joshs

Like I said, its valid to play this as just a heart raise (but it certainly doesn't have this meaning below game) but I didn't think that was standard. If 4D is a heart raise then I think the best use for 4N is a 5.5 club bid, not rkc for anything, but this is obscure (it is the best way to play in my opinion, since you could never bid rkc in clubs anyway, and if you wanted to bid rkc in hearts just cue-bid first)... While everyone is at it, what does everyone expect in terms of strength and shape for a. 1C-P-1H-3D-3S b. 1C-P-1H-3D-4S c. 1C-P-1H-3D-x followed by the cheapist number of spades

Perhaps Fred is not aware that a 1♣ opening is "100% universal" and a 2♣ rebid is "automatic". :P Without saying what I like or don't like I just want to pose a question that may further the discussion. It seems that the general order of preference for the crowd is 1♣ 2♣, 1NT, 1♣ 2♥, 1♦, then far behind is 1♥ (apparently Squire likes it! whoever that is) Except for some of the 1♣ 2♣ group who seem to think this hand is not misdescribed by that sequence, everyone pretty much admits nothing fits this hand and it's simply a matter of deciding which misdescription to choose. My question is, why is 1♥ promising five so much more sacred of a description to avoid violating than 1NT without a (small!) singleton, or meeting the minimum values for a reverse, or any of the others? Most people immediately write off 1♥ essentially because "I don't have five hearts, end of story", but don't object as strongly to all the other "lies". Why is that? Essentially becuase: If you promised 6C and only have 5, or promised 4D and only have 3, there are weaknesses assocaited with these but you will probably end up in 3N anyway when you belong there. Essentially these lies do not mess up your choice of game auctions all that much. But when you promised 5 hearts and only have 4 you will play a lot of 4-3 major suit fits when you belong in 3N. Is this that hand type where you want to be in a 4-3 major suit fit? In fact if the auction starts 1H-2m by partner you are really badly placed. You will raise the minor and then when partner bids hearts.... How often will you be going down in some number of hearts when you can make 6 of a minor? If you don't end up in game, almost anything you do can turn out silly with any plan here. But getting the choice of games right is important, as is getting to game when its good... Anyway, thats my opinion. And I will open 1M on 4 card suits on some rare hand types, this just isn't one of them.

Josh, with a strong hand and long clubs you have the following options: 4C, 5C, 3NT (and perhaps 4NT?), or open 2C in the first place. That should be sufficient for almost all hands. I think that it is standard to bid 3♥ over 3♦ with some hands that would only have bid 2♥ normally, and to bid 4♥ with the best hands that would normally bid 3♥. Therefore, we really need 4♦ for the good 4♥ hands. I think that these hands are fairly frequent, and further bidding will be significantly easier when the 4♦ bid promises 4-card heart support. It seems best to agree that 4♦ does promise that and accept that with some very unusual hand with strong clubs I will have to find a different (perhaps less than perfect) call. Well 4C is not forcing and 4N is rkc for hearts (I think) so you are left with 3N and 5C. Which one of them is a slam try in clubs? Now as to opening 2C on a strong hand with clubs, thats a valid issue, the question is how strong do you have to be to GF in a minor. I would not open 2C on AKx Kx x AKJxxxx, would you? How about, AKx AJ A KQTxxxx? Again, I do not want to force to game opposite a random 3 count with this. If your partnerships have decided to just overbid initially with these hands, well then you may not have any hands worth a slam try opposite a 6 count, and your priorities for the cue bid change.

No opener doesn't want to play 4C he wants to be able to invite game on a hand the would have opened 1C and rebid 3C (a very common hand). That player doesn't want to play 3C either. He wants to invite a game without forcing to game. So you are giving him the choice between overbidding by 2 levels or selling out?

Well a hand with 4 hearts that is too good for 4H opposite what was merely a 1H response is not really more common than the hand with long clubs. Of course you stretch to bid 4 on hands only worth 3 in this situation so you have to cue bid on hands worth 4. partner has 1 of 2 hand types a. 4 hearts and about 19/20+ in support of hearts b. 6+C and about a 20 count (maybe lighter with a strong 7 card suit) So what does he do if he had type b? Thats easy he cue bids then bids 5C/4H. I have no idea why you think thats too hard. And like I said, over a cue-bid, responder rebids 4H to show a bad hand and every other bid describes his hand and shows interest in slam. Now at lower levels almsot everyone plays 1C-P-1H-(2D)-3D as ART GF, primary clubs, usually less than 3 hearts unless a hand thats too good for a jump to 4H and doesn't have a singleton diamond (so maybe a 2425 20 count that you didn't want to open 2N or 2C on). The hand type with heart support is very very rare. At higher levels, there are more heart hands thrown in. I guess its playable to guess how many clubs to bid with the primary club hand, but I really don't like to guess when you know almost nothing about partner's hand.

