foo

So (pa)-1S-(2C)-X;(pa)-?? 1= CHO has "held a gun to your head". You are forced to bid unless you are willing to convert the Negative X into a Penalty X. So you are sort of asking the wrong question. It's not how many points you need to bid 2N, or what shape you must have. It's what's the best call you can make with what you have been dealt. Hands with weak ♣'s have to have their HCP somewhere else. a= a side suit. b= more values in ♠ 2= If you can't handle CHO forcing you to bid like this, or you have a hand where you don't know what to do if this sequence happens, then you do not have an opening bid in the first place. With the given hand, I rebid 2N in tempo. 3= This sort of situation is exactly why there are minimum shape +and+ value requirements on Responder's Negative X's.

I think Joel, Josh, and Justin would all tell you that they there have been many fine players that are considerably younger than US legal drinking age (Evidently, particularly if their names begin with "J" :P )

If I can, I use the theory of Vacant Spaces or some other logic to determine in which direction to take the finesse. If I can't use logic, I finesse in whatever direction will p*ss off the opponent I dislike most by the most...

If you have the bidding judgment, playing skills, and track record of a (multiple times) World Champion, you get to decide whether or not the "normal" rules apply to you in any given situation. After all, players of that caliber write "the book" we are talking about. OTOH, if you are a more ordinary mortal...

If we want a player rating system, which I'm not sure we do, it should be as objective as possible. Something akin to the Chess's ELO. Any system based on human opinion is too easily biased and too easily "gamed". However, it should be noted that OKB tried to do this with the Lehman's... ...and that many feel it greatly damaged "the OKB experience". Even drove some players from OKB. Even some experts I know. It became that unpleasant in their opinion. At the least, we probably need to realize that someone's desirability as a player or partner on BBO is a vector with at least 3 independent variables: a= how objectively strong a player are they b= how well do people like them c= how much / often do they participate on BBO "a" and "c" can be easily calculated in an objective manner. "b" is a reputation system, with all the good and bad that comes with such. Who I want to play with can greatly depend on my goals and my mood. The Norman Kay's of the world (who rank high on all 3 metrics) are few and far between. (Even then I may not be able to stand the pace, glacial, of a player similar to NK) ...and I might not want to put up with a Lew Mathe-like player at some points no matter how skilled he is.

Hmmm. So, a= Responder can find out if Opener has 2 or 3 card support for Responder's 1st bid Major and how strong Opener is. But b= Responder can't find out about 4 cards in OM and c= Opener Can't rebid 1N with a stiff in Responder's Major IIUC, this does not look playable? What do you do with a 14(35) or =1345 hand not strong enough to Reverse after 1m-1S;?? ...not to mention the ugly =1444 that already causes bidding problems. H's can be a problem also with minimum =3145's: 1C-1H;?? Is this supposed to be another example of your sense of humor in action?

Yeah, they were actually playing that asking bid. 5♦ by South asked North how many diamonds West had. West was shocked that they played this. When North answered "two," West noted called the Director, claiming misinformation because he was looking at a void. South then bid 7♥. ROTFL... (again) You really should write some of these up. Or perhaps do Stand Up at Bridge Events. :D

Is this like a response to 1♣ should have 6+ hcp? 'Cause lemme tell you, when all of the minimum responses are at the two level, my partners don't seem to wait for 8 hcp to X. I'm lucky if they wait for 6. But maybe my partners are atypical. "The book" says 1= Responder's 2NewSuit in a contested auction requires the trick taking strength of the average 10+ HCP and 5+ cards in new suit. 2= A Negative X over a 2 level overcall requires the trick taking strength of the average 8+ HCP. (a Negative X over a 1 level overcall only requires the trick taking strength of the average 6+ HCP) If your partnerships are not adhering to these standards, the wisdom of the majority of experts is that you are living dangerously.

Interesting thing about this board. a= if W is void in ♦'s, 7H is cold DD b= if W has a stiff ♦, that ♦ must be the opening lead or 7H is cold DD c= if W has 2+♦, 7H is down DD.

I've also heard this same method: 1m-1M;1N-2C! is a puppet to 2D, 1m-1M;1N-2D! is GF Stayman, and 1m-1M;1N-2N! is a puppet to 3C called "3 way Checkback" It's not very commonly played in NA. I've also heard of xyz referred as "3rd Suit forcing".

