foo

So here is my complete "modest proposal" for handling all the hand types implied by this thread. I present this as a SUGGESTION in the hopes of advancing the State of the Art and evoking thoughtful discussion. I do not claim this to be the best possible structure. It may very well be flawed. That's why I am bringing it up here. Nor am I claiming that any of this is "standard" in any way. Every expert I've talked to says a= this is not a well defined area. b= that this is deep enough in the auction and detailed enough that this discussion is only appropriate for mature partnerships. Some assumptions 1M-2m;2foo-3m is GF 4SF is on in 2/1 auctions These are slam interested Responding hands. =3334 =2344 =2335 =3325 =2326 (Some. Judgment call.) with xxx in ♥'s 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4H with hxx or better in ♥'s 1H-2C;2S-3H;etc =3235 or =2245 with xx or hx in ♥'s ...and D stoppers 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4N ...w/o D Stoppers 1H-2C;2S-3D!etc with Hh in ♥'s hhx_hh_xxx_hhxxx or hxx_hh_xxx_hhhxx or hx_hh_xxxx_hhxxx 1H-2C;2S-3D!etc xxx_hh_xxx_hhhxx (may not be good enough) or xx_hh_xxxx_hhhxx 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4C! xxx_hh_hhx_hhxxx or xx_hh_hxxx_hhxxx 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4D! hxx_hh_hxx_hhxxx or hxx_hh_hhx_hxxxx or hhx_hh_hxx_hxxxx or hx_hh_hxxx_hxxxx or ... All Suits are Stopped. 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4S! The above list of hand types is supposed to be complete enough to make the point as to what hand types are involved for each sequence. It is not intended to be exhaustive. I ?think? this handles all the hand types at a safe auction level while allowing the partnership to find out what it needs to know in all cases. What do people think?

Agreed.

This hands are an advertisement for getting GOP to play ELC.

They went up to you and said, "foo, there's really something you should do to take your bridge to the next level--be able to play without sorting your cards."? No, I asked them and a few others about sorting their cards as in the topic of this thread... Thank you for sharing the secret to playing like Hamman and Sontag. As usual, your post was enlightening, and I am a better player now than before I read your post. ?? Huh and WTF ?? This sounds like sarcasm? What did I say or do to elicit such sarcasm? I NEVER made such a claim or came anywhere close to such a statement with regards to "secrets". I simply pointed out that some very good WC players had told me that sorting one's cards can put one at a disadvantage, as justin also pointed out; and that they had also said being able to play w/o sorting one's cards was an advantage. (I believe their point was that superior visualization, which is required to play w/o sorting one's cards, =is= one of the secrets to playing better.)

Darn close between 2C and 3C. Basically it boils down to whether this hand is odds on to be upgraded to a 5 loser hand, and therefore a GF maximum, or is not and therefore stays a 6 loser medium. If you think Responder is odds on to have the SA or SQ, bid 3C. If not, bid 2C. However, if you do bid 2C, your problems are not necessarily over... 1D-1S;2C-2H!?? 1D-1S;2C-2S;?? 1D-1S;2C-2N;?? 1D-1S;2C-3S;?? At least some of these auctions must result in you upgrading your hand to a maximum even if you did not after the 1st round of bidding. ...and "what will you do dear?" One thing the immediate 3C bidders definitely have going for them is that they are not going to have problems with the later auction since they "got their hand off their chest" with the immediate JS. Even if it rates to be an overbid. IMHO, this is yet another area where partners have to agree how they want to err, high or low, when the decision is this close and there might be problems in the later auction.

They went up to you and said, "foo, there's really something you should do to take your bridge to the next level--be able to play without sorting your cards."? No, I asked them and a few others about sorting their cards as in the topic of this thread...

It doesn't gain nothing. 1) Your opponents cannot tell anything by where you pull your cards. 2) You can play your spot cards more randomly rather than robotically so good opps cannot exploit your natural patterns of play. I agree completely with justin here. Some of the best advice I got many moons ago from folks like Hamman and Sontag was "learn to play w/o having to sort your cards."

