foo

DD limit of the board is 3S. More typical auction is (E dealing) (1C)-1S-(3C)-3S;ap On the actual layout, In 4S you are DD minus unless W leads a trump or underleads the ♥A Say W leads the ♣9 as it happened ATT. Dummy wins the ♣A. The line that probably gives you the best chances is T2= Bang down the ♠A. T3= lay a small ♠ Now W must continue ♣'s when in or Declarer makes 4S. As long as W continues ♣'s here, I think Declarer is now cold for at least -1. I don't think it will be difficult for most W players to continue ♣'s ...and I don't see a better shot. Even DD.

1N. you are not strong enough for 2m! you are too strong and have the wrong shape (no stiff or void) for 3m!

And don’t be at all surprised if your beginner/intermediate/expert partner passes your forcing pass. ...but since you passed because you were unsure what to do, if they use the same logic it will usually work out reasonably well.

Jilly, 1= a reverse usually (as in "the vast majority of the time") shows a hand where the 2nd suit is shorter than the first. 2= any time you want to "fall in love with your hand", pretend partner has only 6 HCP and they are in the absolute worst spot they can be in for your hand. Then pretend partner has less than 6 HCP and will pass your opening bid. If you still think your hand is good enough to force to the 3 level (reverse) or GF (jump shift) under those circumstances, then make a plan to bid strongly. Else, come back to earth. ♠AQ972 ♥AQJT4 ♦632 ♣ Feel safe playing at the 3 level if all CHO has is 6 HCP in ♣'s? End of love affair. You should open 1S planning to rebid 2H. ♠AK972 ♥AKJT4 ♦K32 ♣ "Who cares where CHO has their 6 HCP!" Now =this= is a hand worth falling in love with! You open 1S like a human; planning to rebid 3H like a bridge player.

A Rule of Thumb: X when your hand says defend or when the thought of bidding on makes you feel sick to your stomach. Bid when you have no defense or when the thought of passing makes you feel sick to your stomach. Pass when you aren't sure whether you want to Play or Defend. Or when you aren't which of X or bid would make you feel more sick. :lol:

Partnership Agreement time. Hands like this are why some pairs play that C's-(D's)-X or D's-(C's)-X promises 44 in the Majors or a hand that can handle any subsequent auction. Your best bet with this hand is 2H.

I 100% agree with your implication. *sigh* However, once it has been brought up it needs to be dealt with so as to "close Pandora's box" ASAP. Which is why you added your opinion rather than stick with the facts or simply provide links? Given that the opinion in question was far less inflammatory than some, if not most, of the things linked to; absolutely.

I 100% agree with your implication. *sigh* However, once it has been brought up it needs to be dealt with so as to "close Pandora's box" ASAP.

And, you thought he was serious? Whether I think he was serious or not, it's IMHO well worth the safety play to guard against the possibility that the author was. Or that some reader might think the comment was serious. Particularly given the historical precedent we have, even in this incident's example, of people reacting strongly based with little or relatively little provocation or basis.

The "affair" in question was in not way salacious. In Shanghai, the US Women's Team, evidently led by Deb Rosenburg, made a homemade sign as a joke during the awards cermony making a political statement ("We did not vote for Bush") that was definitely inappropriate for the setting but IMHO nowhere near worth the uproar over it that ensued. Reactions included extremes by some such as demands that any of the women involved in the incident be banned from high level bridge for varying lengths of time or that they be forced to pay some sort of large fine. It made the US national news and some members of the US women's team were interviewed on one of the US TV morning talk shows. There are BBOF threads on the topic: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?act...ote+for+Bush%22 It was poor judgement and a social gaffe on Mrs Rosenburg's part (sort of like wearing cut-offs and a tee-shirt to a black tie event or publicly gargling your champagne during a wedding toast), but IMHO nowhere near as treasonous as some tried to make it out to be, and to my knowledge the situation has been resolved.