This hand type is a bitch. 1C then reverse is a definite overbid especially since if partner is weak you will often play in a 5-2 club fit, and that is not going to play well. I am of the opinion that with a decent but not amazing 5 card primary suit you should have about 17 for a reverse. This hand has a weak suit, so with this weak of a suit some would say you need 18.... Honestly if I opened 1C I might well take the conservative position and rebid 2C. Is this hand really stronger than x xxx AKQ KQxxxx? 1H then 2C has the benefit of showing your two suits, except you haven't really, over 1N you have shown 5 hearts and 3 clubs and you differ from that by 3 cards. You also have not expressed your strength. Presumably, after 1H-1S-2C-2H you are going to overbid next with 2N (showing 17-18). 1N at least gets strength right, but the shape is a bit odd to say the least... 1D then 2C has similar problems to 1H then 2C except that in many partnerships 1D-1S-2C is often 1444 or 1345 or 2245, so you are not quite as many cards away from what you have promised as with the 1H opening bid. Also partner is less likely to move to an agressive game in diamonds than in hearts a. lacking high diamonds b.you need to make 11 tricks in a minor Of course over a 1C or 1D or 1N opening bid partner might do something friendly, like show hearts.... Historically I have always prefered a 1D opening followed by an agressive 2N if partner preferences 2C to 2D on this hand type, but I can'r swear that its best.... My votes are in the following order, but its close: 1D 1N 1C then 2C 1C then 2H 1C then 1N (this really isn't as bad as one might think) and a long way down is 1H I really don't think opening 1H here solves anything much...

You are right. And 3) After 4♠ then an RKC answer, you have left nothing unsaid. That will show your spade control, your club ace, and your heart length (as the equivalent of the heart queen, which you will show). Ok it might not show the diamond queen, I can live with that :) Hmm, and why is 4N over 4S rkc? And for what suit? I defenitely don't think hearts have been agreed. Partner can have a strong hand with primary clubs. In general in this auction, with a weak hand you bid the cheapest possible strain, if partner corrects, cue bids or raises you can re-evaluate. With a strong hand you usually: a. jump or b. cue bid the opps suit or c. bid a 5N pick a slam Now what is a new suit? I am not sure there is universal agreement about that. A new suit above 4H has to be a slam try (since partner might have just had a good 4H bid) but its not clear to be that it is or should be a cue bid. Personally, I think 5H on this hand is clear since you have extras and an undisclosed feature (long hearts). I do wish the heart suit was stronger, but partner can suggest 6C with bad heart support, or bid 5N pick a slam with only moderate heart support. Yes it would be nice if partner's cue bid agreed hearts, then the auction would be easy, but as that is the only strong bid he has available, I really don't think thats what it means...

Thats very interesting. And doesn't have any bearing on the question what is the best range for the response. If your partner expectes a 3 count and you have an 8 count, you will get bad results. If your partner expects a weak jump shift and you have a strong jump shift you will have very bad results. Etc. I am still guessing at your methodology, since you haven't stated it. My hypothosis is that you are looking at: All hands in which someone opened 1m (regardless of the meaning of the bid) and all 2M responses (regardless of the meaning of that bid or the agreed range, or the lack of agreement of the range). Please correct me if I am wrong about your methodology.

Meta Comment: I think its important that everyone on the team respects the other players, so a bad set by a pair doesn't cause blame and resentment. I really hate having a team where everyone doesn't already know each other. It seems that something bad happens every time that occurs... 1. I think sticking with fixed partnerships usually works best. If a pair has played a reasonable amount together, and does not play complicated methods that require a review of the system notes, and if someone gets sick, or a pair has become disfunctional, then a change is warrented. 2. In theory its best to adjust based on who is playing well (and who is tierd) but this depends on the personalities on the team. If everyone has perspective and is properly self-critical, then being flexible is the best plan. Otherwise, I would use a fixed lineup. Exception: If one pair is especially swingy, plan on them playing in the final quarter but change your plan if you are significantly ahead (but make sure they have played enough) and make it up to them the next day by letting them play more. 3. Have them play about 75%-87.5% (1 quarter sit out per day or per every other day) and the other pairs about 62.5% (1 quarter off one day, 2 off the other). Plan on the best pair playing the final quarter of your long match, but then don't use them if up by a lot, and you will still be playing tomorrow. This does depend some on endurance. Also, if a heavy favorite in day 1, try to get away with playing the best pair only half if you are ahead by a lot. (I would play them quarter's 1 and 3, and then 4 only if needed on day 1) 4. Play the client the minimum (50%) and usually the earlier sessions. This gives the other pairs a target for how much action they need to generate. 5. Keep your client away from dealing with agressive pairs or even away from weak NT's if you can help it.