Here's my counter argument to the idea that 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4H shows Hh in ♥'s IMHO it should show a hand like Kx_xxx_KQx_AKhxx This is a hand where We might easily have a slam. Or not be safe even at the 5 level because we have weak trumps. IMHO, the strong supporting sequence 1M-2m;foo-3M should promise at least hxx in support for that reason. Which means we need a sequence for NT'y hands with xxx in support. The OP sequence seems right for that purpose and will come up far more often if it shows xxx in support rather than Hh in support. That leaves the perfectly valid question as to what to do with those hands with Hh in support and interested in slam. I freely admit I am not yet sure. But I'm thinking about it.

And you are getting them. Your comment is both assuming and arrogant. In fact, not only are you getting the opinion of =this= advanced or expert player, you are also getting the opinions of the calls and emails I've made on this topic to other expert players. FTR, mikeh is well in step with them. All of them think this is an interesting and not well discussed sequence. Please check your assumptions and attitude at the door. Please, please don't quote me as someone who agrees with your posts. I don't disagree with all of them.. but: there are those with whom I am in frequent agreement and with whose p.ov. I can empathize and understand even when I disagree on the particular argument in question (justin, josh, frances, han, and a lot of others who I hope I don't insult by not listing here) and those with whom I often but not always find myself disagreeing. I wil not name them.. they know who they are and so do other frequent readers.. you are in that group, I am afraid to say. Nothing personal, but, just as Justin asked you not to hijack this thread with your not-mainstream ideas, I ask you not to co-opt me as someone who shares your ideas or even thinks that they are well thought out or represent expert thinking... some of your ideas may, but I often (usually?) feel otherwise. No insult was intended or implied to you mikeh. Nor was I claiming you were in agreement with me on this topic or any other. All I said was that your original comment saying that this is a rare and little analyzed or discussed auction for you is similar to the experience of other experts I've discussed this auction with. That's it. An affirmation of your original POV about the rarity of this auction. No more. No less. As for how mainstream or not my viewpoints are, that's a different and orthogonal issue from whether the ideas are any good or not. Bridge Bidding Theory is not and should not be static. Evolution is an important part of the process. I try to differentiate and classify any ideas I post appropriately; and I have been known to just as publicly change my mind when I think a better argument is presented than my own. In any event, I'll get off my response to this Ad Hominem sub thread and back on topic now. Han has made a very good and thought provoking post as to what hand types this sequence should show that deserves attention.

I've never submitted an article, but maybe I'll try. Elitism? Yeah, I'm the asshole here. Foo, once again you exhibit you can't maintain a thought for more than 10 seconds. These thoughts completely contradict each other. I was more picking on Han than you. Han's rant was aimed at trivial play by clients while his more deserving trump squeeze was not published. He then went on to complain about the overall low level of bridge in the Bulletin articles. I countered that by mentioning the recent Stepping Stone article, and noted that such hands are both rare... ...and that "trick plays" like trump squeezes and Stepping Stones are not of interest to the average Bulletin reader. For good reason. Thus if folks like Han want more such articles 1= they have to go out of their way to provide them 2= they have to realize they are a small minority of the readership 3= it will probably require setting up a special section in the Bulletin for them. There is no contradiction except perhaps in your mind.

And you are getting them. Your comment is both assuming and arrogant. In fact, not only are you getting the opinion of =this= advanced or expert player, you are also getting the opinions of the calls and emails I've made on this topic to other expert players. FTR, mikeh is well in step with them. All of them think this is an interesting and not well discussed sequence. Please check your assumptions and attitude at the door.

