Fantunes methods in ACBLland

Bruce Scott asks a great question in comments yesterday on the post Speculation: Fantoni-Nunes will be off the Italian team?:

--- ---

You've mentioned the Fantunes methods a few times in this blog and in your system notes. I wonder whether you might comment on the possibilities for trying to make the system ACBL GCC legal. The system is intriguing to me as a good fit for a potential new partner (who likes very sound 1 bids and Trent two bids). It seems like it might not be possible to make it legal, however. 1NT systemically with 4-4-4-1 hands is verboten. I can open some of them 1NT with stiff honors and downgrade some of them to passes. With bad 12 counts, this doesn't bother me. I can upgrade the 14s. What do I do with the good 12s and the 13s? If I open them 1m, I dilute the minimum strength of the bid.I can decide to only shade the 1D openings, but then 1D only promises 1 card. You lose the competitive advantage of knowing that opener has either a good suit or a good hand or both. If you play the opening as forcing but allow run-of-the-mill 12 counts to open 1D, then you do run a real risk of getting too high. If you change the opening to nonforcing, you have to do something else with the very good diamond hands. 2NT and 3NT could be used to cover various gameforcing hands with one or both minors relatively easily, I think.Otherwise, I can give up one of the minor suit 2 openings to play as a three suiter. This does not particularly appeal.

The multi-meaning 2/1 bids do not seem to be legal either. You used some creativity to get to semi-natural (guaranteeing 3+ cards and natural or balanced) 2m/1 sequences in a few of your system designs, but this would leave out some hands (e.g. the good diamond raises without three clubs after a 1D opener). Do you see 1D-2D (NF bad hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts) as legal? It names a potential strain, and raising with shortage is certainly common enough over preemptive openings. Not sure the TDs will see it that way. Too many obstacles to start with, making the system a nonstarter in ACBL land?

Oh, and I am aware of Gerben Dirksen's Every 2nd Hand an Adventure system at http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/#systems
http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/mosca.html

This does give me some of the elements that I like, but loses parts of Fantunes that I would like to have. For instance, the 4-4-4-1 hands are included in the minor suit openings. This means that I will not be allowed transfer responses to 1C in ACBL GCC (because the 1C opening doesn't promise 15 HCP).

Cheers,
Bruce

--- ---

One of the things Fantoni-Nunes (abbreviated Fantunes) changed in last few years was their handling of both majors. Previously they had:

1M: 5+, good 13 or better
2M: 5+M, (9)10-13, can have the other major, can be weaker in 3rd seat

They found that 2M was preempting themselves out of fits in the other major (leaving them in a poor 2M contract if only 5 in M). Thus they changed to:

1M: 5+, good 13 or better, OR 5-4/5-5 in majors (4-5 if 1H) and 12-13
2M: 5+M, (9)10-13, not 5-4/4-5 in majors if 12-13, can be weaker in 3rd seat

I suggest piggybacking on their change to make the system ACBL legal:

1H: 5+, good 13 or better, OR 4-5/5-5 majors and 12-13 OR 4-4 majors 12-14 (balanced only if 13+-14)

The 4-4 majors balanced 13+-14 is put into 1H since 4-4 majors now already in 1H, and this is a dangerous hand to open the 12-14 notrump, because a maximum weak notrump opening with 4-4 majors risks missing a good major suit contract.

The 4-4 major hands will pass after 1H-1NT;-? (1NT is 0-9, no 4cM). Thus all rebids by opener over 1NT will promise 5+Hs (note that minimum 4-5 majors already pass the 1NT response in Fantunes). If you open 1H with 12-14 and 4-4-5-0 or 4-4-0-5 you have to be willing to pass the 1NT response with a void (otherwise make the normal system opening).

One continues to raise 1H to 2H on minimum hands with just 3Hs: this may get to a 4-3 fit, but the opponents will often need to bid as they might have the points for game.

The two 4-4-4-1s not able to open 1H are 1-4-4-4 and 4-1-4-4. I would pass with 12, and open these 1D if 13+.

The other change I would make would be this:

2C: 10+ to 14, 5+Cs, never light in 3rd seat
1C: 15+, balanced or clubs

With 1C 15+, the ACBL allows transfers and all other gadgets over the 1C opening. The price is playing the 2C opening up to 14 - this means not opening all 10s, and having to open some good playing value 14s with 2C. However if 2C has good playing value due to long clubs, the opponents are likely to compete over the 2C opening, often giving opener another chance to bid.

For the Fantunes 1D-2D response, which now shows 0-6 5+Ss, 4+Hs, in ACBLland, I would switch 2D and 2H:

2D: GF, 5+Hs *
2H: 0-6 5+Ss, 4+Hs

* GF responses are legal, even if artificial. The ACBL GCC reads, under Responses and Rebids:

3. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system.

Thus as long as you define a response as a game force it can be whatever you want it to be.

