BillHiggin

Perhaps it will be better to rephrase my last statement: This agreement is not intended to be optimal (and almost certainly is not), it is intended that it be clear exactly what the agreement is.

I favor similar agreements (Kickback RKC when hearts agreed, Frivolous 3N with kickback when hearts agreed). I have default rules for these: 1) Kickback RKC when hearts agreed applies when hearts have been explicitly agreed and spades is not a logical alternative trump. If spades is a logical alternative (either partner has previously made a natural spade bid) then 4N is RKC (still 0314 - no 1430 ever). 2) Similar for Kickback Frivolous 3N - only applies when hearts have been explicitly agreed and spades have not been bid naturally by either partner. If spades are a logical alternative trump suit then 3S is support and 3N is Frivolous 3N. 3) Specific auctions may be exempted from these rules when carefully documented and agreed (has not happened yet). Other agreements are certainly possible (and might be superior). These are simple enough that memory failure is expected to be minimal (important factor for those like myself that may suffer from oldstimers disease).

If holding near minimum, I treat singleton A or K as part of a balanced hand. If strong enough that transforming the singleton honor into a small card would still have been an opening hand, I show the singleton Ace but still treat the singleton King as if it were Kx (singleton Kings can improve more responder holdings than a singleton Ace can).

East's thoughts must run along the lines "I have only one suicidal partner and two suicidal opponents - the odds are in my favor".

I hope N had an enjoyable lunch!

Rating partnerships in bridge is much more complicated and problematic than rating chess. Bridge results (the basis for a rating) are not based on your partnership's performance compared to the performance of the opposing partnership at the same table. Rather it is your partnership's performance compared to the performance of the set of other partnerships holding the same cards IN COMBINATION with the performance of the other partnership at your table compared to the set of other partnerships sitting their direction on the same deal. The concept of "set of other partnerships..." can be conveniently considered as the corresponding field (and is a single partnerships in pure team games), but still bridge rating involves 8 (virtual) players or 4 (virtual) partnerships rather than the simple 2 opponents of chess. I have seen an attempt to adapt ELO ratings to bridge. The result was that the ratings did not behave similarily to chess ratings and more importantly the perception of those subject to the ratings was not positive. Chess ratings are transparent (you know how they are calculated and can verify the calculations) and most importantly they are percieved as fair and accurate. The perception issue is the toughest nut to crack. If those being rated have any perceptions that the rating is not accurate or overly subject to manipulation then the ratings become a source of trouble and complaints.

In my opinion, the more modern version of un vs un is well within the grasp of Intermediate players. The most troubling aspect being the existence of incompatible versions. Applies: when the opponents have made a bid showing two specific suits (best when the conventional bid is neither of the suits - i.e. unusual no-trump or michaels cue of a minor). It does not apply when the opponents show one specific suit and promise another that is not specified (i.e. does not apply to michaels cue of a major showing "other major plus a minor"). Usage: (low-low version) cue their lower suit to show a strong bid in the lower of the other two, cue their higher suit to show a strong bid in the higher of the other two. Direct bids of either of the other two suits are weaker (default stronger is game forcing, weaker is invitational). Non-touching suits exception. It their suits are non-touching (Hearts and Clubs or Spades and Diamonds) then the cue bids show the next higher suit. This is still low-low when their suits are Hearts and Clubs, but violates that when their suits are Spades and Diamonds (cue Spades for Clubs - still easy to remember because the other way around is clearly nonsense). Verify version before agreeing to this convention. The original version used the cheapest cue as supporting partner's suit so there is a danger that partner might agree to unusual vs unusual but have the older version in mind. Specify "un vs un (lo-lo)" (if that confuses partner, forget about it! Misunderstandings will negate all potential gains). With that agreement, 2!H stands out as a strong club bid instead of double.

Brown, While answering some questions - even more brown :(

Nothing? The director should do nothing? How the heck do you read that out of this article. Seems to me the director did a heck of alot of work in this article, not nothing. To say the director should do nothing out of this article is just silly. Mike did you read the article? Flader makes a gigantic point of stating that though the director is allowed to correct an error no matter how it comes to his attention, the law is intentionally worded in such a way that the director doesn't HAVE to correct it if the players didn't call him. In other words, he should use his discretion and apply common sense. He also gives this relevent example. "Thus, if the director becomes aware of a revoke by a player that is not noticed by his opponents, he may not always bring it to other attention of the non-offending side. After all, the players have some responsibility in this game to protect their own interests." The entire point of that example is to show that in a case like the one presented by the original poster, the director might very well (and legally) decide to do nothing. Which is what I would do. LAW 81 - DUTIES AND POWERS C. Director’s Duties and Powers The Director’s duties and powers normally include the following: 6. Errors to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. It would seem to me that interpreting the words "normally include" as "at the director's option" is a significant stretch.