So if responder has a good 16+ with 3-card heart support, why did he not bid 3H over 2S? All of our doubleton heart constructions are premised on the idea that with a known 8-card major suit fit responder would have announced it the previous round. If 4H shows something like Qx_Kx_KJx_AKJxxx then when responder raises 3NT to 4NT opener knows that responder doesn't have that sort of hand... As Ken the Gollum says, Responder has pulled out a $2 sequence w/o discussion. Now we have to use GP to prove we are not a $.50 partner. First principle. All Strange Bids Are Forcing. Second principle. The More You Bid, The More You Have. The longer the sequence you use to get to the same spot, the better the hand you have. Third principle. The use of a given sequence denies a hand type appropriate for a different sequence. So. What hand types are shown by 1H-2C;2S-4H => usual definition is Fast Arrival min GF w/ 3+H 1H-2C;2S-3H => usual definition is Strong GF in support of H's BUT not right for a splinter or J2N 1H-2C;2S-3N => usual definition is min GF w/o H support 1H-2C;2S-4N => usual definition is Quantitative 4N w/o H support Side note: for your example of Qx_Kx_KJx_AKJxxx a= if play 2/1 absolute GF then 1H-2C;2foo-3C b= if the above is an invite sequence then 1H-2C;2foo-2N;blah-4C This hand has to expect that We are safe at 4N or the 5suit level. I'd also like to play in ♣'s whenever it is right. Hard to do if we do not show 6+C. mikeh's example ♠xx ♥Kx ♦AKxx ♣AKxxx 1H-2C;2S-3D;3N-4N Catering System to getting at slams in our 52's seems a bit esoteric. Also, I want to play 5m or 6m when it is right. Hard to do if we do not bid our suits. So now we get back to 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4H I think we all agree Responder can not have 4+H or 4 ♠'s. IMHO, Responder does not rate to have 6+C either. IMHO, most hands with 2-H will go another route as my examples above. Ditto most shapely hands with 3 card ♥ support. Responder suggested NT for a reason. So we are left with something like a 16-18 =2335, =3325 or a 18+ HCP =2344 At least, that's probably the train of thought that would run through my head ATT.

Hmmm. Opener has to have a 5- loser hand plus cards in the right places opposite that for slam to be odds on. This looks like a prosaic 1H-2C;2S-3N or 3N probe (does 3D here Ask or Show a stopper?) to me if as justin says 1H-2C;2S does not promise extras.

I assume you were not playing either the Serious or NonSerious 3N conventions? What, pray tell, does serious 3NT have to do with this auction? The hand type I'm assuming Responder most likely has here is the one that if playing Serious 3N would raise and then use Serious 3N. I'm assuming Serious 3N was not available so Responder found another way to describe such a hand.

I assume you were not playing either the Serious or NonSerious 3N conventions? Absent any other agreements, Responder has a moose for the auction. Responder has a minimum of an exceptional 16 (control rich and shapely. etc). Could easily have 18. With 3 card ♥ support. I agree with josh that a Responder with only 2 ♥'s would bid differently (for instance 1H-2C;2S-2N;3N-4N ) Responder has promised likely 5 level safety and made a slam try begging you to cue bid.

Agree with one caveat. In the absence of any knowledge about the defending hands, the best hand to Declare in NT is usually the one with the most Asymmetric Guards (Kx, Qxx, AJTx,etc). Not the strongest hand.

Hear Hear. Barry Rigel is a very approachable fellow. Give him better material if you do not like what you are seeing. OTOH, I think I smell some inappropriate elitism, or perhaps sour grapes for not getting their pet article published, here. Did not one of the recent Detroit NABC DB have an article where Declarer set up a Stepping Stone Squeeze? Just how high level are you looking for? The reality is that the Bulletin is intended for an audiences where most readers do not know such esoteric techniques. Nor are they interesting to that level of player. It should also be noted that the reason such technique is so impressive is at least partly because the situations for them are =rare=. You could easily play every Regional and NABC of a year and never see the board position for a Stepping Stone. That rarity also has the direct implication that these esoteric techniques, while definitely fun and the mark of true expert card playing ability, are NOT often the deciding factor in how often one wins events or scores well. So if you want more articles on things like trump squeezes and Stepping Stones, or the equivalent defensive issues, what you are really asking for is a new section in the Bulletin called something like "for experts and expert wanna be's only". Said section will have a difficult time finding material appropriate to it and only be of interest to a small minority of players. But people should talk to Barry and the other Bulletin editors about it if they feel strongly about it.

