Churchill Style

Mr. Seymour Garton Churchill, aka Church, of Great Neck, New York, United States, advocated a certain natural style of bidding in the game of bridge. As an intellectual he joined the bridge community and, as a result, enhanced the game by becoming one of the leading American bridge players, by becoming one of the more outstanding personalities of the game, and by adding his personal touch to the game by introducing his own style of bidding.

Note: As mentioned and cataloged by the Harvard University Library of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, the following description is contained in their documents. The text is quoted.

Seymour Garton Churchill was born in Bellefontaine, Ohio, United States, in 1900 and graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University (B.A. 1922) and Harvard Law School (1926). He spent most of his legal career at the firm of Loeb, Churchill & Lawther in Manhattan New York, United States. He began playing competitive bridge in 1928 and became one of the great American bridge players and bridge theorists. He wrote Contract Bidding Tactics at Match-Point Play (1937) and Churchill Natural Bidding Style at Contract Bridge (1979). He died of pneumonia in Fairview, North Carolina, United States, at the age of 92 in 1992. His wife was Mary Ellen Peck Churchill (d.1973), and they had two children, James Garton Churchill and Barbara Faurot Churchill Thompson.

At regional and national bridge tournaments from the early 1930s and 1940s he had won competitions in Life Master Pairs in 1937 and also in the year 1948. He also established two records by scoring with his partner, Mr. Cecil Head, 65.5% as an average of four sessions, and a 77.4% in a single session. The latter record held until the year 1963 when Mr. Eric Murray and Mrs. Agnes Gordon recorded 78% in the final session of the National Mixed Pairs.

He also won the Chicago in 1932, placed Second in the years 1933, 1939, 1941, and 1942. He also placed Second in the Summer National Mixed Teams in the year 1937 and also the Asbury Challenge Teams in the year 1931. He enjoyed many regional successes including the Eastern Knockout Teams in the years 1937, 1938, and 1939.

As a bridge theoretician he devised and developed multiple concepts and principles, which he compiled and published in his publication Contract Bidding Tactics at Match-Point Play: Suit-Over-Suit and Picture Bidding; Balance of Power Theory; Strategic and Psychic Bidding, published in the year 1936 by the Ad Press Limited, ISBN-10: B00088YZ8C, LC: 37003537. He also published privately Churchill Natural Bidding Style at Contract Bridge: Bid Successfully without Artificial Conventions in the year 1979, ISBN: B00070N6YK.

The basic element of the bidding style of Mr. Seymour Garton Churchill was the almost complete non-acceptance of the idea of employing any bid, which is artificial, or bids upon which the ideas and concepts promoted and proposed by early advocates of newly devised methods of bidding in the early days of the developing game of bridge among the pioneers and theoreticians. His aversion to such artificial bids and conventions or conventional methods, which promoted such artificial bids, produced from him a bidding style, in which practically all opening bids, response bids, overcalls, and all continuances are based on the principle of natural bids. It is for this reason that the Churchill Style is neither a bidding system nor a bidding method.

Main Elements of Style

1. A Weak No Trump Opening: Mr. Seymour Garton Churchill was one of the first leading American theorists to support the application of this bid, and it gained popularity among many bridge players in the bridge community.

2. A Utility 1 No Trump response used for a wide variety of weak holdings. This method was the predecessor or the forcing Rothstone 1 No Trump response.

3. Light opening bids with distributional patterns such as: 5-4-3-2, 5-4-4-0, 6-4-3-0, 5-5-3-0, 6-5-1-1, etc.

4. Frequent bids in short suits. Mr. Seymour Garton Churchill recognized the importance in the application of such all-purpose bids for exploring for a game or slam contract, or for allowing the correct partner to establish and play as declarer the contract.

5. Constructive and disciplined overcalls and jump overcalls, which are one round forcing bids.

6. Picture Bidding, jump rebids and responses are employed essentially to describe solid or near-solid suits as well as slam attempts. Note: A Picture Bid is a bid by a player, which describes the holding completely regarding strength and length. (Note: It must also be noted that Mr. Alvin Roth published a book in 1991 titled Picture Bidding: The Art of Painting A Bridge Hand, ISBN-10: 0940257114, which expanded upon this devised concept developed in the 1930s.) (Note: A distinction must be made between this principle and the principle of Fast Arrival as proposed by Mr. Ely Culbertson.)

7. Four-card openings in suits of any strength. The concept of opening a 4-card Major suit was not a strange concept in the early stages of the developing game of bridge owing to the fact that several features were adopted from the Acol bidding system of the United Kingdom.

8. No strength-showing forcing opening bids.

9. Sparing use of preemptive bids. The principle of not preempting one’s own partner was a dominant element of any partnership agreement.

10. Balance of Power bidding. The principle behind this feature is that the opponents may not stop, or steal, the contract at a low level. This original concept developed into the feature known today as a balancing action, and should be implemented on the one level and only under certain parameters on the two level, but rarely on the three level.

Additional Information to Person

Mr. Seymour Garton Churchill was born in the year 1900 and died in the year 1992. His obituary was printed in The New York Times on Wednesday, December 30, 1992. Any contribution of additional information, including photographs, will be greatly appreciated.

He was one of the great American bridge players and bridge theorists. He graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University and Harvard Law School. In 1944 he made the decision to resign from bridge playing in general, mainly due to his law practice and his wish to spend more time with his family. His system or bidding style were concepts he advocated as a theorist, and these concepts were generally not accepted by the bridge community until much later. His original theoretical ideas and concepts were published not only in his book Contract Bidding Tactics At Matchpoint Play, but also in published articles of The Bridge World magazine.

Translation of: Defense Against Muiderberger Two

The predominant objective of the Muiderberg convention is to keep opponents out of the bidding or to confuse the opponents so that they are obstructed in their bidding process. Since the Muiderberg conventional method is becoming increasingly popular, especially in the Netherlands, it is important to have an effective defense mechanism.

Basic Concept

This defense mechanism against the Muiderberg convention is based on the principle of “Keep It Simple”. The same principles are used as against an ordinary opening. The fundamental principle to know is that the Muiderberg convention takes the bidding auction one level higher, and therefore the overcalls and doubles need to have more substance.

Double

After a Muiderberg conventional opening, every double is informative when the partner has not bid, but has passed. There are two requirements:

1. The double promises a hand with opening values, 13 points or more. In the balancing position, the player can double with less than 13 points. In this situation the player may, however, have no more than eight losers.
2. The double will promise a hand that is short in the opening suit with preferably four cards in the other Major suit.
The responses to the double are natural. However, the player can use the conventional method, which is becoming increasingly popular, and is called the Negative 2 No Trump. The responses and their meanings are shown below after the bidding sequence of:

Auction 2 Double Pass

Pass: Pass for Penalty.
Weak hand, maximum of 10 points, minimum of 8 losers. Requires partner (second position) with normal informative double to bid 3. After that, you pass or bid your own suit. If the partner (second hand) is much stronger (for example: 6 losers or less), then they bid his/her own suit instead of 3.

• Partner’s suit, inviting. (Good 5+ card and maximum 8 losers)
• Partner’s suit, inviting. (Good 5+ card and maximum 8 losers)
• Partner’s suit, inviting. (Good 5+ card and maximum 8 losers)

To play.

• Your suit, forcing.
• Your suit, forcing.
• To play.

Overcall of 2 No Trump

In the second position with 2 No Trump, you are promising 15-18 points. In the fourth position you have 14-17 points. This does not deny a 5-card Major suit, so after the 2 No Trump overcall you can play Neimeijer or Puppet Stayman.

Overcall in a Suit

This is only done when you have a strong hand and you definitely want to bid. That is, if by not bidding, you risk that your partner also passes and you miss a possible game.

A jump overcall is promising a strong hand with a minimum of a 6-card suit and a maximum of 6 losers. There is no use for a weak jump against the Muiderberg convention. Do not employ a preemptive bid against a preemptive bid.

Transfers

Some pairs play transfers after the double of the partner. The risk they take is that by doubling, the opponents regain the initiative in the bidding process. Against a preemptive bid, you need to find and bid a fit as quickly as possible.

Variation of Carrotski Club – Carrot Club

This bidding system is a combination of Polish Club and the Swedish systems Svan and Skrot (“metal junk”) developed by Mr. Anders Morath and Mr. Sven-Ake Bjarregard in 1972. Svan/Skrot are five-card-Major versions of the Carrot Club.

The Carrot Club, originally Morotsklovern, (Swedish for Carrot Club), was invented by Mr. Sven-Olof Flodqvist and Mr. Anders Morath in 1972 for use in the European Championships in Athens, Greece. It was the system that won the European Championships in 1977, with two pairs playing Carrot. In the European Championships the Carrot team placed 1st in 1987, 3rd in 1989, 2nd in 1991, and 5th in 1993. In the World Championship they placed 3rd in 1987 and 1991, and in the Olympics 3rd in 1988 and 4th in 1992.

Other members of the team were Mr. Hans Gothe, Mr. P.O. Sundelin, and Mr. Tommy Gullberg. The rights of the Swedish name was bought by Mr. Eric Jannersten when he published a book written by Mr. Sven-Olof Flodqvist in 1978, and the later variants of the system have been called Carrot Club.

After playing SKalmar, (a Swedish weak/strong 1 Club system), for two seasons with Mr. Jorgen Lindqvist in the early eighties, Mr. Sven-Olof Flodqvist introduced a weak/strong 1 Club opening. It was first used in the strong pass system Carrotti that was also created at the same time. Mr. Sven-Olof Flodqvist and Mr. Hans Gothe qualified themselves to the European Championships in 1985 using Carrotti. They were not allowed to play it in the championships, so they used Carrot with a weak/strong 1 Club instead.

Mr. Anders Morath later developed a new version of the system, called Svan, with 5+ card Major openings. The latest Carrot Club version, O’Carrot, has kept the 4-card major openings, which are always unbalanced.

Opening Bids:

1 Club:

• a) 11-13 HCPs, balanced or semibalanced (not 2-2 in majors) or 4414
• b) 16+ HCPs, unbalanced
• c) 17+ HCPs, balanced (except hands opened with 2 No Trump)

How to deal with Interference Over a 2-Way 1 Club Opening

1 Diamond: 10-15 HCPs, 4+ Diamonds (either 5+ Diamonds or Club canapé, or 4-4-4-1)

• The only non-classic distribution is 4 Diamonds and 5 Clubs.
• The responses to 1 Diamond are natural, with inverted raises. The only non-natural response is 3 Clubs which shows a semi-balanced raise with 4+ Diamonds and no 4-card Major and 10-12 HCPs (too weak for 2 Diamonds and too strong for 3 Diamonds).
• Further auction is natural, with new suits over 2 Diamonds and 3 Clubs (below 3 Diamonds and 4 Diamonds) showing stoppers.
• After 1 D – 1 H/S – 1 NT, 2 Clubs is a check-back, 3 Clubs shows Clubs and is a sign-off, and 2 No Trump shows Clubs and is invitational (balanced invitational hands go via checkback).
• 1 D – 1 H/S – 3 D promises 3-card support for responder’s Major (and, of course, a good hand with 6+ Diamonds), while 1 D – 1 H/S – 2 NT is a hand worth the 3 Diamond bid, but with less than 3-card support.
• Similarly 1 D – 1 H/S – 4 D promises a 4-card support for responder’s Major.

