JanM

Which round of 32 match do you want to see on Vugraph? Round of 16? You might even have some influence, except for those of you who foolishly predicted that Strul would be upset :P Or is that highjacking and I should start a new thread?

I have it on pretty good authority (not a rumor but no guarantees) that ACBL will be doing a side-by-side test of Bridgemates and Bridgepads at the Summer NABC in Washington this July. So hopefully we will have more comparison information after that. I also know that Bridgemate is making some changes to the software to make it easier to do some things. I'm not trying to be vague, I don't know exactly what changes are being made. I know that one change is to allow the person who controls the computer that is receiving the results to "push a button" and have all of the Bridgemates in use for that event move on to the next round. That will be a very useful function for team games where sometimes the players forget to enter or OK the last board of a set before going to the next table. Another change will allow higher board numbers (I believe the current maximum is 63 - some computer genius can explain why it's 63 not 64, I think it's because despite the fact that we never have a board 0 the computer thinks we might). Another will allow the pairing for each round either to be specified in advance at the "main" computer or at the table by the players. I know there are more.

and leave it at that than play 'notrump systems on', which I still think is very bad. I mean you can't even run to 2 of a minor... The problem with that is it doesn't deal with what bids mean when responder runs from 1NTx, whereas if you agree to treat the auction as if the doubler opened 1NT, most partnerships do have agreements about what their bids & DBLs mean after an overcall, whether the overcall is 2♣ for Majors or a transfer or a DONT type bid. And in general, the competitive agreements a partnership has after they open 1NT will work pretty well after they double a weak NT. After a 10-12 NT is doubled, advancer is much less likely to want to run to 2m than after a stronger NT is doubled. If responder redoubles for penalty, or passes forcing redouble (yuck) and then passes the redouble, advancer can run to 2m. And being able to seek out a 4-4 Major suit fit (particularly on a shaped hand) is often very useful as is being able to show a 2-suited hand. So although "systems on" isn't a great method, it's also not a terrible one for a casual partnership.

The latter. A good partner is FAR FAR FAR more important than what system you play! Of course, that's not completely true, because often someone who likes the same approach you do will be a good partner for you. But if you haven't yet chosen a preferred system and are flexible, you'll do better to look for a partner who has the same goals and thought processes as you than to worry about what system to play.

My understanding of the question here was what to do in a casual partnership where you're not going to discuss things for more than a few sentences. In that context, I think that playing something where you will know what your bids mean is the most important thing, and "system on" will generally achieve that. Obviously, the NT bidder will have to bid something unusual with a hand that wouldn't have opened 1NT, but that actually doesn't come up as often as you might think. And of course advancer will often pass, but when advancer has a shaped hand, particularly one with shortness someplace, advancer will prefer to bid to their side's best contract instead of defending 1NT with partner often leading the wrong suit (I don't know about you, but when I have a singleton, my partner seems to lead it against 1NT more often than not :)). Of course if you have time to discuss things, you'll have better agreements, but this really isn't something a casual partnership needs to spend much time on - there are other far more important things to discuss (defensive signaling, for instance, which IMHO is often pretty much ignored by people who want to spend hours on what we do over our NTs and their NTs).

I agree with Ken that playing DBL is an opening NT, with "system on" works reasonably and hopefully you'll know what your bids mean (hopefully you've discussed what bids mean when you open 1NT and the opponents overcall). But I'd play that overcalls are whatever you play against a stronger NT, with the understanding that the overcalls and responses should be constructive. That gets you back to something you're familiar with and hopefully have discussed at least to some extent. It also means that when you look at the auction after a round or two, it won't matter whether you remember that 1NT was 10-12. Finally, it means that if you and your partner have a different opinion of where the line should be drawn between "mini" and "weak," you will normally still be on the same wavelength about your bids.

Another NABC on the way, another major Knockout to be shown on BBO Vugraph, and as usual we need operators. So if you're BBO-literate and will be in Houston and might be interested in being an operator for the Vanderbilt one of the days from Tuesday to Sunday, please email me (marteljan at gmail dot com) with your availability and contact information. ACBL will provide a small payment for your services. You won't get rich, but you'll have the best seat in the house at some great matches, and all of the people at home watching BBO Vugraph will be grateful to you for bringing them the show!