♠Axxxx ♥xxx ♦AKQ ♣xx 1S-2C;?? 2D Playing Standard or 2/1 GF ♠Jxxxx ♥KJx ♦x ♣AQJx 1S-2D;?? For me, 2N Playing Standard or 2/1 GF For those playing unrestricted rebids opposite a 2/1 GF, 3C In both cases, there are features in the hand or about the combined hands that greatly overshadow the ♠'s, so it makes far more sense to talk about them rather than repeat one's self about the unimpressive M. AKQxx_xxx_Axx_xx is of course a 2S rebid. Qxxxx_Kxx_Axx_Ax or the like is a 2N rebid for me. xxxxx_AKQ_Axx_xx or the like is also a 2N rebid. I will not lie about Major suit length in a 2/1 auction. Hope these responses are useful.

Absent any special structure that has been agreed upon, the default I usually use is for both 2M and 2N to be "catch alls" for minimums where you try to bid whichever best describes your hand. So hands with stronger or longer M bid 2M and the others bid 2N. Playing NA Standard one can also make descriptive bids in lower ranking suits with a minimum as long as on does not cross 2N or reverse (1M-2C;2D or 1S-2m;2H or etc). If playing 2/1 GF, there is the additional issue of what form of 2/1 GF are you playing. Some play that any rebid other than those specifically reserved for minimum openings shows extras. (I do not like this one. IMHO the whole point of playing 2/1 GF is to be able to describe hands more freely. To me, 2/1 GF being more restrictive than Standard makes no sense!) Some play that any new strain rebid that is lower ranking than opener's first bid suit while not crossing 2N does -not- show extras eg 1M-2C;2D or 1S-2m;2H or 1M-2m;2M or 1M-2m;2N can all be made with minimums. Some play that reverses that do not cross 2N (eq are not a "High Reverse") can also be make with minimums eg 1H-2m;2S can also be made with a minimum I firmly belong to this camp; and one of the reasons I do is that if you run through the hand types and sequences available you will notice that if playing this style 1M-2m;2M can usually be counted on to show 6+M. Finally, there are those who play a style of 2/1 GF where Opener can make =any= non jump rebid with a minimum. For them, 1M-2m;2M will always show 6+M. OTOH, in return for being able to freely describe their shape with any hand, these Openers sometimes have difficulty communicating how strong their hand is. YMMV. Pick your cake or poison.

Hmm. Well, perhaps it is just me, but if I have just passed partner's reopening double, and am expecting to beat them by several tricks, scared is not the word I would use to describe my feelings at the prospect of defending the same contract redoubled, instead of just doubled. ;) This agreement is an awesome way to bring back -1600 to your teammates. The best way to avoid bringing back bad results to teammates is to not make bad overcalls in the first place. Anything and everything beyond that is a minor effect in comparison. ...and anyone who is always happy when the opponents XX is not playing realistic Bridge. Decent systemic XX rules exist for the exact reason of taking advantage of the situation when your penalty X or pass may not have been the best idea.