1 Heart / Spade: 10-15 HCPs, 5+ cards

(Note: 14-15 HCPs and 5-3-3-2 hands are opened 1 No Trump).

1. 1 Spade: (after 1 Heart)

• 4+ Spades and 8+ HCPs. 1 H – 1 Spade – 1 NT shows 11-13 points; 2 Clubs is check-back.
• 1 H – 1 S – 2 NT shows 6+ Hearts with a hand worth a 3 H bid, but with less than 3 Spades. 1 H – 1 S -3 H promises a 3-card Spade support.
• 1 H – 1 S – 3 m shows 5-5 and 14-15 HCPs.

2. Semi-forcing 1NT

• The 1 NT response is either classic (7-10 HCPs and less than 3 card support) or an invitational hand with 3 card support. Opener can pass with a balanced minimum.

3. Major-Suit Raises

• 1 NT: 3-card support with 11-13 HCPs (invitational; 8-loser hand).
• 2 Major: 3-card support with 8-10 HCPs (9-loser hand).
• 3 Major: preemptive, at least 4-card support
• 4 Major: poor preemptive raise (5+ Hearts, less than 1 honor trick).
• 2 Major+1: mini-splinter raise with 4-card support, unknown singleton or void and either 6- or 8-loser hand.
• 2 Major+2: Jacoby – 14+ HCPs balanced or semi-balanced, with 4-card support.
• 2 Major+3: 4-card support, 8-10 HCPs (9-loser hand).
• 2 Major+4: 4-card limit raise.
• 3 NT: splinter in the suit below the Major opened (D after 1 H; H after 1 S).
• 3 S / 4 C after 1 H and 4 C / D after 1 S: splinters with either 5- or 7-loser hand.
• 4 Major-1: Exclusion RKCB with void in this suit.
• 4 Major+1: RKCB (Roman KeyCard Blackwood

Further Auction:

Over a Single Raise 1M-2M.

A new suit shows maximum and asks for help in this suit, except for 1 H – 2 H – 2 NT which asks for help in spades.

Opener’s cheapest bid (2 S and 2 NT) is a puppet to the next higher bid (2 NT or 3 C), after which the opener shows his shortness (with hearts agreed 3 H shows spade shortness; with spades agreed 3 S shows club shortness).

A re-raise is preemptive, not invitational.

Over a Mini-Splinter Raise

First step is a relay showing a non-minimum hand (less than 7 losers), over which responder shows his shortness. With a 6-loser hand responder continues even over a sign-off (with a singleton just above the Major opened and a 6-loser hand responder cannot bid 3 Major, e.g. 1 H – 2 S – 2 NT – 3 H shows a Spade singleton and an 8-loser hand, 1 H – 1 S – 2 NT – 3 S shows Spade singleton and a 6-loser hand).

Over the forcing Balanced Raise (Jacoby).

Opener shows shortness at 3-level. Without shortness opener shows a good second suit at 4-level. Without either of these he bids 3 Major with maximum and 3 NT with minimum.

4. Two-over-One Responses

These show 11+ HCPs and are forcing to 2 No Trump. A raise by opener of responder’s suit is game-forcing.

With minimum hand and no support for responder’s suit, opener rebids his Major; with minimum hand and support opener rebids 2 NT (Note: systemically open all 14-16 HCPs and 5-3-3-2 hands with 1 No Trump).

5. Further Rules

In a forcing auction with trumps agreed, 3NT denies a slam interest, while a free cue-bid at 4-level expresses such an interest.

1 No Trump: 14-16 HCPs

Additional Information about 1 No Trump Openings

2 Clubs: 10-15 HCPs, 6+ Clubs, or 5 Clubs and 4 of a Major

Responses:

• 2 Diamonds: relay; opener bids 2 Hearts/Spades with a 4-card Major and 10-12 points, 2 NT without a 4-card Major and 10-12 points, 3 Clubs without a 4-card Major and 13-15 points, 3 Hearts/Spades with a 4-card Major and 13-15 points.
• 2 Hearts/Spades: natural non-forcing.
• 2 No Trump: forcing with support, asks for shortness (3 Clubs no shortness).
• 3 Clubs: preemptive.
• 3 Hearts/Spades: game-forcing.

2 Diamonds: 4-9 HCPs, at least 5-4 in Majors (4-4 if allowed)

The 2 Diamond opening showing a weak hand with both Majors is known as Ekrens or Norwegian 2 Diamonds. It seems though that it was invented in Poland in the 1970’s (and later, independently, by Mr. Bjoern Ekren).

Responses to 2 Diamonds:

2 Hearts: To play.

2 Spades: To play.

2 No Trump: Forcing relay.

3 Clubs: To play.

3 Diamonds: Invitational with 3-3 in the Major suits.

3 Hearts: Preempt.

3 Spades: Preempt

Rebids after 2 Diamonds – 2 No Trump:

3 Clubs: Poor 5-4 (now 3 Diamonds asks for the longer suit).

3 Diamonds: Poor 5-5 (3 Hearts/Spades to play; 3 No Trump asks for shortness).

3 Hearts: Maximum with 5 Hearts and 4 Spades.

3 Spades: Maximum with 5 Spades and 4 Hearts.

3 No Trump: Good 5-5 and a void. Now 4 Clubs asks: 4 Diamonds = Club void, 4 Hearts = Diamond void.

4 Clubs/Diamonds: Good 5-5 and a singleton in the suit bid.

In competition, all doubles are for penalties; jumps in a minor are fit-jumps in support of a (unspecified) Major.

2 Hearts/Spades: Weak Two bids

2 No Trump: 23-25 HCPs, balanced, no 5-card Major

Note: the 4-4-1-4 hand with 14/15 points can be downgraded to 11-13 points or opened 1 Major if the Major is strong.

Responses to 1 Club:

1 Diamond: 0-7 points, any distribution (not an Ace and a King)

1 Heart/Spade: 8+ points, 4+ cards

1 No Trump: 8-11 points, no 4-card Major, balanced or semi-balanced

2 Clubs/Diamonds: 8-12 points, unbalanced, 5+ Minor, no 4+ Major

2 Hearts: game-forcing with both Minors (2 NT asks for the longer Minor)

2 Spades: puppet to 2 NT; either 14+ points, balanced with no 4-card Major or game-forcing Minor one-suiter

2 No Trump: 12-13 points, balanced, no 4-card Major

3 Clubs/Diamonds: 5-7 points, 6+ suit headed by KQ or AQ

3 Hearts/Spades: 7-card suit headed with 2 top honors and out

Development of the Auction:

Hand Type		11-13 HCPs; balanced or 4-4-1-4		17-19 HCPs; balanced, no 5+ Major suit		20-22 HCPs; balanced, no 5+ Major suit
Response
1D: 0-7 HCPs; any distribution		bid 1 Major (showing 3+). Pass on the next round.		Bid 1 NT. Further bidding as after 1 NT opening.		Bid 2 NT. Further bidding as after 2 NT opening.
1 Major: 8+ HCPs, 4+ Major		Bid 2 Major or 1 NT (even if opener holds 4 Spades after a 1 H response). Responder can now bid 2 C as check-back, 2x/3C  as a weak takeout, 2 NT as invitational with Clubs or 3 D/H – invitational 5-5.		Bid 2 D (GF showing 17+ balanced or 4-card support).		Bid 2 D (GF showing 17+ balanced or 4-card support). Show extra strength later.
1 NT: 8-11 HCPs, no 4-card Major, balanced or semi-balanced.		Pass.		Bid 3 NT or 2 C (shape inquiry showing 17+ balanced or strong with a long Minor).		Bid 3 NT or 2 C (shape inquiry showing 17+ balanced or strong with a long Minor) or possibly 4 NT (quantitative).
2 Minor suit: 8-12 HCPs unbalanced, 5+ Minor suit, no 4 card + Major suit.		Pass or bid 2 NT / 3 Minor suit (invitational).		Bid 3 NT or 4 Minor suit (forcing).		Bid 4 NT or 4 Minor suit (forcing).
2 H: Game-Forcing with both Minors		Bid 3 NT or ask for longer Minor with 2 NT		Bid 4 NT or ask for longer Minor with 2 NT		Bid 5 NT or ask with 2 NT
2 NT: 12-13 HCPs, balanced, no 4-card+ Major suit		Pass or bid 3 NT		Bid 4 NT or 3 Minor suit (could be a 4-card suit)		Bid 4 NT or 3 Minor suit (could be a 4-card suit).
3 Minor: 5-7 HCPs, 6+ cards to KQ or AQ		Pass or bid 4 Minor suit (preemptive)		Bid 3 NT or 5 Minor suit.		Bid 3 NT, 5 Minor, or more.
3 Major suit: 7-card suit with 2 top honors and out		Pass or bid 3 NT / 4 Major suit		Do something clever		Do something clever

 

Hand Type		16+ HCPs, 5+ Minor		16+ HCPs, 5+ Major
Response
1 D: 0-7 HCPs, any distribution		With a 4-card Major bid 1 Major. With no 4-card Major, bid 2 Minor. With a game-forcing hand bid 3 Minor. After the 2 Minor rebid, responder can bid a new suit at 2-level (4-7 HCPs, 5-cards plus);		Bid 1 Major (NF) or 2 Major (Acol 2, forcing). Responder can bid naturally with 4-7 HCPs. If opener is raised to 2 Major, bidding goes as after 1 Major – 2 Major.
1 Major: 8+ HCPs, 4+ Major.		With a 1-suiter and 16-18 HCPs bid 3 Minor. With other hands without support bid 2 Clubs (GF relay). With support bid 2 Diamonds (GF) or splinter.		Bid 1/2 other Major. This sets up a game-force. With support bid 2 Diamonds (GF relay) or splinter.
1 NT: 8-11 HCPs, no 4-card Major, balanced or semi-balanced.		With Diamonds bid 2 Diamonds, with Clubs bid 2 NT. Alternatively bid 3 NT (to play),  3 Minor (powerful one-suiter; demand for cue-biding), 4 Minor (RKC Gerber), or 2 Clubs (shape inquiry showing 17+ HCPs balanced or strong with a long Minor).		Bid 2 Major, game-forcing or 3 Major (powerful one-suiter; demand for cue-biding).
2 Minor: 8-12 HCPs, 5+ Minor, unbalanced, no 4+ Major		Bid 2/3 other Minor (if responder has the wrong one) alternatively double-raise or splinter (after the right one).		Bid 2 Major
2 H: GF with both Minors		Bid 4 Minor (Roman KeyCard Gerber)		Bid 3 Major or 2 NT asking for longer Minor
2 NT: 12-13 HCPs, balanced, no 4+ Major		Bid 3 Minor or 4 Minor. Note that 3 Minor might be only a 4-card suit (with 17+ HCPs, balanced)		Bid 3 Major
3 Minor: 5-7 HCPs, 6+ Minor to KQ/AQ		Do something clever (like pass)		Pass or bid 3 Major
3 Major: 7-card suit with 2 top honors and out		Bid 4 Minor (forcing)		Do something clever

Bidding after 1 Club – 1 Major – 2 Diamonds:

• 2 Clubs: shows either a two-suiter without support for responder’s Major or a Minor one-suiter with 19+ points (Minor one-suiter with 16-18 HCPs are bid 1 Club – 1 Major – 3 Minor). Now the suits are bid up the line, with the key point that the responder shows a 3-card Diamond support. Thus after 1 Club – 1 Major – 2 Clubs, responder’s rebids:
• 2 Diamonds: 3-card plus Diamonds; now opener bids 2 Major with 3-card support, 2 Other Major with 4 cards in that Major, 2 No Trump with Clubs (showing either a Minor 2-suiter with longer Clubs or 19+ points with Clubs; responder bids 3 Clubs with 3-card support), or 3 Diamonds showing Diamonds.
• 2 Hearts: (after 1 Club – 1 Spade): 4+ Hearts, less than 3 Diamonds.
• 2 Hearts: (after 1 Club – 1 Heart): 5+ Hearts, less than 3 Diamonds.
• 2 Spades: (after 1 Clubs – 1 Heart): exactly 4 Hearts, 4 Spades, less than 3 Diamonds (and so at least 3 Clubs).
• 2 Spades: (after 1 Club – 1 Spades): 5+ Spades, less than 3 Diamonds, less than 4 Hearts (and so either 6 Spades or at least 3 Clubs).
• 2 No Trump: 4 cards in the Major bid, less than 3 Diamonds, less than 4 cards in the other Major (and so at least 4 Clubs).
• 3 Minor suit: 5+ cards, denies 4 cards in the other Major and 3 of the other Minor.
• After 1 Club – 1 Major – 2 Clubs – 2 H/S, 2 NT: by opener shows Clubs. Responder bids 3 Clubs with 3-card support.