I think it was a while ago that someone (Carl Hudecek) did the work to establish that weak jump shifts by responder (usually of 2♠ or 2♥ over a std opening bid) in direct response without intervention work best when they are REALLY weak, in the 0-6 range. Otherwise the partnershp misses game too often. Your example hand is still well within those parameter, Frances. I view this (2-level NFB) bid as an extension of that. It gives us the ability to play in our assumed 6-2 fit (a priori it's probable that pard has at least doubleton in unbid suits) at the 8-trick level, something that Larry and LOTT and Vernes tell us should be right. Because of the intervention by opp we are able to make it on a bunch of hands where we were previously denied that privilege, and where frequently(unless opps are "smart" enough to overcall on bad 8 or 9 counts at the 2-level) it is in our best interest since opps promise an opening hand when they overcall in a minor. Sort of like the principle of support X - we have three bids instead of 2 available because they intervened. Don't make it too constructive, or you confuse your par with overall par. There are some bids at the top of the range where for various reasons you make a NFB, and pray that you weren't too strong. Similar to the idea that when you overcall against 1NT, the better your hand the better it is to pass and defend. When you don't have a 9 or 10 card fit with partner, the opponents cannot preempt you out of much. What we concluded (this at the table, not in the datamining) is that if he does have a 10-card fit with your nfb, you shouldnt get too wild - most of the time you are pushing them into game instead of playing in your undoubled advance "sacrifice" at the 2 level when the hand is weaker. It's only when he has a rockcrusher in terms of HCP that he should support you to game. Stephen Stephen, Can you please explain how this was demonstrated? I am certain that if 1C-P-2H showed 7-8 HCP and a 6 card suit to 1 or 2 top honors your game bidding over that will be very accurate. So I want to know exactly what the study was, and what the methodology was. I am equally certain that if one partner plays 2H as 0-6 and the other partner plays it as 4-7, their bidding accuracy will not be much better than when one partner thinks they are playing a 15-17 NT and the other partner thinks its a 12-14 NT. My one statistical claim is that the % of highly edjucated people who can devise a basic statistical test correctly, is very small.... Its very sad but true. I made a living for many years explaining basic statistics to engineers at NASA and those working for the DOD... This has been demonstated repeatedly on this forum by proposed used of bridge browser data to prove various things that the proposed test didn't even come close to proving or measuring....

Lets start with the easy question: No opening 1D is bad. Just becauses your hearts suck doesn't mean that you don't belong in a 5-3 heart fit. I do know you don't belong in a 3-3 diamond fit. :) The hand is not really good enough to open, but you do have 13 HCP and everyone else will open, so I can't imagine passing it at MPs in a normal field where I will play the final contract better than the field and where my partner with a balanced 17 count will only invite slam... In the finals of the Blues, I think passing is a reasonable but swingy action.

I do feel strongly that pass is correct. Yes partner might have a 12-13 count and settle for 3N, then again partner might try for slam and you go down anyway. Most of the time partner has an 8-10 count and has a vicous guess if you overcall 3D on this hand and one that is two playing tricks stronger. I think balancing on these hands (except over a 1 level bid where you have a lot of room to sort out ranges) is aiming for a very small target, and hinders your ability to hit the larger targets (game and slam). And many of its "gains" are not turning -110 into +110, its more like -110 into -50. And since your not even short in hearts it may be turning +50 into -50. I don't even think this is close to a 3D bid.....

Maybe I am missing something but it sounds like partner has the HA and either: a. DQ and the CA b. DK and the CK In both cases 5D is a great contract, 6D is under 50%, and 3N is worse than 5D.... Pass

The Netherlands and Denmark are notorious for their "Association culture". In both countries, almost everybody is a member of several associations: charity associations, sports and leasure associations, lobbying associations. A lot of people who would, in other countries, play in some informal coffeehouse setting, join a bridge club which is a member of the BF. This raises an interesting question (although nothing to do with this thread). De Tocquville noticed 180 years ago that americans were obsessed with joining organizations. What happened to change this? Maybe I should start a different thread in the WC....

There are even things banned on the GCC for no real reason other than the rules were targeting a particular pair. (Someone can correct me if my interpretiation of the following ban is wrong). 1N forcing over 1M is allowed, but may not guarantee INV or better values. 1. 1N promising INV or better values was played by Katz and Cohen as part of the breakthrough system 2. Katz and Cohen were considered cheaters therefore 3. Make a key part of their system illegal Now no one ever accussed them of cheating in the 1M-1N auctions I don't think, it was there 1M-non forcing new suit auctions that raised eyebrows. Now maybe there is some other reason for this ban, but I can't see why playing 1N as showing a good hand as being at all odious or requiring any special defenses. If you want to ban possible adjuncts (like 1M-2C as weak with no fit) thats another matter.

You weren't disagreeing with me. I was saying Stayman is a relay, just not the start of a sequence of relays, and that's why it is legal. Actually a sequence of relays is allowed over a 1N or higher opening bid even in the GCC (so after bidding stayman you can continue with more relays), just not over 1 of a suit, except everything is legal over a forcing club or forcing diamond. Its a complete mishmash....