Nothing in Bridge is certain. One thing is. If we run a poll on the east hand no one but you will redouble with 4522 and Jx of diamonds! Did you consider what happens if partner runs to clubs or has to pass? Nice to have you back though. As I said before, everything depends on partnership agreements as to style. For instance, if We agree that a= We will never make a marginal direct 2m overcall with 3 small in their suit and only 5 cards in our minor (so =2353 might be OK, but not =3253 or =3352 with hands of the OP strength and ♠ texture.) b= That we will not make direct overcalls with minimal strength hands unless our suit is of the appropriate quality. So (1M)-2m requires a minimum suit of Hhxxxx with a 6carder and Hhhxx with only 5 cards if in a hand of minimal overcall strength. Look what happens. If Richard's hand had been =2353 with full opening values, xx in ♠'s, and Hhhxx in ♦'s, 2DXX would be a much scarier contract for NS to contemplate defending. If you don't believe this, go do some simulations. I repeat that I am not advocating Richard's original overcall. It was bad Bridge and ill advised. But there are ways to make more aggressive 2m overcalls of the type Richard was evidently trying w/o putting one's head into the guillotine.

Nothing in Bridge is certain. However, if one's 2m overcall is full value and proper shape, that XX by Advancer is going to make the opening side sweat. Justifiably. Because if the only thing the penalty pass was based on is a bad trump break, Overcaller (who has just been told how to play the hand) may very well make 2DXX. OTOH, if Overcaller is not full value or not proper shape, a scramble for a better spot commences. Either way, you rate to be better off than playing Standard.

1. Casinos own their own facilities. They typically run gaming operations 24x7. The ACBL rents rooms from hotels. Nationals run 7-10 days, with 3 or so sessions a day. The cost dynamics are completely different 2. Casinos have lots of skin in the game. If a player at a casino is being cheated they will typically have a large financial stake in the system. For example, if someone cheats at Blackjack they are taking money directly from the casino. The ACBL doesn't have much skin in the game. In theory, the organization has a vested interest in ensuring the integrity of the game. However, the consequences from cheating aren;t nearly as immediate. The ACBL has just as much skin in the game as the casinos do. Cheating can and will destroy organized Bridge if not prevented as much as possible and prosecuted as vigorously as possible when it does occur. Within the context of tournament Bridge, cheating is a Capital Crime akin to Murder. Those who cheat and can be proven to have done so beyond reasonable doubt should be "executed". That is, thrown out of organized Bridge forever. No second chances. No exceptions. But to enforce that standard we have to be able to uphold the needed standard of proof. And that means hidden cameras or other electronic recording devices everywhere it makes sense and is feasible.

No, it is illegal to have camera's in the =stalls= or private baths. The semi-public areas of the bathroom in a privately owned company are fair game for video taping. Many companies are doing stuff like this to employees (...as well as recording every keystroke they make on their company PC and every phone call they make on the company phone and ...) Agree with 2nd sentence. You have no idea what you are talking about with regards the 3rd.

Might want to look at the following http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm...s_2&id=cellular added by uday (from that URL posted by richard ) " ...The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934 ...... " Evidently, there are legal loopholes and ways around that. IANAL. Someone who is should be consulted if the discussion goes to that depth. Here is some counterpoint to suggest that the legal situation is not cut and dry: " In most countries, it is illegal for private citizens to jam cell-phone transmission, but some countries are allowing businesses and government organizations to install jammers in areas where cell-phone use is seen as a public nuisance. In December 2004, France legalized cell-phone jammers in movie theaters, concert halls and other places with performances. France is finalizing technology that will let calls to emergency services go through. India has installed jammers in parliament and some prisons. It has been reported that universities in Italy have adopted the technology to prevent cheating. Students were taking photos of tests with their camera phones and sending them to classmates." However, as I previously stated, I do not think jamming is the best strategy if prevention or detection of cheating is the goal. Nor do I think most players are going to put up with not being reachable for important matters. The real solution is to duplicate the security measures casinos use as much as is needed. ATM, the costs involved would indicate that NABCs and International events should get this level of security. As costs decrease, we can look forward to seeing it in Regionals as well. Side note: had such security existed, Edith Rosenkranz would either not been kidnapped or would have been recovered far more quickly. There is more than simply the prevention of cheating that make using cameras extensively at tournaments a good idea.