hotShot

It is identical to FORUM D and i think it is used in Italy too. It is well defined, because it is the official system in France and Germany and the national bridge associations sell lecturing material for this system. But I think someone is working on a SEF/Forum D FD-File already. This is a link to an description that claims to be SEF.

If there where an application that would be able to convert a convention card with convention list into a complete FD-file, if would be much better to bypass the FD file, because a CC with convention list will be much smaller than a full FD-file. The main problem with the FD-data approach is that you need an entry for every bidding sequence (and against any system). This means an incredible big number of entries. To solve this you need a rule/macro based approach, where the actual sequence needed is generated from the rules defined. If someone can make that, the bridge world will have a great bidding engine as a bonus.

If 3♠ promises ♥ support, than 4♣ is a cue and 4♥ is the end of the auction, because the ♦ controls are missing. If 3♠ is any strong hand and does not promise ♥ support, then 4♣ is a natural side suit and responder will now have to show his ♥ support. Obviously this is an inferior agreement, if 3♠ is not at least invitational to slam.

Well the next step in doping is not using chemical, but introducing extra genes into the bodies/cells of athletes e.g. to produce EPO.

Wish I could remember the source, but quick poll among athletes made a few years ago reported that a majority of them would accept to die young for a few years of fame and wealth.

Coubertin's ethos was that each athlete should use competition in sport to improve his own personal physical and ethical development. The De Coubertin medal or the True Spirit of Sportsmanship medal is still awarded by the IOC to those athletes that demonstrate the spirit of sportsmanship in the Olympic Games. So in a Coubertin way every athlete who can improve, repeat or at least tries to make his best performance in competition is a winner. While the overall best performance is not as important. Doping can never be sportsmanship and it is definitely no way to improve your ethics.

Nah, no matter how frivolous you 3rd seat opening style, opening 1♣ and rebidding 3♣ promises the same as it would in other seats. So does rebidding 2♣ IMHO but I know that some disagree. I don't disagree about that, but 1♣ allows your LHO to throw in his 5cM with 8+ HCP. This time LHO does not have a 5cM, but you're not always this lucky.

This was an opening in 3rd hand! Opening 1NT with a semibalanced hand is no crime. We have discussed weak 3rd hand openings a lot in this forum and many where in favor of them. We discussed how to open weak shaped hands and often agreed that the 1 level is the best choice. Now holding a strongish semibalanced hand, you have to tell your partner that you're not weak this time and you want to make it hard for LHO to enter the auction. So maybe 1NT is not your choice, but it's not a bad choice.

There are two kinds of sportsmen: 1) The Coubertin type who follow the Olympic ideal that sport makes you a better human being, and that participation in competition is more important than winning. 2) The Lombardi type who think that winning a competition is all that counts. If you get pro in your favorite sport, you connect your existence with your success in sport. Obviously the Lombardi type is more successful as a pro as the media only celebrate winners. It is unfair to think cycling alone has a doping problem, top Italian soccer player escaped a conviction for the use EPO to enhance their performance only because the trial was to late. During the Spanish blood doping affair several other athletes were mentioned. Athletic sports had a doping case a few days ago. In every professional sport, improved medical care is standard. The line between legal and illegal is completely arbitrary. The legal haematocrit level is defined different for different sports. If it's to high for cycling you are still legal in cross-country skiing. As long as we think that the second is the first looser, it is hypocrisy to ban doping.

I would think that 3♣ from south is game forcing, an even if it's only forcing one round, north should show his 4card♥ suit.

Board where a player is dummy are eliminated. Well the software keep extra records for errors in declarer play, defense and leads, but I did not investigate much. I don't have enough recorded boards for a full/serious statistic analysis. If I have 400 recorded deals with a player, he's dummy in 100, so they are lost. He's declarer in about 100 and defender in about 200, which is not much for serious analysis.

With a simple system, I mean an established system where you leave out all exceptions, no need to invent another YAISS (Yet another incomplete simple system). When the basics are understood, students will understand the reasoning behind the exceptions later.

The best approach is to teach them mini bridge, they should be able to start playing at the end of the first lesson. After that you should introduce basic playing technique like finesse, drawing trumps. Putting weight on basic declarer play. This should cater lessons 2 and 3 with a lot of practice. Lesson 4 should be devoted to defense, basic leads and signals and again a lot of practice. Don't forget to teach ethics and that calling the TD is not meant as an insult! From lesson 5 on you should introduce a simple rule based bidding system (all natural, longest suit first, no extra strength for reverse), with natural 1level openings an weak 2's. Students will very soon discover that reverses need to be stronger, and that they want a forcing opening for very strong hands.....