One advantage of all these adjustments is that they can be quickly undone if an event does all the full Fantunes treatment.

If others have additional ideas, please add them first as comments to this post, and then I will add them inline to this post after this:

-- 1 comment and 1 reply (so far) --

Interesting thoughts. I haven't ever even played it, but I'd miss the ability to bid 1D-2D nonforcing with the responder's reverse flannery busts. It seems like you might get to play some 2D contracts when nobody else does. (Who wants to balance against that sequence?)

When Fantunes allowed weaker openings as part of 1M if they contained the other major, they also made some 2/1 sequences no longer GF, right? 1NT was 0-9(10) and 2C was 10+ and natural, balanced, or a raise. This used to be GF, but after the change to allow both majors and a minimum hand to open 1M, there were sequences that stopped short.1S-2C-2H (or, I think it was actually 2D--which showed hearts) could stop short of game. If we allow stops short of game, then we can't bundle multiple meanings into 2C. Now we go back to needing at least 3 clubs to make the call. Then we have to recruit the 2D call as well for those hands that have 3 diamonds but do not have 3 clubs. Too steep a price for me, I think.

By placing more hands still into the 1H opener, aren't we making it so that we either have to expand the range of the 1NT response or potentially get too high opposite our 10 count responders? 1H-2C now gets hairy for opener with the 4-4 majors minimum. (Try to stop in 2NT, or play 3NT with 13 opposite 10.) The sound 1M openings were a plus; now we are losing them (and making 1H even wider-ranged than the standard 5cM 1H opener).

Something more radical? Perhaps we can sacrifice the 1D opening's precision in order to bring the 1M openers back up to previous sound standards. 1C=15+ and clubs or balanced. 1M as 14-value+ and 5+ cards, forcing. 2-level bids as before (with the buffed up 2C opener). Now use 1D as a catchall opening incorporating either good hands with diamonds (not balanced) or any 3-suited (<14) or 2-suited with both majors (<14). These are the hands that are less than 14 and can't be shown with the 2-level openings or the sound 1-level openings. I think you can probably unwind this in noncompetitive auctions. You might be okay in competitive auctions too. Opener will be able to use takeout doubles frequently with the minimum hands and might be able to bid on naturally with the big hands. Responder can make pass or correct calls, perhaps with an artificial 2NT to distinguish between real values and competitive ones.

Cheers,
Bruce

--- reply by Glen ---

"I'd miss the ability to bid 1D-2D nonforcing with the responder's reverse flannery busts"

I like it too but it does not have high enough frequency to be concerned about having to move it.

"If we allow stops short of game, then we can't bundle multiple meanings into 2C (Note: 1M-2C). Now we go back to needing at least 3 clubs to make the call. Then we have to recruit the 2D call as well for those hands that have 3 diamonds but do not have 3 clubs. Too steep a price for me, I think."

2C having 3+ Clubs is not that steep a price. Right now 2C is GF Clubs or Balanced or Major Support. However, even though the Fantunes cc for the 08 Worlds claims it is a GF, it is not if the 2C response finds opener has the "less than 13 both majors" hand opposite.

Lets look at the cases when holding less than 3 clubs:

2C as clubs: N/A
2C as balanced, no fit for opener's major: if just two clubs, has five in a new suit: no problem, bid the five card suit instead
2C as a major fit: if the fit is only 3 cards, then bid either a 4+ diamond suit or the five card other major. Thus 1M-2D promises 5+Ds or 4Ds and 3+ in M. If 4+ major fit, it helps to have a bid like 1M-3NT to show 4+ in opener's major, fewer than 3Cs, not 4+Ds, not 5+ in other major.

"The sound 1M openings were a plus; now we are losing them"

Since Fantunes lost them we are just going their direction.

"Something more radical? ... use 1D as a catchall opening incorporating either good hands with diamonds (not balanced) or any 3-suited (<14) or 2-suited with both majors (<14)"

Not really Fantunes anymore but interesting nonetheless. I would define 1D as:
1) 13/14+ diamonds, not balanced, can be 13 if 4-1-4-4 or 1-4-4-4 exactly
2) 10-12, 5-4/4-5/5-5 in majors
3) 11-14, 4-4 in majors

This catch-all 1D would be hard on both sides, but will make the rest of system function smoothly, assuming 1C is 15+.

A couple of Lavazzas

Here are a couple of wild espresso boards from team Lavazza, as they got knocked out of the semis of the International Teams Tournament Monte-Carlo 2008 on Sunday.

On board 12 of the last segment:

.

.

.

.

.

.

When was the last time you saw a pair open a strong 1NT, and then sacrifice at the 7 level against the opponents' slam? Okay, the slam was off two aces, assuming West would try to cash them at tricks 1 and 2. That's why you don't see bids like East's 7C too often. Another reason was -1400. 7C doubled was down 6, and with 680 for 5H making six in the other room, that was 12 IMPs to the Italians (well 3/4 Italians).

