AQxx or AJxx x KJx AQxx or AJxx Q KJx AQxx (in any of the above could be KJxx in spades) The general line I want to do is to induce a duck in clubs, ruf the D in hand, pull trumps, duck a spade to the stiff honor, and later exit in clubs endplaying LHO. So I play AK of trumps, hope I get lucky (and pull trumps if I do), low club from hand, hope I get lucky and LHO ducks as I put in the J, ruff a D, play a low spade from hand, and claim :) How did I do?

Well known pairs? Such as? I figure saying Sher and X (where X is a few different people) wouldn't satisfy you. I do know that Hamman-Soloway played old fashioned drury over 1/2 1M openings like I do : 1M-2C=Natural with clubs or Any 3 card Limit Raise In my case it was GF with clubs or any 3 card limit raise, but I think the natural meaning was lighter for Hamway. From my point of view, we have an opening bid, and a bid promising 2N level values in response. I really don't think the technical distinction between a. 2C promises 2 clubs, which is clearly legal and b the actual treatment which may on rare occassion be something like 3361 really effects the other side and I also find it bizzarre that this bid is clearly listed as legal in 3/4 seat as a psychic control (despite psychic controls not being legal), but would not be legal in 1/2 seat when its purely constructive. But the way the GCC is written it sure sounds like it might be midchart. I just think its totally rediculous if that was actually the intent and not just someone not thinking when they put the drury clause in the gcc...

By similar logic, it takes very twisted bridge lawyering to come up with such a restrictive view of the GCC. That isn't bridge lawyering, it's reading the charts. Here is an example of bridge lawyering. You might be familiar with something in computer science called "duck typing." That means that if if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is for all intents and purposes a duck. In this case, 1♦ looks like a transfer opening, walks like a transfer opening, and quacks like a transfer opening. And I think almost all expert+ players in North America would agree that this kind of duck^H transfer opening is definitely a Mid-Chart animal. Then again, if you're a lawyer, you should just read up your book on contracts from L1 to understand that the C&C committee does not (and in fact cannot, reasonably) enumerate every possible evasion of the intent of their regulations. Well, for the record, I a. Think that 1D was a transfer opening showing spades and b. 1D x-fer openings are GCC, as with any other meaning that promises 10+ HCP This does not mean I think thats the way the regulations should be written, I just think that is in fact what the regulations probably mean and is certainly how every director I have ever seen interpret the rules. When I orginally submitted my defenses to x-fer openings, I included a defense to 1D even though I was certain I did not have to, because this is just one of many examples of how I think the convention rules are convoluted and sometimes just plain stupid, and I think the spirit of full disclosure are fair play are more important than the wording of the rules.... Come on Curt, how can 1D showing an unbalanced hand with a 5 card major be GCC (Gary Zeiger has a lot of familiarity with this one, since he directs the albuquerque sectionals and regionals, and you see it from a few pairs, mostly from amarillo) and 1D showing 4S not be....

I was asked how my transfer opening methods got "approved and posted on the web site when the committee never approved them". Well, I still don't know. I would love to have dates when the committee met, and some minutes of those meetings. But the whole process has been under a shroud of secrecy. (Woo hoo, I got to say "Shroud of Secrecy"!!) Here is one hypothetical story: The acbl passed a rule that required this committee to form and decided on defenses before the Toronto nationals (otherwise lots of commonly played midchart stuff would not be allowed. Keep in mind my other 2 submissions were kaplan inversion which was common at that time, and x-fers over 1C, which was not common yet, but there were a few of us playing those methods). To the frustration of the co-ordinating director, they never met, so finally he approved the defenses. Somehow, by 2 years later (philadelphia nationals), they still had not met. As to the "all-purpose 1D opening". No one has any idea what is actually allowed. In practice, in GCC events you see all sorts of rubbish being played, and its a complete waste of time arguing that someone can't play those methods. When I submitted my defense to my x-fer 1D opening, I actually did not think by the letter of the law I needed a defense there, but as for the spirit of the law, people should not have to prepare for every sort of highly unusual mnethod in pairs movements, hence I thought I should provide a defense. One method, popular in Texas and New Mexico, has 1D showing an unbalanced hand with a 5 card major (this fills a hole for those players who open a canape 1M, for instance). Anyway, I have my methods over all this rubbish, as any self respecting bridge player who is interested in bidding would...