Assuming you are playing WNT's, there is every reason to keep the bidding as low as naturally possible with 15+ flat. 1D-1H;2H => says "4 ♥'s, 15-17 Dummy Points". Very accurate. 1D-1S;1N => again, very accurate. 1D-1N => Right. O knows to pass now and not fall in love with their SNT. 1D-2C => Responder has extras and O is looking at a SNT? O knows We almost certainly belong in Game. 1D-2D => Again, very accurate regardless of whether you are playing Inverted Minors or not. If you are playing WNT's, you should be playing Inverted Minors. When I've played WNT+4cM's, the style that seemed to work best for opening 1H vs 1m when 44 in H+m was =when everything in the hand is concentrated in the two 44 suits, making your hand a problem at NT. =when I had a small doubleton or Ax (therefore a decent ruffing value) and the 4 card ♥ suit was very chunky. If playing a SNT, I tend to very much open 1N with a SNT unless the sort of exceptions I just listed are present.

Looking at all 4 hands, DD =neither= 6D nor 6S takes more than 11 tricks if They defend properly. 6S only has a chance if They make the wrong opening lead (a ♦ or a ♠ will set 6S). After a rounded suit lead, I think 6S is cold, and I think Fluffy has the right idea.

One of the advantages of playing WNT''s us that the auctions 1m-1M;2M and 1m-1M;3M can be far more accurate compared to SNT systems. Playing a WNT 1m-1M;2M shows a SNT or 15-17 Dummy points. 1m-1M;3M shows 18-19 Dummy points. Also, playing a WNT, you =strain= to not raise Responder's M with less than 4 card support. Therefore, a= ♠QT65 ♥AQJ6 ♦AQ4 ♣J9 => 1D-1M;2M b= ♠JT65 ♥AJ4 ♦AQJ75 ♣9 => 1D-1S;2S If you play that 1D-1M;3C! is some sort of shortness, it's a 18+ Dummy point hand. Not this. c= ♠AQ8 ♥JT654 ♦7 ♣AQJ3 => 1H-1S;?? An important hand. Playing WNTs, you have to make a stylistic choice which affects how you bid this hand. If 1H-1S;1N= a SNT, Then 1H-1S;2S shows 15-17 Dummy Points and you can not raise ♠'s unless you have 4 card support or enough extras to make up for having only 3 card support. If 1H-1S;1N does not show extras, you have more latitude on what hands you can raise ♠'s on. Playing either style, since I'm a shape purist whenever possible and I have an easy rebid, my sequence with this hand is 1H-1S;2C I do not raise ♠'s with this hand.