Bidding after 1 Club – 1 NT – 2 Clubs (Doubleton Stayman):

2 diamonds: no Major doubleton; 2 Hearts is a further relay: 2 Spades – 3-3-3-4, 2 NT – 3-3-4-3, 3 Clubs – 3-3-2-5, 3 Diamonds – 3-3-5-2.
2 hearts: doubleton in the Major bid, 3 cards in the other Major; 2 NT by opener is a further relay. The responder bids 3 Minor with a 5-card suit (thus showing 5-3-3-2 shape) and otherwise (with 4-4 in Minors) bids: 3 NT with a stopper in the doubleton, 3 of the original doubleton without a stopper and 8-9 points, 3 of the other Major with 10-11 points (and no stopper in the doubleton).
2 spades: doubleton in the Major bid, 3 cards in the other Major; 2 NT by opener is a further relay. The responder bids 3 Minor with a 5-card suit (thus showing 5-3-3-2 shape) and otherwise (with 4-4 in Minors) bids: 3 NT with a stopper in the doubleton, 3 of the original doubleton without a stopper and 8-9 points, 3 of the other Major with 10-11 points (and no stopper in the doubleton).
2 No Trump: doubletons in both Majors, i.e. both Minors: 2-2-5-4 or 2-2-4-5.
3 Minor: 6-card suit.

Subsequent bids at the 3-level by opener show stoppers if in a Major; set trumps and begin cuebidding if in a Minor.

Bidding after 1 Club – 1 Heart – 1 Spade:

• 1 No Trump: 11+ points, balanced, doubleton Spade
• 2 No Trump: 11+ points, balanced with 4-card Spade support; opener bids as after 1 Spade – 2 NT
• 3 No Trump: 8-10 points, balanced; doubleton Spade
• 2 Spades: – 11+, 3-card spade support;
• 3 Spades: 8-10 points, 3-card Spade support
• 4 Spades: 8-10 points, 4-card Spade support
• 4 Minor: Splinter with 4-card Spade support
• Strong 4-4-4-1 hands:
• After 1 Club – 1 Major, 2 No Trump shows 4-4-4-1 with singleton in partner’s suit and 19+ points; 3 No Trump shows the same distribution and 16-18 points.

The foundation of the L-System is to open a Major suit with as few as 8 to 12 high card points, and to open a Minor suit with as few as 10 to 12 high card points on the one level. Any opening bids on the two level are considered preemptive in nature.

Below is a summary of the L-System with the corresponding responses.

Club Opening

• Non-forcing, 4-10 high card points.
• Non-forcing, 7-10 high card points, 5-card Heart suit.
• Non-forcing, 7-10 high card points, 5-card Spade suit.
• Game-forcing, 11 high card points plus, but imparts no information about distribution.
• Non-forcing, 7-10 high card points, shows either a 6-card plus suit, or a 5-card suit with a 4-card Major suit.
• Non-forcing, 7-10 high card points, shows either a 6-card plus suit, or a 5-card suit with a 4-card Major suit.
• Weak Jump Shift, not game-forcing.

Diamond Opening

• Opener Meaning Responder Meaning
• 7 or fewer high card points, Negative Response.
• high card points plus, natural and game-forcing.
• 4 or fewer high card points, Weak Jump, long Spade suit.
• 4 or fewer high card points, Weak Jump, long Club suit.
• 4 or fewer high card points, Weak Jump, long Diamond suit.
• 4 or fewer high card points, Weak Jump, long Heart suit.

The concept behind the L-System is to pass all hands with even distribution and fewer than 13 high card points. If the point count is 13 to 15 high card points, then the hand should be opened with 1 Club, also with evenly distributional holdings.

If the distribution is slightly off and the point count is between 16 and 18 high card points, the preference is to bid 1 Diamond, but if the distribution is balanced, the preference is to open 1 No Trump.

All hands containing 19 to 20 high card points, regardless of shape, should be opened with 1 Diamond. All holdings with 21 to 22 high card points and even distribution should be opened with 2 No Trump.

Heart Opening

• 5-card Heart suit plus, not suitable for preemptive openings.
• 11 plus high card points, natural and forcing for one round.
• 10-12 high card points, evenly distributional holding.
• 11 plus high card points, natural and forcing for one round.
• A single raise shows 10-12 support points.
• A double raise shows fewer than 10 points and is weak.
• 16 plus high card points, good Heart support.
• A jump is weak and preemptive, long Spade suit.
• A jump is weak and preemptive, long Club suit.
• A jump is weak and preemptive, long Diamond suit.

Spade Opening

• 5-card Spade suit plus, not suitable for preemptive openings.
• 10-12 high card points, evenly distributional holding.
• 11 plus high card points, natural and forcing for one round.
• A single raise shows 10-12 support points.
• A double raise shows fewer than 10 points and is weak.
• 16 plus high card points, good Heart support.
• A jump is weak and preemptive, long Club suit.
• A jump is weak and preemptive, long Diamond suit.
• A jump is weak and preemptive, long Heart suit.

No Trump Opening

• 10-12 hcps May be an unbalanced holding with a 5+card Minor suit.
  A holding with values not suitable for preemptive bids.
• 11 or fewer high card points.
• 11 or fewer high card points, no game interest, requests partner to pass or bid 2 .
• 10 plus high card points, forcing for one round.
• 10-13 high card points, natural bid.
• 13-14 high card points, balanced distribution, invitation to 3 NT.

Rebids by Opener After 2 Diamonds

• 10-12 hcps May be an unbalanced holding with a 5+card Minor suit.
• A holding with values not suitable for preemptive bids.
• 10 plus high card points, forcing for one round.
• Natural rebid showing a 4-card Heart suit.
• Natural rebid showing a 4-card Spade suit.
• Shows a minimum hand without a 4-card Major suit.

Opening Bids on the Two Level

• Preemptive bid, 6-11 high card points, 5+suit. Responses are Standard American.

No Trump Opening

• 21-22 high card points, even distribution. Responses are Standard American.

Preemptive Bids on the Three Level

• Preemptive bid, 6-11 high card points, 7+suit. Responses are Standard American.

Mr. Hong Liu suggests that using his L-System allows the bridge player to open a 5-card suit with as little as 8-12 high card points either at the one or two level.

This suggestion is based on the tradition that an overcall can be made on such few values, and therefore why should it not be possible to open with such few values. Another advantage is perhaps the lack of artificial conventions, treatments, and methods.

The 1 No Trump openings for a Minor suit require only 10 to 12 high card points as opposed to 8 to 12 high card points. The narrower range allows the partnership to more accurately judge the situation on the two level.

This allows the partnership to bid preemptively with a holding of only 8 or 9 high card points and a 5-card suit, either a Major or Minor suit.

The History of the Bermuda Bowl begins with Mr. Norman Bach, who was born in 1913 in Bermuda and died 1971. He initiated and organized the first post World War II World Championships in the year 1950. During the evolution of these Championships, the Bermuda Bowl came to be the most prestigious Bridge Trophy. Mr. Norman Bach himself won the Gold Cup for Great Britain in 1938 and was the playing Captain of the British Team in the European Championships in 1938 and 1939. Mr. Norman Bach of Bermuda and his associates from the Bermuda Bridge Club organized, scheduled and managed the very first event in 1950. All hands, complete with bidding and play, were recorded, which, it must be noted, was a first for the American players but nothing new to the Europeans, since such recording was standard practice in important European matches.

The first World Championship for the Bermuda Bowl was held in 1950, eight years before the World Bridge Federation itself was formed. It was contested by USA, Europe and Britain. The United States won by beating Europe by 4,720 points and Britain by 3,660. The USA team consisted of six great players and the names of these players were engraved upon the new trophy, which was presented by the Government of Bermuda.

The format of the World Championship was changed in 1967. Previously the placings had been decided by a simple Round Robin, with two points for a win and one for a tie. After the change there was to be a Round Robin in which each team met each other in three separate matches, with 20 victory points at stake in each match. This was followed by a two-team final over 128 boards. The change proved successful and the old format was never restored.

In the 1960s the scope of international bridge was much enlarged. In 1958 the World Bridge Federation was formed and began to arrange its member countries in geographical Zones, which became the basis for Bermuda Bowl eligibility. It was at this time that the contest began taking on its present worldwide character. In 1958, the South American Confederation, which for ten years had already been holding Championships of its own, competed for the first time. In 1966 the Far East Bridge Federation, represented by Thailand, joined in and five years later Australia represented the South Pacific Zone for the first time. The Central American and Caribbean Zone made its debut in 1979, followed two years later by the Bridge Federation of Asia & the Middle East, the youngest of the World Bridge Federation’s Zonal organizations.

Owing to several circumstances regarding the play among the players and the intensity of the games, and after a period of controversy, the World Bridge Federation Executive Council decided by six votes to three with two abstentions to use screens and bidding boxes in the next Bermuda Bowl taking place in 1974.

Throughout the years the governing body for the supervision of the Bermuda Bowl had many decisions to make. Their meetings in Monte Carlo saw Mr. Ortiz-Patino unanimously elected World Bridge Federation President. By the time the 1977 Bermuda Bowl was decided in Manila, changes had been made in the Constitution and By-laws, establishing the important principle that World Bridge Federation competitions would be by invitation only. A Credentials Committee, with members from various Zones, would have power to issue or withhold invitations. These decisions were controversial at the time they were decided, but these changes are presently widely seen to have proven beneficial. Similar procedures have since been adopted by other bodies. The World Bridge Federation also decided to hold the Bermuda Bowl at two yearly intervals, bringing about the present cycle, with the Bermuda Bowl held in odd years, the Team Olympiad in leap years, and the World Bridge Championships in other even years.

Port Chester in 1981 brought the entry of another new Zone, represented by Pakistan, which had just won the Inaugural Championships of the Bridge Federation of Asia and the Middle East.

