shevek

I think ITO originally didn't stasnd for anything, just making MOSC into a word. The system could then be called "The system with bite" Adter system restirctions, Marston jokingly said ITO stood for "is that allowed"? In US, we played 1NT as any 12-14 bal including 5cM. Full relay over that. 1♦ was Precision style, meaning diamonds or 10-11 bal. In theory that could include 5cM but we never did that, partly through legal concerns. 1♥ & 1♠ denied 4 OM, always unbalanced. Worked okay for 2 goes at Fall Nats.

Of course it's RubEnsohl, named for Jeff Rubens, not Ira Rubin! Rubens introduced transfer advances to overcalls, then Australian Bruce Neill extended this to his modification of Lebensohl. Of course, there was no Lebensohl person, though there is Ken Lebensold, who is - however - not the inventor of anything. I think George Boehm wrote the original Lebensohl article. Next month ... Cappelletti

Pass seems clear at the vul & scoring. In my view, partner shouldn't have the hand that is looking for +800 instead of +430. With ♠Kxxx ♥AJx ♦Kx ♣KT8x Sure you will get +800 but that is unusual. Better to bid 3NT with that, rather than have a style that obliges opener to reopen on nearly all hands. You will miss out on the occasional +300 when responder has a balanced 11-count. The case for a reopening is greater nv vs vul, or at matchpoints.

I've always liked to bid (1♣) 2♣ as natural, even vs Acol where 1♣ is rarely three. However, most partners have vetoed that extent, insisting on Michaels vs most. There comes a point where 2♣ natural seems more attractive than Michaels. Where is that point? (As a side issue, should the same principles apply to (1♣) - 2NT and (1♣) - no - (1M) - 2♣?) Where do you draw the line? In order of likelihood of shortish clubs: 1) vs 4-cd Acol Some never open 1♣ with 3, others maybe 15-19 bal and 4M333. 2) vs 5-cd Acol (KS) 1♣ is 3 if bal 15-19 ond 4-4-2-3 or 4M-333. 3) vs Standard, better minor 1♣ is 3 if bal 12-14/18-19 ond 4-4-2-3 or 4M-333. 4) vs Standard with "short club" with 1♦ = 4+ As above plus 1♣ on 2 with 4-4-3-2. (In Australia, these people are required to alert 1♣, a hangover from the days when bidding a 2+ suit was defined by the Laws as conventional) 5) vs people who play 5-cd Standard with "transfer Walsh" Some of these open 1D as 5+ or unbalanced. Additionally to (4) they would open 1♣ with (nearly) all the 4432s & 4333s. Their 1♣ becomes similar to a 1970s Precision 1♦ (those who open 2♦ on shortage, etc) If you play (1♦) 2♦ as natural vs most Precision pairs, it seems to be that you should do the same vs Transfer Walsh 1♣. 6) Forcing club systems, where 1♣ = 0+ Where to draw the line? a) Under 4. Shortish clubs are still rare for (1-4) b) Under 3. Natural vs 2+ 1♣ as a simple rule. c) Under 1. Like (b) but why change your approach just because of the way they hand one rare hand, 4-4-3-2? d) Above 1. Maybe not sensible but simple. Sat you choose (b). Do you follow the same principle for (1♣) - 2NT?

Sorry eveyone. Opener actually rebid 1NT.

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=saqhk92dk8543ca85&e=s95hqjt43dj7cqjt7]266|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ - (no) - 1♦ - (1♠) 1NT - (3♠) - x - (no) 3NT //[/hv] 1♣ 16+, 1♦ 0-7, X tko Sorry everyone. Club finesse failed so 3NT was -50. However, ♦A was onside so 4♥ is +420. 3♠x is +300.

If you want to relay, play relay. Over everything, early and often. You'll soon develop a feel. Then you'll agonise over a lost step, spend some time ensuring all balanced hands come out by 3D, leaving room to nail down strength & locate honours. That's what the 4 & 5 levels are for.

I like double as takeout of the suit they have shown. This has two big advantages. 1) It's safer, so you can be a bit frisky 2) You get two shots, so double twice with extras. Vs transfers over 1NT: 1NT - no - 2♦ - ? X = tko of hearts, could be 4-1-4-4 10-count. 2♥ = Michaels Similar over 1-level transfers, except that bidding their 4+ suit at the 1-level should be natural: 1♣ - no - 1♦* - ? ♠A63 ♥AQT43 ♦6 ♣J743 is an easy 1♥ overcall.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sakhaqt5dq54caj73]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ 1♦ - x - 3♦ - ?[/hv] 1♣ 16+, x = 5-8 any (others GF) I guess your choices are 1. Pass if it's forcing 2. Pass whether it's forcing or not (I think not) 3. X 4. 3NT 5. 3♥ 6. Change system so that semis describe here and GF hands X 1♦. PS. In my view, there is too much on theory in this group and not enough on judgement. Feel free to flame on that.

