Dirk Kuijt

I'm on record (to thunderous silence), and will repeat here the idea that the current rules about disclosure are unworkable. It it *impossible* to adequately explain the partnership agreements. Therefore, if we are going to put everyone on a level playing field the only alternative that works is *no* explanations. The corollary to that is: no limitation on systems, otherwise, there is some (implicit and inadequate) explanation. This is consistent, if not popular. (I am aware that this is inconsistent with the current laws, which I regard as impossible to enforce fairly.)

Dbl can't possibly be right. After all, look at the pros and cons for double: Pro 1. We have 21-23 HCP 2. We have at least 2 spade tricks 3. We have at least 6 spades Con 1. It is a forum hand The cons win by a mile (kilometer for the non-Americans).

Try this one. There are about 300 pitchers in the North American major baseball leagues. Let's say that half of them throw fastballs as their best pitch, so 150. I feel confident that the #75 or #100 pitcher throws harder than #25 fifty years ago. However, #1 today doesn't throw any harder than the old timers ever did. Nolan Ryan still has the speed record at a little over 100 mph. Bob Feller threw 98 in the 1940's. Before that, timing was harder, but the consensus among baseball experts is that Walter Johnson, Cy Young, and Smoky Joe Wood threw pretty close to that speed a century or more ago. Why haven't speeds at the top increased? Because the limit is not a muscular limit; it is joints and tendons, which nobody knows how to build up. The top pitchers are right at the edge of blowing their arms out--and the top pitchers always were. However, the mediocre pitchers had a lot of room for improvement. Now as to bridge: How close are the top declarers to theoretical best play? I'm not qualified to answer that question, so I'll leave it to others. But I'd like to lay on the table the idea that Rodwell may not play the dummy all that much better than Schenken did because there just wasn't that much room for improvement, at least in pure technical plays (leaving aside deceptive plays).

Richard Pavlicek has some statistics on his web site (a great site, BTW) at: http://www.rpbridge.net/rpme.htm Scroll down to the bottom where this and similar questions are put to a statistical answer. In top events, where one table played 3NT and the other 4M, the result was wins 3NT 38 4M 54 Tied 8 In IMPs wins 3NT 192 4M 223 OTOH, 3NT won out over 4M on a 5-3 fit by deals, though only narrowly by IMPs. There are many other good statistics there, too.

In our lunchtime bridge game, once or twice a year we would play an invention of mine that we called Christmas bridge. There were two sacks of rules, one for bidding and one for play. Before each hand, someone would draw a new bidding rule and a new play rule, and those were enforced for that hand. I don't remember them all, but they were like this: Bidding 1. The first suit bid is the highest major, second next, etc. 2. The first suit bid is the lowest minor, second next, etc. 3. Dealer and LHO announce their exact shape and HCP, and the next players bid for their partnership. 4. Bids of half tricks are permitted. If declarer wins three or four 10 spots, he gets credit for 1/2 trick. 5. (My favorite) Buy it or double it. Play 1. Whist (no dummy) 2. The hand opposite the hand winning the trick leads to the next. 3. Rotation of play alternates with each trick. 4. The partner of the opening leader is the dummy, not declarer's partner. 5. Dummy is exposed, but he plays his own cards. 6. (Oregon hearts) Each player must follow suit to the card played on his right. The suit of the trick is the suit played last. (The complications of this rule are just mind-blowing.) 7. (My favorite) Simultaneous play. The person whose turn it is to lead announces a suit. Then, each player puts his card face down, and finally declarer plays from the dummy.

This is from Frank Stewart's column in the ACBL Bulletin, "My Bridge and Yours". I quote part of his column. This is all that Stewart has to say about this hand, or what to open with 4-4 in the minors. A few weeks back, there was a long series of exchanges on this forum about whether the sequence 1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(Pass);2♦ showed extra values or not. I believe I'm right in saying that the current consensus (as opposed to 10 or more years ago) is that this sequence is a reverse, showing 4-5 or more in the minors and considerable extra values. So, I have several questions for those with more experience than mine. 1. Is this sequence analogous to the 1♣-(1♠)-Dbl-(Pass);2♦ one, so the 3♦ bid shows a reversing hand, and considerable extras? (My intuition is yes, that if you accept the lower sequence as showing extras then the higher one must also.) 2. Does Stewart's analysis sound right? Obviously, East-West should have discussed this sequence. However, he doesn't say what it should mean. I don't think the negative double was 'slightly unprepared'; even if West was 4-4 in the reds, so that he was totally prepared for the other suits by any standards, the mismatch between what values East thought he was showing and what West thought East was showing would still lead to trouble. And, I really laugh out loud at blaming South's 2♠ bid. If a small preempt that like can blow a big hole in our methods, then we need to do something to our methods. In this case, I guess that I do blame the 1♣ bid. 3. What do you open with 4-4 in the minors?

