StevenG

It seems to have moved to the "Laws and Rulings" forum.

But it still shows a hand which cannot find a natural bid, which is almost invariably one with an unbiddable 4-card suit. That normally looks like take-out to me. I can't be bothered to look at the Blue Book right now. The Orange Book used to fail to define sensibly a take-out double, but clearly said a negative double was take-out. Yet a negative double is exactly what I mean by a "do something sensible" double - a hand with no natural bid, but with values and with length in the unbid suits. After all, with other hand types you normally either have a sensible bid or a clear pass.

If a double is "do something sensible", you don't really have an agreement - and you only alert agreements - right?

Yes, but as soon as the bidding gets difficult, you don't have agreements. Or you have meta-agreements that don't fit the hand. Is an undiscussed "do something sensible, partner" double alertable if you can deduce the intent? If you would deduce a different intent if you had a different hand? If you can't deduce the intent? These rules are designed for tournament partnerships with detailed system cards and lengthy post-mortems, not once-a-week club partnerships.

It's odd how theory and practice so often differ.

Their agreement seems to be the a raise to 3♠ is invitational. Therefore there was no reason to alert.

I outlined my basic argument in my original post. Mike made analysis-free statements as an article of faith. Perhaps someone could tell me where all these people live. We have a massive housing crisis already building up. Doubtless, there are large areas of the UK that are underpopulated, but there are no jobs there. We are becoming less and less self-sufficient in food; the situation is becoming irreversible as we build on good quality agricultural land to house people. We have an energy crisis looming; it is acknowledged that the lights might start to go out regularly over the next decade. The more people we have, the more energy we need, and we cannot satisfy those needs, at least in the short to medium term. Our transport system is at breaking point, especially for those who commute into London. The problems are substantial and population growth exacerbates them. I see no solutions.

Nonsense.

Why? We are a country that used to be industrialised, but have been persuaded by the neo-liberal economic consensus that we can exist by providing services. We have a huge trading deficit with the rest of the world. Basically, we consume more than we create. Adding even more people imto the mix, who expect a similar standard of living, while working predominantly in the service sector, in my view, make the country poorer than richer, although this won't be seen in the short term. Yes, they make the very rich richer, but that's because they drag down labour costs and make the poor poorer. Add in the fact that our infrastructure isn't coping with the increases in population, and the necessity to be able to control our population levels seems obvious. We are not the USA which is a modern country founded by immigration - we are an old country that is overpopulated and struggling to continue to provide a standard of life to our present population that they expect. Maybe if we could find ways of reinvigorating industy, it would help. Maybe if we could find ways of regenerating the poorer parts of the country, rather than have almost everything in London and the south-east, it would help. But I don't see it happening, especially while neo-liberalism remains dominant. (Just how does selling each other insurance provide the right to be able to buy in tangible essentials like food and energy from abroad?)

In the U.K. we elect Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister is that person who can form a Government, and get that Government's policies enacted as legislation. The party system is, in a sense, something extra to the basic constitution, and, although, modern practice now recognises it, it is not embedded in the way we work. When I was young, parliamentary candidates did not have the name of their political party on the ballot paper, but that has now changed. In practice, of course, the Prime Minister is going to be the leader of the party that can form a government. If that party wishes to change its leader, it can. It is a purely internal party matter. In 1990, Margaret Thatcher's pronouncements were becoming increasingly bizarre. Party grandees told her she had lost the confidence of her party; as a result she was effectively forced to resign. After a leadership election, the Conservatives replaced her with John Major who became Prime Minister. No election was needed or even seriously suggested. In 2007, Tony Blair resigned and Gordon Brown took over as Labour leader without a party contest. Again he became Prime Minister, but this time, with the British public now taking a more presidential view, there were rumblings about his legitimacy. Brown, who had been obsessed with being Prime Minister for many years, was unwilling to risk his status, so carried on until the election. Perversely, had he called an election in 2007, he would almost certainly had won, whereas the crash of 2008 exposed the disastrous policies he had pursued as Chancellor, and he lost the 2010 election. The situation has changed recently, however. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat goverment changed the law so we now have fixed-term 5 year parliaments. A Prime Minister cannot now call a snap election at a time of his own choosing. We are in uncharted waters, and how it will work out next time we have a government without a working majority is unclear.

