pilun

Okay, give responder ♠Kx ♥AJxxx ♦xxx ♣Qxx 4♥ is still pretty good.

David, I don't visit this forum much these days. Here are a few thoughts. When you learn relay, you use it all the time to make sure it sinks in. When bidding boards, we often grind it out for practice, safe enough against robot opponents. At the table, we relay less and less each year, breaking the chain more often. Previously, we would proudly relay to slams and cute games that most would miss, ignoring the ones that they bid and we didn't - where texture is the issue. We are comfortable bidding opposite a limited opener. Big winners are hands that go 1♥ - 1♠ R - 2♣ (bal) - 3NT, where 1♥ = 4+ ♥s, 11-15, denies 4 ♠s. The concern is the 5-3 major fits. Responder with 3 ♥s often relays to check whether opener has five. The big risk is seeing opener bidding 2NT (worst case) to reveal 2-4-3-4 to the opponents. Yuk! Just as bad if responder has 5 ♠s. You could get 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ R - 2♠ (♥&♦) - 2NT - 3♣ (2-4-4-3) - 3NT. At least you play the hand this time but the cost is great. The opening leader should work out that the most likely reason for bidding this way was to check for a 5-3 ♠ fit. What to do? We tend to forgo the search for the 5-3 most of the time and blast 3NT over 2♣, hoping to gain in the cardplay. We used to relay on big balanced hands with 4-card support but these days prefer 2NT limit+ raise instead. Basically, slam requires a shapely partner who can show a shortage, much the better way to go. Strong club auctions feature more relays since - as you point out - the asker needs to cater for a responder with extra strength and/or shape. Again we have started to break the chain more often. We raise a major with a balanced minimum, use 2NT as a splinter raise, while suit breaks are natural minimums, based on a misfit. These have helped by getting a strong responder to cool his heels. We also often break into natural after one shape relay, trying to match the natural bidders who have been able to show texture and stoppers. Nothing worse than finding partner with some 5431 then taking a long time-out to try to guess where the stuff is. We are happy to break at the drop of a hat but - as you know - I am averse to adding complexity, so we are content with most of these breaks being natural. Must say the (your) 4♦ "mild slam try" has worked well. We use it as "I am about to make a natural slam try, needing extra strength and good trumps. Please bid bad potential trump suits upwards ..." When we play strong pass, we stick with the old 1♣ = 6-10, 1♦ = 0-6, others 11+ GF. Realise this is technically inferior but the "symmetry" with strong club auctions is a plus. Haven't noticed losses yet. Nick

1 ♠ or 1NT? The option of raising hearts was not given. Not on this hand maybe with ♦Q-x but change it to ♠A865 ♥ Q43 ♦65 ♣AK76 and I would raise hearts. Might be the way to reach 4♥ opposite this carefully chosen 10-count ♠ K7 ♥ AJ762 ♦ T3 ♣ Q843 Easy to reach game after a direct raise, not so clear after a 1♠ or 1NT rebid.

My regular partner likes to sit West and South. This is fortuitous in the modern world of increased feedback. Some programs - like Pianola - give feedback on a player's performance as declarer, or defender on lead. This can be accurate if the program knows where each player is sitting. Thus the assumption in Howells and arrow-switches that the North player will move to East and vice versa. Is this something that clubs and Associations need to encourage? In some clubs I use Swedish Bridgetab with android tablets, much better than bridgemates in the club environment. (Though not for major events) Bridgetab displays the seating by player name, not direction, so South presses 4H by Frank, not 4H by East. Fine in a Mitchell but a Howell problem. Frank started as North and chose to move to West, so Hilda is actually sitting East. Is this an issue worth addressing? Like bidding box on the left or right ... Do countries have guidelines? Also, have Northerners switched to South as scorer yet? (South sees the world from the correct perspective)

Wrong board instances are very rare. Scores on the wrong side, wrong number of tricks, are much more common. Thus Easts tend to focus their eyes on the inputs that South gets wrong - suit, declarer, tricks - and assume that South at least got the board number right. I think that the Board 24 instance happened like this ... South was the sort who waits till the PLAY is over before entering anything. We discourage this delay but it's hard to enforce. Play on Bd 23 finished, there might have been some chat as Bd 23 was removed to replaced by Bd 24. South grabbed the BM and keyed the number of the board staring at her. Having an alert for a lead inconsistent with the hand record would solve much of this but players are obstinately slack about keying the right pip. Are other directors having more success with this than I am?