The last board of the match featured Bocchi-Madala hunting for a slam:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

6NT was cold by South with the heart finesse working. Played by North, it was down on a lead from the QJ of spades - that is I mean leading either the Q or J. East masterminded the small spade lead, and Bocchi counter-masterminded with the spade king from dummy. This has shades of Grosvenor (see: http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bridge_glossary&f=glossg.html) - Bocchi played East to have underled the spade ace (he might have), instead of playing him to have underled the spade QJ. That was down two, compared to the mere down one of leading a top spade.

In the other room the French pair got to 6D:

.

.

.


Sementa led a trump and this made for 14 IMPs, allowing the French to win the semis, and the Starsbridge team (Zaleski, Quantin, Bompis and Pilon) obtained the gold medals (okay, gold trophies) in the final.

Speculation: Fantoni-Nunes will be off the Italian team?

As I'm starting to write this I'm watching the Lavazza team play in the last round of the International Teams Tournament Monte-Carlo 2008 - the Italian pairs are:

Duboin-Sementa
Bocchi-Madala

This was a swing against the Italians:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
After a spade lead, Madala declarer took the heart finesse, which lost, and was down one, for -13 IMPs. In the other room North opened 3NT gambling, passed out, and Sementa led the jack of diamonds - declarer took the top diamonds, the spade king, and then knocked out the club ace.

Maria Teresa Lavazza is the manager of Italy's top squad ("Commissario Tecnico") and essentially calls the shots - as the primary sponsor, she decides who gets paid to play - the Italian team that won the 2008 World Championships are professional players, and the way the Italian squad works is it has 6 pros and the sponsor is the Captain (or NPC: Non-Playing Captain). US squads often have 5 pros and the client (another term for sponsor), where the client plays with one of the pros.

Meanwhile in the "White House" 7th European Bridge Champions' Cup we have the defending champion Angelini team with these Italian players:

Fantoni-Nunes
Lauria-Versace
Angelini

While Versace normally plays with Lauria, as I'm writing this section, he's playing with Angelini, and the German squad has just scored 39 unanswered IMPs against the Italians. One of the biggest swings so far was:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
In this room Angelini led a fourth best spade. When Versace, West, got in on the first diamond, he switched to a club, won by the queen, and declarer cashed two diamonds and knocked out the heart ace to make 10 tricks. In the other room Piekarek led the club ten (auction by Nunes-Fantoini was 1D-2NT;-3NT, their 2NT was a game force with a 5 card major, any 5332), and 3NT had no play.

To best understand the Italian version of musical chairs read this BBO forum thread:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=26120

The short version of this is:

- Angelini is also a major sponsor of Italian bridge, but loves to play (like most of the US clients, and players in general - from the last post compare the number who watch a vugraph to those who play)
- Fantoni-Nunes were taken off the Italian team for the 2008 European Champions (in Pau), and replaced by Angelini-Sementa, who were ineffectual.
- Pau was the last major event for the Duboin-Bocchi, who had decided to split up as a partnership.
- For the 08 Worlds, Duboin played with Sementa, Fantoni-Nunes were added back on to the team, and Bocchi stayed home.

The last board of the segment gave a chance for the Germans to overtake the Italians again:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
Gromoller led the spade 6, Versace ducked in dummy (see Billy Eisenberg's Bols Tip "Play low from dummy": http://www.haroldschogger.com/play_low_from_dummy.htm), and Kirmse played the spade king instead of the ten - now the queen could be ruffed out and the slam made.

A few years ago the Italians imported Argentinean whiz-kid Agustin Madala to their country, where he has been mentored and coached by the top Italian players, and the Bocchi-Madala partnership is now ready to represent the Italians at the top levels.

This means that Maria Teresa Lavazza can pick any 3 partnerships from this mix, if she continues on as Commissario Tecnico:

Bocchi-Madala
Duboin-Sementa
Fantoni-Nunes
Lauria-Versace

Let's look at how captain Lavazza used Fantoni-Nunes in the 08 World Championships:

In the Finals Fantoni-Nunes only were in for segments 1,2 & 4 of the 6 - Lauria-Versace played all but segment 2, Duboin-Sementa played 2, 3, 5 & 6 - thus Lavazza used Fantoni-Nunes the least of her pairs, started them early in the final, but didn't play them late.

In the semi-finals Lavazza used Fantoni-Nunes more, but the match had gotten away from the Norway.

In the tough quarter final match against Poland, Lavazza used Fantoni-Nunes in segments 1, 2, 4 & 5.

This use-early, bench-late configuration for Fantoni-Nunes, has me speculating that Lavazza likes her other pairs better, and I think we may see the Lavazza team partnership of Bocchi-Madala replace Fantoni-Nunes for the 09 Worlds.

