PeterAlan

If this is your goal, worrying about reverses should not be your problem. My regular partner and I have always played a simple shape-showing style without worrying about extra values for reverses, and it's very far from being a big problem. We've easily met your goals, and more. So much so that, after 8 years of playing that way, it's also very far from being our priority for what we need to work on - we lose far more through bad judgment, and easily avoidable play and defensive mistakes, than we do through reverses that don't have extras. We play it very much like what I believe Andrew Robson teaches his beginners. If you open all balanced 12-14 with 1NT, whether the 5 in 5-3-3-2 is a major or not, and bid your 5-4s in shape order, then you get quite a bit of extra shape definition that provides a lot of compensation: in particular, a re-bid of the opening suit on the next round always has 6 cards, and we've found this very helpful. And if you're playing pairs, being a little too high at the 3 level in a minor is quite often a place where you're happy to be. I haven't much to add about the strong 2-suiters - we play a fairly standard Benji, with 2NT 21-22, and a wide-range (15-18) 1NT rebid. We'll open 1x with a strong 2-suiter that's unsuitable for either a Benji 2C/D or a 2NT opening, and decide on the re-bid after partner's response (for us, responder's 2-over-1 is Rule of 14). With your strong 2 openings, I imagine you can do much the same - just be prepared to open 1x rather than 2x when in doubt about 2-suiters, and look to catch up later - this is better than starting out too high on a misfit. My suggestion? Just do it, keep it simple if that suits your partnership, and enjoy the game. The system itself won't be your largest problem.

Regarding Botswana, I've noticed that the Gaborone Ladies Bridge Club participates in a lot of UK-run simultaneous pairs events.

Have you now unearthed your copy, Cyberyeti, because you're spot on! It's the short chapter "Characters" towards the end of "Common-Sense Bridge" (pp 147-153 in my hardback copy) for those who want the reference.

There are only two ♦s (J6) in dummy at that stage, so SB would regard it as ungrammatical to call for the "smallest" rather than the "smaller". No doubt he would find a way to make something of that.

No, I knew exactly what you were saying. However, I had deliberately not phrased what I was saying in this kind of way precisely because I wished to be very clear about the distinction between the information content of a piece of A/UI and the additional information content that a piece of A/UI brought. Your formulation, whilst accurate in the technical sense in which you used it, was therefore one that I was anxious to avoid using myself, because it obscured rather than highlighted this distinction. This is where you and I part company. Your definition of "suggested" - which, incidentally, you only posted well after you used the word here - is not the normal one, because you import a specific restriction - namely, to the additional information, not the whole information, contained in the UI - into its semantics. That is not its normal English usage. Let's analyse your statement, by first removing its conditional clause. "It [the UI] can't suggest anything." This is patently false - if the UI has information content, then it potentially suggests something. Now let's add back the conditional clause "if the UI adds no new information". My point is that the UI does not lose its original information content, and continues to suggest exactly what it always did. You and I can agree that it doesn't add anything to what it (and the corresponding AI) already suggested, but that's not the same as saying that it doesn't suggest anything at all - not unless you start to re-interpret "suggest", as you later did, in a highly specific and restricted way that does not, in my view, correspond to its normal usage. In saying all this, I'm following your line of looking at the use of "suggests" - but what I really think is happening is that whilst you're using "UI" in the first part of the sentence, your use of "it" is not in fact referring to "UI" but instead to "any new information that UI adds", which is not the same thing. Since this question - is it the whole information content of the UI, or only that information which it adds to the AI, which matters for bridge law purposes - is the crux of the matter, it is particularly important to use language clearly, simply and naturally, and in a way that clarifies rather than obscures the point at issue.

