rbforster

A police friend in a big city tells me they don't have access to the 911 location stuff even for emergencies(!), but I'm sure whoever lobbied for the new 911 tracking is keeping all the location logs. If you're afraid of your cell phone, remember that any conducting metal sheath/box/etc will block ALL incoming and outgoing signals (see the Wiki for Faraday cage).

I recently learned "Polish MSS" from a friend who was watching some of the Polish experts. It puts all the minor hands into 2♠ pretty effectively, leaving 2NT as a natural invite without revealing opener's hand unnecessarily via Stayman. This is the structure: After 1NT-2♠, opener shows his minor suit preference: 2NT - opener has ♦>♣ (or better ♦ if equal) 3♣ - opener has ♣>♦ (or better ♣ if equal) If responder now bids 3♣ or 3♦ it is to play, either with a weak hand long in that minor, or a weak hand with both minors. I don't know what the experts play as followups, but other bids are various slam tries (3M probably shows shortness, etc). The tradeoff here is that there is still some ambiguity in which minor(s) responder has and also in opener length his preferred minor (3 vs 4+), but these can probably be managed (i.e. maybe Walsh relays for single minor suit slam tries and MSS for both minor slam tries). Certainly the stayman invite with no 4 card major and the various weak minors hands come up a lot more than the various minor slam tries after a strong NT opener, so I think this is likely a good treatment on a probability basis.

I play 10-12 NV and 12+ to 15 when Vul or 4th seat. I like the preemption of weak NT when NV, although I could be convinced to play 10-13 so that 1C is a little sounder when balanced (16+ unbal or 17+ bal instead of any 16+). At Vul, I open any balanced hand I think the field would open (good 12's have a 5 card suit or nice spots, etc). This allows us to pass the bad balanced hands when vulnerable, which seems like a good idea :).

Thanks for the suggestions, Adam. You're right that bidding 2♥ with 5+ and a minimum was definitely an unpleasant choice in my system.

I play a strong club (16+) similar to Free with 1♣-1♦-1♥ artificial and extras (20+). Other rebids by opener besides 1♥ are natural and limited (~16-19), in particular NF. After the 1♥ (extras) - 1♠ (double negative), I just play 2♣ as an artificial GF and everything else natural. Not quite so fancy as Free's methods, but simple.

Thanks for your thoughts Free. I know you play Lorenzo two's so I'm glad to hear from you. As for BSC, etc, I'm in the US and GCC defines "natural" suits as 4+ majors or 3+ minors. So my 5 card majors is GCC as is your suggestion with 2♣ balanced or clubs. I'll probably go with your method, actually - it seems pretty good. My DONT's 2♣ bid or any of the Multi-based bids besides 2♠ are all banned, not even superchart ;). Random 2♣ - wow, 2♣ as your fert... and I thought 1♠ fert was aggressive.

As discussed in this thread on the Olt-Brink system, one feature of their system is that EVERY weak hand must preempt! Your 4333 0-count must find a bid. The method they use is called Lorenzo weak 2's which might have only a 4 card suit and is described by Free here (major bids could have minor suit canape). I'm looking to apply these ideas to a similar constructive pass system. My question is whether anyone has any "safer" suggestions for bidding at the 2 (or 3) level, where you must bid with all hand types. For example, one could use certain 2 bids to show 2-suiters, 3-suiters, or other special hand types. These methods would presumably leads to better fits when they come up, although there might be tradeoffs treating other hand types. I enjoyed reading the discussion here on designing a preempt structure, although of course that focused on only bidding certain distributional hand types rather than bidding all hand types. Frequency isn't an issue here, since all hands must find a bid. Here are a few ideas for comparison: - Longest suit, just bid it all show 4+ (prefer majors to minors and otherwise cheaper of equal lengths) - Lorenzo, like 4 card major openings 2♥/♠ 4+, could have a longer minor, prefer cheaper of equal length majors 2♣/♦ 4+, no 4 card major, prefer cheaper of equal length minors - modified DONT 2♣ = 1 suiter, may be 4333 (2♦ asks) 2♦/♥/♠ shows 44+ in the suit bid and a higher suit (possibly clubs) - 5 card majors 2♥/♠ promises 5+ 2♣/♦ promises 3+ I was intrigued by the use of 2♥ Multi (a single suiter in either major), but I'm not sure how that would fit in to a comprehensive system. Maybe something like this? 2♣ single suiter in a minor 2♦ 2 or 3 suiter without spades 2♥ single suiter in a major 2♠ 2 or 3 suiter with spades I'm sure some of these are better than others, and there are probably other good ideas I overlooked. Any other thoughts or suggestions?