I agree that you want to have a penalty double against mini NTs (whether that is true against medium - 12-14 or so - NT isn't as clear by the way). GIven that, I think the main thing to discuss is what happens after the DBL. How far are we forced? Which subsequent DBLs by both sides are penalty and which are Takeout? What does advancer do with a bad hand? An invitational hand? A good hand? How do we investigate for 4-4 fits and such? What do we do after responder makes a natural runout bid? a transfer response? RDBL forcing 2♣, pass forcing RDBL? That's just a quick start at the things we need to resolve. I took a very quick look at my notes and the discussion of what happens after a penalty DBL takes as long as the entire discussion of what happens after the other "multi-landy" bids (we play Woolsey over Strong NT and keep the 2♣ and 2♦ bids over weak). We used to play Astro vs. weak NT, but changed to "multi-landy" because we found that we needed so many agreements over the Astro bids that the complexity overbalanced the probably better method and it was easier to play the same thing over both weak and strong NT except for the DBL. I think that Chip & Lew, who have better memories than I, or perhaps just play more, still use Astro by an UPH vs weak NT. Their notes for Astro is the longest part of the defense vs. 1NT section of their notes.

That's certainly reasonable also. Although I think with your example hand, I'd forget about the Major and bid 2!c-2!d-3!c, or maybe just 3!c over the DBL.

The first one wasn't in our notes, so I asked Chip. He said that 2NT was natural because not defined as anything else, although natural would be pretty unusual (if I wanted to play 2NT why didn't I want to defend 1NT-x?), but might be based on a hand where it wouldn't be good for partner to lead his minor. 3♣ is Pass or Correct (I don't like your Major, want to play in your minor). 3♦ is natural (I don't like your Major, want to play in my minor). The DBLs are in our notes. DBL of a natural 2M shows interest in competing, asks partner to bid with 4 of the other Major, use judgment with 4 of theirs. DBL of a 2, 3 or 4 level transfer shows interest in competing in the Major they haven't shown. We don't specifically say it shows 4, but of course it does. DBL of 2♣, whatever it means, is Pass or Correct, so I guess that one is similar to your "cards" definition. I happen to have Kit Woolsey's notes on this as well as my own. He plays 2NT in your first sequence as asking for the minor, and doesn't define 3m. In the second sequence, DBL is Pass or Correct if responder's bid is natural, lead directing if it's artificial.

but it's not clickable! Really? I always put the tournament website in Vugraph operators' profiles and I thought that people could just click on it.

This makes no sense to me. If I pass after 1♦-1♥-2♥ and then the opponents balance and I bid 3♦ it doesn't mean I all at once decided I had an invitational hand, it means I want to compete and think that maybe diamonds will be better than hearts. I think that whether to bid to begin with might depend on your methods. If you play (as I do) that 1♦ promises an unbalanced hand with real diamonds and 2♥ promises 4 hearts, it's a lot more attractive to bid than if 1♦ can be a minimum balanced hand and 2♥ can be that same minimum balanced hand with 3 hearts. If partner has something like Ax, Qxxx, AKxxx, xx, 4♥ is very good. But that's a perfect maximum; opposite Kx, QJxx, Kxxxx, Ax, I'm going to need the spade onside if they lead one and maybe even if they don't; x,Jxxx,AKxxx,Kxx or x,Jxxx,Axxxx,AQx are going to need a lot of luck. A bad minimum like xx,QJxx,Axxxx,Kx has almost no play for 4 and might go down in 3. I had about convinced myself to invite, when I noticed it's matchpoints, so if we will go down in 3 once for every time we bid and make 4 when I invite, inviting is a losing proposition (because I trust we will play the dummy better than some of the other pairs). Now I'm not so sure. If this is a qualifying session, I think it's probably wrong to invite (we aren't going for tops, just a nice steady game; the "standard" players in the field aren't going to invite, because their partner could have a balanced minimum where 3 would be seriously at risk). If it's the finals, it probably is right, given that our methods give us a chance for a very good board, with relatively little risk of a bad one.