Well I disagree with how you use the terminology. I don't think a bid that is showing a or b or c constitutes showing something. And the definition of a relay is "a bid that does not show anything about the bidders hand, but instead asks partner to show something." A relay is often, but not always the cheapist bid. Stayman "shows" either a. both majors any strength OR b. an invite in NT OR C an INV or better hand with a major OR D. A game force with just a minor OR E. A weak 3 suiter short in clubs OR F. Maybe some other hands. 30 years ago, stayman and then 3 of a minor was the way to drop dead in a minor. In any case these hand types have nothing in common in strength or in distribution and as a result you are not showing anything with the 2C bid alone. A x-fer is not a relay. A x-fer is a bid that shows length/strength in a different suit. Its exactly the opposite of a relay. There is an other type of bid that people confuse with relays, they are puppets. A puppet is a bid that forces another bid, but doesn't actually show anything yet. When you play 2 way checkback a common treatment is that 2C FORCES 2D and then responder can pass with diamonds or do something else. This is a puppet. Interestingly puppet stayman is not a puppet. Walsh Relays, are misnamed, since these are in fact puppet sequences: the 2D bid over 1N requests partner to bid 2H but doesn't actually show hearts, you can have a strong hand with a minor instead. As to what constitutes a relay sequence, if its: 1D(H)-1H(12+)-1N(12+ hearts and spades)-2C(GFing relay)-2H(4S, 5+H)-2S(relay) Who cares if a "sequence of relays" has occured after the 2C bid or the 2S bid. (I think technically it has occured at the 2S bid, but I have always treated it as if its the 2C bid which triggers this being a relay sequence) I don't know how many bids constitute a sequence, or if breaking out of the relays into natural bidding later means we no longer had a relay sequence or lots of other things. I think the spirit of the rules are that: you should not be able to make a long sequence of bids that say nothing with a weak hand and then suddenly drop the auction short of game to the suprise of all. Maybe thats not what is intended but I think it is.... Actually how you interprete this vague rule does matter somewhat. In TOSR, the following might be a technical improvement which I did not implement because of the worry about the ACBL mid-chart defintion of a relay sequence: 1D(H)-1H(strong)- 1S both majors 1N Min <4 spades higher max <4 spades as in TOSR then over 1D-1H-1S 1N(relay): 2C min (then 2D=GFing relay, and other are natural and INV) 2D and higher max identical to normal tosr sequences. I was concerned about whether we can break out of relays to an INV auction after the 1N relay here, so I didn't go this way with the system. There are many other things I did to the system to cater to the ACBL mid-chart. What a waste of my time that all was....

Oy. First, I think this whole thing as been blown way out of proportion. I hope that justin reconsiders leaving the forum, since its great having his involvement in these discussions. I think many players can learn a lot from him. I personally think that mentioning a blog that Justin likes (and I like also, and I have never even read the bridge content on the blog, but find Aaron's philosophical ramblings to be interesting) shouldn't be cause for deleting a message. I understand that there is something on that blog which is damaging to someone else, and I understand both from general principles of a community and from a legal point of view why BBO wants to dissociate itself from that content. Having said that, there is stuff on fox news's website that I find offensive and involve personal attacks on people (maybe even a BBO member?) but I would be the first to object that all references/links to fox news be eliminated. I alsoo understand why justin was offended by his post getting deleted. I do wish he can understand why is was deleted, and even if he disagrees with that decision, like I do, he can accept that decision as at least being made with good motives in mind, whether or not you agree with the detailed excecution. There is also a slippery slope here, since if I provided a link to justin's web site, and his website has a link to aaron's website, should we be deleting that message also? Again, I don't even understand why people derive pleasure from a. watching bad bridge b. making fun of it but then again I didn't like mystery science theater 3000 for the same reason. A bad movie is still a bad movie, and getting to make fun of it doesn't improve it all that much.... Can I declare a bridge version of national brotherhood week? Maybe rain can apologize for not taking enough time to explain to justin why BBO doesn't allow certain links to appear on its sites (we appreciate the job you do rain, its just that almost everything you deal with is very sensative, maybe you need a sensative sounding form letter), and justin can apologize for ignoring rain's call on this and continously reposting the link. In any case, aaron hasn't had any new content for a year, so I think under the: "I post therefore I blog" definition, its not even a blog anymore.... :)

In the 20 years I've been producing written defenses, I've learned that it's better to be complete than to assume that people will be able to fill in the blanks in the heat of battle. Our defense is long in part because it deals separately with auctions where the opening bidder's suit turned out to be spades and those where it turned out to be hearts, and in part because I repeat things so it is as clear as I can make it what bid comes where in an auction. But it's also true that multi can lead to some complex auctions, and people have a difficult time applying their general rules to an unfamiliar situation. Thus it's important to clarify things like when 2NT is Lebensohl and when it isn't, when bids are "scrambling" and when they show real length in the bid suit. Here's a simple example, and an area that isn't covered at all in most multi defenses. The auction goes: (2♦)-3♦(I assume virtually everyone would play this as natural)-(P). As advancer, you have enough values to want to bid a game, a heart stopper but not a spade stopper. What do you bid? OR As advancer, you have reasonable values and 5 good hearts. What do you bid? I suspect that if I asked either question without the other, you would say "3♥, wtp?" Of course, the problem is that either hand is equally likely on this auction. In fact, we bid 3♥ with both hands. The overcaller then bids 3♠ with interest in playing hearts if advancer has a heart suit (advancer bids 3NT with a heart stopper), and 3NT with no interest in hearts and a spade stopper. I think this works well, and maybe it's obvious (but in fact it wasn't until we spent some time on it), but it is a good example of why just defining the bids over 2♦ isn't adequate. Thats a nice example, and I really wish the published defenses were this complete.... Personally, I just want to be able to play constructive methods based on x-fers, since they provide more room for constructive auctions. There are roughly 40% more hand types that can be shown over 1D than over 1H. Further, if you open 1H and want to play relay methods a. using 1S as an ART GF deprives you of a very useful natural bid b. so the cheapist bid you can use for an ART GF starting relays is 1N which is 2 steps higher than bidding a 1H, hence you can show only half as many bits of information over it before 3N than you can over 1D-1H (and 1N is also too useful a bid to give up in my opinion) c. relaying out declarers hand is not a good stategy. So playing relays over natural opening bids, usually results in opener declaring the hand and the opps knowing everything about his hand. This is a bad idea in general. So I only like relays when the relayer can arrange to be declarer most of the time..... Further, over these low level constructive bids, the defenses are really easy... Either it becomes a natural auction which is isomorphic to a completely natural auction with the opening bid being 1 bid lower OR Its a strong and ART auction, where, if you want to bud in on the second round of the auction at all, its usually just to x an ART bid for the lead.... And on the first round of the auction you basically get 1 free bid in addition to what you would normally have. Yes there are subtle differences since 1D(showing hearts)-x(showing diamonds)-1S(natural and non-forcing) is not isomorphic to anything else since you can't overcall 1D over 1H normally, thats why these things should be provided in a complete suggested defense: (When a non-forcing suit bid is made, treat it as the only suit bid by that side)