Another quick followup question on interpreting the above rule. The ACBL charts specifically separates bidding restrictions into "openings", "responses and rebids", and "competitive" categories. This suggests to me that the restriction above on "no conventional responses or rebids" applies only to non-competitive auctions. In competitive auctions, we are clearly not allowed to play a conventional defense to conventional competition. However, it seems like we might be allowed to play a conventional defense to natural competitive actions by the opponents. In particular, it would be nice to have 2♥-X-XX as something special (rescue, 2 places to play maybe?) after a natural double. Similarly, perhaps we would have a special meaning to cuebidding an overcalled suit, 2♥-(2♠)-3♠. I got the impression from talking to some long time players that this rule usually was interpreted to forbid any conventional bids at all, in any auction, competitive or otherwise. Upon reading the rules carefully, I am less sure. Any thoughts on this, either in practice or otherwise? Thanks!

Pass and X. I prefer X to 4♥ on the second one since my hearts are poor. Partner might not even have 2! Even if partner bids 4♠ with 4, my spades are good for playing the 4-3 fit, and I can take on ♦ ruff in the short hand to help with control.

I'll defend, leading a low diamond from South. - If declarer rises with the K♦, defense will continue diamonds after winning both the AQ♠s. On the third dimond round, declarer's second ruff will promote a spade winner in South and that spade winner plus the last good diamond will set the contract. - If declarer inserts the T♦, the jack wins and returns a diamond. Declarer must ruff in the face of two trump losers, and when South wins a trump and continues the A♦, the second diamond tap of declarer promotes a trump trick. Score one up for underleading aces ;).

Thanks Gerben. At first glance, it looks like they play this in 3rd seat: 1X - natural and forcing 1NT - 8-11 to play 2X - weak 2NT - GF higher - to play As for HUMs, regulations, etc, I was interested to find that this constructive pass is probably also GCC legal. There will be some restrictions on conventions after the Lozeno 2 bids and also after the 3rd seat very weak 1NT bid. Still, you are very free to play all sorts of crazy methods with decent hands since almost any conventional opening or response is allowed when it shows GF values. Most people aren't expecting the passed hand to GF when it's got 11-12 instead of 9-10, but that's how it is.

I was amused to read this brief writeup of the Oltmans-Brink system on Gerben's system page. In particular, in these methods ALL very weak hands, 0-7 HCPs, preempt a weak 2 bid promising only a 4 card suit. Pass is about 8-12 points and with better hands they open using a strong club system. I was wondering if anyone knew any more about this system, and what methods it might makes sense to play in 3rd seat after P-P-?. It seems all sorts of weird things are possible in light of partner's "constructive" pass, for example - - many decent hands could just bid 3NT to play (maybe allowing for a long major transfer by the PH) - you could open 1NT 3rd seat mostly on the strength of your passed partner, say 8-10 HCPs - you could open 1C strong GF with 16+ or so, and not have any pesky negative bids to worry about These are just a few ideas. Sure it probably sucks to have to bid weak 2's like this, but the negative inferences when you don't seem like they could make for very constructive auctions. Any thoughts or other ideas about this system?

I played a similar club system before moving on to a version of relay precision. We also accepted the transfer only with a fit (or an independent single suiter), and played that 2NT was asking for shape. Responses were natural - side suits or extra length. Jumps might be splinters in support of the transferred suit. After 1C-1D(negative 0-7)-1H(artificial, 20+), we also played transfer semipositives starting with 1NT through 2S (1S was double negative 0-4). Bidding 2NT in response to any of these semipositive responses asked for shape, with 4 card majors or 5+ card minors shown naturally.

You might play transfers to the majors over 3NT there, which should get in the 5 card suits. Not sure about the best use for 4C by a bust hand. You might benefit from switching 2H and 2S responses, which are then basically suggesting opener complete the transfer: 2H - spade positive, good suit 2S - balanced positive No need to wrongside the spade suit.