Of course everyone who knows me will know what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway :), and with the caveat that I've never taken a bridge lesson and haven't taught one since before the internet was available. Certification is one of those "cures" that is far worse than the "disease." Ditto for required curricula. Particularly when we're talking about the internet, we have available a much better (and easier and cheaper) solution than certification - provide a forum for people to comment on their teachers. Sure, you'll get some comments that are foolish, but by and large people looking for teachers will be able to sort out which comments are fake (both the "puff" pieces and the meaningless rants) and tell from the comments whether they want to learn from the particular teacher. Not every teacher is right for every student. Not every curriculum is right for every student. On Netflix, you can rate movies and then search for information on movies from people who liked the same things you did. That's a lot more useful than recommendations from, say, a newspaper critic. I'm sure the same is true for bridge teachers. When you look at what it would be good to have BBO do, I think it's worth considering cost vs benefit. I'd guess that collecting & distributing money is an area where it would be relatively easy for BBO to provide the service and that the service would be of more value to both teachers and students than its cost. Pre-dealt hands and lesson plans? It seems likely to me that providing a framework for creating pre-dealt hands that could then be played on BBO would be something that BBO could do efficiently, but why should BBO also create the hands? Why not let teachers who are interested in setting up hands do it and then sell them to other teachers who don't want to spend the time and effort on that part of teaching? I don't think choosing the hands is something that BBO can do better or more efficiently than anyone else (and I say that despite the fact that I love Bridgemaster :)). And I certainly don't think it makes sense for BBO to include pre-dealt hands in a "tax" on teachers - let the teachers decide whether they want the pre-dealt hands and how much they're willing to pay for them. I'm not so sure about lesson plans - it feels to me as if you can't prepare tomorrow's plan until you see how your students do today, but maybe I'm wrong and it would be useful to have at least broad outlines of what comes after what. But there again, I wouldn't make it mandatory. Let those who think they have worked out a good way to teach things offer to sell their lesson plans to others, but don't force people to teach in a certain way. I certainly don't think that someone who thought it was more important to teach things in one order or to leave something out entirely is necessarily "wrong." Provide potential students with a lot of information, maybe even including the fact that it is "standard" to teach a then b then c, but don't force all teachers to teach that way - maybe it will work better, at least for some students, to start with c.

I agree that this is clearly allowed under WBF rules and is neither BS nor HUM so written defenses would not be allowed. That's one of my reasons for wanting to get "back to normal" as much as possible (although even when written defenses are allowed, we usually try to get back to normal if we can - a lot of bridge judgment has been developed over the years based on the sorts of hands and situations we've seen before, so players will usually have better judgment in familiar situations). To be classified as BS by the WBF, essentially, the bid has to be weak and have no known suit. Since both of these bids are opening bids that have a known 4+ card suit, they are indeed not "close." This would clearly be allowed under the ACBL Super Chart (essentially anything except "destructive only" methods are allowed, and although we can argue about what is "destructive only," I don't think anyone would claim this is), where the proponents would have to provide a recommended defense and the defenders could consult that defense or one of their choosing during the auction. At the moment, this isn't allowed under the Midchart, because no one has asked for it to be approved and submitted an adequate description and defense. If it were approved, written defenses (either the approved one or one chosen by the opponents) would be allowed.

I think that using DBL to show hearts and 1♠ as a Takeout of spades is clearly better (it leaves your side flexible after the bid that shows hearts, since if responder passes, advancer can too). I don't know whether the most useful "extra" thing to show over 1♥ showing 4+ spades is hearts, though. There's nothing wrong with using 2♥ for hearts (and some good things, certainly compared to using 1♠ for hearts - 1♠ doesn't take up any space and leaves the opponents with an easy way to show different spade hands). On the other hand, we might have spades (opponents only promised 4 remember) and we certainly might have 4 hearts and a longer minor, which is normally an awkward hand to show at a reasonable level over 1♠. So I think using the "extra" bid for one of those hands makes more sense than using it for a hand that is comfortable shown by "normal" bidding over a bid that shows spades.

No. I replied first to his main question which was what to do over their 1S bid. Over their 1H opening, I used 1S to show hearts. I'm sorry, I knew there weren't enough bids there, and I thought that it was 1♠ that was missing - I now see that it is DBL that is missing.