There have been a few incidences along the way.

The Bermuda Incident

The annual Bermuda Bowl world championship saw Italy and the United States playing in the 1975 final. There, American reporter Mr. Bruce Keidan would uncover one of the most infamous cheating scandals ever.

While watching one of the Italian pairs, Mr. Gianfranco Facchini and Mr. Sergio Zucchelli, Mr. Bruce Keidan noticed unusual foot actions between the two. The reporter found the players tapping each other’s feet under the table in an apparent attempt to relay information about their hands. The act of cheating is of course illegal and normally grounds for expulsion from any bridge organization. Mr. Bruce Keidan’s discovery, which was confirmed by several witnesses, was eventually presented to the presiding authorities of the event, who “severely reprimanded” Mr. Gianfranco Facchini and Mr. Sergio Zucchelli for their activity but allowed the players to continue competing in the event. Ironically, although the Italians were allowed to stay, the Bermuda Bowl authorities placed blocks underneath the tables to prevent any further foot contact.

American captain Mr. Alfred Sheinwold was angered by the Solomonic decision and stated that his team would resign from the match. Only by threats made to Sheinwold by the United States’ governing body, the American Contract Bridge League, was his team coerced into finishing the event. The ACBL did not want a huge public embarrassment that refusing to play would cause. Italy won the event, 215 – 189 International Match Points. By all accounts, Mr. Gianfranco Facchini and Mr. Sergio Zucchelli quickly faded from the international bridge circuit thereafter.

The Buenos Aires Affair

The Bermuda Bowl world championship was held in 1965 in Buenos Aires, site of the infamous finger-signaling scandal. British experts Mr. Terence Reese and Mr. Boris Schapiro were accused by American players Mr. B. Jay Becker and Dorothy Hayden (now Truscott) of holding their cards with different numbers of fingers in accordance with the number of hearts they held. When the allegations leaked out during the event, British captain Mr. Ralph Swimer forfeited all his team’s matches and withdrew Great Britain from the competition. The degree of correlation between fingers and hearts was very high; however, it is debatable whether or not Reese-Schapiro benefited from the alleged exchange of information. Those who sided with the players argued the latter, suggesting that it was improbable the British pair was cheating if it never gained points on the deals in question.

The British Bridge League eventually found Mr. Terence Reese and Mr. Boris Schapiro innocent of cheating; however, the World Bridge Federation found them guilty and banned them from WBF events for three years. Bridge writer Mr. Alan Truscott wrote a book about the affair entitled The Great Bridge Scandal, while Mr. Terence Reese wrote his own account, Story of an Accusation.

The Houston Affair

As experienced tournament players may know, the United States uses a playoff system to determine which team gets to play in the annual world championship. These team trials, as they are known, ended scandalously in 1977 when two players, Mr. Larry Cohen* and Mr. Richard Katz, abruptly quit in the middle of the final. At the time, event officials were investigating rumors that Katz-Cohen were transmitting information illegally. Before any formal accusations were made, however, Mr. Richard Katz and Mr. Larry Cohen resigned from their team, which then forfeited due to a lack of players.

But not only did Mr. Richard Katz and Mr. Larry Cohen quit their team and the event, they resigned their memberships in the American Contract Bridge League, the national body in charge of the team trials. Soon afterward, Mr. Richard Katz and Mr. Larry Cohen filed a $44 million lawsuit against the ACBL and three tournament officials for defamation of character, false allegations of misconduct, and forced resignation from the League. The whole affair managed to get settled in court, where the ACBL agreed to re-admit Mr. Richard Katz and Mr. Larry Cohen, who promised in turn to not play with each other again. Monetary compensation was not made to the pair.

*Not the Mr. Larry Cohen famous in tournament bridge circles for his book, The Law of Total Tricks.

Another event was introduced in 1985, called the Venice Cup. The Venice Cup was conducted at the same time, with the same format, eligibility and boards. Thus a record total of twenty teams were eligible, ten in each series.
The evolution of the Bermuda Bowl has been a long road to travel, especially for those who attempted to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Norman Bach. The winners of the Bermuda Bowl are listed below as are the years of their win.

The Inverted Minor Suit Raises, better known as Inverted Minors, is defined as a treatment and was devised for the Kaplan-Sheinwold system, which originated with Mr. Edgar Kaplan and Mr. Alfred Sheinwold. Many bridge partnerships have decided to employ the Inverted Minors treatment as part of their partnership agreement. The concept behind Inverted Minors is considered to be only a reversal of the single and double Minor suit raises as incorporated in the 5-Card American Standard bidding system.

Principle of the Concept

1. A single raise of the Minor suit of the opener is strong and forcing, and shows generally at least 10 plus high card points and a 5-card plus Minor suit support. (Note: in the original version an Inverted Minor double raise is treated as unlimited.)

2. A double raise is weak and obstructive, and shows 8 high card points or fewer in strength and a 5-card plus Minor suit support.

Note: The original concept includes the requirement that the auction be opened by one partner in order that the conventional method can be initiated. If one partner has previously passed, then the original concept states that the support of any opened Minor suit reverts back to being standard.

Note: Many more experienced bridge players on the national and international scene have made changes to the three types of raises, namely the forcing raise, the invitational raise, and the preemptive raise. Among these changes is the fact that the single raise is to be treated as game-forcing as opposed to the original version whereby the single raise is considered to be only one-round forcing.

Note: Other variations contain the agreement that the double Minor suit raise is a limit raise, while other variations consider the double Minor suit raise as unlimited. The original version stated only that the double Minor suit raise must contain at least 10 high card points as minimum values and no upper limit was established.

In order to apply the Inverted Minor Suit Raise, the responder should have at least a 5-card support of the opener’s Minor suit, in case the opener was forced to open a 3-card Minor suit.

The responder should not hold a 4-card higher-ranking suit, the bid of which takes priority. This is especially true for all those partnerships using 5-card Major suit openings.

The following examples show how the Inverted Minor raises are used, and illustrate how the structure of the responder’s holding should be when making a single raise.

Opener Responder

The responder, with the structure of the above example, would bid 2 Diamonds, showing at least 10 plus high card points. This bid is one-round forcing. There is also no 4-card higher-ranking suit, which meets the parameters for the employment of Inverted Minor Suit Raises.

The responder, with the structure of the above example, would bid 2 Diamonds, showing at least 10 plus high card points. This bid is one-round forcing. Again, there is also no 4-card higher-ranking suit, which meets the parameters for the employment of Inverted Minor Suit Raises.

Since the single raise is considered forcing, the opener has several options. Some partnerships play that the sequence 1 – 2 is forcing to game. However, according to the original concept the following continuances are as follows, a few of which are not game-forcing.

All bidding sequences should be viewed as after the initial bidding sequence of 1 – 2 without competition.

Opener Responder Meaning

• This rebid by opener is one-round forcing and promises additional strength and values plus a 3/4-card Heart suit. It is generally considered to be game forcing.
• This rebid by opener is one-round forcing and promises additional strength and values plus a 3/4-card Spade suit. It is generally considered to be game forcing.
• This rebid by opener is non-forcing and promises a minimum and balanced to semi-balanced holding with only a 3-card Diamond suit. The responder is required to pass with a minimum and semi-balanced holding; otherwise the responder rebids the Minor suit at the three level.
• This rebid by the responder generally promises a stopper in the Club suit, promises the equivalent of a full opening bid, and is game forcing.
• This rebid by the responder indicates a holding unsuitable for No Trump with minimum to moderate values, and no stopper in any higher-ranking suit.
• This rebid by the responder generally promises a stopper in the Heart suit, promises the equivalent of a full opening bid, and is game forcing.
• This rebid by the responder generally promises a stopper in the Spade suit, promises the equivalent of a full opening bid, and is game forcing.
• A rebid in a new suit by the opener after the initial sequence strongly promises a stopper and is one-round forcing. This rebid promises more than minimum values and unbalanced distribution.
• A rebid by the responder after a 3 rebid by the opener shows no interest in continuing the auction and promises no stopper(s) in the higher-ranking suits. This rebid is considered non-forcing.
• A rebid in another suit by the responder promises full opening values and a stopper in the suit bid.
• A rebid in another suit by the responder promises full opening values and a stopper in the suit bid.
• A raise in the Diamond suit by the opener promises minimum values and a 4-card Diamond suit. This bid is considered non-forcing. The concept behind this tactic should be considered to be purely obstructive in nature.
• A rebid in a new suit by the opener after the initial sequence strongly promises a stopper and is one-round forcing. This rebid promises more than minimum values and unbalanced distribution.
• This rebid by the responder generally promises a stopper in the Spade suit, promises the equivalent of a full opening bid, and is game forcing.
• Since the rebid by the opener of 3 Hearts is one-round forcing, the responder is forced to bid. A response of 3 No Trump can indicate, per partnership agreement, no stopper in the Spade suit or a semi-stopper in the Spade suit. If the opener has a stopper in the Spade suit, then the opener will pass. If the opener has no stopper in the Spade suit, then the opener may or may not bid 4 Diamonds.
• A rebid of 4 Diamonds by the responder shows no stopper in the Spade suit and no stopper in the Club suit. This response is non-forcing since the opener has shown no stopper in the Club suit.
• A rebid in a new suit by the opener after the initial sequence strongly promises a stopper and is one-round forcing. This rebid promises more than minimum values and unbalanced distribution.
• This rebid by the responder promises a stopper in the Club suit and the Heart suit. Full opening values are also strongly indicated.
• A rebid of 4 Diamonds by the responder shows no stopper in the other unnamed suits. This response is non-forcing.
• This rebid by the opener promises a balanced distribution and 18-19 points, a holding too weak for a 2 No Trump opening and too strong for a 1 No Trump opening with a 15-17 point range. For partnerships playing a 16-18 point range for 1 No Trump, then this rebid promises 19-20 points. This rebid strongly promises a 3-card Diamond suit.
• This rebid by the opener promises very strong values, an unbalanced distribution, and a lack of stoppers in at least two of the unnamed suits.
  These rebids and responses can be varied and modified to meet the requirements of the individual partnership.

Possible Rebids by the Responder

The possible rebids by the responder after the opener has rebid either Hearts or Spades are shown below. It must be noted that these rebids can be altered or modified by the individual partnership as seen fit. However, the general guidelines are outlined as follows and the reader should read the schematic correctly since both Minor suits are combined:

Opener Responder Meaning

• Once the opener forces the responder to further describe the holding, a 2NT rebid shows a natural Inverted Minor raise and no additional values. The responder does not promise stoppers in either or both of the unbid suits.
• This rebid by the responder shows a minimum single raise, which is unsuitable for play in No Trump.
• Once the opener, after the initial sequence, strongly promises a stopper (see above), then the responder can show additional strength in the other Minor suit. This information could assist the partnership to reach a final contract of 3 No Trump.
• This rebid by the responder shows normally a good 3-card Heart or Spade suit. If this forced rebid also shows a stopper in the bid suit, then this is normally considered to be a partnership agreement.
• This forced rebid, also a jump response, by the responder promises stoppers (one or more) in the unbid suits.

The double raise is generally considered to be not game forcing or even one-round forcing.
In this example, the responder bids 3 Diamonds to show 8 or fewer high card points, the necessary five cards support in Diamonds, and no 4-card higher-ranking suit.