When using bridgemates, we allow them to see scores at other tables. I realise this is frowned upon in some quarters but they are used to it and like it, plus gives them a chance to pick up suspicious scores at other tables. (Okay, we can do that too via BCS) Well, you know what happens ..... South puts Bd 23 on the table, then scores it as Bd 24. East sees that the score is right and accepts. Then they see scores from other tables and realise what they have done. 12.2a suggests N-S get 40% on Board 24. Is that usual? Do E-W get 40, 50 or 60?

Thanks. I bring this up because I think that pairs who play a complex multi like this should be obliged to announce / explain the possible meanings in approximate order of likelihood. So it should not be acceptable to say "shows either an Acol 2 in a major, or any 4441 17-20 a weak 2♠, 21-22 bal 5-5 in ♦ & a major" Do your Regs have a rider like that?

If our 2♥ opening shows either a weak 2♠, 5-5 in ♦ & a major, 21-22 bal, an Acol 2 in a major, or any 4441 17-20, what am I expected to announce?

Well spotted! That anomaly with the nature of a 1♥ opening that denies 4+ spades was one of the reasons for the post. I suspect that the next rewrite of the ABF Alerting Regs will replace Conventional with Artificial, using the definition in the Laws as a guide. They will need heaps more examples of Artificial Calls, plus "natural" calls that need to be alerted. When the basis for an alerting regime is "Alert all artificial calls except ...." it is important that everyone understands what constitutes an Artificial Call. I for one am still uncertain. It's good that the WBF has offered some (controversial) clarifications. Of course it is still up to RA to decide whether to accept them. An interesting case is Brown Sticker conventions. The WBF Systems Policy includes this: 2.4. The following conventions or treatments are categorised as 'Brown Sticker': An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. (Note that the WBF is not deterred from using "natural" even though the Laws do not mention it.) Some pairs use wonder bids / RCO / Suction etc over a strong club or 1NT. Note that - in events where Brown Sticker conventions are not permitted - they cannot bid that way over a natural 1♥ opening. Can they use Suction over a 2+ 1♣ opening? Obviously, that depends on whether 1♣ on a doubleton is an Artificial Call. The WBF is suggesting No.

Okay I will make it clearer. In Australia, the first line of the current alerting Regs defines a Convention, quoting verbatim from the 1997 Laws. Later, we get "If a call is conventional, it must be alerted ....". (There are exceptions, such as doubles) It matters not that the Laws have replaced Conventional with Artificial Call, since - as you point out - the RA can deem alertable whatever they wish. So we have a situation where players and directors need to know what constitutes an artificial/conventional call. There have been some helpful replies, such as Paul's quote from the WBF Systems policy.

Okay, I will make it simpler. If you play Better Minor, is the 1♦ opening artificial by the Laws? "If 3, then 4-4-3-2 precisely" seems like additional information, No? Or the modern Acol style where 1♥ can only be four if 4-4-3-2 or 4-4-2-3, 15+.

Maybe bad choice of words. By "legal status" I simply meant the status of such bids under the Laws, whether artificial or natural. Not whether they are allowed!

Well, that creates a different issue. Let's say we play transfers over 1♣ so agree to open it on all 12-14 balanced. (Thus 1♦ opening is unbalanced) So 1♣ on two could be 4-4-3-2, 4-3-4-2, 3-4-4-2, 3-3-5-2, maybe even 5-3-3-2. Basically then it just shows the inability to make a different opening. That characterises every single natural opening! If I open 1♥ and I have six of them, I deny six spades. Doh! Repeat, it's NOT the announcement or alert issue, rather the legal status of these calls, according to Law. Pran, the fact that a Sponsoring Organisation may have Regs about these bids is irrelevant. It would be good if Regs said "Announce (or alert) a 1♣ opening that could be a doubleton because it is artificial." That's if it is indeed artificial. If it isn't, need some other justification.

Okay that's fine. Need then to consider c) A traditional weak two, which contains this additional information: - The suit is "good", no 4 cards in the other major, no void, not 6-5. Looks like the lawmakers included the phrase "not being information taken for granted by players generally" to make sure that bids like traditional weak twos are not artificial. Okay. d) A short club opening, when 4-4-3-2 in that order. Ignore whether it is announceable or alertable. Is it artificial? Assuming it is not forcing, does it contain "information other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."? I would have thought No, therefore natural by the Laws. Is that the consensus?

We are not in a relationship .... Played in the same team for a number of years, all pairs playing the same method.

Pran, what about the original examples? It's clear that (a) 2♥ = hearts and a minor is ARTIFICIAL because it promises something ADDITIONAL Less clear is (b) 1♥ = 4+ hearts, denies 4+ spades. The promise here is something subtractional, if there were such a word. Is that enough to make it ARTIFICIAL? The definition in the Laws does not make that clear.