I did not see "underemployed bum" Hmm - may explain why I never expect to see a star on my nick :P

An issue with FD involves sequences (often conventions) that are reused in many different auctions. Especially troublesome are maintaining such when some of the auctions require multiple bidding trees for things like opening seat, vulnerability or interference. Perhaps one of these approaches could help to build a FD file based on macro like descriptions. Small example (chosen because it is small): I like 2N in many auctions beginning 1m 1M (non strong rebid by opener) to show either a weak club hand or a game forcing delayed raise of opener's minor (since I play the inverted raise denies a major) 1m (p) 1M (p) xx (p) 2N {2Npuppet} forces 3C, either weak hand w long clubs or GF raise of m {2Npuppet} version A 3C ; near automatic bid ... pass ; weak hand w long clubs ... 3D ; GF m raise w lower shortness ... 3H ; GF m raise w higher shortness ... 3S ; GF m raise 4M, 5m, 2-2 others, serious slam interest ... 3N ; GF m raise 4M, 5m, 2-2 others, mild slam interest {/ 2Npuppet} {2Npuppet} version B 3C ; near automatic bid ... pass ; weak hand w long clubs ... 3D ; GF m raise w lower shortness ... ... 3H ; opener asks ... ... ... 3S ; serious slam interest, singleton ... ... ... 3N ; mild slam interest ... ... ... 4C ; serious slam interest, void ... 3H ; GF m raise, no shortness ... ... 3S ; opener has serious slam interest ... ... 3N ; opener has little slam interest ... 3S ; GF m raise w higher singleton and serious slam interest ... 3N ; GF m raise w higher shortness and mild slam interest ... 4C ; GF m raise w higher void and serious slam interest {/ 2Npuppet} It would be nice to be able to switch versions without risking forgetting some branch. no specific syntax implied - plenty of options.

In trying to examine how a bridge rating system might be designed so as to match the acceptance level of elo ratings for chess, a variation on #3 finally convinced me that the effort was doomed. Some people are motivated more by instant gratification than long term gain. "Some" being very intentionally fuzzy. Unlike chess (where every result can be attributed to fine performance by one player or poor performance by the other), in bridge you can have a very poor result that is neither a result of poor performance on your part nor brilliance by your opponents - partner can blunder. All bridge players are all too capable of blundering, but we are most accutely aware of our own. Any player, not just the below average ones, may percieve that better players who place special value on their rating will not be willing to risk playing with them for fear of the instant loss should they blunder. Whether this fear is genuine or merely percieved matters not - the rating system generates that fear and thus lowers the confidence of "some". In my opinion, most players are not overly concerned with the idea that they might be ranked below average (unless they truly are convinced that they are substantially above average). What bothers them is the idea that they may be shunned becuase of others trying to protect their ratings. Even if the ratings are done in such a way that the stronger player is not penalized over time (or is even rewarded), the fear of instantanious decreases alters behaviour and that cannot be prevented by any statistical based rating system (i.e. one that cannot truly "place blame" which is an exceedingly difficult thing to do). Arguments that "things will even out over time" are approximately as effective as trying to convince a teenager that doing his homework is more important than the party at the friends house (and some teenagers will actually listen to that). I am convinced that Fred has made exactly the best decision and am happy to know that he will stick to it.

4S - just cuz I apparently don't know enough to see any alternative worth considering.

I chose other, but do not really intend to e-mail my explanation - here it is: Having played extensively at a site with a rating system, my observation is/was that a small percentage of players distorted their behaviour (both social and bridge) because of the ratings. Another slightly more substantial minority basically played bridge as best they could, behaved fine but complained frequently about glitches in the rating system. The majority played bridge to their ability, behaved as best they could and let the ratings take care of themselves. There were some players who figured out ways to manipulate the rating system and distorted their bridge to do so. There were more who thought they knew how to manipulate the rating system (but were actually wrong in their strategy) and distorted their bridge in an attempt to do so (many tried to avoid low rated partners, but the rating system actually greatly favored the stronger partner of a low rated partnership). Again, the majority just played bridge. I tended to not chose to play with very low rated players - because they were very poor players (you will not see me advertising for beginner partners at BBO either). I do think that the "no formal rating" policy is the proper choice.

He who dares on this hand loses. If you bid 4♠, then either it is making and you go down in 6♠x or you die in 4♠ (often doubled).