Nice problem. Many folks at my bridge club where I brought it were also in the "declare 3NT" camp initially. In the variation of the declarer play I followed, the KC lead is won, two spades played and ducked by the defenese, and then hearts are run. [hv=n=shdkxc76x&w=shdajtc98&e=sahdxcqjx&s=sq9hdxxct]399|300|[/hv] At the 5 card ending you get a clear opportunity to squeeze the dummy by East. Trapped on dummy after the run of the hearts, declarer exits a club. East wins and cashs the AS to set up his long club or partner's diamond suit. Note that it's important for the defense in this declarer's line for East to unblock the Q♦. Otherwise in the above position, dummy exits a low diamond and West cannot afford to overtake. Without communication, the clubs eventually provide an extra trick with East stuck on lead.

I agree. 4NT is quantative with 5 spades in all my partnerships, but this may depend on your other choice of NT conventions (Texas, etc). 7♠ is ridiculous - he got mad at you because you get to make the 6♠ bid instead of him?! What did he think, that you found an extra ace hiding in your 15-17 NT opener?

Any chance you'll share a few hints with us on your bidding ideas? A year or two is a long time to wait :)

It seems to me that a 1♦-1♥ psych response under Meckwell should be illegal (not to say that they don't get away with it). If 1♥ promises normal values (say 5+ HCPs) but only 3+♥s , then 1♥ is not a natural bid and instead a convention since ACBL defines "natural" as 4+ cards for majors. Even ACBL Superchart forbids psyching weak conventional responses - * - GCC only allows a conventional 1♦-1♥ response if it promises game forcing values.

Maybe you mean relays, rather than transfers? Most of the suits have already been bid, afterall. As for a "transfer" type relay system instead of the XYZ relays, I'm not sure I see the advantage. Maybe with transfers you can contrive to get 2/3NT played by partner if you want to, but it seems that might be a decision best left to partner's discretion. Oh, and in your example, what if I want to naturally raise partner to 2♠? Do I have to bid 2♣ to get there, allowing the opponents a chance to double it to suggest competiting in clubs?

Just because a certain situation is "safer" to psych in doesn't seem to cause a problem IMO. Depending on your methods, a weak limited partner such as a 10-12 NT opener, a weak 2 bid, etc, are all pretty safe places to psych, mainly because responder is captain. It doesn't seem like anyone considers methods where partner shows a weak limited hand a psychic control... like you say, experts know to use and know to expect psychs in these situations. If you play different but legal methods, such situations will arise in other contexts. If your opponents don't know know your methods well, they will be at a disadvantage certainly, but it's not your fault they didn't prepare for your legal alternative system. They will probably be at a much bigger disadvantage in terms of not gathering the right negative inferences from your auctions too, but that's not your problem if they don't bother to ask. I'm not sure why the directors, etc, would need to judge how protected your psych was. As long as there's no checkback inquiring about a psych and partner bids as expected under your methods, I don't see a problem in terms of psychic controls. The only problem situations I see are when your psych either: (1) becomes common enough it's an agreement, or (2) that agreement is not allowed. Your example of 1♥ response, natural or any GF, as you say is specifically not allowed in most ACBL events. If someone used this "psych" against me I would report them for playing an undisclosed and illegal relay system and see where that got me. I think that psychs that would constitute illegal agreements ought to be banned*. Otherwise, what's the point in the rule forbidding the agreement in question? (* - I have no idea if this is actually the case in practice, however) In a similar example, I wanted to play a 2NT response to a limited 1M as any strong jump shift hand, after which partner bids 3♣ asking for further description and I show my suit, support if any, etc. An obvious additional use would be a weak signoff in clubs, and since partner is going to bid 3♣ anyway. On one hand, GCC requires conventional responses to guarantee GF or better values so I couldn't have this additional weak club agreement. On the other hand, GCC specifically allows psyching conventional responses of 2NT or higher, so it seems I would be allowed to "psych" this bid with clubs, just not too often that it was an agreement. When I asked someone on my local appeals committee he thought about making the 2NT psych with weak ♣s, he said it would probably be ruled an illegal pyschic control if it came up and we would not like the subsequent ruling. Just one more opinion.