The players learnt Widget from somewhere. They haven't read the supposedly definitive document, so presumably they have learnt it from clubmates. So there must be a set of players who play it differently from standard, and probably at least two different sets of players, given the nature of the problem. So Widget has already developed a variety of meanings. I play Halmic as a defence to 1NTx, and so does a friednd of mine. How we play it varies significantly, and I would never offer to play Halmic without a detailed discussion at to what was meant. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to go to a website and tell me how I ought to play it.

It seems to me, then, is that the only purpose of alerting is to laugh at your opponents and tell them "You're stuffed!". If you don't ask, you don't know what's going on, and make mistakes. If you do ask, you risk an adjustment against you. Hardly in the spirit of full disclosure, is it?

I would expect my partners only to ask if they don't know what the bid means. If partner only asks when the meaning of the bid is unknown, and I understand their knowledge base (which I normally do, so I know they don't know) and the auction is one that is competitive or likely to become so, is there really any UI? (I'm talking about any bids, not just stop bids.)

Ah, but you are an expert. I, on the other hand, am most definitely not, and nor are my partners. So I don't think I could make the assumption that my partners would treat a pass as a slam invitation (actually, I am quite sure I couldn't), which is why I overlooked that option. As for the players in the original post, since I have no idea who they are, I cannot tell whether they have agreements from your world or mine.

I don't see that jeopardising ones rights (on a technicality) should justify opponents giving you an incorrect answer.

I too fail the understand the logic that failing to bid 6♠ on the previous round means that bidding 6♠ now is irrational. We are not told the scoring, so let's assume a teams match, and that the other table is in a spade game scoring 650 or 680. If we play in 5♠, we get a flat board. If we play in 6♠, we get either +11 IMPs or -11 IMPs, so the break-even point is a 50% chance of making. However, once they have bid 6♥, if they are allowed to play there, doubled, we are -6 or -7 IMPs. So, surely this changes the odds we need for the slam down to those which give an expected value of about -6 IMPs which is around 25%. As DaveB suggests, if you judge the odds of the slam between 25% and 50% it makes sense to play in 5♠, if allowed, but bid to 6 if pushed. Of course, we don't actually know what will happen at the other table. Imagine that this was MPs, not teams. Then, if the rest of the room was in 5♠, then bidding 6 would be automatic since -50 and +200 would both score 0%. As for South's hesitation, I always struggle with the idea that, to quote Helene, "but as long as (from North's point of view) South may have been thinking of bidding 6, the hesitation makes bidding 6 more attractive". The AI is that South prefers 5♠ to 6♠ on the auction so far, and that limits the range of hands he can have. The UI suggests that he evaluated (which I think is a fairer word than "considered" or "thought about") 6♠ and found it wanting. All the UI does is eliminate those hands where bidding 6 is so ridiculous that it can be seen as such without any thought. If there are no such hands, the UI does not make bidding 6 more attractive. At least, that's the way I see it. What's wrong with my logic?

I've found that opening 1♦ seems to work best.

On that basis, neither partner seems to be aware that C is a possibility, so it cannot possibly be right. I know that saying "widget" is frowned upon, but in reality "widget", and nothing more, is the partnerhip (mis)understanding.

I can't see any reasopn at all to worry about West's action. A non-forcing 3♥ with that hand is hardly suggested by the UI. I'm not sure about East's raise, though.

Chris has (now) said that they are beginners. So 3♦ is an impossible bid which, in practice, only ever means that partner has forgotten about transfers. LAs are dependent upon system - you cannot force system upon people just to give a rationale for adjustment. They do not play transfer breaks, so any interpretation on 3♦ as a transfer break is absolutely wrong.

Presumably it's a method that ensures that the TD can adjust against strangers, while not adjusting against his friends.

Do those "many players" include those who don't always remember transfers?

The field bid in a weak field is rarely 4♥ - at least, not round here. As fields get weaker, big pre-empts change from winning bridge to losing bridge.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that these methods should be recommended in the N/B forum. Sure, with experienced players, but N/Bs need solid methods that don't lead to too many unplayable contracts.

Surely not. You still have to place the opponents' cards. (And you still have to know what you are aiming for - overtricks at MPs?)