I suspect that the last defense is for a 1♠ opening the description of which has been somehow omitted but that is how it appeared on the ACBL website at the time. At some point they changed the layout of the online defense database, and concatonated my suggested defenses, so that the sentence "Defense to 1S showing both minors..." was omitted, and that defense appeared under the defense to the 1H opening. As to Josh's comment about "scattered tops", what I can tell you is that a number of times during the second half of the session (something like 3 times, but you will have to ask Mike and Mark) they had no idea if certain meta agreements applied after 1M (natural relay). One of their accidents was that they didn't have any agreements as to what bid was the relay, when they are not playing x-fer openings (they needed a system at 1 minutes notice, so they decided something rediculous [i think they decided natural openings, but the same structure, but I don't remember]...). Lets just say, on those hands they had completely rediculous results, which means that any player who played them in the first half of the session, when they knew what they were playing, was screwed.... I do find it interesting how Jan's version of the story, neglects to mention the fact my friends had printed defenses from the defense database, and that the defense database was changed immentiatley after to delete those defenses. I guess it was al ong time ago, sho she just didn't remember clearly what happened.. Personally, I will never understand how a bid suggesting a strain is not legal, while a bid that may be their sides longest OR shortest suit (Precision 1D or could be short 1C) is legal. I think those are much harder to defend and much more pernicious. But thats another matter...

Does the BBO executable work off of U3 drives?

I personally hate the stop cards and refuse to use them. The main point is that there are many tempo sensitive auctions, and only some of them are associated with skip bids. And some auctions involving skip bids are not tempo sensitive: e.g. 1N-3N, 2S-4N On the other hand, 1H-P-2H-(3D)-? is very tempo sensitive, as is most competitive auctions and its in appropriate to ever bid too fast in those auctions. I think its rediculous to pull out the stop card on 1N-3N and not on the above competative auctions. Almost all suprise bid auctions are somewhat tempo sensitive, although if you have the auction: 1S-P-3N(10-12, 4S, singleton somewhere)-P 4C(where is it?)-4D-? You probably will have to think about what bids mean, so a tank does not really carry UI. This is a complicated subject, which the binary use of a stop card doesn't really solve the key problems... Thats my 2 cents.

Most importantly, Sontag-Berkowitz will be the funniest pair in the US (I think they are both hysterical...)

I am perturbed by all this, and I want to spin. Happy Birthday, in this of your many possible worlds...

They will see us waving from such great Heights, 'come down now,' they'll say But everything looks perfect from far away, 'come down now,' but we'll stay...

Vital information has been left out (I don't think it changes anything but...): Our agreement was that the x of NT showed a strong NT or better but did not establish a force and x by either side is takeout (continuations are as over 1N by us). Consequently 2S is not a zero count, its just a hand that would compete to 2S over a strong NT.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=s32h987d76ckqt9xx&e=skj97h432dkqj5cjx]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] North opens 3C East Passes South bids 3H West bids 3S North bids 4H East bids 4S South Bids 5H All Pass (Do you agree with East's final pass?) Anyway, West leads the Spade Ace. What card do you play, and what does it mean? Your agreements are udca.

What are your methods over 2H? In my strong club methods, x of 2H is takeout and only promises around 5 HCP. So I would pass here. Here I would still be bidding over it as if partner is 15-17 balanced. Partner decided to not compete over 2H opposite 15-17. I am one trick stronger, but we are 1 trick higher, so if partner is right, we can't make anything above 3H. I pass.

