BillHiggin

This may be IE specific (I do not know), but if you hold your pointer over the "Clickable Smilies" a message of the form 'javascript:emoticon(":)")' may show in the status bar (left side in IE). The characters in the quotes (which will probably get converted when I post this) are the shortcut for that emoticon. If you click the "Show All" at the bottom of that box, you get a list with the codes shown.

If you are worried about the 5 key card problem (the rest of us are not), then just think of the last two steps as 2/5 without Q and 2/5 with Q. Of course, it will always be 2 and never 5, but at least everything else is undamaged.

I know of a person who offers free lessons in which he preaches (to B/I students) that any hand with AKQ in one suit is an opening bid. I do not intend to imply that his teachings are wrong (I do not intend to judge his teaching at all). But he does run these classes quite often (on multiple sites - not just BBO, it is possible that he only uses different sites in a serial manner), and there are a significant number of "graduates" from his classes here (most of whom we would likely consider to still be B/I) who tend to believe that what they have heard from him is of gospel quality. Certainly, this comment would be quite consistent with these lessons.

14-16 is a popular range with systems based on transfer walsh (see http://sieged.blogspot.com/ ). In those systems, the opening bid with balanced hands that are weaker or stronger than the 1N range (but not worth 2♣ or 2N) are opened 1♣. On good days, responder transfers to a major. Then opener either makes a simple acceptance with a balanced hand that is weaker than the 1N range or rebids 1N with a balanced hand that is stronger (both assuming less than a 4 card fit for the transfer suit). Two way checkback systems apply over either of the balanced rebids. They gain significantly with that 1N rebid when the rest of the world must jump to 2N (burning a whole level). By slightly weakening the 1N opening range, that stronger range becomes 17-19 which happens a lot more than 18-19 (and they can keep a 3 point range for the weak NT type hand and open all 11 balanced hands).

There are social bridge clubs already. Since they are not sanctioned so they play according to the rules as they like them. Once a club becomes sanctioned, they need to observe the real rules. If they play by some watered down version at the club level, then they will not be ready for the bigger tournaments. We already see this with regard to things like UI from tempo (inexperienced players think they are being accused of cheating).

If (and that is a big if) you want the two way type of agreement for a double jump shift, then it may be useful to look at turbo. I find it almost criminal to make a splinter bid and then take control over partner's signoff (here is information about my hand that may help you evaluate yours, but I will ignore your evaluation!). With turbo, responder can show the "really big splinter" over the signoff by bidding 4N with an even number of key cards (kickback turbo is useful when the splinter is in response to 1♥ - but not critical) or cue bid with an odd number. At least you are not excluding partner from the discussion. Having said "this might help if you want ...", in reality I do not like the split range treatment at all.

I will vote for the Ambra definition - 5♠-5♦ A jump to 3♦ without going thru the 2♣ relay is used for 4♠-6♦ invitational. A fairly simple rule is "always go thru xyz with exactly 5 cards in first suit". There is no actual standard here - some play the non xyz jump as game forcing 5-5 and some reverse the meanings that I mentioned. The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!

Turbo is intended for use in mixed cue bid auctions. When your cue bids show either first or second round control, there is a need to check on that aces thingy since you may have control in each suit but be off way too many aces (since one is the normal limit for slam purposes). The Italian systems include an assortment of relay methods for pure captaincy situations and I believe that turbo would not apply unless they started cue bidding in those. Oversimplified comparison assuming major suit agreement with GF established at 3M: Aces first cue-bidding without blackwood - 4 level establishes first round control, 5 level establishes 2nd round controls (weakness - you get too high with a completely open side suit). Mixed cue-bidding with RKC blackwood - 4 level establishes no 2 loser side suits, 5 level determines aces and trump quality (weakness - exposes weak side suits, limits grand slam exploration to 6 level). Mixed cue-bidding with turbo - 4 level establishes no 2 loser side suits, 5 level determined aces and begins grand slam exploration (weakness - exposes weak side suits, increased ambiguity about aces especially when partnership total shows an even number missing, trump queen not established before commiting to small slam). Of course, system may eliminate or minimize some or all of the weaknesses in the priliminary auction. With minor suit agreement, a partnership usually devotes the 3 level to investigation of 3N as a final contract. This leaves just the 4 level to answer control issues. Turbo and mixed cue-bidding do that better than most other methods (still with the problem of determining whether there are 0 or 2 missing key cards).

Turbo for minors: Most documentation on turbo does not mention use with minor suit agreement. It is mentioned in the Ambra documentation. 4N does not work when a minor is agreed (if clubs, then 5C would be either odd number of key cards or a suit has been proven to have two losers and there is no way to clear that ambiguity). Instead, 4m is the turbo bid. This can be quite useful (as compared to minorwood or kickback) in cases where minor suit agreement and a game force have been established at the three level (does not help when agreement comes at the 4 level).

IMHO (which may be considered worthless!) it may be useful to pin 3N as always none or equal and then work either hi, lo, mid or lo, hi, mid (no real opinion on that) around 3N.

I bid game with pard's hand, and reject a trial with the flat hand. I reject because pard cannot have the 5 loser hand he actually held - he would bid the game rather than invite it. (I absolutely loathe 4-3-3-3)

If you feel the need for a top (ave+ is not enough), then much better to lead spades! If you blatantly go after the heart trick, even fairly weak players will find the spade shift. If you attack spades then either you run directly into the buzz saw (and get your well deserved bottom) or they are likely to persist in attacking hearts. Attacking your own vulnerability can work if only done occasionally (do it too often and the opps will catch on to you). This is NOT the time that I would try it.