1st, there are some good resources on the net regarding Negative X's. Use a search engine and read up a bit. The following is intended to be supplemented by such reading. The biggest thing to remember is that a negative X is "a takeout X by Responder". Like all T/O X's, it promises length in the unbid suits with emphasis on the unbid majors. Like all T/O doubles, it's strength requirements increase as either its shape becomes less ideal or as the level of the auction increases. In general, =a Neg X at the 1 level requires 6+ HCP. =a Neg X at the 2 level requires 8+ HCP. =a Neg X at the 3 level requires 10+ HCP. These are minimums for perfect shape Neg X's where all the HCP are decent (downgrade a hand with too many Q's and J's) located in such a way that they rate to be useful (downgrade your hand if you have unprotected honors, especially in Their bid suit, or honors that are likely to be onside for finesses if They Declare.) for Us if We Declare. Also like T/O X's, there are shapes that the Neg X is traditionally used to show that are not of traditional shape. As in the analogous case, these are hands that may be useful for partner to know about that can't be bid in a more normal way. Usually We X with them because the hand in question is not strong enough to bid freely in the auction underway. I'll cover the more tradtional, T/O like, stuff first. The I'll talk about the more atypical shapes the Neg X can be useful for. =Unlike= American style (as opposed to Italian style) T/O X's, the emphasis is so highly focused on the unbid majors that the Neg X may have 2- cards in any given unbid minor. So 1C-(1D)-X , What's it typically show? In NA, it shows 44 or at least 43 in the Majors and 6+ HCP. 1m-(1M)-X, 4 cards in the unbid Major. 6+ HCP if (1M) was 1♥. 8+ HCP if (1M) was 1♠. It might show 4 cards in the unbid minor. It does not have to. 1H-(1S)-X 1S-(2H)-X Both of these usually show 44 in the unbid minors and 8+ HCP. 1foo-(1N)-X There are 2 ways to play this. The 1st is as a straight penalty X. Requires 10+ HCP. The 2nd is as a Neg X for the 3 unbid suits (with emphasis on the unbid Majors). Requires 8+ HCP. A sequence you should discuss and agree on with partner. Now let's talk about the more unusual cases when We make a Neg X. =You have a 6+ card or strong 5+ card suit you'd like partner to know about but your hand is not strong enough to bid it at the level required to show the suit. Your minimum is -1 HCP if you have a 5 card suit and -2 points if you have a 6 card suit; but with an absolute floor of ~6 HCP (IOW, what would be required to make a simple response in an Uncontested auction.) =You have 10+ HCP and support for partner, but it is only 3 card support, and you do not have a 5+ card side suit to show. IOW, 10+ HCP, 3 card support, flat hand. =You have a hand that wants to bid NT, and that would be strong enough to do so in the present auction, but you lack a stopper or only have 1/2 a stopper in Their suit and your hand is not strong enough to take a bid at the level necessary to ask for the required stops. *All of these hands start with a Neg X and then clarify their hand type with the ensuing auction* =The 1st passes Opener's rebid or corrects to the suit actually in hand. =The 2nd raises Opener appropriately on your next bid. =The 3rd has a lot of potential continuations depending on Opener's rebid, so I'll suggest you find a decent teacher or reference to use to get all the follow-ups. Al Roth, the inventor of these, was famous for saying that he played Neg X's all the way thru 7S. Most pairs do not. Typical agreements are to play Neg X's thru 3S or to play them thru 4H. Make sure to agree with pard as to how high you will play Neg X's. This is intended as a quick overview or summary reference. There is a great deal of richness involved in properly using Neg X's that I have not covered here. Find a good teacher and ask lot's of questions. :)

mikeh's attitude is far from crazy on this. I don't like competing with a suit as bad as that of the OP hand at IMPs either. But I also agree with the posters who have said that if you are going to compete with it, you do at the 1st opportunity. (1D)-2C with this hand is a lot less dangerous than balancing in ♣'s. It also has the advantage of putting pressure on Them before responder has had a chance to communicate. Balancing with 3C on this hand after They have had a nice quiet auction to figure out what assets They have is much more suicidal than making a Direct Overcall of 2C.

OK. Lot's of stuff in or implied by your post, so please bear with me if this gets long or I miss something on 1st pass. 0= It is unclear from your post, but I'm assuming we are talking about =Responder's= raises? I'll talk a bit about both. 1= SA and 2/1 GF are a 5cM system that believe in Responder raising Opener to 2M with any hand of the proper strength and 3+ trumps. Doesn't matter if you play any form of Walsh or not. 2= The issue of raising with "proper responding strength" is directly related to how sound / light the 1M opening style is. A 7 loser hand with 2+ QT in it can be raised by any supporting 9- loser hand with 2+ covers cards in it (unless you are playing Constructive or Semi-Constructive raises. See below.) Unless you like bad scores and losing events, the lower your "floor" on 1M Openings, the higher your floor has to be on 2M raises. 3= It =DOES= matter if you are playing 2/1 GF vs SA. Especially so if you are playing 2/1 GF with Constructive or Semi-Constructive raises. whether 1S-2S is allowed with Axx_x_(xxxx_xxxxx) is something that depends on partnership style. 4= Your game try structure matters as well. 1S-2S when responder holds Axxx_x_(xxx_xxxxx) is much more risky if you do not have the proper methods in place to handle the ensuing auction. Now let's go across the table. 1m-1M;?? Most pairs require Opener to have 4 card support for a raise. Many pairs admit that they feel endplayed into raising on some shapely hands with 3 card support. Very few pairs raise freely with 3 cards if they have a flat hand. Hardy's strategy was based on the 2nd sentence. I have not heard much about pairs defining opener's raise based on whether Walsh was being used or not. Requiring 4 cards for Opener's raise is the more constructive choice. The more freely you raise with 3+ cards, the less well defined your shape is and therefore the more you are gambling on confusing the opponents more than partner for a good result. This suggests that if you are going to play the "Opener raises 1M freely" style, the better Opener's hand, the more they should be disciplined about having 4 card support for a raise. Hope this helps.