I had been looking at the Fantoni-Nunes record for their 10-13 (or so) two bids - I wanted to know how it worked for them when they opened at their table (say with a 10 count), and the other table passed. What I found was, in the 08 Worlds vugraph records, that all hands Fantoni-Nunes opened at the two level were opened at the other table at some level (mostly at the one level). Their two-of-a-minor bids did not generate much IMPs, while the two-of-a-major bids were involved in some swings, the majority for the Italians.

I'll miss their two-bids if Fantoni-Nunes don't get to play in the 09 Worlds.

Bridge Numbers

I've seen a request for some metrics recently, and here's my shot at it.

Note if you want to object to any of these, post a comment, but please give a source or argument for your counter-figure.

First, players who sign on to BBO at least once a year: 1M

We will now use this figure to calculate all other percentages given below, in these approximate metrics:

Players who sign on the BBO at least once a week: 250K (25%)
Players who sign on the BBO at least once a day: 100K (10%)
Number of specs watching a very popular vugraph: 5K (0.5%)
Number of specs watching a normal vugraph: 500 (0.05%)
Number of specs watching a limited-interest vugraph: 100 (0.01%)
Number of paid/requested copies of the ACBL Bulletin: 140K (14%)
Number of paid/requested copies of The Bridge World: 6K (0.6%)
Number of copies sold for an extremely popular bridge book: 100K (10%)
Number of copies for a bridge bestseller: 20K (2%)
Number of copies for a bridge book by a well-known author: 3K (0.3%)
Number of copies for a well-received book by a relatively unknown author: 1K (0.1%)
Number of copies for a bridge "niche market" book: 250-750 (0.025%-0.075%)
Typical number of views of a posting on BBO forums: 100 (0.01%)
Number of active or semi-active authors on rec.games.bridge: 78 (0.0078%)
Number of unique views on a new web site/blog with strong content: 1K (0.1%)
Estimated* viewers of a new bridge blog: 50 (0.005%)

* that is with limited promotion: tell a few friends, warn a few enemies, post a link on rec.games.bridge etc.

How could you improve that last figure if you are starting a bridge blog?

You could use the "big event" or controversy to drive viewers to your blog. For example, your very first blog post could start:

Open Letter to Bobby Wolff
You, Sir, are a dinosaur. And I don't mean that in the good sense. …

Post a few links to this and now you have 500 viewers and 50 comments.

This then drops off to 50 viewers and a single comment for the second post ("how not leading my suit cost us sixth place at the sectional", and drops off one partner too).

Using a proven method of other blogs in non-bridge markets, you could start off as the "secret expert!", a "world class top level very successful big money superstar professional" giving out "secrets" in this "top secret" blog.

You could tell them that Fantoni-Nunes will be dropped again from the Italian team (actually my next post will speculate about this - don't you love teasers - "Is an Armed Robber waiting in your closet? Watch the 11 o'clock news tonight!" Feel like sleeping and missing our news now?)

Future posts could cover the "secret" methods of the pros - the whirlwind declarer and the sominex coup.

Then you could add nasty gossip dashed with innuendo: "guess which pro has been sharing a hotel room with another pro, and this is not pro-position 8!" (this produces 85 comments, many of them not nice to you - "dear mr. secret policeman …")

You could easily ramp up to 2000+ viewers quickly, but you have to go into the bridge witness protection program.

What about bridge systems and conventions metrics?

Number of people who will adopt your bridge convention if it doesn't go mainstream: 0-300 (0.0%-0.03%)
Number of people who will adopt your bridge system: 0-50 (0.0%-0.005%)
Of course there are a random number that will take a system and modify it into their own approach. Soon you are seeing systems such as the Biking Club, the Baltic version of the Viking Club.

How can you get your convention to go mainstream?

Let's take a convention of mine that meets the main characteristics (see Oct 21 post): simple, easy to adopt, significantly better.

Context: Playing 1XYZ (or as the ACBL miscalls it "two-way new minor forcing") over opener's 1NT rebid, 2C puppets to 2D, and now responder passes with a D signoff, or bids with an invitational hand.

Convention: If playing 1XYZ, the sequence 1any-1M;-1NT-2C;-2D-3NT will show opener 5 in responder's M (major), and offer opener the choice of game (pass 3NT or bid 4M).

Advantages: Non-disclosure of opener's hand, clean sequences.

How could one get this convention dumped into the mainstream? First one could write for the Bridge World (0.6%), and even though the article will be placed near the back of the magazine, many of the readers (not including Larry Cohen who will skip the article) will give the idea serious thought. One could write for the ACBL Bulletin (14%) Bidding Lab column, but most readers will either skip over the article or don't care for it.

One could attempt to post your thoughts to places like rec.games.bridge and BBO Forums (0.01%), win a few flame wars, and try to get some interest there. You could get it posted on a web site - number of google hits to the excellent bridge web site chrisryall.net and/or "weak two archive": 50.