Repeat that whether these bids are alertable or not is not the issue for me. (They clearly are) The question for the panel is the interpretation of the Definition in the Laws. Are these bids ARTIFICIAL? If so, why?

Okay I will repost. Note that i did not ask whether these bids are alertable. Rather I asked that - if these bids ARE alertable - is it because they are artificial or for some other reason, such as "unusual treatment of a natural bid,"

Consider these two opening bids: a) 2♥ = 5+ hearts and a 4+ minor (Muiderberg) b) 1♥ = 4+ ♥s, denies 4 ♠s, could be canape Both look to be alertable but are they artificial/conventional? The 2017 Laws define artificial: "A bid ... that conveys information (....) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....." In (a) does the presence of a 4+ minor make a Muiderberg two artificial? In (b) does the absence of spades make that 1♥ opening artificial? Is this what is meant by "other than"? If that is the case, what about a normal weak 2♠ opening which many would play as denying four hearts? Is that covered by that phrase "not being information taken for granted by players generally"?

Trial bid questions The following questions arise from a new text for Open players. Expert help would be appreciated to ensure that the material is sound. Standard 5-card major bidding is assumed. After minor agreement, stopper showing is assumed. After major agreement, long or help suit tries are assumed. 1. do you agree that the term “trial bid” can apply to stopper-showing after a minor suit, as well as to a long/help suit try after 2-level agreement in a major? 2. after minor agreement, should a new suit be stopper showing or stopper asking? (e.g. what is best practice, majority practice, “standard” practice). 3. after major agreement (at the 2-level), should a new suit be a short suit try; or a long or help suit try or some vague mix of the two; or...? (e.g. what is best practice, majority practice, “standard” practice). 4. assuming a long/help suit try, how would you describe the requirements for bidding it, and also the guidelines for accepting the game try? 5. After 1H/S : (x) : 2NT Truscott (P), would a new suit e.g. 3C or 3D be a trial bid along the same lines? 6. after opening 1C and hearing partner make a limit (not inverted) raise to 3C, what does opener do with: ♠AJT ♥43 ♦A5 ♣AJT932 7. you opened 1C, raised by pard to 2C (6-10 TP). Next player doubles; what do you call? ♠64 ♥AJT2 ♥JT ♣AK432 8. You open 1H, raised by pard to 2H (6-10). Next player bids 3C; your call? ♠A432 ♥AKQJ2 ♦5 ♣J32 9. Where the opponents have not bid over a 2-level raise, e.g. 1H : 2H uncontested or 1H (Dble) 2H (Pass), is a re-raise e.g. 3H invitational or pre-emptive? 10. On a different tack: pinning down different possible rules as to when double is takeout. What problems if any do you see with the following as a possible “standard” to teach to club players? * negative doubles in reply to any 1-opening (i.e. 1-suit OR 1NT) * responsive doubles (by the partner of the interposer) only if opps bid and raised the suit * after both members of our partnership have called (exc pass), doubles are penalties; any exceptions to this must be by agreement 11. What sort of hand should you have for a trial in partner’s suit e.g. in an uncontested auction 1D : 1H, 2H : 3D. Is this forcing? What should you have in diamonds? Etc 12. do normal principles apply for a trial bid in the enemy suit? E.g. 1D (1H) : 1S (P), 2S (P), now is 3H a trial bid looking for help in hearts? Or ?

We have played 1♦ = spades & 1♥ = hearts for a decade in major national comps in Australia & see no reason to change. Transfers have plusses and minuses. The main problem comes with simple raises. The raise to 2♥/2♠ is the heart of the system -- 3 or 4 trumps & 7-10 TP. We don't want to contaminate these raises with hands that would rather rest at the 1-level. With ♠xxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣Jxxxx we don't want to raise to 2♥/♠ but 1NT & passing a transfer opening are worse. With our method, we could pass our natural 1♥. Over 1♦ = spades, we use 1♠ as strong shape relay & 1♥ as a range probe, with 1♠ by opener as any minimum. Would work well here. in Scamp, the opening structure is 1♣ 16+ (still prefer this to 15+) 1♦ 10-15, 4+ spades, denies 4 hearts 1♥ 11-15 4+ hearts, denies 4 spades 1♠ majors 1NT 12-15 balanced, no major 2♣/♦ natural, no major, 10-14 The denied major helps responder a lot. 1♥ - 1NT can have 4 or 5 spades, which is okay Good to have a bid set aside for both majors, vital hands. Right-siding 4♥/♠ is a plus for transfers but don't overstate it. Often the 2 hands will be similar strength and you still gain from the opening leader not knowing the relayer's hand. Nick Hughes, Sydney