Then we're not speaking the same language. You wrote (omitting two earlier short sentences that are irrelevant to this point, but including the next two): To me, the "first" (third in the fuller quote above) sentence is a general, stand-alone assertion, for which you have given no basis. You didn't link the next sentence to it in any way that means anything to me, and in any event I don't think that it does provide such support. You are essentially saying "If the player has the same information available from AI and from UI then (a) if he can say so, and that he's used the AI and not the UI, then I will believe him, and (b) for bridge law purposes I will then treat him as having used AI and not having used UI." This is fine as a statement of personal views; it is questionable as a statement of what the bridge laws actually are, as blackshoe said: I'm sorry to be so picky - not least, because my personal views on what the laws should say are probably quite close to yours and campboy's - but it does seem to be an area where imprecise use of language leads us astray. For example: No, I emphatically did not say that, because this slurs the distinction that I was careful to draw. What I said was that the additional information content was zero, but the actual information content remains the same. If both the AI and the UI have the same information content X, Y & Z then that is what they both have, but neither adds additional information to the other. blackshoe is saying (and this is what I understood the generally accepted interpretation to be) that because the UI retains its information content of X, Y & Z that information is what needs to be taken into account when considering what is "suggested". You and campboy appear to be arguing that it is only any additional information (nil in this example). Slurring this distinction leads campboy to fallacies (or at best careless use of language) such as: the point being that whilst the null additional information indeed suggests nothing the actual information content of the UI (here X, Y & Z) can suggest plenty. We use "UI" rather loosely. I think that a more fruitful line of argument is to focus on the definition of "extraneous information" in Law 16A3, which broadly speaking seems to correspond to what we might loosely express as UI-AI, any information that is available from unauthorised sources and not also from authorised ones, essentially what you're both talking about. Law 16B is couched in terms of "extraneous information", not "unauthorised information". Unfortunately, Law 74C, which is rather more general in its scope, uses "unauthorised information" and not "extraneous information". It seems that we're all giving the meaning of the wording rather more careful attention than the drafters did. It would be helpful if at the next revision they started out by deciding exactly what they wanted to achieve by the relevant laws, and then drafted them accordingly with a bit more care. Among the things to take into account is whether the AI was available before the UI with which it overlaps, or only afterwards.

What's the basis for this assertion? I don't think this holds water. After all, you could just as well write it substituting 'A' for 'U' and vice versa. If I get the same news from both the BBC and a newspaper, it doesn't mean that the information content is nil, but that's what you'd get from the conjunction of both versions of your AI/UI statement. Of course, you're really talking about extra information in your second sentence, and what you're saying is essentially the same as aguahombre. This is clearly wrong. Any information potentially suggests something, and its novelty has nothing to do with it. It may be suggesting the same thing as other information, but it doesn't cease to suggest it. I thought - silly me - that the general consensus was that when UI was created then the UI Laws (16B and 73C insofar as it's UI from partner) kicked in, and that they did not somehow magically disappear (cease to apply) when the same information subsequently became available from authorised sources, since there's nothing in the Laws to suggest that they do so cease (BTW I am aware that the same reasoning also leads to the conclusion that the same consequences follow even if the UI follows the AI). You seem to be suggesting otherwise. Is there in fact a clear consensus?

I assume everyone can agree on that much. It says: The conditions of A are clearly met, and, unless the regulations for the tournament made specific provision for this circumstance (which I assume they didn't), B clearly gives the Director authority to decide appropriately. Law 86 has specific application, and as I read Law 12C2 it's not in conflict with or over-riding those specific provisions when they apply.

I don't see this at all. It remains "Other information derived from sight of a penalty card" whether the card has been played or not.

UI (for West) it seems: Law 50E (in particular, 50E2).