No. It was a team match (I think). Probably a final or semi-final of a Spingold, Vanderbilt, or USA Team Trials. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com How sure are you about the CoC? If it was a team game, perhaps Sidney Lazard remembers something since IIRC he was often the 5th on EK & NK's teams? Folks were far less sure about the dates involved and far more sure about the CoC and those involved ATT when I asked. *sigh* this may take longer than I hoped to reasonably, let alone authoritatively, document. I wish Norman was still alive to talk to (for many reasons, not just this one).

D@mn it all! I specifically asked them if the change was in the 1975 or 1987 Laws! Fine. The particulars of the story are correct except for the years involved. We are looking for a national, most likely MP, event in the early 1980's with those people ATT. Since I think there is no good reason for such history to not be known to everyone in Bridge who cares about it, I do not intened to stop digging yet. I can see no downside to the truth of such matters being publicly available to the bridge community. Any help to find and publicize the truth would be appreciated.

Why, because you declare it so? Maybe it's simply equal to pretending there are no better solutions! Suggest a solution. That is a good way to use these forums - we can then disucss the merits of the solution The traditional ways of dealing with potential conflicts of interest in administrative or regulatory bodies: =transparency in operation and decisions. =outside oversight (eg, The ACBL Board of Governors. Unfortunately, history suggests this body may not be objective enough in some cases or have enough "teeth" for the duty in question in others. Of course, The Membership is always the ultimate oversight in a membership organization.) =policies and regulations that forbid and prohibit those with inappropriate attitudes or interests from serving on such a body. =policies and regulations that force those with a issue specific confilict of interest to recuse themselves. There is most definitely an analogy to be made here to Corporate boards or to sitting judicial bodies. Perhaps the judges and lawyers amongst us can make some useful suggestions as to the best way ACBL committees should be set up and policed? krexford? mikeh? others?

Hmmm I recall a story where Meckwell bid a grand as a sacrifice, went down lots and received a good score. As I recall, the scoring tables were changed. I don't recall hearing the converse (that this happened to Meckwell). Nor anything about them running off and whining to Kaplan. Can you please point to secondary sources that document this story... So I have managed to get more information on some of this. Unfortunately, only anecdotally and not using objective written sources. The board in question was evidently a national MP event in the early 1980's. On one side are Edgar Kaplan and Norman Kay. On the other is Meckwell. EK & NK bid to 7C. JM sacrificed in 7DX and got a top or near top despite only taking 4 tricks. The result evidently made a difference in the final rankings for the event. EK was evidently on or the chair of the ACBL Laws Committee at the time. A quick perusal of your Bridge Encyclopedia will show that for many years, EK was considered =the= ultimate authority on The Laws. When he spoke, even the Portland Club listened. The 1987 change to Law 77, scoring, of _The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge_ was a direct result of this incident and EK's involvement in it. I have been told that I am not likely to find any written records of the meetings where the decision was made. Nor, unless it is in EK's memoirs and they are published, are there likely to ever be public records on the topic. To the historians or older folks out there: can anyone remember or find records of the events and/or board in question? In the course of hunting this down, I was told by a few that it was unlikely ITHO that further changes to the scoring tables would be effective in addressing this problem. IMHO it is still worth investigating since it represents a potentially fair and even handed approach to convention regulation. EDIT: this post has been corrected to reflect the following comments by Fred and dburn.