So Responder was something like xx.xxxx.Axx.Axxx? and Opener was something like AKQxxx..Jx.Qxxxx? And you had T64.AKQ8.KQ62.K5 Opener made at least 2 mistakes according to classic Bridge "lore" 1= Opener's hand is not even close to a standard 2C Opening 2= Most experts will tell you that two suited hands are hands that you bend over backwards to avoid opening 2C. In the long run, if they keep bidding like this, they are a= going to get lot's of bad scores. b= going to get a lot of administrative "attention" due to their unusual bidding habits. (at the least, they are going to start getting forced to inform opponents that their bids do not show what is usually expected.) Welcome to Bridge! Your attention to detail and questions are indications that you are going to be good player and enjoy yourself a great deal.

IMHO "A" is something you might see if you are not playing Weak Jump Shifts in competition. A long ♠ suit in a very weak hand. "B" is not right for an Overcall (but not necessarily as weak as in "A"!) with long ♠'s, trying to improve the contract. If you play Weak Jump Overcalls, this is probably a hand with a long, bad ♠ suit of too poor a quality for a WJO or a hand too strong for a WJO but too weak for a 1S Overcall. "C" is, again, a hand not right for an Overcall or a WJO. Probably too weak for the one and too strong for the other. Again, I would not take this as a stunningly forward going sequence. Please note that I'm not an advocate of overcalls "just for the heck of it". In the Direct Seat, I feel strongly that an Overcall is a 7-5 loser hand with shape and values appropriate for the auction. Similarly, a WJO is a descriptive and disciplined bid in my POV. Therefore, it is quite possible for there to be hands that don't fit the requirements for either. People who have different Overcalling styles may very well need meanings for these sequences that are different from those I have given. YMMV.

If the auction had been Uncontested, it very likely would have gone 1S-1N;2D-2S This is often called a "False preference" since you are at the top of the minimum responding range. Do the same thing here. 1S-(2C)-perfectly normal Neg X;2D-2S If Opener can not take another bid, you aren't likely to be missing any games. As for the partscore, the 52 will tend to play better than the 43, and you'd rather be in 2M vs 2m. Be warned that some play this Contested auction sequence as showing a 3 card Limit Raise, so discuss this with partner to make sure you are on the same wavelength. I have sympathy with those that think Opener should rebid 2N (this Neg X promises ~8 HCP at least, so Opener knows 15+8= 23= 2N likely to be safe) OTOH, Responder does not have to have even close to AK98x in H's. They could have xxxx. Call me old fashioned, but NT bids in Contested auctions should at least be based on a reasonable assumption of a stopper being present. From Opener's perspective, there are 14 HCP outside of H's unaccounted for and only 10 HCP in H's unaccounted for. Even if we give the 2C bidder the AQ of C's (and they have to have more than that if they are bidding sanely when their partner has passed), the odds are still ~8:10 that Responder's HCP are not in H's (pa)-1S-(2C)-X;2D may be a tad on the conservative side, but it's not unreasonable given the auction.

2N by S is actually worse than Ken says. The opening lead of any ♣ from W thru N's KQTxx will set 2N even if N splits honors and E ducks. If that happens, Declarer's best shot is psychological. He must play the DT, hoping that E splits their honors to cover (crashing W's DJ) (I think I've seen a Bridge Master deal with this theme...) ...What a way to drive home "2nd hand low! I mean it!" 2N Declared by N is considerably better given that only the unusual lead of E's stiff ♠x will set 2N. Any other lead makes 2N by N cold. Here's how the ♠x lead can set 2N. 1= If S plays small on ♠x, W wins the SQ then puts DJ on table followed by anything. 2= If S plays ♠ A or K, sooner or later Declarer will have to play ♦'s or ♣'s, and as long as the DJ is allowed to win a trick and the SQ is used to force both the SA and the SJ from Declarer, 2N is going down.

ROTFLMAO! (I needed that laugh.) Sorry about that. I did say I needed caffeine...

With 6-5 in the undbid suits (assume north opened 1♦ and south bid 1♥) did WEST not bid? Maybe 2NT maybe sandwich 1NT, maybe double? W's hand sounds like it was some "cheese burger" like Hxxxx.Qx.=.Qxxxx or Hhxxx.Qx.=.Qxxxx Are you making a Vul Overcall of any kind with that?