Let's face it, the Laws do not deal in a particularly satisfactory way with the issue of enquiries about carding agreements. All we have is the 4 words "or card play understandings" tacked on at the end of the second sentence of Law 20F2 to tie such enquiries into (part of) the much more extensive Law 20 concerning enquiries about the auction. This is unsatisfactory in a number of respects. First, there is arguably insufficient attention paid to the issue by the Laws: we could reasonably expect provisions that specifically address card play agreements. Second, it is not helpful that the only place in the Laws where the matter is covered is here, which (1) is in the middle of the group of Laws (17-39) that are essentially concerned with the Auction Period, and (2) is within a Law headed "Review and Explanation of Calls". Third, as the quote above shows, the Law ties the procedure of enquiry to the "action" being explained, which in the context of carding agreements is the play of one or more particular cards. I'm not familiar with the earlier debate that posters above have referred to, concerning the relating of enquiries to specific play(s), and if anyone can supply a link I'd be grateful. I'd be interested to see how these concerns were resolved.

You can't make the hand on the line N claims, because of the trump promotion. However, N could (and should) have made the hand on the line he actually followed, if he'd just discarded ♠J when drawing the last trump with ♣9. He knows (or should know) that the only ♥ out is the King (given the ♥9 & 3 discards you've shown), and he'd have ♥J2, ♠AK in hand, and ♣4, ♠873 in dummy. ♠ to hand, ruff a ♥, back with a ♠ and cash the last ♥. PS: (1) It's presumably West that gave the answer, so I don't see that East can be accused of "blatant dishonesty", and (2) N should be more wary: even if ♥9 followed by ♥3 isn't saying anything about ♥s, it's likely to be saying something about something, such as a suit preference signal for ♠s. Was anything said about what it did show, or was it claimed that it had no meaning at all?

The set of natural numbers that are the sum of 3 consecutive cubes (of positive integers) is clearly countably infinite, since it can be put in 1-1 correspondence with the set of positive natural numbers in an obvious way: the first is [1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3], the second is [2^3 + 3^3 + 4^3] and, generally, the nth is [n^3 + (n+1)^3 + (n+2)^3]. This method generalises to show that any set of natural numbers defined in a suitably similar well-defined "unusual property" way is countably infinite (provided they are demonstrably distinct from one another).

As a first approximation, much less than 1 in 1000, since (a) those 7 shapes cover 74.7588% of all hands, so (b) the probability of 24 hands containing only those shapes (irrespective of individual shape frequency) = 0.747588^24 < 0.1%. To go into further detail would of course be very obsessive and boring ... ;)

To complete the story, E chose to bid 3♣, S passed, and W bid 3♦ thus neatly fielding E's misbid at a manageable level (BTW W's 1NT opening could well have had 5♥s in a 5-3-3-2 shape). This was Passed out; the E/W hands were: [hv=pc=n&w=s873hkqjdqt972caj&e=st65h6dk6543ckt93&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(12-14)d(Single-suited)2d(%22Transfer%20to%20Hearts%22)p2h(Transfer%20completion)p3cp3dppp]266|200[/hv] N/S took their 3 ♠ tricks before they ran away, and with the red Aces as well 3♦ undoubled was -1 for a poor score for N/S, who were generally making 9 tricks in ♥. Thank you all for the replies above, which have given much food for thought. My own view has been essentially the same as blackshoe's, but I'm not expecting to comment further except on: This seems an extraordinary idea to me: it seems to be saying "let's ignore being woken up to one's misbid by partner's UI, provided it's common enough." Whilst that seems in practice to be the norm in club bridge anyway, it's quite another matter to suggest changing the Laws to accommodate it. Where would you ever draw a line? What's special about transfers?

What call(s) should East (a) consider (b) make in the following scenario: [hv=pc=n&e=st65h6dk6543ckt93&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(12-14)d(Single-suited)2d("Transfer%20to%20hearts")p2h(Transfer%20completion)p]133|200[/hv] NB (amplifying diagram's notes) (1) W's 1NT: 12-14 (2) N's X = single-suited hand; asks partner to bid 2♣ for Pass / Correct (3) E's 2♦: both alerted by W and announced (without any N/S question) as "exit" transfer to ♥ (4) W's 2♥: transfer completion. E/W are not a regular partnership, but W's explanation is what they had on their card. Please don't concern yourself with the technicalities of W's breach of Alert / Announce regulations (which of course had the effect of making E's misbid absolutely clear).

