sartaj1

It appears that the players arrived at the venue wanting to play the tournament. There were political compulsions on the team. They wanted to play, their government didnt let them. Its to the WBF's credit that they were able to accomodate such a handicap. Whatever the terms of this (obviously disadvantageous to L.) situation should be is debatable, but barring them from participation is a case of taking ourselves too seriously. Bridge is just a game. Lets enjoy it and let others enjoy it. No need to let political agendas dictate bridge administrative actions. Now, if the Lebanese players themselves decided to boycott a match on political grounds, the matter would be radically different ....

2D = transfer to 2H followed by 3S forcing (unless partner jumps in hearts) Coudnt resist an advert for my chosen methods ;)

Michael Rosenberg will be playing with Debbie Rosenberg , with teammates Daniella and Sabine and an anonymous, non-playing sponsor.

I really enjoy reading Ulf's blog for he has lots of interesting things to say. I say this so that any potential reader does not get dissuaded by the "crackpot" style judgements delivered by the audience here so far... On the issue of this particular hand, there are many reasons why a pass could work out well. Holding length in their suit is often the first sign of a misfit and a misfit usually means a minus score to the ones who bid. While i would personally overcall 2D (and think that 3D is nuts), i wouldnt be surprised if pass was the winning action, especially opposite a passed partner. Aiming to track how this theory (of passing) goes from now on though....

Whao ! Wolff seems to love jumping on the "Holier Than Thou" pedestal. While the passing mantra of his type is that they are "improving" the game , what about the insidious and unsubstantiated paranoia-inducing claims like this (from his blog) "ACBL over the years welcomed two celebrated cheats, to grace our hallowed Hall of Fame"

great hand !

In the 2003 Bermuda Bowl final, Bob Hamman wanted to waive a revoke penalty. According to the tournament book, he was overruled by the director.

Are there any specialists out there on the Meckstroth Rodwell system ? I need information ( the more the better). If you prefer to contact me via email : spadedeuce@yahoo.com Appreciate your help.

PM felt there was limited utility in playing non-forcing responses to 1 level openings. Using the 2/1 F1 approach helps to accurately progress the invitational type hands with distributional features. The idea was to take pressure off the relay and involve the opener in a dialogue on hands where game was very likely to be touch and go. Such situations would be better resolved using judgement more than (apparent) precision. I do remember him throwing a spastic when i once made a 2/1 with a game-going hand. No No....That hand MUST relay.

This kind of regulations make me throw up. Obviously what conventions are allowed depends on who your friends are. No more exceptions! After the revised definition of Brown Sticker (2002), i think that the Guide to CC completion is just an outdated document. Which in turn makes MeckWell in breach of regulations. Maybe some lawmaker can shed some light.

It is not the objective of a forcing notrump to get to a 5-2 fit The 5-2 fit in 2M that one plays is actually a concession from the natural order of things. The gain of the F1 NT comes in auctions when responder bids something other than 2 of opener's major.

LOL. So true. Me and Tony belong to the "generic defence" school. One of the biggest upside of this approach is that we are unlikely to have a serious misunderstanding. Sometime in a 80s World Championship, Hamman quotes in his book two americans who agreed to treat a 2C overcall over a 1H fert just like "opening a game force" It came up and the bidding went (1H) - 2C - All pass. One could blame the method or the forgettor but the un-intuitive nature of this agreement increases the likelihood of a mishap.

I recall reading (probably in this newsgroup or RGB )that a 2NT opener 20-22 HCP will have 20 HCP 60 percent of the time. That doesnt feel intuitive. Can someone please clarify either way ? Note: Am cross-posting to RGB forums as well

Have really enjoyed reading this thread. Reminds me of Edward De Bono quote "In an argument, both sides are right". I'd like to introduce a tangent that strong club systems, in the context of highly marketed light openers, have their share of problems. For example , in Moscito, a few things i've observed - Getting to game with balanced hands. say 12 opposite 12. The relayer makes one strong call and then signs off. Opener doesnt always do the right thing - Semipositives structure. Unlike natural bidding , where the semi-positive is equivalanet to a 1-over-1 response, giving a good getout cheaply. In MOS, the resolution often occurs at the 2-level and direction and strain can get somewhat tricky - good 19/20 opp 5 HCP or bad 6 games. There are those who will argue that not getting to game with ordinary 19/20HCP opposite bad 6 is no big deal. But the "lets get to game every hand , if possible" school disciples , me included, will differ

Thanks for the clarifications, folks. I will ensure i create the team match table next time we fix up a game.