The forbidden topics are politics and religion. Silly talk of food is not the problem (it may be to some - but it is not what generates the threats). On good days someone will announce the "no politics or religion" immediately when it pops up. Any ethnic based comments should be avoided - BBO has no borders.

I have studied the issue of support with a side suit as a source of tricks quite extensively (does not imply that I now know a lot!). The ambiguity between true raises (ignoring the 3/4 card support part at least for now) and balanced GF hands with modest support is indeed a true issue for most systems. The Italian methods from Ambra come closest to dealing directly with that. They use a 2♣ response as either a natural (maybe just invitational in Ambra) bid or some balanced GF (even with just 2 clubs). They have a relay structure over that bid, but responder may break the relay to show: 1) Invitational club hand (usually 3♣) 2) GF club hand (usually 3♦) 3) GF raise with clubs as a source of tricks (usually 3M) Perhaps the most troubling hand to respond with is one with spades as a source of tricks, GF values and heart support (over a 1♥ opening). Since 1♠ neither establishes the GF nor shows the support, there are opener rebids (3♥ is the most troubling) that leave responder in an awkward position. I strongly believe that a 2♠ response to 1♥ should at least include that possibility (a full Soloway jump shift does that) even if other responder jumps have differing agreements.

When I started at the University of Washington (a loooong time ago), my randomly assigned dorm roomie needed a fourth for bridge with two of his buddies. They asked me to learn the game. I complied and began reading all I could on bridge. As a complete novice, I was very nervous playing with them (will they notice my mistakes?). Noticing the nervousness, roomie suggested that cigaretts would help calm me. Unfortunately, I listened. By the end of my freshman year, I had caught up to all of them at the bridge table (and smoked more than any of them). Shall we attribute that to the smoking or the study?

If the hand were a little more exciting, I might have tried a preemptive 5♦ over 3♠. In no case would I pass and then save (I am not the diety Barry Crane referred to). This hand is NOT exciting. Saving is simply granting the opps a sure plus score (and possibly a big one).

6♣ but not because we worry about 3N being the spot! 6♣ because it rates to make opposite any reasonable (even light) overcalling hand.

RESPONSES AND LATER BIDDING AFTER A 1♥ OR A 1♠ OPENING 1♥ and 1♠ openings show a five-card or longer suit. Responses: 1 ♥ — 1♠ = at least four spades, 6 or more points. Tends to deny a heart fit. — 1NT = 6–10 points, denies four spades or three hearts. NOT forcing. — 2♣, 2♦ = 11 points or more, promises at least four of the suit. — 2♥ = three-card or longer heart support; 6–10 dummy points. — 2NT = Game-forcing raise (Jacoby 2NT), 13+ dummy points. Asks opener to show a short suit to help responder evaluate slam prospects. — 2♠, 3♣, 3♦ = strong jump shifts. Invites a slam. — 3♥ = limit raise (10–12 dummy points with three or more hearts). — 3NT = 15–17 HCP, balanced hand with two-card support for partner. — 4♥ = usually five+ hearts, a singleton or void, and fewer than 10 HCP. Copied directly from the SAYC booklet! 2N is indeed Jacoby 2N

How to: In FD editor, select your 1♣ opening and then enable competetive bidding. [edited - I got lost on transcribing actions ;) ] Enter the opps 2♣ bid. In the qualify box under the description box enter "both majors". Define your responders bids over that. Go back to the opps 2♣ bid and redefine that a natural bid with "natural" in the qualify box. Define your responders bids over that. If you examine the file using notepad, it will look like: *00{sample}=NYYYYYY 001C2C{both majors}=NYYYYYY000Michaels 001C2C{both majors}2H=NYYYYYY008good !C raise 001C2C{natural}=NYYYYYY000Natural 001C2C{natural}2H=NYYYYYY008Natural

I saw the actual newspaper (Everett Herald is a daily paper, but overshadowed by the Seattle dailies). That story ran on the front page!

It is better. Of course the tables i kibitzed to check this out tried their darndest to not bid any red suits :P Good luck in San Fran!

I could be mistaken, but I believe that the USBF actions have been somewhat forced by absurd pressure from virtually a single ACBL board member who is playing the funding trump card. IMHO, the USBF seems to have worked hard to defuse the situation but has had its hand forced. I certainly might be wrong. Politics often implies governmental issues, but it is also a big factor in organizations.

I certainly have thought that transfer to minor then bid major was near universal for slam try with shortness in the major. I like (but am not about to assume this) Transfer to ♣ then bid 3♦ as long either minor and shortness in the other (since transfer to diamonds precludes showing club shortness) Then 3♥ asks and 3♠ shows long ♣ while 3N (or higher) shows long ♦ How common is that treatment?

Why shouldn't one follow with 9 but rather the 10? What is the pros and cons for following high or low? It is all to easy for responses here to forget that this is B/I discussion The default agreement is to follow suit with the lowest card in a sequence but to lead the highest card. Fancy agreements should wait for a time when you are absolutely certain that B/I no longer applies (and then only in an established partnership).

Foolish me, as West I would bid 5♠ asking for diamond control. I may need more than that, but that would fall under the "preempts work" category.