Something that can help is "branding" the convention.

One could call the convention the "Wolf 3NT" - notice when this it said verbally, one might think it is a convention played by or endorsed by a dinosaur.

One could write a book of these conventions (use the Wolf Pack to sink your opponents), selling 250-1000 copies (0.025%-0.1%): people tend to take ideas seriously if found in a book, compared to finding them roaming loose on a web page or blog.

One's best hope for a convention is that it is picked up by one or more bridge superstars. This works like a product placement ad - for example in the November Bridge World Brazilians Branco-Brenner are seen using "Gawrys Third Suit" (found in WJ2005 - even though it is the fourth suit, it's called Third Suit), something BridgeMatters discussed years ago here:

http://www.bridgematters.com/gadget.htm

Thus this convention now has a lot going for it:

- Good branding
- Used by bridge superstars
- Mentioned in the leading bridge magazine

I expect that Gawrys 3rd suit will grow in popularity. If only that could happen for Wolf 3NT - perhaps I could call it Wolf 359 and pick up all the Star Trek fans.

2/2 Comments

Here are some comments from Memphis Mojo I'll include inline here, and reply to:

You can beat the experts if you deviate from the field in situations where your studies have shown you that better results can be obtained, on average, from doing something unusual compared to expert rote bidding.

And to carry this farther, unless you are one of the world's top players (and perhaps even then), shouldn't you gear your system to take adavantgage of this?

Example: play a weak 1NT (12 to 14)

Example: Don't play Jacoby 2NT over 1M. Use it as a natural bid to try and get the contract played from the other side with a different lead from the rest of the field.
Your thoughts?

Exactly - play something different that your studies show that works. For Karen & I it is 14 to 17 1NT (not all 17s and not all 14s), and 1M-2NT is the "Majority 2NT", about 10-14 with 3+ in M. Lots of good results for us, but certainly after opening 1NT with 14 we have been in 2NT down one when the field is in 1NT making.

"it's taken a long time for us just to get enough regular bridge blogs to have sufficient synergy."

For some reason, bridge players haven't "taken" to blogs and I'm not sure why.

When I started my blog, I decided to have both bridge and poker content. I like both games and it was my blog, afterall. At first I wrote mostly about bridge. Nobody commented, nobody linked to me at their blog, my traffic was low. When I started writing more about poker, my blog traffic increased, my number of comments increased, and poker bloggers linked to me.

I am not really sure why this is.

That was the case, but is now changing - we found the same thing when we moved our regional's tournament bulletin completely online: the bridge community tends to move slowly into the newer technology choices - but if you look at growth rates given by Fred G ("about 100K different people log in to BBO at least once per day, about 250K different people log in at least once per week, and about 500K different people log in at least once per year … All of the above numbers have been growing steadily throughout our 7-year history") and the new DoubleSqueeze site ("over 1k unique views" see http://www.doublesqueeze.com/) the general trend is clear.

For BridgeMatters the blog was a supposed to be a sideline, a place for odds & ends that didn't fit an article. However that has all changed as readership (or at least viewership - one doesn't know if viewers actually read something) has become focused on the blog - that's why the blog was moved to the top of the BridgeMatters home page, and content within the blog is now frequent - thanks everybody!

The best way for the BridgeMatters blog to improve would be to follow the approach of the big blogs and add more authors - different viewpoints, new ideas etc. - that is within the same blog itself (different posts), instead of the one blog-one author approach. Thus if Justin (http://squeezingthedummy.blogspot.com/) and Gavin (http://bridgepro.blogspot.com/) were to start blogging again (Gavin says he will), their best approach for max readership would be to have one blog, clever rock-bandish blog title, and each of them add to it. And thus if you want Just Sayin' (http://pokerandbridge.blogspot.com/) to be just sayin poker and photos (and I love the poker and photos btw), moving your bridge material to a group blog, or sending it to BridgeMatters, might work well.

BBO, the best and the worst

BBO Forums had one of its finest days, thanks first due to Roland Wald, the tireless BBO vugraph organizer. It's recorded in this thread:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28018

What he did was send an email out to 50 North American experts on a 2/1 bidding problem - he got 45(!) replies, and he complied these and posted them. Here we can see how the Internet "twitter" might work in the future, if bridge experts were ever to adopt the software.

Roland sends out a quick text:

S: Q9x H: Q8x D: QT9x C: Kxx 1S-Pass-?, 2/1, bid 2S or 1NT, reply to #B5431

45 experts text back to #B5431 their answers - it doesn't take long for each.

The software itself quickly compiles the answers and provides the set as the question, followed by the stream of answers. Instant bridge expert panels made easy by software!

Next note the simulation studies by Wayne Burrows in the thread. He produced some interesting statistics.

Roland had emailed me the question, but I chose to post a reply directly on the forums, because I knew my answer was best not incorporated into the expert consensus, which clearly would be to bid 2S.