In our lunch time bridge game, we used to keep track of this statistic, among others. I believe the "winning" hand, in this contest, was 8 high. We wrote down all the spots, but I don't have them with me. This was over about 12-14 hands a day, 200 days a year, for 10 years or so.

Having just looked at the ACBL website: 1. I can't even easily *find* the, say, Mid-chart convention list. It is not on the tabs on top, though I wouldn't expect it to be. When I do a search for Mid-chart, it is not one of the top ten hits. (That is a problem.) 2. When I eventually did find "Charts, Rules and Regulations" the rules for Mid-chart, or any other list weren't apparent to me. I did eventually click on something which was called convention charts, having tried alert charts and changes to the laws of duplicate bridge first; this is apparently the right answer. (Yes, I know, I'm stupid. I should have figured that out first. Remember, they all look easy when you know the answer.). 3. I get to a page marked, "ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART". However, that wasn't what I was looking for. Hmm. Oh, yes, I see. I have to scroll down. 4. Finally, I'm at least looking at the regulations (I think). I'm trying to find out if a method of mine is legal. (Don't ask if this is a good idea, that is a totally separate question.) Opener bids 1 ♦, showing at least 4 diamonds and a traditional opening hand. Responder's 1♥ shows 6-15 without 5 spades, or 5 ♥ and 12 HCP, or without 5 ♣ and 12 HCP or 5 ♦ and 12 HCP. That is, a catch all with some values, but not spades, and not a really strong hand. Hmm. This is not a relay system that promises game forcing values (which is allowed). On the other hand, it is not a relay system that doesn't promise game forcing values (which is not allowed) IMHO, since there are many bids that are not relays. Double Hmm. This doesn't seem to be fish nor fowl. It is not a destructive method; that seems clear. It is not a forcing pass method. There are no psychics nor psychic controls. So, the things which are clearly forbidden don't apply. But, is this a "relay system" or not? I can't tell. JanM entered into this discussion and was, I'm sure, genuinely trying to be helpful. I'm not trying to get after her (really, I'm not). I know that she didn't write the rules nor create the ACBL website. But the regulations aren't clear to me, and I don't know what to do about it. (Of course, there is always the answer "Back away from the drawing board. Don't do things that are questionable according to our rules and you won't get into trouble. Be a good little boy and don't make waves; original thinking by peons is out of place here; we know what is best for you, and that is to play as your father did. Concentrate on improving your card play, and forget about original thinking in bidding. Some of your betters might devise better methods. We'll decide about that, and, if so, maybe we'll let you play them, sometime." For some reason, I find that approach patronizing and offensive.) It isn't all that easy to find the regulations and it definitely isn't easy to interpret them (to be sure, it is hard to write regulations covering this, which is why I think they shouldn't try).

One of my observations a long time ago was, "They all look easy when you know the answer." For Jan, who has thought about this a lot, and discussed it a lot with other top players and directors, the charts are easy to understand. For someone without that experience, I don't find them so. I submit that, if a substantial fraction, say 10% of people, feel that the charts are hard to interpret, then they are, no matter what the other 90% say.

I don't consider myself to be an expert, so I don't normally post here, but ... If the opponents bid this way on Mikeh's hand, I'm calling the director. There is no way they can do that without a wire on the board. I mean, West doubles with xxxxx in clubs; East jumps in his 10 high suit instead of his 100 honor suit, and catches partner with 4 card support in his suit and a void in the other. No way.

As ArtK78 said, and one of my earliest good partners said, "Play for the post-mortem." If I bid 4S, and partner has 7 hearts, I win the post-mortem. If I pass, and partner has the singleton, I lose the post-mortem. If I pass, and partner has 7 hearts, I lose the committee vote. So, it's not close.

First, I may well have misunderstood awm's post, however... No one has addressed the issue of 'shooting' when behind in a match; that is still changing your methods based on external issues. Also, I have seen campboy's specific example debated. It goes like this: E/W says, "Our preempts are aggressive." N/S says, "We play penalty doubles of preempts." So, E/W says, "In that case, our preempts are sound." So, N/S says, "Well, in that case, we play takeout doubles of preempts." So, E/W says ... The problem is that, if you are allowed to have different methods based on the opponents choices, and they are allowed to have different methods based on your choices, there is no way, that I know of, to break this loop. There is nothing the equivilant of "seating rights".

This can't be right. How many people, knowing that they are behind after 16 boards of a 32 board match, decide to "operate". Lots, if not everybody. Surely I can change my standards for penalty doubles when playing against Mr. Hi Flyer as opposed to Ms. Rock Solid. In both cases, I'm modifying my methods for subjective reasons.