I was recently informed that: 2H showing 5 or 6 hearts AND 2 or 3 spades, was not conventional, even though it suggested playing in some denomination other than the bid suit, and thus GCC legal but 2H showing 5 or 6 hearts and a 4 card minor was conventional because it suggested playing in a different strain than the suit bid, and since the second suit was unknown its mid-chart I never understood this. And how about: 2H showing a 5 card suit, and an unbalanced hand It doesn't mention a second suit in the description, but it logically has one, and there is no point playing this method if you have no way of ever playing in the second suit.... I love regulations that encourage a lack of complete disclosure. Lovely.... On another topic, personally I don't think 1M-2C showing an ART GF is a relay since it does show something, the next bid after that if it doesn't show anything else is a relay.... Examples: 1C(strong)-1S(3 controls, gfing) = not a relay 1N-2C stayman = relay 1N-2D ART GF = not a relay In tosr, 1D-1H and 1H-1S are not relays. They show something. Its just strength not shape. The next cheap bid by responder is a relay....

When the defense database was started it was explained as serving the following noble purpose: to allow for more methods to be approved that conform with the ACBL mid-chart regulations, by ensuring that an adequite defense is available to those methods. Thats what was actually said in the ACBL bulleton when they announced the new policy. As presented the stated purpose of the defense database, and the approving comittee, was not to determine which methods should be allowed, that was already determined by the mid-chart, it was to ensure that adequite defenses were made available, so that players did not get an unfair advantage by providing bad defenses or hard to understand defenses. This is not meant as an attack on those players who volunteered there time for the committe, but I think that there are still some gaps between that noble purpose and what has happened. For one thing, I think the process is no longer about "did you provide an adequite and easy to understand defense" but is instead about "should we approve the method in the first place" If methods don't belong in the mid-chart, change the mid-chart, don't use the process of not approving defenses as a loophole to make methods illegal. In the second place, even longstanding approved defenses are terrible. By terrible I mean that they often don't even cover the meaning of bids on the 1'st or second round of a common auction. I faced the following auction in nationals a few years ago: 2N(Diamond Pre-empt) by LHO x by partner (The defense says 14+, it doesn't say if its 14+ balanced, although there is a different bid for a takeout of diamonds, so its implied that this should be balanced, but not explicitly stated) 3D by RHO Now is a 3H bid by me forcing or not? The defense doesn't say. I felt it logically was analogous to 1N by partner, 3D on my right, 3H (i.e. forcing) and partner didn't think it was and passed. It should be in the defense, so partnerships don't have to guess. I really think that the idea of having a committee insure that there are adequite defenses to unusual methods being used is a good idea, but this doesn't appear to be part of what the committe is currently doing. There has also been the more recent change where some methods are approved only when you play a lot of boards against the same pair. Now, I am am the first person to say that some things should be legal at teams that are not legal at pairs since you do not have adequite time for full disclosure at pairs. But I think setting length of board limits so that these methods can't be played in the national swisses are going a bit overboard. I also think that in someways the (boards per round) requirements should be cumulative. Essentially, the total pre-alerts and associated brief discussions should not waste more than about 5% of the time of the round. If you have 10 different "2 bds/round" methods to announce, how is that worse than 1 or 2 8 boards/round methods. Its at the point that you no longer have the time to figure out what your opponents are playing, that they derive an unfair advantage from them. How many times have a pair showed up with an index card of 10 pre-alerts, that you actually spent the time to read it over during a pair movement? I usually just go, you have defenses to all that? They nod and we play. And I don't derive the benefit of all the negative inferences about passes and such that are available if I had the time to figure out what my opponents are playing. As to x-fer opening bids. I would much rather face a x-fer opener, than a natural and GCC legal potentially canape opening bid. The x-fer openers are much easier to defend against. What chip told me in Philly when I went to speak to him, is that since the second rounds of auctions may be wierd they need to restrict the methods. Since either: a. the second round of the auction is identical to what would happen playing natural canape methods (How is 1D(4+H)-1N-2C(5+C)-3C(natural INV) different from 1H (4+H)-1N-2C(canape)-3C?) b. we are in the middle of a game forcing sequence I didn't understand chip's objection. Quite frankly, the precision 1D opening is hard enough to handle, especially when it can be very very short ( 0 or more diamonds, sometimes less) .... Josh BTW, Jan, I do appreciating your posting. I still remember your article about coming up with defenses to all the wierd methods at one national championship (including how many different fert openings?) I know its a lot of work, just as coming up with good costructive or desructive methods are in the first place....