Hi Fred and team, A suggested improvement for the software is to have facility for not knowing the scores at the other table as a team match progresses. For any form of serious preparation, that would be essential. Knowing the results at the very end is more like real life bridge. Another area we use is the partnership bidding area. I wonder if its possible to have the opponent's intervention set to something resembling what they hold in their hands. The current arrangement props out somewhat random bids by them which gets very very frustrating after a short while. Perhaps , one could use GIB to bid the hand, but then have an option to not play the hand. Anyways, thanks and congratulations for your gr8 software Cheerio Sartaj

Is anyone aware of a weak NT pair playing a different system in fourth seat ? Me and pd play weak NT, 5 cd M In 3rd seat vul, we play 14-16 NT and 4 cd M In 4th seat, we switch back to weak NT and 5 cdM. We have observed that 4th seat opening auctions rarely get seriously competitive, so the natural meaning of our actions is not pulling its full weight. However, we have had a few auctions where it goes 1D - 1NT and we miss a 15/16 opposite 9 game. Since our partnership style is to try and bid game on every hand, this is a serious liability. I am wondering if some others have faced similar issues and tried some new approach (and how they fared)... An example i can think of is Like 1C = any strong NT or clubs Rest natural, not strong NT. ps. Pls be aware that i have posted the same question to RGB as well.

Pass. Pass. Pass.

I double 3 spades for takeout. Partner will bid 4 hearts. ( expecting him to bid 5H is too much because the primary responsibility of the partnership after opponents preempt is to get to game). Then i bid 5NT Grand Slam force. Over which every strong partnership has a means of showing one high trump honor. When he shows heart ace, i bid seven 7.

DT. Make declarer commit before he finds out that the heart suit is divided 5-2 ( or maybe 5-1).

I would pass too. Because opposite a pard who hasnt opened a GF, there is hardly any hand with which we can make game.

In old days, it was thought correct to make takeout doubles at the low levels with shape and at the high levels with high cards. These days the focus seems to have changed to acting at the low levels with high cards ( eg. a 4333 12 count takeout double of 1C) and at the high level with shape. Assuming the partnership subscribes to this philosophy, wouldnt dream of bidding 4S with Kxx in hearts for partner is expected to make light takeout dbls with heart shortage. This theory however seems to have more Aussie followers than American , perhaps due to Paul Marston's advocacy of it.....

Bridge is all about bidding and making games and slams; and not for looking for excuses at getting out in a 1 spade contract. Whether 1S is forcing or not, responder's simple preference ,rebid or 1NT does not show any extras. The only gain of 1S NF is when playing 1 spade as it doesnt seem to offer any constructive bidding advantages.

South has opened the bidding. After they overcall, partner has not expressed a desire to compete. The only reason for south to bid again over 2D would be exceptional high card strength, exceptional distribution , or shortage in their suit. South has none of these features. In the context of having already opened a 5 card major, 55 in the majors would hardly qualify as "exceptional distribution".

last week, i played in a national event with michael courtney and he had an interesting idea about our system which will solve the current problem. P - (1NT) - 2C(*) - (P) 2NT ! *2C = aspro, hearts and another suit ! 2NT by advancer = splinter in hearts and good hand. The method is designed for precisely this hand type. Being a passed hand makes it easier for us to make this call as we have a maximum . FOr an unpassed hand, the requirements would be a lot stricter. To answer the question as to why 2NT should not be natural (if we are unpassed hand) , the idea is that all such hands would go via 2D forcing relay.