In this example, the responder bids 3 Diamonds to show 8 or fewer high card points, and the necessary five cards support in Diamonds. Since the responder would not bid a 4-card Major suit, if he had a 4-card Major suit, he cannot bid owing to the lack of values. Therefore, the double raise used in the Inverted Minors treatment is purely obstructive. The opponents, if they wish to compete, must enter the bidding on the three-level.

Note: Opponents love to intervene and overcall and/or double. It is generally accepted and agreed upon by partnership understanding that the Inverted Minors treatment becomes then inactive and that the system is off. Any raises of a Minor suit opening and/or the bid of a new suit becomes then standard.

It is of the utmost importance that the partnership realize that both Mr. Edgar Kaplan and Mr. Alfred Sheinwold both agreed that if there were any interference from the opponents before the responder has a chance to use the Inverted Minors treatment, then the Inverted Minors agreement is off. Once the opponents enter the bidding before the responder has a chance to bid, then the meanings of the Minor suit raises become standard.

Note: However, many partnerships have agreed to continue to employ the Inverted Minors conventional method if an overcall by an opponent on the one level in a suit or after an immediate Takeout Double does not interfere with the application of the Inverted Minors conventional method.

Note: As stated above in the introduction to the Inverted Minors conventional method, it is only by partnership agreement whether or not the Inverted Minors conventional method continues to be in effect by a previously passed hand.

Note: The general guideline is as follows for the partnership: After a single Minor suit raise, if either partner returns to 3 or 4 of the agreed Minor suit or 2 No Trump, then this continuance is not forcing (except if either partner has bid 3 No Trump prior to a return to 4 of the Minor suit) and indicates minimum values for his/her previous bidding. Therefore, any other (re)bid that does not equal game is forcing for one round.

Digital Devices and the Internet in the Pocket

With the advancement of the technical and digital age many digital devices are available to perform many and multiple functions both in audio and visual format, which only a decade ago were considered impossible. Cell phones, smart phones, and mobile phones have changed forever the shape of the global landscape. Other digital devices with displays and Internet connection include the iPad, the HP Slate, the Dell Streak, the Asus Eee Tablet, the Compal Tablet, the Notion Ink, the MSI, the Quanta, the ICD Vega Tablet, and the Google Tablet.

The game of bridge has also been included in this digital and cyberspace world with applications, which can be employed on such devices to review instant information about many aspects of the game of bridge. Several of the applications written for these devices are only for personal use and other applications allow the user to connect to other similarly-constructed devices for the purpose of interconnectivity.

The more applicable programs are written in a text format conveying information about certain conventional methods, which the user can select. Such digital apps are perhaps more favored by the user than perhaps an interactive digital app owing to the fact that Internet-based connections can be dropped or lost en route. This is, however, a preference of the user.

The attempt has been made to list such applications for these digital devices. Some of the applications on the market for the game of bridge are experimental and the user / buyer must be cautious and read the fine print. A certain rating system is also available to those interested. The following list is alphabetical and no reference is either made or intentionally indicated as to preference or popularity.

Rules, Regulations, Costs, and Compatibility

The development of such bridge applications and also any digital applications in general do not seem to be gaining momentum as first imagined for this medium. The exorbitant expense charged by the developer prohibits many from the realization of such applications related to the game of bridge. Presently the cost for such an application for digital devices can range from US$ 4,000 to US$ 15,000 depending on the amount of text, audio, and visual content.

This expense factor is the major issue for many interested parties, who wish to present to the bridge community such applications, whereby the user can effortlessly punch in certain keys and icons on the digital device to learn instantly the nature of a certain conventional method and/or bidding system.

There is also the problem of an application being designated as a multiple platform application, which can offer the end user many functionalities and features. However, such multiple platform applications suffer from incompatibility and usability problems. In essence, incompatibility or inter-operability issues are a consequence multiple mobile platforms, operating systems, a vast degree of platform fragmentation, and browsers. Usability problems arise due to the small form factor of a mobile device, resolution, sound quality, difficulty in operation and so on. Such cross-formatting issues for the developers also suffer from the emergence of more and more multiple digital devices with Internet connection, but with different operating systems and proprietary codes.

It is unfortunate that only certain qualified and certified developers are permitted to actually develop such applications, present them to the carrier for analysis and for virus checking, and who are able presently to demand such a fee for this service. This is a requirement of all carriers, who offer applications on the mobile devices owing to the fact that many developers attempt to include hidden viruses and other destructive software. One can only hope that this financial burden can be somewhat alleviated in the future devices and that a certain standard emerges.

Note: Wherever possible the specifications for the device is presented.

Note: If any visitor or reader knows of any other digital application not listed on this web page, please let us know. The information would be greatly appreciated.

Note: Many software programs have been written for digital devices. This web page lists only those applications designed specifically for multiple cell phone formats and smaller digital displays, which are not technically designated as a desk computer but rather designed for being portable. In seeking such programs the user must distinguish from the description of the bridge software program on the web page as to whether it is specifically designed for such hand-held and portable digital devices or whether the software specifics are presented ambiguously. Presently it is a buyer’s beware online marketplace.

Note: The Apple Store and also the accompanying iTunes Store are quite easily navigable, even for the uninitiated user. A search data is entered and the visitor is presented with applicable applications. If the name of the app is known, then only entered the name of the app is sufficient. The download procedure is self-explanatory.

Note: The attempt will be made to keep this web page updated. However, any and all assistance for the accuracy of the presented information will be greatly appreciated.

Note: The list is alphabetical.

ACBL Mobile – This app makes it easy for the bridge player to find an ACBL sanctioned bridge club. The application is free and installs within seconds. The application allows the user to select either Canada or the United States to find a bridge club. The user can also enter a zip code to find a bridge club in the United States. The user can also find information about the day and time of play for a particular bridge club, and other pertinent information.

Released: Jun 24, 2011, Version: 1.0, Size: 3.9 MB, Language: English.

Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 4.0 or later.

ACBL Mobile Android – The ACBL has also released the ACBL Mobile applicatio nfor the Android smart phone. The Club Finder feature of this app will locate bridge clubs near you. It will help locate ACBL sanctioned bridge games at bridge clubs as one travels across the United States and Canada.

Current Version: 1.1

Requirements: Android 2.1 and up

BetterBridge1 – Designed for iPhone and iPad. BetterBridge1 is the first in a series of a training programs for the bridge player who has mastered the basics of the game and wants to improve his playing skills both as a declarer and defender. The programs are based on the face to face teaching sessions of David Bakhshi, one of Britain’s leading international bridge players and teachers. By: moo-edutainment.

Updated: Jun 15, 2011, Current Version: 5.12, Size: 1.4 MB, Language: English, Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 3.2 or later.

Additional Companions
BetterBridge2 – BetterBridge2 is a companion to BetterBridge1 the first in a series of a training programs for the bridge player who has mastered the basics of the game and wants to improve his playing skills both as a declarer and defender.

BetterBridgeG – BetterBridgeG is the second in a series of a training programs for the bridge player who has mastered the basics of the game and wants to improve his playing skills both as a declarer and defender.

BetterBridgeM – BetterBridgeM is the third in a series of a training programs for the bridge player who has mastered the basics of the game and wants to improve his playing skills both as a declarer and defender.

BetterBridgeD – BetterBridgeD is the fourth in a series of a training programs for the bridge player who has mastered the basics of the game and wants to improve his playing skills both as a declarer and defender.

Bridge 1.38 – Operating System: Palm OS. Publisher: Stand Alone, Inc. Compatible Devices: click on link for additional information. Bridge for Palm OS™ uses a modified version of the Standard American System for bidding.

Note: stand alone, inc. is also represented on and available at the Mac Store.

Bridge Baron – Updated: Mar 19, 2011. Current Version: 2.6. Size: 18.9 MB. Language: English. Seller: Great Game Products, Inc.. © 1998-2011 Great Game Products, Inc.

Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 3.1.3 or later.

Bridge Glossary – Updated: Mar 22, 2011. Current Version: 1.1. Size: 1.0 MB. Language: English. Seller: Deep Powder Software. © 2009 Deep Powder Software.

Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 4.3 or later.

Bridge Odyssey for iPhone – Version 1.1.8. February 16, 2010. Developer: gameloft

Bridge for Palm OS – Version 1.38. Released February 25, 2002. Developer: stand alone, inc.

Requirements: Palm OS 3.x. File Size: 141.63K. File Name: Bridge.prc.txt.

Bridge Island – Updated: April 03, 2011. Current Version: 1.5, (iOS 4.0 Tested). Size: 3.1 MB. Language: English. Seller: SOFTIC Ltd.. © SOFTIC Ltd.

Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 3.0 or later.

BridgePhone – BridgePhone leverages modern mobile phone technology to enter the score of a bridge game during a tournament or club evening. Using Bluetooth for communication, you use the ergonomics of mobile phones, without paying transmission costs.

Note: Not technically a cell phone application.

Bridge Score Calculator – Be ready for a game of bridge anywhere anytime with the Bridge Score Calculator. The Bridge Score Calculator displays any duplicate score possible. Simply swipe and tap your way to the contract and result desired. The Bridge Score Calculator is easy to understand as design effort is made to make it look familiar to Bridge players all over the World. It can be used for educational purposes as well as an analytical quick reference for professionals.

Note: Bridge Score Calculator – Free.
Note: Vulnerable scores are disabled in this free version. The user must upgrade to the full version for a complete app.

Updated: September 8, 2011.
Requirements: Adobe® AIR®, Android 2.2 and later. Both Tablets and mobile phones are supported
Current Version: 1.0.0.
Requires Android 2.2 and up.
Website of Developer: Blue Starships

Quick Bridge – Created by Mr. Wesley Steiner as a Bridge Scoring App. Latest version as of June 17, 2012. Requirements: Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000. Size: 1.09 Mb. The software employs Standard American bidding system with the ability to replay the last hand or redeal the current hand. It includes a pop-up score sheet that keeps score.

Bridge Training for iPhone – iTunes. Version 1.0. Released January 13, 2010. Size: 8.0 MB. Languages: English, French, German, Italian, Spanish. Seller: Anuman. © Anuman Interactive.

FunBridge – Funbridge allows the player to play an unlimited number of bridge deals and to compare results on these same deals with thousand other players. Compare biddings and the play of the hand with the bridgers’ community. Updated: Jul 13, 2011. Current Version: 1.1.2. Size: 17.2 MB.Requires iOS 3.0 or later. Languages: English, French. Seller: GOTO GAMES. Compatible with iPhone, iPad, and IPod Touch – iTunes link. Not compatible with Adnroid, Nokia, BlackBerry and Windows Mobile .Funbridge is developed with Mr. Jérôme Rombaut, European bridge champion. FunBridge Blog. FunBridge Forum.

iBid 2.04 – Updated: Dec 19, 2010. Current Version: 2.04. 2.04 (iOS 4.0 Tested). Size: 0.4 MB. Languages: English, Italian. Seller: Stefano Tosi. © 2010 Stefano Tosi.

Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 3.0 or later.

iBidPro – Updated: Dec 20, 2010. Current Version: 1.14. Size: 0.4 MB. Languages: English, Italian. Seller: Stefano Tosi. © 2010 iStArtApp.

Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 4.0 or later.

iBridgeFun – Description: iBridgeFun collected more than 1000 classic samplers played by bridge masters, including safety play, removing play, block and unblock, killing defense, extra chance, Italy Blue team’s up and downs etc, which covers all declarer and defense basic playing skills.

Requirements: Designed for both iPhone and iPad. Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 3.1.3 or later.

Specifics: Updated: June 12, 2011. Current Version: 4.3. Size: 8.1 MB. Language: English. Seller: jianan lei. © yutianjian

iBridgeOnline – Updated: 10 February 2011. Current Version: 1.1.1, (iOS 4.0 Tested). Size: 1.4 MB. Language: English. Seller: Technopath LLC. © 2011 Technopath LLC

Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch and iPad. Requires iOS 3.0 or later.

Omar Sharif Bridge – Updated: Jul 03, 2009. Current Version: 1.22. Size: 1.1 MB. Language: English. Seller: Chillingo Ltd. © ZingMagic Limited

Requirements: Compatible with iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad. Requires iOS 2.0 or later.

THE ROMEX SYSTEM OF BIDDING

This bidding system was devised and developed over the years by Mr. George Rosenkranz of Mexico in cooperation and collaboration with Mr. Phillip Alder. The designation is a combination of the name of the developer and the country of origin of the person, who devised and originated the bidding system: ROsenkranz MEXico. as stated in the publication The Romex System of Bidding, page ix of the Foreword by Mr. Alan Truscott.

It is of interest to note that Mr. George Rosenkranz decided to designate his development The Romex System of Bidding and not The Romex Bidding System, by which designation it has become known.

The concept behind this bidding system is that Mr. George Rosenkranz believed that there were imperfections in the bidding style represented in the so-called Standard American system. He thought that the opening range of one suit was too great and should be revised in order to reflect a more narrow range. He also believed that the only forcing opening bid of 2 Clubs was too limiting and that other methods could be devised. His modifications and revisions led to the Dynamic No Trump opening, which in turn became a forcing opening bid, and to the Mexican 2 Diamonds opening, which added more accuracy to the normal opening of 2 Clubs. Another feature of his revisions was the fact that the Forcing 2 No Trump opening become game-forcing, and all in all, the Romex Bidding System by Mr. George Rosenkranz contained at least four one-round forcing opening bids.

Another feature of the Romex Bidding System is the employment of bids, especially opening bids, to fit the nature of the vulnerability. The nature of the opening bids are based on three different states of vulnerability:

1. non-vulnerable

2. equal vulnerability

3. vulnerable

Another feature of the Romex Bidding System is the employment and application of bids, which shows:

1. controls

2. losers

3. Playing Tricks

and allows the partnership to better establish the final and best possible contract. This concept in the evolution of this particular bidding system represented something new in the concept of bidding and laid the groundwork for introduction of these features into other bidding systems to allow for different approaches.

Mr. George Rosenkranz is one of the first bridge pioneers, who introduced this feature into the bidding system. His bidding system has been revised by him and others via publications, which include the features of this comprehensive bidding system. The ground work of the bidding system is outlined in the publication Bid to Win – Play for Pleasure, co-authored with Mr. Phillip Alder.

Another publication, Godfrey’s Bridge Challenge, also co-authored with Mr. Phillip Alder, continues the development of the bidding system.

The Romex Bidding System devised by Mr. George Rosenkranz and Mr. Phillip Alder, as described in the above two publications, is outlined in the schematic below and constituted the foundation of the bidding system.

• 1 Any Minor Suit: 12-18 HCPs  3-card plus suit; no 5-card Major suit
• 1 Any Major Suit: 12-18 HCPs Promises a 5-card suit
• 1 NT: 18-21 HCPs Artificial and forcing opening. Shows either a 12-20 HCPs balanced shape with 6 plus controls, or unbalanced shape, 18-21 HCPs, 6 plus controls and 4-5 losers
• 2 : 23-24 HCPs Balanced shape with 8 controls and 8 controls; game forcing
• 29-30 HCPs Unbalanced shape with 11 controls or 3 losers if the primary suit is a Major suit, but 2 or less losers if the primary suit is Clubs.
• 2 : 21-22 HCPs Balanced shape with 7 controls
• 27-28 HCPs Game-forcing. Balanced shape with 10 controls or unbalanced shape and 2 or less losers. The hand is one or two suited, primarily Diamonds
• 27-28 HCPs Game-forcing. Unbalanced shape with 3 losers and 4-4-4-1 distribution with shortage in any suit, including Diamonds
• 2 Any Major Suit: Weak Two bids
• 3 Any Suit: Preemptive
• 3 NT: Four Level preempt in a Minor suit
• 4 Any Minor Suit: The Namyats convention tranferring partner to Major
• 4 Any Major Suit: Preemptive. Used for holdings insufficient for employing Namyats
• 4 NT: A Five Level preempt in a Minor Suit
• 5 Any Minor Suit: Preemptive. Used for holdings insufficient for employing 4 No Trump

A third publication, Stairway to the Stars, also co-authored with Mr. Phillip Alder, contains a continuation of the theme and introduces the concept of “Two Cards” approach, which was devised for different bidding approaches by different states of vulnerability. This concept was, at the time, a most extraordinary concept and received much attention. This concept, in general, has been adopted by many bridge partnerships.

The Romex Forcing Club, as described in the above book Stairway To The Star, is described in the schematic below. Compared with the original version, the reader notices several differences and modifications. Mr. George Rosenkranz and Mr. Phillip Alder revised the requirements for the opening bids of five openings, reasons unknown. In general, the modifications were approved by most sponsoring organizations, but some of the opening bids conflicted with the Mid-Chart convention. For example, the concept that the opening bid of 2 No Trump could indicate a good 3-level preempt in either Minor suit and that a direct bid of the Minor suit on the three level indicate a lesser preempt was not accepted. After the decision was made to deny this aspect, the developers revised the Minor suit preempts to indicate that an opening of 2 No Trump would promise a good preempt in Clubs only and that an opening of 3 Clubs would indicate a lesser preempt, while a 3 Diamond opening could indicate either a good preempt or a lesser quality preempt in Diamonds.

• 17+ HCPs Artificial and forcing (in this version the 4-4-4-1 holdings are included, which were previously opened with 2 )
• 12-16 HCPs The Diamond length can be as few as 2 cards
• 12-16 HCPs 5-card plus Heart suit
• 12-16 HCPs 5-card plus Spade suit
• 1 NT: 10-12 HCPs Balanced shape
• 12-15 HCPs 6-card plus Club suit; natural
• 12-15 HCPs 6-card plus Diamond suit
• Shows 3-suited holdings, which have Diamond shortage (see following distribution)
• Distributions: 3-4-1-5; 4-3-1-5; 4-4-1-4, 4-4-0-5
• Preemptive Weak Two bid
• 2 NT: Shows a three level preempt in either Minor suit.

After the revisions and the modifications to the bidding system, the general result was an organized and efficient bidding system, which allowed for several approaches depending on the state of the vulnerability and were stricter regarding the position at the table, especially in First and Second Seat. These opening bids are presented below.

Opening Bids in First and Second Seat:

• 1 Club: Shows 12-18 high card point; 3-card plus suit.
• 1 Diamond: Shows 12-18 high card point; 3-card plus suit.
• 1 Heart: Shows 12-18 high card point; 5-card plus suit.
• 1 Spade: Shows 12-18 high card point; 5-card plus suit.
• 1 NT: Shows 18-21 high card points; an artificial opening. Employed if the shape is unbalanced, contains 4-5 losers and 5 plus controls. If the shape is balanced, then this opening shows 19-20 high card points and generally 6 controls.

Responses to 1 No Trump openings:

2 Clubs: This response shows 0-5 high card points and is considered the only first response that is not game-forcing
2 Diamonds: This response shows 6 plus high card points and anywhere from 0-4 controls. However, if the responder holds 2 plus controls, then the cover cards may be less than 3
2 : This response show 2 controls and 3 plus cover cards
2 : This response shows 3 controls and 3 plus cover cards
2 NT: This response show 4 controls and 3 plus cover cards
3 Clubs: This response shows 5 controls
3 : This response shows 6 controls
3 : This response shows a natural 6-card plus suit, between 4-6 high card points, and denies a 3-card suit in the other Major suit
3 : This response shows a natural 6-card plus suit, between 4-6 high card points, and denies a 3-card suit in the other Major suit

2 Clubs: This opening shows 23-24 high card points, at least 8 controls if the shape is balanced. This two-way bid can also mean that the holding may contain 3 or less losers if the shape is unbalanced and the suit is a Major suit. If the suit is Clubs, then the requirement is 2 or less losers. Unbalanced distribution with Diamonds as the primary suit is opened with the same requirements with 2 Diamonds. This opening is game-forcing except for the one auction: 2 Clubs – 2 Diamonds (waiting) – 2 No Trump.

2: This opening shows 21-22 high card points, at least 7 controls, or as the two-way bid, 27-28 high card points and 10 controls if the shape is balanced. If the shape is unbalanced, then this bid is absolutely game-forcing and shows the primary suit is Diamonds. The holding contains 2 or less losers and 22 plus high card points.

2: This opening shows 5-11 high card points, at least a 6-card suit with two of the top three honors (or a variation as later devised) three of the top 5 honors. The holding does not contain a 4-card Spade suit, generally no void and no more than one singleton.

2: This opening is the same as the 2 Hearts opening bid. It shows 5-11 high card points, at least a 6-card suit with two fo the top three honors (or a variation as later devised) three of the top 5 honors. The holding does not contain a 4-card Heart suit, generally no void and no more than one singleton.

2 NT: This opening shows 25-26 high card points, at least 9 controls, and promises a balanced shape. The holding may have a 5-card suit in either the Major or Minor suits. This opening is forcing to 3 No Trump or game in a Major suit.

3 Clubs: This opening promises no more than 10 plus high card points. The holding should contain no void, no 4-card Major suit, and no more than one Ace or King outside the trump suit. The vulnerability is a factor in deciding to opening three of a Minor suit. By favorable vulnerability the suit should contain a good 6-card suit promising 5 plus playing tricks whereas by unfavorable vulnerability the length of the suit should be increased by one card and the number of playing tricks should be increased by two, therefore the holding should contain a good 7-card suit and 7 plus playing tricks. At equal vulnerability the opening may be also be made with the above requirements for favorable vulnerability but the holding should contain at least 6 playing tricks.

3: The requirements for this opening bid are the same as for a 3 Clubs opening bid.

3: The requirements for this opening bid is that the holding contain no more than 9/10 high card points, no void, no 4-card Spade suit and no more than one Ace or King outside the trump suit. The state of vulnerability is also a deciding factor. By favorable vulnerability the suit may contain only a 6-card suit but must contain at least 5 playing tricks. At equal vulnerability the number of playing tricks should be 6 at least. By unfavorable vulnerability the suit should contain a good 7-card suit and 7 playing tricks and an additional guideline is that there should be not more than two losers opposite a singleton, especially by unfavorable vulnerability.

3: The requirements for this opening bid are the same as for the opening of 3 Hearts, whereby the Heart suit in the holding may not be a 4-card Heart suit.