I won't comment on the specific instance (not least because I know some of the players identified by Lamford, though I have no idea whether or not they were involved in the auction under discussion), except to remark that the auction 1♥-(X)-1♠ is such a hoary old chestnut as a "baby psyche" that even I know about it, to the extent that (tongue only partly in cheek) it should come under the heading of "General Bridge Knowledge". But it raises the following interesting thought. The 1♠ bid onwards is not regulated under Level 4 (Blue Book 7.4.1: "From responder's first call onwards all partnership understandings are permitted"), so what are your thoughts on the position if E (in the OP) / W (at the table apparently) had alerted partner's 1♠ and, when asked about it, explained that "it's a two-way bid: either a normal 1♠ response, or a weak hand, short in ♠, probably with ♥ support, and with that or another run-out destination available". Whilst there is a bar on systemic psyching it's not at all obvious that that test is applicable, and nor is the bar on psychic controls. (Rather unfortunately, these psyche-related regulations now appear only in the White Book, not the Blue, and even fewer players will read that.)

I had already given an answer to the same question on [what used to be] the other thread, here Evolution & BBT: Timelines, but you appear to have given no response: instead, you repeat the same question here 15 hours after that reply. What sort of answer will you consider? [Edited to correct link etc following merger of threads]

I don't see what basis you ever had for supposing that the theory of evolution was in any way connected to, let alone dependent on, the Big Bang cosmological model. Quite apart from any scientific aspects, which I'll leave to others, the theory of evolution by natural selection (to be a bit more precise about it) got underway with Darwin's and Wallace's paper to the Linnean Society in 1858 and the publication of On the Origin of Species the next year, was developed over the next decades, and was more-or-less established theory by (if not well before) the 1920s. The Big Bang Theory as we have it now essentially dates, at the earliest, from Friedman's expanding-universe solution (1922) to Einstein's equations of general relativity, Lemaitre's 1927 expanding-universe model, and, above all, his 1931 proposal that the universe began with an explosion of an "atom primitif". The "Big Bang" name was coined by Fred Hoyle in a 1949 radio broadcast; Hoyle himself favoured an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, and the Big Bang theory only really won out in 1964/65 with Penzias's and Wilson's discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. So historically the theory of evolution was largely developed before Big Bang theory was ever mentioned.

I know I'm going to regret this ... Oh yes it does. Gravity. Gravity - it's everywhere. Try and find out something about it. (BTW it's the universe that's been around for 14 billion years or so - the earth and moon only for the last 4.5 billion-odd. Try and find out something about the solar system too. Why is this increasingly sounding like a 9-year old's school science project?) And these are just the questions before you really got going ...

Thanks for all the responses.

[hv=pc=n&w=sj853hkjtda752ct8&e=sak4haq982dck9542&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp2d(Weak; 6 cards)2hppp]266|200[/hv] Result: 2♥+3 = 200. Ordinary club bridge. Essentially natural / normal methods apply here. FWIW, 11 tricks are always available in ♥ (though weren't always made), and no other game contract makes. East and West differed over why game wasn't bid: West thought East should have doubled on the first round; East considered (1) with 3=5 in the majors it was better to get the ♥ into the picture straight away, and that X would have too many problems over a likely ♠ response, and (2) West was far too strong to Pass 2♥. Your thoughts?

I happen to have been browsing the corresponding thread in Bridgewinners (Bridgewinners), where her husband has recently posted: which suggests that the position is not necessarily quite as clear-cut a refusal as hrothgar's post suggests - more that the local consulate was not in a position to authorise it.

As I understand it, the "checksums" aren't proper checksums: There's a so-called “Checksum” field at the top of the file - I'm told it's just #Boards+1 if #Boards is even, but #Boards-1 otherwise! The two checksum digits at the end of each deal line are apparently just the deal number successively XOR-ed with each card coding - I've not attempted to verify this.