The advantage of "normally" tipping to the customer is that there's a larger portion of the serviceperson's wage riding on providing good service to you during your current visit. This means that the serviceperson will try to be prompt, courteous, etc, and will correspondingly get their expected 15-20% tip. As long as everyone understands that 15% is expected for decent service, there's no problem. The big advantage is that when the serviceperson is feeling lazy, annoyed, etc, as we all do at times, in the US they have a significant incentive to not allow these feelings to interfere with the service they provide lest they get poor tips. If their 15% tip is required and included in the bill, you will get poor service and still be obligated to pay full price for it. The feedback loop for poor service under this model is very slow and indirect, and in many European countries I imagine it would be quite difficult to get fired for providing mediocre service. I spent a year or two on and off all over Europe and I found the waiter/waitress service in particular was considerably worse than in the US. It was hard to get the bill when I was ready to leave, etc. This was in "nicer" restuarants, not McDonalds.

I had thought about the issues of ruffs when preempter is 1-2 in the minors, but forgot to include it in my numbers above (it's updated now). If you assume declarer plays a second round of a random minor, the squeeze line will only make in 50% of the 37(12) cases. This makes the two lines very close, 65% vs 70%. My hat's off to the defender holding xxx KQJxxxx x Jx and falsecards the J♣ on the first round of clubs thereby getting his ruff when declarer tries a second round of diamonds rather than clubs (in light of the jack appearing) when returning to his hand to draw trump.

Well I guess I'm glad I got the winning line at the table, but I actually think the minor squeeze line is better on average. I ran some numbers assuming any 7♥ suit in the preempting hand. If there's a bad ♠ break (1-4 or 4-1), the contract is usually going down regardless, although there are a few times when preempter has stiff T♠ that both lines can recover, ruffing 2♥s and hoping for 3-3♣s or the J♣ dropping doubleton. In the remaining cases, the likely ones are shown below: LHO RHO prob rel. my line squeeze notes 2-7-2-2 3-2-4-4 0.78% 35% 100.0% 100.0% JC onside or dropping 2-7-1-3 3-2-5-3 0.42% 19% 50.0% 100.0% mine needs JC showing up on 3rd round 2-7-3-1 3-2-3-5 0.42% 19% 100.0% 16.7% squeeze needs JC dropping 3-7-2-1 2-2-4-5 0.31% 14% 16.7% 50.0% mine needs JC dropping from LHO, squeeze must guess right which minor to play twice 3-7-1-2 2-2-5-4 0.31% 14% 0.0% 50.0% my line gets ruffed by preempter, squeeze must guess right which minor to play twice "Rel" refers to the relative probability of a given shape among those listed above. The last numbers refer to the fraction of times my line or the squeeze line work for a given distribution, usually depending on the chance of something good happening in clubs. Adding up the numbers, my lines only works about 65% of the time in the above cases, whereas the squeeze works in about 70% of these cases. Both lines are the same on the remaining less likely distributions (those with a void in preempting hand). As you can see, picking up 3-3 ♦s on my line is not sufficient compensation for giving up on 3-3 ♣s and risking a ruff by preempter when they have the last spade. Still the risk of getting ruffed when preempter has 3 trump along the squeeze line makes this risky too. Edit: fixed some more numbers.

I'm not sure it's the best, but here's my line - Win A♥. Cash AQ♠ in hand. Cash AK♣. Assuming the J♣ hasn't appeared, let the T♣ ride. Ruff ♥ low to hand, cash the Q♣ pitching the losing diamond. ♦ to board, ruff a ♥ high. Now a ♦ to hand to draw the last trump and claim. Things are easier if the J♣ drops from the preempter since you can then proceed directly to ruff your ♥s, draw trump, and still overtake the T♣ to hand for the last 2 ♣ tricks. This needs the non-preempting hand to be 3-2-?-4+ shape, with the J♣ in the long ♣ hand, or dropping singleton or doubleton in the preempting hand. If so, you can make by scoring 6♠ (w/ 2 ♥ ruffs), 1♥, 2♦, and 4♣ for 13 tricks. Entries are a little tricky, and you don't want to give RHO a chance to pitch a ♣ from exactly 4 on the 3rd round of hearts prematurely.

I suppose there are a couple of alternative possible auctions besides bidding 4 or 5♦s to show diamonds. 3♠-X-P-(not P)-P-5♦ 3♠-4♠ I'm not sure how these sequences are usually treated, but I would guess the first shows a bigger ♦ hand than 5♦ directly, and I'd guess 4♠ is a strong 2-suiter with ♥s (since 4NT is available for minors).