If you define 1NT as "INV+ Relay", which to TDs will mean "Relay" and "Invite or bettter", I promise you ACBL TDs will decide you are playing a "Relay" without GF values, and will not allow it in Mid-chart events. In other words, they will not agree with your "interpretation of the rules". Edit: Here's a term that might produce another reaction: 1N: Waiting, Inv+. No TD, not a relay, just one of those waiting bids everybody uses. Oh, you read the non-natural & out-2-lunch BBO forum - I didn't know TDs did that I repeat, relays are allowed, just not relay systems (defined as a sequence of relays) that do not promise a game force. Can you tell me the difference between: a. 1S-1N(Forcing, 5-11, any shape) b. 1S-1N(Forcing, 12+ Any Shape) c. 1S-1N(Forcing, 5+ Any Shape) These bids are either all relays, or all not relays depending on whether you think the point count shown means its descriptive in some way. Or the negative inference of the hands that would bid something else provides significantly more definition (it provides some extra definition in each of these but not a lot) Some people even play d. 1S-1N(Forcing, 0+ Any Shape).... [Who amoung you has not bid 1N forcing on xxxx xxxx xxx xx over 1S?] And just because a director might or might not know the rules (I sadly would bet against most of them) the main question is what the rules say. Our announcement of "Forcing" or "INV+Relay" shouldn't matter. If we announced forcing, but the bid really promised 10 HCP, its still not GCC legal (1N response can not guarantee Inv values), although don't get me started on that rule.

Rob, I appreciate what you are saying. Note that including non GF hands into the relay makes it no longer midchart compliant. As far as I am aware, everything else I've described is midchart compliant. That means we can play the system in some F2F events. If I'm going to play a system that's not midchart, then I'd go for Echo Club instead of Gnome Club, which is my variant on Moscito (think something between TOSR and Moscito and you'll be close). Also, I want to add that we're not all that excited that we have to pass non-fitting hands that are less than invitational. I consider this a loss in the system, but I just don't see a place to put them. Second, the 1M - 2♣ is pretty unwieldy unless narrowly defined. These are hands that in standard will often go 1M - 1N - 2m - ? So the room you lose might seem minimal (one step), but it really takes away opener's potential rebids. (You just have no place to show a minimum hand with 5M/4♣.) So we just alter things slightly and then tried to take as many hands out of the bid as possible. What may not be clear is that the 2NT showing the minors (and we pretty much reserve for 5-5) is only over 1♥ (since over ♠ it shows a mini-splinter). So over 1♥, the 2♣ bid is a LOT more well defined than over 1♠. However, we also can show 5♥ and a weak hand directly over 1♠ which is nice. Majors rule, minors drool... you know how it goes. Well I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. There are many non-GF relays in bridge (stayman for instance). What was illegal in the midchart was a sequence of relay bids that do not promise game forcing values. Its sort of unclear what a sequence is in the definition, but its certainly not 1 bid. So I see nothing wrong with 1S-1N(10+ HCP, any shape)-2C(any min)-2H(Non-forcing, about 10-12) in the midchart. (Note: I have always interpreted GFing to mean forcing to 3N or higher, so stopping in 4m is ok, but that more based on general bridge principles then anything that is explictly written anywhere). Aloso, on occasion, a sequence can technically be GFing, but a player gambles and passes. I don't think there is a problem with that. Anyway, here is my system suggestion: 1H: 1S Forcing 1 round 1N:INV+ Relay 2C Any Min (2D=GF Relay, others NF) 2D+ GFing 2C: Constructive, both minors (4+4+) 2D: 5+D, NF 2H: Normal raise 3C: 6+C, NF and I will leave it to the reader to figure out the other bids. Over 1S things are more interesting: 1S-1N(INV+ Relay) 2C Any Min (2D=GFing relay) 2D+GFing 1S-2C: Constructive, 0-2 spades, usually 3+ cards in the other suits, but could be 1525 (will then correct 2D to 2H) 1S-2red: NF 1S-3C: 6+C, non-forcing Now in this scheme the main problem is if opener is a min, and responder has an Invite with exactly 4 hearts you might lose a 4-4 heart fit over 1S-1N-2C. Consequently, I think the rebid that shows side hearts over 1S-1N should not promise any extras, but thus needs to be either 2D or 2H so responder can bid 2N on up as INV.