Except in the context of the BBO-advanced FD file. There the system overview claims xyz, but the usage is strictly 1m 1M; 1N

Bill: Thanx for that info. I have all of Kantar's chapter prior to publication of the book. What chapter covers void-showing response? Please and Thank you DHL My version comes from http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000.../RKC_Kantar.zip In that, chapter V is the reference. (RKB05.doc).

I have tried to examine as many references to two-way checkback or xyz (or xyNt) as I can find (futile search for consensus). Those names seem to be used somewhat interchangably (I have not noticed too many references to two-way NMF - but then, I was not really looking for that). Variations that I have seen tend to involve 1m 1M; 1N 3something, 1m 1M; 1N 2C; 2D 3something, and various treatments for the lebensohlish 2N. There are variations with regard to "which major first" over 2D. Some use it after 1 level rebids other than 1N. The specific auction 1H 1S; 1N is sometimes mentioned but seldom elaborated on. About the only consistent naming that I have seen is that xyNt excludes the opener rebids other than 1N. Many times the names xyz and two-way checkback refer to exactly the same sequences as xyNt (but seldom do two references agree on all the continuations).

Here (Norway) you respond at the 6-level with 2 KC and a void, 5NT with an odd number of KC and a void. Except for that, no difference. The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from :) My list was made with Kantar's book open (but I disagree with his views on kickback when hearts are agreed and his varying 0314/1430 strategy - olds-timers limitations).

Had the question been "what SHOULD 2N mean", I might have chosen a different answer. And I would be willing to listen to partner's proposals as long as they leave me free to be insane in 3rd seat (well - the sanity level in other seats may be open to question). If 1st seat holds Axxx xxxx x Axxx, I would suggest 4M (especially if M is hearts). That might make, be a good sacrifice, or be entirely wrong - bet they seldom are able to double. I do agree that there might well be a decent meaning for 2N. In a new partnership, my first priority is to convince partner that 3rd seat weak twos are not meant as a foundation for scientific bidding. In a previous life, I played in a lot of pick-up partnerships where the priorities were to convince partner 1) 3rd seat weak twos virtually rule out game and 2) I do not need to be rescued when you do not fit my weak two suit. Wiser partners would already know both.

Perhaps my brain is just too much a victim of olds-timers. I see the issue as one that I would have resolved at my first opportunity to bid, not my second. If I intend to hide the spade suit (regardless of seat), then I can open 2♦. Otherwise, I can choose between pass and 1♦ (favoring pass in 1st seat and 1♦ in 3rd but that depends on our opening bid requirements). Since I chose to open 1♦, I will stay consistent to my original choice. A 2♦ rebid seems to represent muddled thinking (I can do that, but try to limit it to one muddled decision per hand).

1) How do you respond to RKC when holding one key card and a void in a suit that is lower-ranking than the agreed trump suit? Bid 6 of void suit 2) How do you respond to RKC when holding one key card and a void in a suit that is higher-ranking than the agreed-upon trump suit? Bid 6 of agreed suit 3) How do you respond to RKC when holding two key cards and a void in a suit that is lower-ranking than the agreed-upon trump suit? Raise the ask (usually 5N) - step asks for suit (without kickback, there may be two possibilities for the 6 of agreed suit answer) 4) How do you respond to RKC holding two key cards and a void in a suit that is higher-ranking than the agreed-upon trump suit? (Granted, the previous bidding might have already made where the void is relatively clear prior to RKC.) See answer to 3) 5) How do you ask for kings, if necessary, after partner's void-showing response to RKC? No allowance for this ask. 1st step asks about trump Q, any other avail is SSA but really just a general suggestion of grand slam interest (got all controls and trump Q - bid it if you can, I cannot because of something that I hope you can figure out) 6) How do you ask for the trump queen after partner's void-showing response to RKC? 1st step after void suit identified that is not agreed suit (may be impossible).

I prefer new suits to be fit type bids (opposite 3rd seat weak 2, if no fit you should be afraid to move - be very afraid). 2N gets the same treatment as it does opposite any other weak 2, but shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how undisciplined 3rd seat weak two bids can be. If I thought there was any passed hand other than a great fitting one that had any chance to warrent game opposite my hand, I would not use a 3rd seat weak two bid. If 1st seat has a hand that would warrant a 2N bid in other situations, then we may actually take 8 tricks (9 on really good days). It is possible that some other strain is better, but the decision to use the 3rd seat weak two was a bet against that possibility - assume the bet was correct (at least you will not lose the blame game).

No no People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow throwns! :rolleyes:

Do your agreements really include both 3♥ as a fit jump and 4♣ as a splinter? I would agree willingly to either both as fit jumps, or both a splinters, but cannot imagine the split agreement. But, I start 2♦ as that way I may flush a monkey or two from the bush (will I know it if GOP is the funny man).