bhall

A worthy ancestor of the Minotaur that I play now was "Little Major Canape'," where: 1♣ was 4+ ♥ or big and balanced, 1♦ was 4+ ♠, 1♥ was 15-20, minors or one long minor, and 1♠ was 12-14 NT or any unbalanced strong 2. Alas, this is playable only in the Spingold and Vanderbilt.

Double is a logical alternative. But I don't think we can be required to double on the basis of partner's actions (e.g., a slow 4♥ followed by a fast pass of 4N). The opponents' bids clearly indicate their expectation of making 5♠, and they should not be rewarded for so trivial a reason when they happen to be right. A rough rule is: Double on the expectation of a two-trick set. At MP, this rule is frequently bent, but seldom so at teams. Where is the fourth defensive trick?

If you do not routinely rebid 1N with a stiff ♠, then it is sensible to stay at the two level when holding 5♠. Consequently, this sequence should be used to show 4♠ and 5+♦, pointing toward 3N as the most likely game, with 4♠ (on a 4-3 fit) running a close second. But every partnership has to make its own choices. IMHO, if you do routinely rebid 1N on x KQxxx Axx Qxxx and the like, you are probably doomed anyway. But then playing the sequence as 4+♠ and 5+♦ would make sense, and playing 1♥-1♠-1N-2♣-2♦-2♠ as 6+♠ might be best.

The structure after 2N (artificial game force) is crucial here. Presumably, you were playing that responder's rebids of 3♥, 3♠, and 3N were simple, natural choice-of-game bids. Probably, 3m showed a high card in the minor, not necessarily 4+ cards. And the 2N rebid itself denied a biddable minor. If that's the case, then 2N becomes a standout choice. It gives responder a chance to show a ♦ high card, over which you can jump to 4♥, or a ♣ high card, over which you can jump to 4♦. If he rebids 3♥, then 4♣ should be a cue in support, and you can subside over his 4♦ or cue 5♦ over his 4♥. Similarly, if he rebids 3♠ or 3N.

Takeout, for sure. Maybe 4♥ and 5♦ without 3♣ or Hx. An immediate 2♦ overcall puts all our eggs in one basket. I would respond 2N, hoping partner reads it as pick-a-minor.

So what was his hand? I still think you should have bid 5♦, and watched the sweat break out on his forehead...

With such partners, I return the favor: 5♦ 3♠ would be a chicken splinter. I wonder what he might plan to do over my likely 3N call, looking at bad ♣. If he wasn't intending to pass 3N, then 4♠ immediately seems a better choice. With a good partner, I have to rate 3♠ as first-round control, possibly ___ AQ10xxx AQx 10xxx, when 7 is cold. I had a pickup partner once who treated me to the following auction in IMPs: (P)-P-(1♥)-P (P)-X-(P)-1♠ (P)-2N! I tried to construct some reason for his actions, but couldn't. It wasn't 3=0=5=5. Now I know what to do against this type of bidder: Cue 3♥!

5♣ Either partner overcalled with length in ♥ (and thus has a relatively sound hand) or the opponents will most likely continue bidding them. I would rather that they sacrifice at maximum level; I don't want to walk it up to 5♠, which is the likely result of bidding 4♠ on this round.

One exceptional case is worth noting: Very weak hands with 4♥ and 5♠, short in the opened minor, can take only one bid. To avoid playing in a 6-1 (or 5-1) fit when an 8-card ♥ fit is available, it is permissible to respond 1♥. I believe that some European partnerships use 1♣-2♦ and 1♦-2♥ to show hands of this type.

Pass. When I balance, I want partner to be able to take a bid holding his (likely) weak notrump opener without undue risk. If the intermediates were good enough, e.g., both red 10 9s, I would bid 2♦.

Either red queen would give East a full opener. It is likely that I must lose to a club (over)ruff, regardless of leading to the ♠J. So, I will play to the ♠K and ruff the ♣Q low. Assuming West does overruff and return a trump, I now have time to play on ♦, determining the shape of the hidden hands. East may show with a stiff ♥. The ♦QJ may fall. A squeeze may develop. Or the horse may sing...

None of them. The rule I tell my partner is: Bid for some game holding a strong (15-17) notrump's worth of high cards, even with no particular fit, over my one-level overcalls. Over my 2-level overcalls, a weak (12-14) notrump's worth is sufficient. I don't guarantee that game will make, only that it should have a decent play. I also don't require that partner be as conservative as I am.

I also don't like 4♥ at any form of scoring. However, I have to respect partner's double now. Since 4♥ could certainly be bidding down 1 vs. a making 3S, we would not be in a forcing pass situation if partner passed 4♠. Therefore, his double says that he expects them to fail. Partner should be aware that you are likely to have excess length in ♥, so he won't be counting on two defensive tricks in that suit. Your ♣K and ♦J9 are probably enough to expect that they will go down.

If you bid 3♦ and partner bids 3♥, isn't it clear to bid 3NT now? You are obviously offering a choice of games at this point since you didn't bid 3NT last round, so this particular auctions seems to be one of the advantages of bidding 3♦. I believe you're right. Bidding 3N over 3♦-3♥ should be choice of games, although some might interpret the delayed 3N as indicating a doubtful or partial ♦ stop. I still prefer 2♠, if partner is an experienced player with a decent sense of the constraints on competitive auctions.