I recalculate the number of tricks that NS can make after each card played. If the number after the play is smaller NS made an "error", if it's greater EW must have made one. The blame always goes to the one who played the card, although because of signals, lead directing doubles and things like that, the real responsibility must be given to his partner.

West knows there is a double-fit and can show his ♥ control with an easy 4♥.

More interesting is: Who were the brilliant EW?

The best thing that happened to me when I first played in a bridge club night (after about 2-3 month of learning) that they had pairs playing: Acol, Swiss Acol, Better Minor, "Small Clubs", "Big Clubs" and Precision. A few month later we played pairs using Moscito and Polish Club. This way I always knew there was more than one system out there.

I think the blame goes to north. South has a better bid available, but 2♥ is by far not as bad as as north dbl. Wouldn't north have opened or bid over 1♦ holding a 5cM with a 4c side suit and 11 HCP, or bid his 5cm (or over 1NT) holding 10 +HCP? I would guess so. With no agreement stated, i guess there is none. And if not agreed otherwise, this dbl should show a maximum pass and 2 places to play (4card suits). Since north is below opening strength, he should have some shape (e.g. ♦ shortage). (An unpassed hand could have HCP instead of shape!) If north has 8(+) cards in 2 suits, an unbalanced hand, no 5cM and no 6cm the possible patterns are: 4405, 4315, 4225, 4414, 4423, 4324, 3424, 3415. If we expect north to bid his 5cm over 1NT or over 1♦, we are left with: 4414, 4423, 4324, 3424. Now 3 of 4 have a 4 card ♥ suit. If we think that a 4c♠ is a little more unlikely following opps bidding, a 4c♥ suit is even more likely. Playing a 7 card fit on 2 level is usually ok.

If your partner is running from 4♣, he must think there is a better contract. He should not convert a minor to a minor unless he is sure there is a better fit. So I'm sure he has a ♣ void and has at least 7 cards in ♦.

If some polish authors would switch to SAYC or SEF, they would have the same effect. Some countries have developed a dominant system, sometimes pushed by the national bridge association. Teachers are used to teach that and they feel it ts a benefit for their students, if they can practice what they have learned. There is some historical aspect, when 4cM where first introduced they where a revolution against the existing dominant 5cM world. 4cM players of the first generation are still active teachers, and they still feel that playing 4cM is a big step forward. But the game has changed, aggressive weak jump overcalls cause (big) problems to 4cM players. 1M - 2/3m - ? Makes them guess, if 3 card support is all they have. They often don't know that they have in fact 9 trumps and the LOTT is no help, when you don't know your own trump length.

1♦-1♥ 1♠-2♣ 4SF 2♠-3♣ 5+♣ 4NT going for the ♣ slam (or 4♣ if this is RKCB) ... 6♣

Jilly please be precise here: 1) A BIT might cause an UI. => If a waiter spills hot coffee on you, you will break tempo, but it carries no bridge information. => If you ask opps to explain an alerted bid, you break your tempo, but this does not create an UI. => Even calling the TD, causes a BIT. => At least it seams as if you broke your tempo, if opp forgot to use the STOP-card and you waited the usual 10 seconds prior to your bid. So BIT is not equal to UI. So even if a player admits there was a break in tempo, this does not mean there was UI. So you can't "use a BIT", you could use an UI created by a BIT. 2) An UI may not be used by its creators partner, and if you think a player acted on partners UI the TD is required to act. But the TD must make sure: - That the UI carried information, that was not already AI to the player. - Which bids where available to the player using his methods. (e.g. If a pair is e.g. in an 2/1 GF sequence, pass below game is no LA.) - Among the possible LA's, which are suggested by the UI. - If a suggested LA was used and an un- /less suggested LA was available, correct the the score.

I only judge on personal experience. If my opps defense does not give me extra tricks and they reach reasonable contracts as declarer. If they do that to me I start to think that they might be good player, if they do it more often then the other player around, they must be the best.

You may be right, but GIB is always guessing. GIB samples a few hands (I think it can do 5-10 in the given time) and checks what move is best. Asuming that north holding is 5+ ♥'s, it is possible that GIB sampled a hand or two where the ♠K is with south. Making the finesse look better. The relevance of the sampled hands, get's better the more cards have been played. At trick 2 GIB's analyzed sample set may be quite far from the true distribution.

GIB does not know much about leading agreements, but is great in counting. So lets count: West has 2♥'s, East has 4♥'s this means 7♥ are with NS. North bid 1♥ showing 5+ of these. After the first trick, North has 4+♥'s and south is left with 1-♥'s. So the chance that the J is with north is 80%. So GIB is 80% confident that north has the ♥J and is taking the finesse. So if playing ♥10 is not promising the J this seems to be the best plan, even for humans.