Since I was sitting at the table when this issue arose, and was in fact the player who called the director to ask whether transfer one bids were allowed, let me correct some of what Josh states and comment a little on the rest - of course, none of this has anything to do with the original question posted here. 1. Chip did not make any ruling - a player cannot do that. In fact, when the pair arrived at our table and I saw that they were playing transfer 1 bids, I called the director to find out if that was allowed. Chip did tell the director that he believed a pair had been told before the tournament that they could not play transfer one bids. The director went off to consult with other directors and returned to our table to explain to the opponents that they were not allowed to play one level transfer opening bids in this event because there was not an approved defense. 2. The opponents left our table and went to the next table where they told their opponents that they were playing transfer openings at the one level. When I heard that, I summoned the director, and they were again told they could not play these methods. I am happy that they then stopped using the method. I agree that it was unfair to the pairs they played earlier that they had used the method against them, but I don't understand how that could have been avoided, since they had not asked before the event whether they could play transfer one bids. In fact, another pair had submitted a similar method in advance and been told that they could not play it. 3. I haven't seen the defense you submitted; there was a time when defenses were posted without review; I don't remember when the "approved defense" concept started, so I don't know whether yours was reviewed. I do know that it's not as trivial as it sounds to defend against transfer 1 bids (because the entire tenor of the auction changes) and that the Conventions & Competition Committee has been working with Moscito proponents to come up with a defense that is both adequate and easily understood, so far with no success. 4. In the last few years, the C&C committee has decided that it makes more sense to decide what methods to allow depending on the number of boards each opponent will play against the method. This is primarily because of time issues. If it will take a pair 2 minutes at the beginning of the round to understand the method and defense, and another 2 minutes when the method comes up to review the defense and figure out how to bid their hands, that will consume too much time when there are only 2 boards in a round. I know, it won't always take 2 minutes, but sometimes it will take longer. I play multi, and find that the time wasted dealing with pre-alerting and explaining about the written defense is often very frustrating in 2 board rounds. When there are more boards, the time consumed dealing with a compex method won't be as large a percentage of the time allotted to play the round, so more complex methods can be allowed. In long matches, even more complex methods are allowed. For systems issues, it makes a lot more sense to classify events by the length of the round than by the "level" of the event. One result of this approach is that methods that were previously allowed in NABC+ pair events (and BAM teams) are no longer allowed. The policy of approving defenses started 6 months prior to Toronto nationals, and almost 2 years prior to the Philly nationals. Right when the policy started, I submitted 3 sets of defenses along which (the required) detailed notes on the methods. I was informed by the ACBL head director that the methods were approved for mid-chart use, and the defenses were posted on the acbl web page and remained there unp until the middle of philly nationals. (In addition to TOSR, I submitted defenses to, and got approval for a. Kaplan inversion b. x-fers responses to a natural and non-forcing 1C opener (Which at that time was played by Me and Marc Umeno, Jeff Roman and Hugh Grosvenor, Chris Willenkin and Glenn Milgram, and possibly some others) These were all approved and put on the website under a section titled "defenses to x-fer type methods". ) The conditions of contest for the national events were that midchart methods were legal if there was an approved defense for the method provided on the acbl website, under the defense database. In this case, a pair flew halfway around the world expecting to be able to play methods that were specially allowed according to the conditions of contest (since this defense was in fact provided in the ACBL's defense database). Somehow, it was decided that those methods getting approved and posted on the website was an accident (so why did the head director e-mail me telling me that the methods were approved?), and despite that those methods were specifically allowed by the written conditions of contest, they we told to stop playing it in the middle of the event. I just think think that the ACBL was lucky to not have gotten sued... Anyway, if I got details of the story wrong I apologize. What happened was told to me by Mark and Mike (who were staying at my mom's house in Philly) back at philly nationals, which was around 3-4 years ago, so my memory is fading. I do know the details of the part of the story that I was involved in, which was the process of getting the defenses approved in the first place. If desired, I can try to find my orginal TOSR writeup that appeared on the acbl website. Here is my current write up. There are three differences with the orginal: a. The original submission to the ACBL (and what was posted on the website) had 2 alternative defenses (the second one was play x as 12-14 balanced, or a 18+ hand instead of natural) b. Our 1D-2D and 1H-2H auctions have changed from what they used to be (they used to be natural and constructive (8-11ish) but not forcing) c. What was posted on the website accidently left out a few paragraphs pertaining to the 1S opening (e.g. It gave the defense, but left out the mention that it was a defense to a 1S opening showing the minors). Anyway, here is my current methods overview/defense document. Note that the ACBL requires this complete writeup to explain your methods completely. At the table, I would assume that defenders would just want to use the suggested defense without having to read the entire document. Note: All opening ranges are 2 points higher in ¾ seat and all responding ranges are 2 points lower. Also note, we are not bean counters so sometimes hands are a point heavier or lighter than the announced range (for instance a hand with a stiff honor will be demoted by a point) Method: 1D opener showing 4+Hearts, may contain a longer side suit. A 1D opener never contains 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors. In ½ seat, 1D is never 4432 or 4333 (in ¾ seat, it might be these shapes with 12-13 HCP). This typically shows 10-14 HCP in ½ seat, and 12-16 HCP in ¾ seat. This is non-forcing, but can only be passed by a weak hand with 5+ Diamonds. Responding Structure: Pass: 5+D, 0-10 HCP, usually not balanced. 