If 1H-1S;1N shows extras, you open this 1N unless you are willing to rebid ♥'s. If it does not, you are playing a Strong NT here and can choose between 1H-foo;2H and 1H-foo;1N

If you were my partner, I'd have no problem with 1S-2H GF on this board and would in fact expect it from you as a matter of course. Opener should rebid 2S, not 3D, with a minimum shapely hand. Particularly if it contains a singleton or, worse, a void in ♥'s (a big downward adjustment in their hand if ever there was.) Playing SA, if you should rebid ♥'s, Opener should pass. This is also why, even playing SA, your hand is not worth a 2/1 unless you have support for partner.

The apriori odds are not how to analyze the likelihood of where the cards are. E opened the bidding 1C in 1st. =they do not have a 5+ card suit higher ranking than ♣'s =they rate to have 2+ QT. W made a Inverted Minor preemptive raise at Unfavorable. =they rate to have 0-3 ♥'s =they rate to have 4+♣ and be shapely or 5+♣'s if they are not. =they have 4-7 HCP. =We have 19. That means E has 21-(4...7)= 14-17 HCP. =Since 14-17 HCP mostly overlaps Their 1N Opening range, Opener rates to be shapely. Until we start to get a count on E's points and shape and can further constrain their holdings, E is something ~4x more likely to hold any of (SK, HA, DA, DK) and ~3x more likely to hold any of (SQ, CQ, missing J's). Apriori, We have 4 losers. There is nothing We can do about losing the ♥A and ♦A. Therefore trumps must be split honors or both honors in E's hand. Nige's line is pretty good. Can we improve it? Hmmm. The've already played 2 ♣'s. if ♣'s are 5+5, They can only play them 3x more. (Better would be if ♣'s are 6+4 or 7+3 with E holding all the critical non-♣ cards.) If cards are where We need them and we Time this right, We have a shot. =Win CA. =Take S hook. a= SJ holds and both followed, bang down the SA. b= W wins SK or SQ, returns a ♣, we ruff, then play SA. =play H9 from hand, intending to run it if not covered. a= if 9 holds, We just got lucky. b= if E wins HA, cashes ♠, plays ♣, We ruff with last trump, play ♥'s from top, hook ♦Q, play ♦ c= if E wins HJ, we're going Down. A lot. The goal is to leave Them with a high trump and establish ♥'s as force.

Pard Opened 1S, and we have 3 ♠'s, a beautiful side source of tricks (very few suits are as good as that ♥ suit), and a wonderful ruffing value (voids are ~3x more rare than singletons). In a simple calculation, your hand is worth 8 HCP + 5 for the void= 13 Dummy points. But your hand is actually worth more than 13 Dummy points, say ~3 dummy points stronger for a total of ~15, because your ♥ suit will play for no more than 1 loser no matter what Opener's ♥'s are. If partner has ♠ A & K plus 2 side A's, We could be cold for a slam. You have far more than enough to make a GF 2/1. In fact you have more than enough to make a GF 2/1 and bid out your shape: 1S-2H;foo-3H;3N-4S is the most likely auction playing 2/1 GF and Fast Arrival. Playing SA, you can't afford to bid ♥'s 2x this way because 3H can be passed, so: 1S-2H;foo-4S is the probably the simplest way to try and describe your hand. I do not agree with the posters who do not ever intend to suppport ♠'s. While our ♥ suit is certainly good enough to insist on as trumps, a light game or slam could depend on Us having a double fit in the Majors. Opener is never going to be able to figure that out if Responder never raises Opener's suit.

13 HCP 4441's have a higher trick taking expectancy than the average 16 HCP hand? If that's true, I must be misremembering Eric Rodwell's article. He's got a decent reputation as a theorist after all. Yet another reference to try and find. Anyone out there know the Rodwell article where he makes comments on minimum strength 4441's, please post a cite?