3 NT: An opening bid of 3 No Trump is a Minor suit preempt. The holding contains a maximum of 10 high card points and the Minor suit is at least an 8-card suit, preferably a 9-card suit. The Minor suit is not a solid suit, as with a Gambling 3 No Trump opening, but may be a broken suit containing two of the top four honors, no outside Ace or King, and no 4-card Major suit. The vulnerability is also a deciding factor. By favorable vulnerability the holding should contain at least 6 plus playing tricks. By equal vulnerability the holding should contain at least 7 plus playing tricks, and by unfavorable vulnerability the holding should contain at least 8 plus playing tricks.

4 Clubs: An opening of 4 Clubs is the Namyats convention. The opener promises a constructive preempt in the corresponding Major suit and promises at least a 7-card plus suit with only one losing trick and a total of 8 plus playing tricks. The holding should not contain an outside Ace or King. Responder is required to bid 4 Hearts.

4: This opening bid is the same as the opening of 4 Clubs, but the responder is required to bid 4 Spades.

4 : This opening bid promises a good 7-card plus suit in Hearts with no more than one loser in the suit. The holding should not contain any outside Ace or King. By favorable vulnerability the holding should contain at least 7 playing tricks and by unfavorable vulnerability the holding should contain at least 8 playing tricks.

4: The requirements for this opening bid are the same as for an opening of 4 Hearts.

4 NT: This opening promises an excellent 8-card plus suit (preferably a 9-card suit by unfavorable vulnerability) and 9 plus playing tricks. The holding should contain no more than one loser in any other side suit.

5 Clubs: This opening shows an excellent 8-card suit (preferably a 9-card suit by unfavorable vulnerability) and promises no more than one loser in the trump suit. The holding may contain either any outside Ace or King but not two Aces outside the trump suit. By favorable vulnerability the suit named must contain at least 9 playing tricks, and by unfavorable vulnerability the holding should contain at least 8 playing tricks.

5 Diamons: The requirements for this opening bid is the same as for the 5 Clubs opening bid.

This, in general, gives an overview of the Romex Bidding System, but there have been other features of the bidding system, which have been incorporated into the general bridge community and adopted by it. The links below provide access to the web pages, which describe these particular features.

Dynamic No Trump – This method of opening No Trump is an integral feature of the Romex Bidding System, devised by Mr. George Rosenkranz of Mexico and Mr. Phillip Alder. The concept is that the opener may show a relatively strong holding, which is unbalanced, and which can be made on any distribution except 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2 holdings. The strength is restricted to exactly 18 to 21 points and must have at least five controls and which has only four to five losers.

Romex Gerber – After the Gerber Convention was devised, many bridge players began to apply it in their bidding auctions. They discovered that the convention had several drawbacks and decided to alter the convention. Other partnerships devised a modification of the Roman Gerber variation, and this modification was used in the Romex Bidding System.

Romex Jump Shifts – A short description of the requirements and restrictions included in the Romex Bidding System to allow for the bids by either partner to be forcing.

Romex Namyats – This concept is an integral part of the Romex Bidding System, devised and developed over the years by Mr. George Rosenkranz of Mexico in cooperation and collaboration with Mr. Phillip Alder. The principle behind the concept is based on the original Namyats convention, devised by Mr. Samuel Stayman. The basic structure remains the same, but the requirements are stricter and more accurately defined.

Romex Stayman Over 2 NT and 1 NT – Mr. Marshall Miles, Mr. George Rosenkranz, the developer of the Romex Bidding System, and others developed this alternative to Puppet Stayman.

Romex Trump Asking Bids – The Romex Bidding System, devised by Mr. George Rosenkranz and Mr. Phillip Alder employs the 2 Clubs opening as an artificial bid, which is forcing to game. The Trump Asking Bids are conducted in Step Responses, and the trump suit may change during the bidding sequence.

Blackwood and Blackwood Variations

The concept of Mr. Easley Blackwood to ask for certain cards in an attempt to reach a small or even a grand slam has intrigued the bridge community since its conception. Many forms and variations of the original concept have captured the imagination of the bridge player, who has continued to employ it, modifiy it, alter it, and change it.

The attempt has been made to list these variations, these modfications in alphabetical order so that the bridge student may have the possibility of perusing them, to study them, to experiment with them, and to select the most comfortable for the partnership.

This concept, which was originally rejected by the bridge authorities, but which captured the imagination of the bridge community, is perhaps one of the few foundation stones universal to all partnership understandings between two bridge players.

If any bridge player would like to make a contribution to this list, this contribution would greatly be appreciated. The contribution should be original and not a copy of any variations. If any bridge player would like to see any conventional method listed, which is not presented here, then we would greatly appreciate hearing from you.

*Baby Blackwood

Following an immediate limit and game-forcing raise of the suit of partner, the partnership initiates a slam bidding auction, which is one level lower than with the generally employed Blackwood convention.

*Extended Baby Blackwood

If the responder holds additional values above a normal limit and game-forcing raise, then the responder can initiate a slam bidding auction on the two level with an immediate response of 2 No Trump.

Blackwood After Interference

If the opponents dare to interfere with the bidding after you initiate the Blackwood convention, you have several choices to show your number of Aces. There are several devised conventions to show your strength, such as: DEPO, ROPI, PODI, DOPI, DOPE, RIPO.

*Blue Team Responses

The main concept of the Blue Team Club Responses or Blue Team Roman Responses is the same as with the Roman Blackwood conventional method, but the first two responses have been reversed. The Blue Team is the designation for a successful bridge team in Italy.

Byzantine Blackwood

Devised by Mr. John C. H. Marx, (aka Jack), of London, England, and who was one of the bridge pioneers developing the Acol Bidding System in the United Kingdom.

Cheap Blackwood

A variation of the Blackwood convention to allow more bidding space for the exchange of descriptive information.

Culwood Blackwood

This conventional method was developed by Mr. Thomas Bigelow after Mr. Easley Blackwood developed and popularized the original Blackwood convention. The designation derives from the combination of the two words Culbertson and Blackwood, thus Culwood. This method is a variation based on a combination of the Culbertson Four-Five No Trump conventional method and the original Blackwood convention, which is an artificial bid asking for Aces.

Exclusion Keycard Blackwood

A form of Roman Key Card Blackwood in which partner is asked to show Aces and/or Key Cards except in a particular suit, which has been determined to be a void. This convention is also known as Voidwood.

Key Card Blackwood

A variation of the Blackwood convention, which shows the four Aces and the King of trump. Also known as Five-Ace Convention.

Kickback

A method of asking for Keycards when seeking slam. The origin of this concept is by Mr. Jeff Rubens of Scarsdale, New York. The concept is also a result of an application called U.S.P., or Useful Space Principle, also conceived by Mr. Jeff Rubens, which is defined as when allocating bidding space under partnership agreements and understandings, then assign the bidding space where most useful without reference to natural or traditional bridge meanings of calls.

Redwood

A version of the Kickback conventional method employed only when the agreed trump suit is a Minor suit. This concept is also based on the application called U.S.P., or Useful Space Principle conceived by Mr. Jeff Rubens.

King Relay Blackwood

The origin of this variation is unknown. This variation of the original concept of Blackwood pertains only to the method for asking for Kings once the trump suit has been either established or definitely implied. This is accomplished via a Relay Bid. The relay bid is the next higher-ranking suit unless it is the trump suit, and the responses to the King-ask relay bid is given in steps.

Minorwood Convention

The origin of this variation of the Blackwood conventional method is unknown. As the designation signifies, this variation is only employed when the established or inferred trump suit is a Minor suit.

Progressive Key Card Blackwood

This conventional method was developed by Mr. Jean Marc Roudinesco of Paris, France, (1932 – 2001), author, bridge theorist. Via step responses the partnership can show the number of Key Cards, followed by King-asking bids, followed by Queen-asking bids.

Rolling or Sliding Blackwood

Rolling Blackwood, or Sliding Blackwood, is a variation of the Blackwood convention. It takes into account that two partners could reach an unsafe contract in the Minors using the normal Blackwood convention.

*Roman Blackwood

This conventional method, devised by expert bridge players from Italy, is a variation on the conventional method of Mr. Easley Blackwood and shows either matching and non-matching Aces, and later Kings, of the color and/or rank.

*Blue Team Club Responses – Blue Team Roman Responses

The Roman Blackwood conventional method, itself a variation of the original Blackwood Convention, has a variation. This variation was devised by the Blue Team Club of Italy and was applied with some success. Blue Team was the popular name given to the Italian International Bridge Team, which had a series of huge successes starting in 1956 and ending in 1969. The main concept of the Blue Team Club Responses or Blue Team Roman Responses is the same as with the Roman Blackwood conventional method, but the first two responses have been reversed.

*British Style Roman Blackwood

The Roman Blackwood conventional method, as devised by the successful Blue Team Club of Italy, proved to have a flaw in the responses in so far that the response of 5 Hearts was ambiguous. Bridge players in the United Kingdom devised a variation to overcome this flaw.

Roman Key Card Blackwood

This variation of the Blackwood convention includes the King of Trump as a fifth Ace, and the responder shows Key Cards.

6-Ace Roman Key Card Blackwood – Kantar Six Ace Roman Keycard Blackwood

This conventional method, otherwise known by its abbreviated designation 6A-RKCB, is considered to be a natural extension of the concept known as Roman Key Card Blackwood, whereby the Key Card Bidder asks for five known Key Cards. However, the 6A-RKCB conventional method asks for eight known Key Cards, the four Aces, the two Kings, and the two Queens. The one difference is that the Roman Key Card Blackwood conventional method applies to only one known suit fit, whereas the 6A-RKCB conventional method applies to two known suit fits.

RKCB Void Showing Variation

This variation of the original conventional method was developed by Mr. Chip Martel and Mr. Lew Stansby to show a void in addition to the number of held Keycards. This variation employs different responses if the void has been established in advance during the auction.

Roman Key Card Blackwood 1430 Convention

A variation of Roman Key Card Blackwood which reverses the meaning of two responses.

Voidwood Blackwood

A form of Roman Key Card Blackwood in which partner is asked to show Aces and/or Key Cards except in a particular suit, which has been determined to be a void. This convention is also known as Exclusion Keycard Blackwood.

Inverted Psycho Suction Convention

The Inverted Psycho Suction conventional defense method was devised and developed by Mr. Thomas Andrews. Inverted Psycho Suction

There are many bridge players who do not have the opportunity to play in the Bridge Clubs. Their schedule does not allow them to get off from work, get into the car, drive those ten miles, and sit down at the Bridge Table, and be expected to be in a relaxed mood. The stress of the day has a great effect on the bidding and play, just as an upset stomach does.

Following are several Internet Bridge websites where the bridge player can sit at home, and play bridge while at the keyboard. These bridge players can schedule a game at their own convenience, can still have fun playing, and actually earn International Match Points.

Please take the time to look at the individual sites and then take your pick.

We are requesting the viewer to aid us in completing this list. If you know of any Interactive Bridge Sites, please drop us a note with the corresponding address and we shall include it. Trying to keep up is almost impossible, but with your help, we can certainly try. And if the visitor discovers that the URL has changed, please contact us.

Al Levy

Participating Computer Bridge Software for the World Computer Bridge Championship and the History of these Software Programs as presented by Mr. Al Levy.