1H: 10+HCP and is ART (by a passed hand 8-11). With 10-11 must have a fit or a great suit. With a minimum, opener bids 1S. All other bids confirm a sound opening bid (usually 12-14 HCP with 3+ controls over a ½ seat opening bid). At responder’s next bid he can make a natural non-forcing invitational bid, or can bid the cheapest step (other than 1N) as a game forcing relay. 1S: 4+S 0-11 HCP, Non-Forcing. Opener is only allowed to pass with exactly 3S and a min. 1N: 0-11 HCP, asks for openers longest suit. 1N rarely contains a singleton. Opener will pass this if and only if he is 4441 shape. (Special Rebid: 1H-1N-2H shows 5+S and 3H ) 2C:0-11 HCP, 5+C, not balanced, non-forcing. 2D: Good raise of hearts. Usually only 3 hearts. Typically 10-11 HCP. 2H: 4+H or 3H and a singleton. 0-9 Support points. 2S: 8-10 HCP, 4+H, singleton somewhere 2N: 8-10 HCP, 5+S, 4+H. 3C: 8-10 HCP, 5+C, 4+H. 3D:8-10 HCP, 5+C, 4+H 3H: 4+H, 0-8 HCP Competitive Auctions: X by responder always asks opener to bid his longest suit (except x of 1H is the same as 1D-P-1H) (Note: when forced to bid at the 3 level 2N shows 5 hearts and 3H shows 6). Negative free bids at the 2 level. X-fer Leb at the 3 level. (Some x-fer fit jumps) Suggested Defense: 1D-x Shows Diamonds (at least a good enough hand to overcall 1D over 1C). 1D-1H is a takeout x of hearts, and is forcing. 1D-2D is pre-emptive. Everything else is as if there was a natural 1H opener. 1D-P-1H or 1D-P-1N or 1D-P-2D: x is takeout 2H is Michaels 2N is minors Others natural. For all non-forcing auctions: e.g. 1D-P-1S, 1D-P-2C, 1D-P-P (or the same auctions with 2'nd hand xing to show diamonds) x is a 3 suited takeout of the current strain. Bids of Hearts are natural (it’s very common for responder to have a stiff heart on these auctions). Cue bidding the non-forcing suit bid is the only cue bid) For all other auctions, bid as if there was a natural 1H opening. Method: 1H opener showing 4+Spades, 0-3 Hearts, may contain a longer minor. Never 4-4 or 5-4 in the minors. In ½ seat this is never 4432 or 4333 (in ¾ seat it might be these shapes with 12-13 HCP). This typically shows 10-14 HCP in ½ seat, and 12-16 HCP in ¾ seat. This is non-forcing, but can only be passed by a weak hand with 5+ Hearts. Responding Structure: Pass: 5+H, 0-10 HCP, usually not balanced. 1S: 10+HCP and is ART (by a passed hand 8-11). With 10-11 must have a fit or a great suit. With a minimum, opener bids 1N. All other bids confirm a sound opening bid (usually 12-14 HCP with 3+ controls over a ½ seat opening bid). At responder’s next bid he can make a natural non-forcing invitational bid, or can bid the cheapest step as a game forcing relay. 1N: 0-11 HCP, asks for openers longest suit. 1N rarely contains a singleton. A ½ seat opener will never pass this. 2C:0-11 HCP, 5+C, not balanced, non-forcing. 2D: 0-11 HCP, 5+D, not balanced, non-forcing. 2H: Good raise of spades. Usually only 3 spades. Typically 10-11 HCP 2S: 4+S or 3 with a singleton. 0-9 Support Points. 2N: 8-10 HCP, 4+S, singleton somewhere 3C: 8-10 HCP, 5+C, 4+S 3D:8-10 HCP, 5+C, 4+S 3H: 5+H, 4+S 8-10 HCP 3S: 4+S, 0-8 HCP Suggested Defense: 1H-x Shows Hearts (at least a good enough hand to overcall 1H over 1m). 1H-1S is a takeout x of spades, and is forcing. 1H-2H is pre-emptive. Everything else is as if there was a natural 1S opener. 1H-P-1S or 1H-P-1N 1H-P-2H: x is takeout 2S is Michaels 2N is minors Others natural. For all non-forcing auctions: e.g. 1H-P-2m, 1H-P-P (or the same auctions with 2'nd hand xing to show hearts) x is a 3 suited takeout of the current strain. Bids of Spades are natural (it’s very common for responder to have a stiff spade on these auctions). Cue bidding the non-forcing suit bid is the only cue bid) For all other auctions, bid as if there was a natural 1S opening. Method 1S: at least 4-4 in the minors, unbalanced. Might have a 4 or 5 card major. This typically shows 10-14 HCP in ½ seat, and 12-16 HCP in ¾ seat. This is non-forcing, but can only be passed by a weak hand with 5+ Spades. Responding structure: Pass: 0-10 5+Spades 1N: 0-11 with No Game Interest. Asks opener to bid his longest suit 2C: Game Forcing Relay, Typically 14+ HCP 2D: ART Game Invitation, about 11-13 HCP 2H: 5+H About 9-13 HCP, Not Forcing (With 6 hearts its 9- 11ish, With 5H its 11-13ish) 2S: 5+S About 9-13 HCP, Not Forcing (With 6 spades its 9- 11ish, With 5S its 11-13ish) 2N: Pre-empt with both minors (0-10ish) 3m: Pre-empt (0-10ish) 3M: Splinter, both minors, Game Forcing 3N and higher: To Play Competitive Auctions: Bids of 2C and 2D in comp retain their normal meaning (or x’s of 2C or 2D). X by responder of bids other than 2C or 2D asks opener to bid his longest suit (Except x of 1S is the same as 1H-P-1S) Negative free bids at the 2 level. Leb at the 3 level. (Some fit jumps) Suggested Defense: 1S-x is takeout of the minors or a big hand 1S-1N is 15-18 Balanced 1S-2C is 5-5 in the Majors, 12+ HCP 1S-2D is 5-5 in the Majors, 6-11 HCP 1S-2M is natural 1S-2N is 20-21 Balanced 1S-3Anything is pre-emptive After 1S-1N,2C,2D X=Majors or big hand 2C(If Available): 5-5 Majors, 12+ 2D(If Available):5-5 Majors, 6-11ish 2N: At least 6-5 in Majors over 2m, 20-21 balanced over 1N) Others Natural After 1S-2M X Takeout After 1S-2N: X=cards (14+). Balanced or close to it (or a huge hand). Treat the rest of the auction as if your hand opened 1N and the opps pre-empted in a minor. 3C=Majors, better hearts 3D=Majors, better spades After 1S-3m: Treat as a normal 3m pre-empt.