The practical bid with a new partner is 3N, although it doesn't work on this deal. You expect to run RHO out of diamonds before possibly having to lose a trick to him in establishing a ninth trick, if, say, hearts don't run. 2♠ should certainly be forcing, although it is likely to lead to a shaky 4-3 game on some hands where 3N is cold. At least, if partner rebids 3♥, you will have found one 8-card fit. If he rebids 2N or 3♣, you are likewise well positioned. I would rate this as the best choice in an expert partnership. 3♦ could easily work out, since partner is likely to hold 6 decent hearts, and subsequently raising his 3♥ rebid to 4 will get your general strength off your chest. However, the cue does not ask him for another suit, and he can hardly have enough controls to cuebid back. And when he holds a 3=5=2=3 minimum, he will still rebid 3♥, while 3N could be your only making game. If you want to see his eyes spin, you can start with 3♣ and rebid 3♠, but I would suggest moving quickly to another table thereafter.

Double, it's not even close. If I bid 1♠ and later double, that shows high cards and denies takeout-double shape. I don't expect partner to trot out a bad 4-card suit over the later double; he will run back to spades with as little as xx. Or convert to penalty with 1.5 defensive tricks against clubs. Those are not the results I long for.

Let me try again: Tournament bridge players form a large and active voluntary association based on their shared interests. We are not making anywhere near the best use of this pool at present on issues like conventions, defenses, or the Laws in general. We resemble an aging democracy in some ways, with the majority of players being indifferent or apathetic about the administration of the games. But the rest of us do care, and will engage in constructive debate with each other, given the opportunity. The burden of identifying weaknesses in current practice and suggesting remedies does not need to be borne by only a tiny group of players. While any final implementations need a higher level of expertise, if only to maintain consistency with the existing body of rules and assure practicality, those implementations can still benefit from scrutiny by the vitally interested core of players. The midchart changes are a case in point. Post them, and let the debates begin.

In online play, you explain your own bids. Also, if you are playing with screens, you explain both your partner's bids and your own bids to your screenmate. In a normal live situation, it is your partner who explains your bids. If this incident occurred online, you are stuck. You don't want to mislead the opponents, but you don't want to damage your own side by qualifying your explanation, saying something like "normally shows a balanced hand with both majors stopped," if that is not your precise agreement. The TD is stuck, too. On the evidence, you misdescribed your holding to the opponents. Neither they nor the TD can verify the details of your actual agreement. Since they may have been damaged by misinformation, the TD has a duty to protect them.

A missed point: You should not be explaining your own bid. That is your partner's duty. If he had said 3N shows both majors stopped, there could be no basis for the TD adjusting the score - unless your notes say otherwise.

Jan, It's one thing to join in a process of constructive debate with some assurance that action will follow on the issues that have been identified as important, and quite another to try to sustain interest in the project when the best one can hope for is a sympathetic hearing. Fred could start a C&C forum here, but without a formal commitment from the ACBL and the committee to follow through with the rest of the process, it would be nearly pointless, and would ultimately die. It's the same experience people are having with "e-democracy:" Legislatures do not want to share power with the electorate. They only allow individual citizens and citizen groups a very limited, consultative role. Sure, we can get an audience with The King (or email our MP or Representative), but we can't even begin to submit a bill or force a vote.

Well, those all sound like good suggestions. We can certainly use the capacities of the internet to much better advantage. And publishing the current guidelines in full on the ACBL site is something that could, and should, be done today. I think that all the processes of considering, approving, and publicizing rules changes could benefit from being organized in a few layers: 1. A forum (like this one) to bring up issues and provide data to the later layers, open to all players, directors, and administrators. Threads for every issue, with full and fierce debate. The most significant ones should become obvious over time, and they should be forwarded to the next layer for action. 2. A technical discussion group that examines ways and means to achieve any goals advanced from the first layer. I'm not sure who might be best qualified to design implementations, but all members of the first layer should be able to comment on the proposals. 3. A political action group whose duties are (1) to develop the criteria for approval of changes and (2) to apply these criteria to the proposals of the second layer. Again, every interested party should be free to comment on this group's deliberations. Any changes to implementations from the second layer would have to be fed back to them for analysis, and any goal not emanating from the first layer would have to be debated in the first layer and passed up the line. Problem is, how can we get this, or any structural change like this, to be adopted? Do we need a revolution? It ain't gonna happen.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Do you have any ideas about how such a process might work? A lot of our social networking/political processes are bound to methods developed when travel was difficult and long-distance communication was by Pony Express or ships on the high seas. The typical IT approach is just to replicate the older forms using the internet. I doubt that ordinary business types have much insight into how to change our processes. Admittedly, the amatuers that run bridge organizations have even less. So, share: What are the possibilities that you see?

Minotaur can do it, but only if opener is an optimist: 1♣ - 11+, both minors, 15-20 with any long suit, 18+ NT 1♥ - 7+ natural, exactly 4♥ only if he holds no 4+ card minor 3♦ - 8+ trick single-suiter, game force 4♣ - cue in support 4♦ - anything else? (4♥ would be an offer to play there) 5♣ - ♣AK, no major A or K 6♦ - hoping the ♠A is onside and that there is a ♦ entry! Anybody who can locate the ♠J in responder's hand deserves our admiration.

4N If partner has stretched to bid 3N, we are still OK. If he has the classic hand (♠Kx ♥x ♦Axx ♣AKQ10xxx), we rate to take 12 tricks in ♣, and with all primes he should cue 5♦. But in my experience, partner NEVER has the classic hand.

The positional value of my clubs convinces me to overbid a bit. I start with 2♣, to see if partner bids 2♠. If he rebids in a red suit, I will try 2N. Really, I would expect partner to balance with a suit holding only 8-9 HCP, unless he has two quick tricks and perfect shape. A balancing bid of 1M does not promise more than 4 decent cards in the suit. So I expect to be playing 2N opposite a (more or less) balanced 10-count that lacks a club stop. Say, ♠Kxx ♥QJ10x ♦KJxx ♣xx I certainly wouldn't criticize a choice of 1N, but either spades or NT could produce a game our way.