StevenG

The cards are evidence that the player's bidding is consistent with his holding, and what he thinks his methods are. But surely that's true for anyone who isn't psyching, down to the dumbest palooka. The cards are not evidence that the player's partner has any reason to understand the bid.

I think that at club level in England, many ordinary players would explain a simple tranfer sequence, say 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥, as something like "2♦ - I'm making a transfer bid to hearts", and "2♥ - I'm transferring to hearts". I don't know if this fact (if it is!) is relevant to county "A" players for a "minor" county, who will be at least very experienced tournament players, and rather more knowledgable than the players I am talking about. However, I'm aware that most of the English players who are saying the explanation is clear seem to be young players with a background in University bridge (not the typical environment), whereas those who oppose that view are experienced TDs with a good knowledge of how regular tournament players think.

I play Benji, so I have a choice of two strong forcing opening bids. People who play three weak twos often open their 2♣ noticeably lighter than I would open my 2♦, because it is the only forcing bid they have. This seems to go unmentioned, but is surely part of the same argument. As to the forcing pass argument, I would suggest that 85% of the EBU membership would not have the first idea about the concept of a forcing pass, and that the argument cannot be taken seriously for that reason alone.

They are not playing different methods. They are playing the same method, but using significantly different judgement.

Goodness - I never knew that! How should those of us who play (the equivalent of) a perfectly traditional 2♣, but without the obligation to double a plausible sac, disclose it? "It's game forcing, because we're forcing to game, but it isn't really because there is a minute possibility that we might not double the opponents if they can find a making game in a different strain."

So, what does natural mean, in the context? To me, "asks for half a stopper" sounds artificial and alertable, but "shows some spades, but still does not feel confident about NT" sounds natural and not alertable. Yet, on this hand, they mean virtually the same thing. The other thing that puzzles me is the response of 3♣ to the FSF bid. Surely that shows a fifth club. Or do the Dutch do it differently?

West bid 4♥ rather than 3NT. I suggest that renders meaningless any inferences from his lack of alert.

Bluejak, I think there is a problem if TDs assume that players actually have a method for defending things like Lucas Twos. I'm sure that the top tournament players do, but players at my level (experienced at club level, less so at tournament level) don't actually have the knowledge base, nor any easy way of acquiring it. Gordon pointed me to Chris Ryall's website - that isn't exactly as obvious a resource as would be an article in English Bridge every couple of years. I don't see Lucas Twos very often where I play. Those who play them are the Multi players, and Multi isn't common around my way. Consequently, I meet Lucas a handful of times a year, as, in all probability, do the other local inexperienced tournament players. I'd guess we all just muddle through, combining our methods against weak twos with general meta-agreements. We don't have experienced partners to learn from, just other players of similar experience to ourselves. So I wouldn't want to comment on EW's bidding on this hand without knowing their experience levels, both generally and against Lucas. (Personally, on my own philosophy of sound overcalls and light protection, I'd think that West's pass and East's 3♦ were both pretty automatic, and pass as East wouldn't be a LA for me; it's just a shame that West was so stupid as to do the questioning.]

I'm interested in hearing about what are standard ways of defending against Lucas Twos. I'd be grateful if someone could post a pointer to a suitable printed authority on the subject for the British club player, since I've never seen one.

What, specifically, does breaking the transfer and bidding 3♠ mean?

In this thread from rgb, a month or so ago, bluejak argued strongly that analogous information from partner's question was UI. https://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_thread/thread/cdb7621ac48eab97?hl=en

Doesn't -100 beat -140? [edit] And doesn't the UI make it more advantageous to pass than to bid on, since partner's presumed minimum suggests less defence to 3♠?

No. Why should we? If all that is said is "game-forcing", then all that is meant is "game-forcing". I didn't play competitive bridge back in the days of Acol strong 2s, so why should I have to second-guess what people might erroneously read into an entirely accurate description?

You might change your mind on that when your eyesight starts ro fail and your motor control becomes unreliable.

deleted

If we forced those players out of the local clubs, they would all be down to two tables. The vast majority of duplicate bridge played is played for social reasons, not competitive, and the laws reflect that.

No. It's because they all learn from each other. (In my area of England, I'm aware of very few B/I players who have taken formal lessons. They come into the game having played socially with, at best, some bastardised form of stone-age Acol - then their first regular partner makes them play weak 2s and Reverse Benji. This equips them to play at weak clubs for the rest of their life with no interest in improvement.)

My experience is that the majority never do it at all. Of course, people on this forum seem to think that "all players" and "experienced tournament players" means more or less the same thing. My understandings with players of s similar playing level to myself matches Bluejak's view, not Lamford's.

Result stands as NS have done nothing wrong. Would there be a problem if South, playing Precision, had opened the hand 1♣?

Why does the word "strong" need to be used at all? Around my way, nobody ever uses it here. They just say "8 playing tricks or 19-20 balanced", or whatever the details of their agreement. It's assumed that it's OB compliant, which in practice means Extended Rule of 25, and most players are well aware that there are restrictions, even if they don't know exactly what those restrictions are. Anyway, that fact that these hands are legal at Level 3, and that there is no mixing of strong and non-strong at Level 3, says that the EBU have defined this type of hand as strong, whatever the preferences of some players.

Have EW heard of unassuming cue-bids? Are they unaware that irregular partnerships sometimes have misunderstandings with their defence to "may be short" club openings?

Gordon, you say that you knew your partner to be an ethical player. Why then do his questions about a diamond bid suggest a diamond lead and constrain you? If anything, you have UI that he has no interest in a diamond lead, otherwise he would have felt constrained not to ask the question.

What would the uncontested auction 1NT-2♠ mean? I'd bid by analogy with that sequence. (3♣ showing a maximum, in my preferred methods). But, that's because I have an explicit "system on" agreement.

If I was the 6NT bidder, it would mean I was searching for a more scientific sequence but couldn't find one.

It depends on whether it's MPs or IMPs.