Ah. I thought at first it was supposed to be a typical 5 card ending with S on lead. Analysis of a 5 card ending is wrong? ♠xx♥♦♣Qxx + a) ♠x♥♦Kx♣Jx DA, W's discard establishes Dummy's 2nd ♠ or 3rd ♣ :P ♠xx♥♦K♣Jx DA, CT -> CA making sure DK was bare, S ruff, Dx leaves W helpless c) ♠xx♥♦Kx♣J DA, CT -> CA dropping CJ, S ruff, marked hook in C's Hmmm. Looks right. I must need coffee. To answer the question you meant to ask. Since I don't see my mistake, my plan is if E discards a ♠, you are in line "a". if a ♦ discard line "b" (only you know that there's no chance of a ♦ Falsecard), if ♣ discard line "c". I probably shouldn't be posting so fast w/o coffee in my system. I'm sure you'll point out the error. EDIT: You did not mention ♠xx♥♦Kx♣QJ as one of E's possible hands. If E discards a ♠, We're back to line "a". If E discards a ♦, line "b". If E discards a ♣, the last part of line "c" changes to C's can be played from the top.

Most of my spare time is presently being spent in trying to find information for another thread, but I saw this in passing and thought I'd note... E presently has _6_ cards in a 5 card ending: ♠xx♥♦Kx♣Jx Since the problem is uninteresting if the ♦K is stiff (♦A drops ♦K, ♣T -> ♣A to make sure E wasn't Falscarding (if so the ♣J will drop), ♠x ruff, since W has had to pitch 2 ♠'s ♦x now squeezes W) Or if instead E has only 1 ♠, (now it's ♦A, W's pitch establishes Dummy's 2nd ♠ or 3rd ♣) It must be that the ♣J is bare? (♦A, W discards ♠, ♣T -> ♣A dropping ♣J, ♠x ruff, play for Split Honors and take the ♣ hook) I give up. What's the actual position and problem again? Or is that the point? To play in such a way as to protect against all 3 possible E holdings? Anyway, back to my research to find a ~30 year old twisted 2way forcing C system and the board(s) that made it at least temporarily famous...

Yes, this was some time ago. ~20 years if memory serves. As I've noted elsewhere, I may have not gotten the name of the system correct and may have mistakenly called it NZSR. If so, I apologize.

If I have the system name wrong, I apologize. As I said, I'll try and find the board in question. (Tougher if I've forgotten what the name of the system was being played.)

Hog, NZ Symmetirc Relay has one hand opening a 2way 1C to show a weak or strong hand and Responder bidding 1D as a similar 2way bid. Then there's an entire relay system based on the strong hand asking and the weak hand answering. The NZSR pair knows who is strong and who is weak. The opponents do not. This got a lot of attention as being hard to defend against until in some major event an opponent quietly passed holding a 22 count. The results was that both Opener and Responder thought the other was the strong hand and the auction went to very high levels... and then got very profitably whacked. I'll see if I can find the board.

...and if Chip Martel did those things as you say them and for the reasons you say he did, he was IMNSHO 100% in the wrong. It's one thing to say that a method distorts the spirit of the game to the point where it's no longer the same game. As it's been explained to me, that's the basis for the objection to Destructive and Dominant methods. Agree or not, it's a reasonable rationale. OTOH, It's quite another thing to ban a method strictly because the opponents aren't used to using something as simple as penalty doubles... That smacks strongly of personal prejudice of some kind. Your story reminds me of the stupidity within the ACBL regarding the Multi-2D that existed for many years. Such things weren't right then and they aren't ever going to be IMHO.

mike777's last post makes me =definitely= want to put this through a rigorous simulation...

IIRC, the biggest reason your assumed fit preempts were deemed Destructive was the range of ~3-8 HCP that you wanted for them? I've often wondered what the outcome would've been if you had presented your assumed fit preempts with a range of say 7-12 HCP. The same range as Schenken's original range for Weak Two's... Such a 2bid would've been far harder to dismiss as being Destructive IMHO.

=definitely= a separate issue; and =definitely= infuriatingly unjust if you are relaying events correctly. :) I'm perfectly willing to accept that perhaps the regs needed more clarity to them or that they were misleading as written compared to intent. But at that point the onus is on the ACBL to rewrite things to fix it. If the regs clearly state you can play a certain method at a certain level, then you should be allowed to do so. Period.