First here's Eric Kokish for the experts:

2S. Not close to 1NT, whether forcing, semi-forcing, or NF

Next here's me:

2S at IMPs or if 1NT forcing, 1NT at pairs if 1NT is semi-forcing or not forcing

Now say you do your probability homework and your models/simulations confirm this opinion, and you do play 1NT semi-forcing. You then go to the Boston NABC and play in all the board-a-match events, which are closer to pairs than IMPs. You can beat the experts if you deviate from the field in situations where your studies have shown you that better results can be obtained, on average, from doing something unusual compared to expert rote bidding.

While it would be great for all those experts to be available in a twitter pool for quick question/answers, it,s not going to happen any time soon - it's taken a long time for us just to get enough regular bridge blogs to have sufficient synergy.

Since readers are going to treat bridge blogs like newspapers - reading one article, skimming another, reading just the headline of a third - there needs to be enough content across the bridge blogophere so that readers, if only reading a fraction of what is written, get enough content to make scanning and reading bridge blogs valuable time spent for them. Until recently we didn't have enough content across all the bridge blogs for this synergy to happen but now, led by the bridgeblogging site, we have gotten there.

Certainly we could do with a few more blogs - I think BridgeBase should have one. As it stands now, Fred Gitelman ends up posting on BBO forums from time to time (note he did not post in the forum discussion above, but he did reply to Roland's question). However it is a waste of the time that he can contribute to us if he has to defend/explain/re-explain/re-write/re-defend his positions, which he often has to do. Although the BBO forums are moderated (compare to rec.games.bridge and some of the continuing flame wars), the discussions are highly variable, and sometimes are quite shallow, or they degenerate or stall - since what Fred has to say is always thoughtful, insightful, and valuable, to the point where a mandatory search to perform from time to time on BBO forums is to find all postings for member fred - I suggest a blog would be a better vehicle.

Imo, it would be better for Fred to start a BridgeBase blog - if they got one or both of BridgeBase's well-known investors (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett) to write a blog posting, the traffic on this blog would be incredible: great for BridgeBase, great for bridge!

The power of blogs was seen in Judy Kay-Wolff's blog (on bridgeblogging) post on cheating, and the many comments (Kleinman/ Seagram/ Blumenthal/ Lee/ Tornay etc.):

http://judy.bridgeblogging.com/?p=32#comments

At this time, the last comment is an "Open Letter to Fred Gitelman…" from Bobby Wolff, and you will notice that Fred had already posted a set of comments, so he could have already started a BridgeBase blog with the time he invested in these replies.

I'm now going to wade into the cheating swamp with a few comments here - however I encourage you to post comments on Judy's blog if you have opinions on the issue. The reason I'm not commenting there is I don't have a strong opinion either way.

We've seen cheating at bridge take place at clubs, at sectionals, at regionals, and at NABCs. For example, at the last NABC we attended, we were late finishing the second board of the national pairs event. A player who had already finished their first round started to stare at our table and the cards being played.

We certainly see cheating online - a while back we had strange bidding by an opponent, and when the round was over I asked him about it, and then he incriminated himself by saying he bid this way knowing we did not have a good fit - however the only way he could have know that is to have been aware, during the bidding, that his partner was long in our suit!

We sent this hand into BBO. In following with BBO policies I will not hear back from them on this issue, but I have noticed certain players vanish from BBO. Thus, it seems, BBO does investigate suspicious cases, and I believe they do take action from time to time. I have also seen cases where there was a strong set of compelling evidence, and since the player is still active on BBO, either there was no action taken, or there was just a temporary suspension, or the player was actually a world class player capable of making amazing leads and plays all the time.

Imo, the cheating we do see online in the ACBL events is about the same level we see in live bridge, where many remarks, hitches, mannerisms etc. are used to telegraph hands to partner. Since we don't raise any fuss at live bridge unless it is outrageously blatant, we don't get too concerned with online bridge and the few masterpoints at stake.

And that's the strangest thing about cheating at the pedestrian levels of bridge: it makes no sense. For the online bridge events, why pay $1 to enter an event to cheat in it? - even if one collects 1000 masterpoints this way, say after $3,000 of online fees, one still has nothing, since to get any ACBL rank you have to have 2/3 of your points obtained in live bridge. Why pay thousands of dollars for nothing? - if anything the cheaters cheat themselves.

Treasure Mine - Systems & Style - Chapter 3 - 2H with less than 8 - Part IV of IV

(The recent world championship gives us a treasure trove that can be examined to study systems and style implications for success. For this final chapter of the study we will look at when 2H was opened with less than 8.)

In the semi-finals there were two less-than-8 hands that opened 2H. First was in the second segment, board 19:


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In England-Germany, the Germans opened the South hand 2H, 4-4+ majors, 5-9 (not vulnerable). 2NT asks, and then North placed them in 4H. West led a club, and continued them when in with the spade king, and that was 450.