I've always wondered about this. What is more destructive of the opponents' methods than opening with 3♠, or some other preempt? Of course, to protect yourself, you only do this with a long spade suit, but this is not a constructive bid. Of course, it is a very familiar bid with a long history, so preempts are not about to be banned. I'm inclining more and more to the opinion that the problems of what conventions are or should be allowed, and the problems of disclosure of conventions and agreements are unsolvable, and so the only answer is: 1. anything goes, along with 2. no disclosure. (I am fully aware that this is incompatible with the current laws of bridge.)

Marshall Miles latest book, "My System: the Unbalanced Diamond" is based on ideas like this.

FWIW I tried a simulation of this situation: 1NT = 15-17 balanced (includes a 5 card major if 5-3-3-2) 4♠ = 3=2=4=4 with 14+ or 2=3=4=4 with 14+ In 1,000,000 deals, dealer opened 1NT on 48535 occasions. The 4♠ bid occurred on 134 instances, which is about 0.28% of the time, or 1 in 362. Whether that is frequent enough to justify this meaning for 4♠ I will leave to others.

One other issue for the anti-Meckwell group to consider. It is not true that a partnership agreement is completely, or even adequately, described by saying "2♦ Multi". Multi comes in various flavors, and a defense that is appropriate for one version may not appropriate for another. If you don't provide a defense, and you don't have FULL disclosure, then you really are putting your opponents at an unfair disadvantage, even if you are playing Meckwell, or some other pair that plays (what is ostensibly) the same convention.

Without commenting on the Vanderbilt situation, the seemingly equivalent situation at matchpoints (mentioned by, I believe, hanp) is actually quite different. I can't vouch for the following story, though I suspect it has happened. The point is accurate in any case: E/W, defending against 4 Spades, revoke at trick 10, which means that they win no more tricks, even though West has the trump ace. Gracious South, knowing that this gives him a good score that he was "not entitled to", says, "I don't want to win the tournament like that, we'll just forget about the revoke". Well, N/S didn't win the tournament like that--E/W did! The problem? The pair that came in second complained, "Nobody forgave any of our mistakes." The problem is that N/S have to defend the integrity of the whole tournament; if they forgive errors then they are giving away things that don't belong to them. In contrast, in the Vanderbilt, which is a straight knockout, if you forgive errors, you hurt only yourself.

True story, from a *very* informal duplicate. I strongly suspect that the hand was stacked, but regardless the story is 100% true. Dealer, West, picks up: AKQ10 AKQ AKQ AKQ I'm South, holding Jxxxx xxx xx xxx West starts trembling as he sorts his cards and finally blurts out: 2♠ The bidding goes P-P-P. West, after his partner's (and wife) pass, leans across the table in astonishment (not anger), and said, "You can't do that." To which the reply was: "But dear, we agreed to play weak two bids." The hand was played 5 times, 7NT twice making 7, 6NT twice making 7, and 2♠ once making 5. The hand really belongs in 7♦, since East has a six card diamond suit. I don't really know how the NT bidders made 7, unless North leads a spade each time; what else does South have to hold on to?

FWIW I investigated this hand with Deep Finesse. South can always make 3NT; however, on the lead of a top heart, South must win and force out the A of clubs. If South ducks the opening lead, then the defense can prevail (double dummy) with the spectacular lead of the King of Spades next! When that holds, West must shift back to the other top Heart! Obvious

2♣ certainly works on this hand, but it wouldn't be nearly as pretty if the North and East hands were switched. Vul at IMPs, I'm selling out with the EW hands--you can't get to every game that makes, especially with the opponents bidding. At matchpoints, the occasional 800 isn't so bad, so there is more of a case for bidding.

I'm regretting my 2♠ bid now, but I don't have any reason to fudge the answer to "do I have the ♠Q?" No.

I'm bidding only 2♠ because: 1. I think I (barely) have the values for it. 2. I'm not that worried about the opponents since: a. we have the spades b. they have each passed once 3. I want to give partner room to make a game try

IIRC, Zia described it in his book "Bridge My Way". My copy is in the next time zone, though, so I don't have any details.

pooltuna: do we get to know what card declarer played to the first trick? I'm surprised that the 6♠ bidder passed as dealer. I'd open that, and I'm more conservative than most on this board, I believe. I'm having trouble finding a diamond holding for partner that is consistent with holding the king, at least with my lead conventions. KJ9, exactly, is the only one I can find, otherwise, he'd have led a lower spot or an honor. That holding is not all that likely; of course, if has a singleton, then he has no choice. So, leading a diamond is playing partner for singleton 9 or KJ9, leading a heart is playing partner for 97, 93, or 973, and the ♥A. Knowing partner's tendencies about leading unsupported aces on blasting auctions would be helpful.