Whenever they take space away with a bid you have to give up something. So over 1♠ you have to give up either the TO DBL of hearts or the natural 1♠ overcall or the natural strong 1NT overcall. I tend to lean towards doing what feels most natural to the individual player. Personally, I'd play that DBL is TO of hearts and 1NT is natural, losing the 1♠ overcall. That's because I like to get back to what's "natural" to me as quickly as possible. Of course, that means that the DBL will include hands that I would have overcalled 1♠ over 1♥. People who are less concerned with "comfort level" might judge that it's more important to be able to show the spade hands, and it's surely right to do that by having DBL show spades and 1NT be takeout or natural (depending which one you've decided to give up), so that if responder passes the bid showing spades, advancer can pass also and make the opener tell us more. There's a lot to be said for playing 2♥ or 2♠ as an Astro type cue bid if you give up the Takeout DBL. I had to smile when I looked through this thread and saw that the first suggested defense over 1♥ didn't have a meaning for 1♠. That's the sort of defense the people playing this bid would like you to use, of course - you don't make any use of the extra space they've given you. I don't know what the best use of 1♠ is, but I'm sure that it should be used! I think the best choices are: DBL is TO of spades 1♠ is natural DBL is TO of spades 1♠ is an Astro-type cue bid (4 hearts, longer minor) DBL is hearts 1♠ is TO of spades I'd probably opt for the Astro cue bid, but I don't have any strong feelings.

Several possibilities have been discussed but nothing has been decided. How the 2010 U21 teams will be selected will probably be decided in Houston.

This particular auction is awkward when you play a reverse style where the 4th suit is the "negative" bid over a reverse. In fact, it's so unusual (4th suit higher than opener's first suit) that in my partnerships we define it separately from other reverses. Our agreement is that 3♣ is non-forcing and that 3♦ is like 4th suit forcing, implying club tolerance. Obviously, I have no idea whether that is even remotely mainstream, but once you decide that it isn't sensible to use 2NT as the negative bid (often wrong-sides 3NT both when responder does and doesn't bid 2NT), it seems like the best agreement for this awkward auction. Having said that, I don't think this hand is right for 3♦, even assuming that you've agreed 3♣ is non-forcing and 3♦ is a game force with club tolerance. 2NT seems to be better, since it shows the diamond stopper(s). But of course that wouldn't be a good bid if you thought 2NT might be the non-forcing negative bid here. I suspect that's the real problem with this auction - N was worried that either 2NT or 3♣ might show a minimum and be non-forcing. Obviously, it was better to make a clearly forcing bid than to make a bid that might be passed. Still, the result of the uncertainty about method was that responder badly misdescribed the hand, suggesting concern about the diamond stopper. Then responder bid 3NT to try to overcome part of the misdescription. The problem with 3NT of course was that it clearly isn't forcing, so although it described the diamond stopper(s) it didn't adequately describe the strength. On the auction so far, North knows that s/he's facing a 3415 hand. I think that opposite that shape, the cards outside diamonds are just a little too good to settle for 3NT, so probably N should bid 4♣ instead, continuing to misdescribe the diamonds, but doing a better job of describing the values. Or 4NT, describing values and diamond stopper(s) and maybe not adequately showing the club support. The main reason for S to act over 3NT is that I think N's auction should show doubt about the diamond stopper, with club tolerance. In that case, 5♣ may easily be a better contract than 3NT. And if N has something like QJxx, xx, Axxx, Kxx, 6♣ is (I think) better than 3NT on the obvious diamond lead. I think I've convinced myself that S should bid, not because the hand is significantly better than a minimum reverse, but because it is unsuitable for 3NT when partner has doubt about diamonds. Of course, I'm basing "doubt about diamonds" on the failure to bid 2NT last time, which was really based on concern that 2NT might not be forcing, so maybe all of this is wrong and failure to discuss reverses in general and this particular awkward auction in particular is the complete "culprit" here with neither player seriously at fault.

At first I thought Opener was more to blame, but I think I've managed to convince myself it's responder, unless the 4♥ bid promised a hand that was always a game force. If responder didn't show more than a very well-fitting limit raise, presumably responder could have something like: Axxx xxxx KJx Qx Of course, that's enough for 5♠ to be pretty safe, but it's not that hard to come up with a hand with 2 Aces that won't have much play for slam. Axxx xxxx Axx Qx OTOH, responder knows s/he has a great hand - no wastage in hearts, first round control of both minors, a game forcing hand where s/he only showed a limit raise. Look at some minimum hands for opener: KQxxx x QJxx Kxx That looks like a DEAD minimum to me (would you force to game opposite a limit raise?) but 5♠ still looks pretty cold. I actually couldn't come up with a hand that would force to game opposite a limit raise where we'd be seriously at risk in 5 if we're off 2 keycards. It would have to start with Qxxxx or Jxxxx of spades I think, and then is there really room for a game force? Qxxxx A QJxxx KJ Maybe you'd force to game with that, but would you splinter? If opener has enough keycards: AKxxx x QJxxx Kxx Slam needs 2-2 trumps. KQxxx A Qxxx Kxx We need trumps to behave, and I don't think that's a hand opener would want to splinter with over 2NT (unless it's mandatory with any hand that wants to bid game over a limit raise). If opener has AKQ or KQJ of spades and enough keycards, can we really be going down in slam? Even AKQxx x Qxxx xxx on which SURELY opener wouldn't make a game forcing splinter over a limit raise, only needs 3-1 spades and the club finesse for slam.