It's been a while since the soundness of strong pass methods has been tested in top flight competition. Until that happens again - that may be never - there's not much to say. In the 80s, strong pass methods had some success in international events. The antagonists tended to suggest that this was due to surprise, catching opponents unprepared. They may well be right in part. Since then, strong pass has died a slow, unnatural death due to regulators, fashion & the increasing average age of players. Some critics suggest that strong pass would not make a comeback on merit, because the method has been found to be unsound when confronted by a coherent defence. I'm not so sure. As someone who has continued to play strong pass in national events in Australia, I'm confident that our current methods and judgement are much better than those of 20 years ago. Here's a question. World-wide, how many pairs play strong pass in serious national events? Very few. Having fun on BBO, at home or at your club's youth night doesn't cut it.

If I chose 2♦, then probably gamble 3NT over 3♦. While it's true partner might have a stiff club for -50 with 6♦ cold, the alternative of 3♠ - 4♦ (with ♣Qx or xxx) is likely to send us minus. Not sure. Anyway, a big issue with 2/1 is the need to make early decisions. 1NT is clear enough with your hand but what about this: ♠53 ♥AQ765 ♦KQ87 ♣74 1♠ - ? A decent guideline is to bid 2/1 on a hand you would open. This is a 1♥ opening so 2♥ now. That could lead to a silly 3NT but 1♠ 1N 2♠/♣ ? is no fun either.

I think your example hand is unlikely. For one thing, I would have doubled 2♦ as takeout of spades first time. Secondly, if I pass 2♦ and 2♥ cames back to me, they must have a better spot, given partner's failure to make a tko double of 2♥ p/c. An action-style double makes more sense, hoping the hand is a misfit. Even so, some of these hands would bid 2NT first time. Maybe these hands are too rare and delayed double as limited tko is more useful, as in ACBL simple defence.

What we do is not so common but has worked okay so far. We play: (2♦) X = tko of spades 2♥ = tko of hearts. We like to make our takeouts early, to avoid being preempted. Yes we lose a 2♥ overcall. Anyway, bear with it. Given that method, what does this mean: (2♦) No (2♥) no (no) X ? Is it weak tko or wanting to defend? ♠K654 ♥54 ♦AQ73 ♣JT2 ? Or ♠J76 ♥AJ4 ♦KQT5 ♣AT8 ? (because all tko hands act first time) PS. What would a delayed 2NT be?

Perhaps minor but your 2♠ 2NT 4♣ won't get you to 3NT when responder has ♠Jx ♥xx ♦Ax ♣AKQJxxx

Lebensohl - 5, hangover from when X was penalty. Transfers better Ogust - 4, I never admit to a bad suit Sandwich 1N - hangover from when opener had 13+ and responder 6+ Cappelletti - 6, okay but prefer Multi. DONT - 4, good way to miss fits, prefer X = pen Gambling 3N - 6, wrong-siding but seems to do okay Smolen Transfers - 5, rare Texas Transfers - 6, okay I guess Namyats - 3, 4C/D natural are favourites, big earners

I think your method is pretty good. There are some hands that escape complete resolution, this is one. Note that the same hand with ♦AQx instead is nearly 3 times as common so East might bash 7♦. It would be good if West's shape & strength came out a few steps lower.

We play suit transfers after they overcall 1♥/♠ or 2♥/♠, whatever the meaning. Notrumps are natural. As a corollary, double is never 1-suited, so After 1♣ (1♠ naturalish) X unlimited tko but not 1-suited, ELC applies 1N 5-8 bal & stopper 2♣ 5+ ♦s 2♦ 5+ ♥s 2♥ bal GF, no stopper 2♠ 5+ ♣s 2N bal GF & stopper 3♣ & higher can be specific 2-suiters if you wish ♠Ax ♥Jxxx ♦Qxxxx ♣xx can double 1♠ planning 2♦ non-forcing over 2♣ to show this.

Has this been dealt with in the forum? What sort of deficit is regarded as virtually ungettable? Is there a "recommended" formula based on margin & number of boards? 10 IMPs over 1 board is clearly worth a go, not 100 over 10, etc. I've been in teams 90 IMPs down with 16 to go. The feeling is not good, with patronising looks from the other team. Simple enough if it's a final but semis are different. Those in the other match may not take kindly to you giving your opponents the night off while they hack away. If you accept that, there is a case for never conceding, even if it means you get branded obstinate, mean, selfish.

why would anyone think about leading a singleton against grand, especially when they have solid trumps? n.b. it's pretty hard to work out what he was thinking of anyway, but still... North might have been concerned about this layout[hv=d=e&v=n&n=st984hq864dj5ct87&w=skqj653hk7datck95&e=sa72hat53dk74ca64&s=shj92dq98632cqj32]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] He can place EW with six trump tricks (supposedly) & 3 AKs. Now it takes a club lead to stop the Type B2 double. This specific layout is less likely than something like the actual but it seemed to me that's probably what he was thinking about, especially when he turned up with a 100% safe trump lead and ♦Jx. Clearly if he had the same with ♣Qxx, the trump lead would have come much faster.