I once met the one and only Justin Lall!

Lets say we had this auction: xx AKx Kxxx Kxxx Jxx Qxxx Q9x AQJ 1D-1H-2H(you with me so far?)-2N(Forcing)- and now, sadly, you don't have a way of showing a balanced 3 card raise, so you opt for 3C showing 3 hearts and 4+ clubs (so either 1354 or 1345) and here we are with the same problem again (since your only choices were to show 4 card raises or 3 card raises with a singleton).... Maybe in the context of the system 2H is wrong. But when your partner orginally said he wanted to play those responses to 2N, and you objected saying that you frequently raise on 3 cards and a balanced hand, he said well then just describe the closest thing.... (This was a real partnership of mine, with a player who has won a national championship, admittely it was the fast pairs...) So what can I say? Hopefully a system can handle the vast majority of hands it sticks in a particular bucket...

I just disagree what the "more normal agreement" is. If everyone agreed that 2N was just 18-19 balanced this hand type wouldn't appear in master solvers club every other year. The reason that many hand type keep re-appearing in MSC is that the set of meaning for bids is not exaustive so there are occaisonally hands that are imperfect for any action. the modern majority style is to rebid 2N on this hand type, but raise 1H to 2H on a 2344 13 count with 2 small spades and Hxx in hearts (is that a distortion? 100% of french players would call that a major distortion). But both are far from universal, and what you do with certain hand types doesn't mean that thats part of the meaning of the bid, it just might be the closest thing. 30 years ago, 2N would have been a minority rebid on this hand type, but styles have changed. As to the integrity of jump shifts, what integrity? We frequently JS on 3 card suits, and sometimes 2 card suits. Again 30 years ago, JSing on 4-4 was common. But why is 6-3 OK, but 4-4 not? 4-4 isn't a common JS hand type today, so its usually a question of percentages. For which "distortions" can you handle the auction effectively, at least most of the time. As to what I play, I play a lot of very regid systems, that force you to show hand type (e.g. general shape) at bid 2 indpendant of honor location. I consider this rigidity to be a weakness (For instance AKQxx xx AKx xxx has to be shown as balanced in my club system, I can't just show 5S and then wing it) but is the price I play for methods where every bid shows something very specific, often via ART means. Just because I play these regid methods, doesn't mean that I don't recognize there are weaknesses assocaited with them....But its also very rare in my methods to be showing balanced hands at the 2N level, since the main point of showing a balanced hand type is to let partner pattern out, so the balanced hand can evaluate his honors ("the balanced hand principle"). Its hard to be able to pattern out over 2N rebids.