.
.
.
.
.
.
In the Closed Room South passed, but 4H was easily bid after the overcall. East led a diamond, and that was 420, 1 IMP to Germany.

In Italy-Norway, Helgemo used Drury (promises a fit) with 5 points - the South hand has excellent playing value (singleton club, possible source of tricks in spades) and using Drury here shows an expert's judgement.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

East led a spade, declarer hopped up spade ace, dropping the king, and made 7.

In the Closed room, 1H was 13/14+, or 11-13 with 4-5+ in the majors, forcing. 2NT showed a fit and 5+ points and game was quickly reached:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
East led a club, but West switched to diamonds when in with the spade king, just making four, and 3 IMPs to Norway.

In segment 4, the Hacketts five card weak twos were featured:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2H was 5+Hs, 3-10, and 3H was to play with at least one of the A/K/Q. With diamonds splitting, 6D was cold.

In the Open Room West passed, and NS never bid diamonds:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4S made five, 12 IMPs to Germany.

In Italy-Norway, the Viking West tried a 2D Multi that showed exactly 5 in a major - not vulnerable versus vulnerable it was 2-8, can be flat or with a 4+ minor:

.
.
.
.
.

North doubled the 2D Multi with 18, South bid 3NT under pressure with no heart stopper, and North let that go - perhaps South would double with a heart stopper, and 3NT denies one. 3NT made five.

In the Closed Room, NS had a free run to 4S:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That made five for a push.

In the final the second board of the match was the only 2H bid with less than 8 - can you guess which pair did it?

It was Fantoni-Nunes - they play their 2H opening as 10-13, but in 3rd seat it has a maximum of 12 (or bad 13), and "could be weaker" than 10.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
North opposite a passed hand, and facing a 2H opening that could be 10-12, decided to downgrade the singleton heart king, and passed the 2H opening. South with a flat hand, passed out the hand. Declarer ducked the opening club lead, later got a club ruff and was down one for -50.

In the Open Room, the Italian South opened the 11 count where a Hackett had passed:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

East's double was a form of Snapdragon - see the recent write-up at:

http://www.doublesqueeze.com/2008/10/snapdragon-doubles-and-redoubles.html

East led the spade king against five clubs, and the contract needed some luck - declarer ducked the spade lead, and East switched to hearts. Declarer won the heart king, and played the club nine around to the ace. Declarer later guessed diamonds and that was 600 and 11 IMPs.

--- --- --- --- --- ---

Chapter 3 Analysis

2H openings with less than 8 points can produce random swings, based on the layout of the cards, but they do not generate net plus IMPs. For a discussion of why, see the section "Light or Heavy Weak Twos" in:

http://www.bridgematters.com/6mia.pdf

The bids are not that frequent. Openings like the Viking 2-8 point Multi are a waste of a bid. If you open 1H/S like Meckwell (can be very light if shapely), using 2H as a bad weak two is almost a waste of a bid - the question is what should the 2H opening be to produce net plus IMPs?

Will You Remember It?

When one is quoted or referenced, especially something older, one hopes the quote or reference is still something one believes in. I was pleased that the older quote used today was one I still very much believed in, and it's found in this well-written blog entry from Tommy Solberg on the "Secret Move":

http://tommybridgeblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/road-to-hell-is-paved-with-good.html

and allow me to quote from his post:

Also remember there is a difference between knowing conventions and subjecting yourself to the ultimate test of using them under fire.

This was how I determined if a convention should be used in a serious partnership - if we were playing the very last set of boards of a very important event, behind screens (can't see one's partner), and a particular sequence came up, would we both remember it?

Say it goes 1H-1S;-2H-3H;-4H, an uncontested auction. However after reading The Bridge World, April 08 issue, you are using the "Troika" methods suggested by Steve Robinson (with the sidebar improvement for keen partnerships).

Thus 3H = nothing about hearts, shows spades with at least game invite values (3D would show Hs)
4H = nothing about hearts, shows a slammish spade raise (4C/D would show Hs now)

Do you think under stress both of you are going to remember this? Do you think there is some significant chance one of you might pass 3H or might pass 4H?

In addition, when you have this sequence, is some of your focus consumed by the bidding, and then you might not give the play of the hand the 100% effort it deserves?

That's the determining point.

Now having said that, in a few days, once you forgot all about this, I will tell you about a method Karen and I are adding to our bidding system!

Treasure Mine - Systems & Style - Chapter 3 - 2H with less than 8 - Part III

(The recent world championship gives us a treasure trove that can be examined to study systems and style implications for success. For this final chapter of the study we will look at when 2H was opened with less than 8.)