ACBL – Global Online Bridge Club – Discontinued. This information has been left in for historical reference. After downloading the software, the member has access to not only the bridge rooms but also to many other offered features such as News, Calendar Entries, Grand Events, Books and Software, Archives and much more. Associated as the Founding Members of a company called e-bridge Inc, are Pinhas Romik, Bobby Wolff, Samuel Lev and Zia Mahmood. e-bridge Inc. was founded in January 2000 by Pinhas Romik, a high-tech business executive and a well known bridge player (former European and World runner-up). Bobby Wolff, former President of the World Bridge Federation (WBF) and ten-time bridge World Champion, Samuel Lev and Zia Mahmood, both world-renowned top-bridge players, are co-founders of e-bridge.

Bridge Is Cool – An interactive Internet site established and presented in 2005 for younger players. The purpose of the site is to compete in bridge events just for Juniors, meet people from other cultures and visit exciting parts of the world. From tournaments to ACBL-wide masterpoint races, the ACBL offers many opportunities to test your skill against other young bridge enthusiasts. National bridge organizations help fund many of the worldwide competitions.

The site has many things to offer such as instructions on how to learn and play MiniBridge and Bridge. The member can also download software for private use and also download the issues of The Grapevine, which is the Newsletter for members with pertinent information for the young bridge player. The member can also count upon the advice of several of the leading bridge experts in the bridge community.

For additional information, please check out the following article in .pdf file format, for additional Email Addresses and information.

In 2005 e-bridge was incorporated with WorldWinner. After purchasing e-bridge the decision was made by the management of WorldWinner to discontinue offering the online version for bridge. The following information and the links contain only historical information.

E-Bridge

The vision of e-bridge’s founders is to create a community portal for the bridge players offering to its members bridge game and bridge information in depth and in breadth. By creating a large bridge community in cyberspace, closely interacting with live games, E-bridge will increase public awarness of bridge, and attract new people from all populations to bridge.

E-bridge’s vision is to create “bridge continent” on the web, linked closely with live bridge conducted in bridge clubs and by federations all across the world. E-bridge Inc. was founded in January 2000 by Mr. Pinhas Romik, a high-tech business executive and a well known bridge player (former European and World runner-up).

Bobby Wolff, former President of the World Bridge Federation (WBF) and ten-time bridge World Champion, Samuel Lev and Zia Mahmood, both world-renowned top-bridge players, are co-founders of E-bridge. The aim of the Company is to offer high-class social and tournament bridge games over the Internet, in addition to broad variety of bridge information.

Bridge products offered by the Company include bridge tournaments played in cyberspace in real-time with the important international bridge tournaments, as well as tournaments and social bridge offered only in cyberspace. E-bridge integrates the application, the technology and the services into one company, thus providing a unique playing opportunity to high-class bridge over the Internet. The E-bridge computer system is capable of providing the services over the Internet.

World Winner – This online Bridge Club offers daily tournaments, at which ACBL Masterpoints are awarded for every tournament. This online Bridge Club is subscriber-based, meaning that the user will have to log on to participate.

OK Bridge

Established in 1994, OKbridge is the oldest and most recognized Online Bridge Club. OKbridge, Inc. is an online bridge club dedicated to serving the worldwide community of bridge players by providing superior software and service.

OKbridge began as a by-product of founder Mr. Matt Clegg’s courtship of Merja, now his wife. The couple met in 1989 when Merja, a native of Finland, came to California to study with a famous geneticist, the father of Mr. Matt Clegg. After Merja returned home, Mr. Matt Clegg took a year off from graduate school to be with her in Finland.

While in Finland, Matt developed an Internet bridge program as a way of playing bridge with his friends back in the US. OKbridge was first released to the public in August 1990 and the idea caught on. The players sent Matt a steady stream of suggestions, many of which were incorporated into the program. After several years, there were thousands of people from around the world using the OKbridge software. Due to the increasing demands placed on his time, he conducted a survey of users in 1993 to determine if they would be willing to pay a subscription fee if he continued to upgrade the software and provide service. The users approved of the idea, and commercial OKbridge was launched in 1994.

OKBridge, Inc. has thousands of members from all over the world. It is the place where the bridge player can spend hours with other bridge players live on the Internet. You can either be a spectator, a guest, or become a member and sit down to play bridge with people around the world. In December 1997, OKBridge hosted its first ACBL-sanctioned duplicate game on the Internet. At the moment, each ACBL member can earn masterpoints while playing on OKBridge.

Unibridge Club

BBO Portugal

This is the website for online bridge players, who use the BBO-version. Originated and operated by Mr. Luis Carlos Batista Correia of Portugal. The site offers the visitor Ranking and Tourneys, Schedule, Conventions and Articles, and much more.

Bridge Base Online

Bridge Base Inc. was founded in 1990 by Fred Gitelman, President, and Dr. Sheri Winestock, Vice-President. Their first two products, BASE II (1990) and BASE III (1991) were analytical tools designed for serious students of bridge. In 1992 Bridge Base Inc. released the DOS version of Bridge Master, an educational software product designed for players of all levels of ability. Bridge Master has been translated into several languages, including Dutch, Danish, French, German, and Italian. Bridge Master is widely considered the greatest medium ever devised for learning declarer play technique.

In 1994 Bridge Base Inc. began the development of Bridge Engine. Bridge Engine is an authoring tool for creating bridge software products for Windows. One of the uses of Bridge Engine is to convert bridge books into interactive software products. The Club Series (1995), Counting at Bridge (1996), and Private Bridge Lessons, Volume I, (1998) Volume II, and Defense are all examples of these sorts of Bridge Engine applications. Bridge Master for Windows (1996) is another Bridge Engine application. Bridge Base Inc. developed the Pendergraph vugraph software using Bridge Engine. Pendergraph is the vugraph program used in all North American Championships and all World Championships held in North America.

The advantage of using one program (Bridge Engine) to create several applications is that all of the resulting applications will have the same look and feel, making it easier for the user to learn to use our software. We have recently added the ability to create web pages to Bridge Engine. The bridge hand and auction diagrams on this site were created using Bridge Engine. In 1999, the user interace and special features of Bridge Engine were enhanced. Learn to Play Bridge, a free program available through the American Contract Bridge League, was the first program generated by the updated engine. Bridge Master 2000, an upgrade to Bridge Master for Windows, soon followed and all new programs will be generated using the state of the art Bridge Engine.

Fred Gitelman is currently responsible for all software design and development as well as bridge analysis. In 1998 Fred began a contract with Microsoft to develop their online bridge service which is now available as free at The Gaming Zone.. Dr. Sheri Winestock is responsible for documentation, software testing, and running the day-to-day operations of the company. Sheri is in charge of “animation” – the process of using Bridge Engine to convert written bridge material into computer software products – and is the Webmaster of this site. Bridge Base Inc. also employs Chrys Schock and Shelagh Paulsson of Toronto on a part-time basis. Chrys and Shelagh are responsible for data entry, software testing, and artwork.

Fred Gitelman, (1965), has a strong background in both computer science and bridge. Fred learned to program in BASIC when he was 12 years old. He studied computer science at the University of Toronto. Before founding Bridge Base Inc., Fred worked for three years in the Research and Development department of Netron Inc. of Toronto, a world leader in developing software engineering tools.

Fred currently does most of his programming in C, C++, and Java. Fred learned to play bridge at age 18 and was immediately captivated by the game. Fred has studied and played bridge intensely ever since and he is now widely considered one of the top bridge players. Fred has twice finished second in World Championship events (1991 World Junior Championships and 1995 Bermuda Bowl).

Fred won the Gold Medal in the 2002 IOC Grand Prix and won the Silver Medal in the 1997 Maccabiah Games. He won the 2003 Cavendish Invitational Pairs and has won a number of North American Championships, including the 2001 Resinger Board-A-Match Teams. Along with invitations to play in international bridge events (Netherlands, London, Indonesia, Denmark, China, and Iceland), Fred has maintained a career as a successful bridge writer as well as a part-time professional player. Fred’s other interests include: downhill skiing, tennis, golf, juggling, computer science, and mathematics.

Dr. Sheri Winestock, (1962), completed her Doctorate in the History and Philosophy of Psychology at York University in Toronto. Sheri has worked full-time for Bridge Base Inc. since her graduation. Her excellent management, organizational, bridge, and language skills have made a major contribution to the success of the company.

Sheri has some programming experience as well. Sheri is a high level bridge player and represented Canada in the 2000 Venice Cup. Sheri was a silver medalist in the 1997 Maccabiah Games. Sheri’s other interests include: golf, downhill skiing, tennis, jigsaw puzzles, and cryptic crossword puzzles.

Bridge Club Live

The IOBC, or International Online Bridge Club, was formed in 1994 as dedicated consortium totally focused in providing a high quality, Windows based on line bridge system. Since then it has evolved into a sophisticated on line playing software system that includes a Java Web based program.

We constantly work with NCBO’s and in particular, over the last 2 years, developed the Online Bridge Club for the English Bridge Union (EBU) whose members now are accomodated within the club. All on line bridge is professionally managed and supervised by EBU staff in partnership with the IOBC.

Our combined and complimentary skills enables us to provide a professional system that is rugged, responsive and has all the facilities that bridge players desire. We are unique in being able to cater for both SAYC and ACOL players. We are based in London, England and our server is directly located on the LINX Internet exchange at 10 Mbyte within our ISP at Telehouse in London Docklands where 95% of the UK Internet traffic peers.

Backbone connections to the USA are via 2 Independent SPRINT lines for maximum performance and resilience for all our International players.

jBridge.net

JBridge.NET is rebuilt based on our previous Windows version winBridge.com with latest technologies from Microsoft .NET and Sun Microsystems Java2 platform. JBridge offers bridge players all over the world to play our online duplicate MP/IMP/XIMP boards 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Player’s rank is calculated based on weekly duplicate scores by comparing to the same board played by others.

Weekly top players will be selected and posted on web, personalized ScoreBook and RecordBook will provide you the board you played played online for review and comparison, each player’s best partners will also be listed based on the scores for different game (MP/IMP/XIMP). As one of the best designed web based Java programs, we wish you enjoy your play at JBridge.NET.

MeinGames Spiele Online

MeinGames is an website for online games, including the game of bridge. The subscribers can enjoy the game played by many prominent personalities such as Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, and Omar Sharif now online.

MeinGames is a multiplayer games online site for games such as chess, checkers, Go, Backgammon, Domino, Texas Poker, and Mahjong among others. The site supports languages in English, German, and Russian.

Swan Games

Software Features include an easy to use interface for play 24 hours a day with people from all over the world. Competitive MP and IMP scoring. Advanced rating system with instant update. Trick by trick animated hand review. Built in forums let you discuss boards. Individual chatboxes for managing private conversations. Online helpdesk with live assistance.

Graphically enhanced hand review. Statistics. Player profiling lets you keep notes on your friends (and foes). Over 100 configurable colors and sounds. SWAN Games Company is headquartered in Whitehall, Pennsylvania. The company’s mission is to create the best online club for playing bridge on the Internet. For more information, visit the SWAN Games Company website.

Bridge Online

The bridge player can play online with Bridge Online, which is based in New Zealand. Bridge Online runs on Adobe Flashplayer, which is pre-installed on almost all computers and the player can play on either a Mac or PC-based computer.

The site is subscriber-based and there is a certain fee attached. The bridge player can play against the computer, play against other bridge players. The operators also offer ‘play as you learn, with lessons and videos’.