Yes, North pitches a club on ♦A while South plays his last, so they were 2-5. So North has 3 or 4 clubs therefore play him for queen. On the other hand, ♥Q is more llikely with North by restricted choice, so 3-3 clubs becomes more likely. Another factor is the time North took to find the opening lead. With ♠T984 ♥xxx ♦Jx ♣Qxxx You may think a trump would have come out faster. You may even infer that North was thinking of a club from 4 small, perhaps to break up a squeeze.

If you do that they both follow all the way. North (the leader, East in your layout) plays ♦J on the second round. South plays ♥J on third round

[hv=d=e&v=n&w=skq653hk7dat6ck95&e=sajhat53dkq7cajt4]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] We have this old Acol auction to 7♠/W --- 1♥ 2♠ 3♠ 3N 4♣ 4♦ 4N 5♠ 5N 6♣ 6♦ 6♥ 7♠ Yes, West is a point or a spade short for 2♠ in this style. Anyway, North thinks for a full minute and leads ♠8. You play dummy's two trumps, cross to ♥K and lead ♠K, pitching ♣10. North had ♠T984, South pitches a discouraging diamond on the third trump. It's 11 IMPs in or out so take your time.

You should not make illegal rulings because you are under time pressure, and throwing the board out is illegal. What you should do is get rid of the time pressure. You score up, announce the result as "subject to ruling", and then you have a week to make your ruling - assuming this was a club event. You can then phone someone else for help [me, if you do not mind paying international call rates!] and take your time. Thx David, Then you said "You should never be giving an immediate ruling in a judgement case. You seem to think an immediate ruling was necessary: it is not, it is poor directing [sorry sad.gif ]. The correct procedure with a judgement ruling always is to put the table score in as the score and adjust later if you make an adjustment. " Okay I get that now. However, I didn't want to make the final round draw (due in 2 minutes) based on the table result, which I was pretty sure I wouldn't let stand. That would swing 4 VPs. Can I make a ruling of say EW 3H -100, draw based on that, then change that later? Nick

I am suitably chastised and knew it was coming. At the time I was only vaguely aware that cancelling the board was not an option. I think I (& others) do this through lack of guts, not wanting to be harangued following a more decisive ruling. Anyway as Blackshoe said, this is what we are paid for. The call came at a bad time. End of round 6, 19 tables, collecting old boards and distributing new ones as the pile of datum sheets on the desk grows. Things were under control but I felt I didn't have time to make a good bridge judgement. No excuses. In retrospect, I think it was okay to rule "no score" for the purpose of the draw, coming back with a revised ruling while they were playing the last round. (7 x 8 bds, 1 day event) I think North's 4♦ is acceptable on the info he had. Most of the time East will just bid 4♥ at the vul, when NS could have -300 in 5♦ or 4♠. Only at these colours though. IF you accept that, NS +200 vs 4♥ for both looks plausible. It looks like I didn't have the guts to rule that way (Take away their 800 and hit them with -200 to boot) Tyler said "4♦ has basically no chance to make" but that is not the intent. Also "West has no reason to pull 3NT" but West thought she was facing 3-card support. While 3NT can be made, it is not easy and few managed it. "An offer to leave the table was apprpriate" This is what players tend to do. Admittedly they should call the director, explain the situation and he might send them away. Players take this role themselves, I do it myself as a player. I think it's clear that North would have passed 3♥ if told that X was a strong notrump. I made a bridge judgement on the merit of 4♦ given the MI. If you consider it meritless, then is -800 NS, -200 EW appropriate? Nick

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=saj643hkdat863c76&w=st85haq9763dqj5c8&e=skq9hjdk972cakt94&s=s72ht8542d4cqj532]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♣ no 1♥ 1♠ X no 3♥ 4♦ X 4♠ no no X no 4♠x went for -800. North (an international) called and admitted he was not proud of 4♦. However, West had explained East's first double as support - 3 trumps. This combined with the vul and the jump to 3♥ convinced North that 4♦ was safe enough. He'd have been +8 IMPs if South had something like ♠xx ♥xxx ♦KQxxx ♣xxx admittedly specific cards. East-West were good players with minimal partnership experience. Clearly West should not have said "support" with such confidence. An offer to lead the table was appropriate. East was thinking "balanced-ish extras" in Acol-style. No screens. With East as North's screenmate, EW might well end -500 in 4♥x, though they make 3NT. I was under time pressure (entering scores from datum sheets) with nobody to refer to. Small likelihood of an appeal. Anyway, I just threw the board out, though that looks too generous to North's carefree action. What do people think?