Just out of curiosity, if you hold KQxxxx xx xx AKx what do you rebid after 1S-2D-2S (Does not promise 6)-2N? I think 3C is the correct call on this hand. I do not think that new suits bid on the 3rd round of the auction are necessarily real suits. There is a tension in bridge between bidding out shape, and bidding where you live, and I think you need to compromise some between those two objectives, especially when it comes to minors.... On this hand, since you hold AQxx you know that if partner bids 3C he certainly has 4+ clubs, but like I said I am not convinced that in general 3C absolutely shows 4 in this auction. Anyway, I often bid 2N on this shape, if it feels positional and the hands feels NTy, especially if one stopper is tenuous (or not even a full stopper like Qx), but this hand hardly feels positional or NTy, and the clubs are strong, so I want partner to evaluate the CK as much more valuable than the HK, and I want partner to know I have 5 diamonds and the way to do that is to to bid clubs. In any case let me annotate two different auctions: Auction 1: 1S-2D(2/1 in diamonds)-2S(waiting)-3C(A Real 5+ card Diamond Suit, and at least decent clubs)-3S(Strong Spades, either very weak hearts or super strong spades, at least mild extras by system inference)-4H(Good hand for slam, partner who knows I am close to 2254 can evaluate his cards) Auction 2: 1S-2D(2/1 in Diamonds)-2S(Waiting)-2N(Ambiguous about diamond length, has values in both round suits)-3S(Strong Spades, at least mild extras by system inference)-4C(Club Control)-4D(Diamond Control)-4H(Heart Control) Please tell me why Auction 2 provides a better foundation for slam bidding? You don't know about the 5'th diamond. If you play 4H as a heart control (and not last train as I play it), you have never said anything about range (although perhaps Qbids were not obligatory, so you at least had mild slam interest). While Auction 2 showed a club control specifically, Auction 1 showed a club suit which is also valuable information (in my opinion more valuable). Also, in 2/1 auctions in general its a bad idea to introduce bad 4 card suits into what might be a slam auction if you can help it, so usually 3C is either a 5 card suit, or cotains some values. So I really do think 3C is the right bid. Now personally I think this hand despite having no trump honor and being fairly min in HCP is worth 4H over 3S in my auction, although I was curious about opinions. I do not think that this was a problem bid. I get the impression in ken's world making a bid that shows a specific holding in a given suit is not a problem bid (yes its true that making automatic calls are never problems), but a bid that says "I like my hand, or I do not like my hand for slam" is a problem bid (and in my opinion a much more important message). I think thats rediculous. People can disagree about 3C vs 2N (I did raise the question), but I hardly gave myself a problem. Partner had AKQT9x xx Kx Kxx This hand is much better opposite 2254, or 2164 or 2155 [or even opposite the suit oriented 1354 hands with enough extras to be worth a 4H bid] than it is opposite 2443. I am not sure what the objection is to helping partner evaluate his cards and why Qbidding is a better approach than showing shape and slam interest. Note that the grand is about 75% here, and its hard to get close if partner doesn't know you have 5 diamonds and 4 clubs.

You hold: [hv=s=sxxhaxdaxxxxcaqxx]133|100|[/hv] (No spots worth noting) Partner opens 1S (You open balanced 11's, but play standard methods) You bid 2D, Natural and Game forcing Partner bids 2S which does not promise a 6'th. It does deny AKQ 7'th (since he would bid 3S with that) You bid 3C (Agree? Or do you prefer 2N?) Partner bids 3S, which shows a good 6+ card suit. As our opening 2S bid was 9-12 with 6Spades, this bid promises mild extras. Are you good enough to bid 4H? If not how much more do you need?