In the round of 16 playoffs there was a less-than-8 hand where the players could have treated it as a "weak two" in hearts, as some of them opened Multi. This was the West hand of the last board of segment 3:

.
.
.
.
.
Partner East had a 3-1-5-4 10 count. In Turkey-Norway, the Turkish East opened that 10 count 1D (their cc does not indicate light openings are possible), the West hand bid 1H, and now NS bid to 4S making 5. At the other table, East passed, and Helgemo decided to try opening 1H with the West hand above. NS bid to 4S, East doubled, it made 5, for +690, and 6 IMPs to Turkey, still behind 110-73.

In Netherlands-Estonia, the Dutch West decided to pass initially - NS got to 3NT down 1. The West at the other table opened 2D, Multi (5+ major, 3-9), NS bid to 4S, East doubled, it made 4 for +590 and 12 IMPs, the Netherlands now ahead 97-71.

In Italy-India, Versace started the bidding with 1H by West - NS got to 2S, making 5, +200. In the other room West passed, the Italians got to 2H using Gazzilli, and made 3, +140, 2 IMPs to India, far behind at 111-45.

There were two 2H bids in the quarterfinals will less than 8. The first was board 28 of the second segement:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In Italy-Poland, Sementa for Italy opened the 7 count East with 1H, and when West raised to 2H over South's double, he was willing to compete to 5H doubled, -300.

In the Closed Room, Zawislak for Poland opened 4H opposite the passed hand, played there doubled, -100, and 5 IMPs to Poland:

.
.
.
.
.
In Germany-Netherlands, we don't have the Open Room auction, but NS ended in the vulnerable 4S, making 4. In the Closed Room, East started with 2H:

.
.
.
.
.
.
NS got to 4S, making 4 for a push.

The next 2H with less than 8 was on board 25 of the fourth segement:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In Germany-Netherlands, the Dutch North passed, South opened 1NT (14+ to 17-), North transferred and they played in 2H.

In the Open Room, the German NS play 1NT as 11-13, so South opened 1C, and then made a support double showing 3Hs, and if balanced will be 14+. North took a shot a 4H, with chances of making if opposite points, or being a good sacrifice if opposite shape.

.
.
.
.
.
.


4H needs the club finesse on and the suit splits not too unfriendly (otherwise EW can arrange a side suit ruff). +420 was 6 IMPs to Germany.

In Italy-Poland, Verace opened 1NT (15-17) and that got them to 2H:

.
.
.
.
.
.

In the Closed Room Zawislak opened 2H, showing 5+Hs, 5+ minor and 6-10. As usual, when not vulnerable vs. vulnerable, an opening may be light:

.
.
.
.
.
4H made 4 for 6 IMPs.

In England-Romania, Coldea for Romania opened 2H (5+Hs, 5+ minor, up to 10 points - the WBF allowed cc's with vague descriptions for points):

.

.

.

.

.

South took a shot at 3NT, it failed by three, for -150.

In the Closed Room:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2D was Multi, described as "Weak 2M or 23-24 balanced" and "(5)6M" - this was one of those "(5)" card weak twos. South asked with 2NT and found North had a minimum weak two in hearts, and stayed in 3H, for +170 and 8 IMPs.

Treasure Mine - Systems & Style - Chapter 3 - 2H with less than 8 - Part II

(The recent world championship gives us a treasure trove that can be examined to study systems and style implications for success. For this final chapter of the study we will look at when 2H was opened with less than 8.)

The next board with a 2H opening with less than 8 was the last board of round 16:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In Brazil-South Africa, North passed, and EW had a free run to 6D, down 2:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In the Closed room, South overcalled 2S (opposite a passed hand but still dangerous), and EW parked into 3NT, just making for 13 IMPs:

.
.
.
.
.
.
The England-German match saw the German North start with 2C (5-5 hearts and another, 5-11):


.
.
.
.
.
.
EW found 3NT, making 660. In the Closed Room, 2H was 5+Hs & 4+ minor, 5-9:


.
.
.
.
.
South raised to 3H, which could be wrong by the Law-of-Total-Tricks - they often will only have an 8 card trump fit - this cost 800 and 4 IMPs.

The final match of the round robin saw one last 2H opening with less than 8:


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In Norway-Poland, Norway got quickly to 4H and made five:


.
.
.
.
.
In the Closed Room, East asked over the Multi 2D, found West had a minimum weak 2 in hearts, and bid 4H, making 5 for a push:

.
.
.
.
.

In the Open Room of Indonesia-USA, Meckwell sat for 4H, and that was making five:

.
.
.
.
.

In the Closed room, South doubled, and NS were only -100 in 5C, for 8 IMPs:


.
.
.
.
.
In Israel-Sweden, 2D was Multi, 2S pass or correct, and West jumped to 4H with good playing value for hearts (2S implied willingness to play at least 3H opposite a weak two in hearts). Now South doubled, North bid 5C, doubled by East for -200:


.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

In the Closed Room, NS got to play 5C undoubled, so gained 3 IMPs.