Old women shouldn't play this either! I usually die in about 1 second, and after some effort managed to stay alive for 9.1 seconds :)

I was given this hand by the person who played it :P, so: Dummy actually had the 109 of hearts and declarer the 8, so there were lots of intermediates. The first trick went low heart, 10, x, x. No one has suggested the line taken at the table: After winning the heart ten, play Ace and ruff a diamond (the spots played looked as if the diamonds were 4-3; Chip thought he might get a sense of whether the diamonds split from the spots), then duck a spade. If whoever wins this has the club king, they probably won't lead a club; LHO can't and RHO may not be sure he wants to. Even if they don't have the club king, it's not clear to shift to a club, particularly for LHO, who's leading through dummy's Q9x, and may hope that his trump lead was good, so will often continue them. LHO is slightly more likely to win the spade, since if LHO has the King and RHO the Queen, it's almost certain that RHO will duck. Even if RHO has the spade King and LHO the Queen, there are some hands where RHO might duck (K without the ten for instance - ducking would be right if declarer had Q10). And of course if LHO has both the K an Q (he did lead a trump knowing dummy would have 4 spades), he's sure to win the spade. If the person who wins the spade returns a trump or a diamond, you'll make any time diamonds are 4-3 (ruff out the diamonds, if necessary pull the last trump, use the club A as an entry to cash the good diamond). If RHO wins the spade returns a club, it's probably right to rise A and hope for 2-2 trumps so the second spade ruff can be used as the entry to the good diamonds. Of course if LHO wins the spade and returns a club and it goes Q-K-A, you need diamonds 4-3 and trumps 2-2, but that was always true if the club K was offside.

I agree that it is automatic to pull - Pass just isn't a logical alternative after partner didn't open some number of spades in first seat. I thought the question was whether to bid 5NT or 6♦. After all, partner could be something like 4135 or 4225 for the 5♠ bid and then clubs might play better than diamonds.

Maybe because our "weak" NT is 12-14, we don't like to play that pass forces RDBL. Sometimes 1NTX is the best contract. It's very hard to defend against 1NTx (sometimes you make when you should have been down several), and sometimes 4th hand will run when if you'd started running they would end up doubling you in something at the 2 level). OTOH, we haven't gotten rich from playing 1NTXX, so after playing Gnome's scheme for many years, we changed to a DONT scheme much like MV's, but with Pass being "natural." 1NT - (X) - ? XX: 5 Card suit; puppets 2♣ 2♣: ♣ + Higher suit 2♦: ♦ + Major 2♥: Majors 2♠: Natural, weak 1NT - (X) - XX - (P) 2♣ - (P) - ? Pass: 5+♣ 2♦: 5+♦ 2♥: 5+♥ 2♠: Natural, constructive A more complicated structure might be worth it over a weaker 1NT, but this seems to work fine for us and is easy to remember and to play.

The Laws Commission hears appeals only when it is claimed that a ruling violated the Laws of Bridge. Thus if a director told you that you could not play a 1♠ bid that promised 4 spades & an opening hand, you could appeal to the Laws Commission, because under the Laws the Sponsoring Organization isn't allowed to ban natural bids (the new provision about regulating natural bids applies only to a small subset of natural bids). The GCC is not a part of the Laws. It is the ACBL's regulation of conventional bids. Even if the GCC specifically allowed a 1♦ bid that showed 4 spades and a director ruled that you could not use that method, you could not appeal to the Laws Commission, because no violation of the Laws would have occurred. The Laws Commission receives about 1 appeal per year and rules substantively on far fewer.