Rule Eleven

Rule of Eleven – Rule of 11

Ever since bridge became a popular game, players have been trying to come up with new ideas to improve the game. Some have succeeded and some have not succeeded very well. The bridge community is quite selective and sometimes a new idea takes a long time before becoming accepted.

This is especially true if the new idea is based on mathematics. Anyone, who can count up to 13, can play bridge. There are 13 cards in every suit and once they are played, there are no more to be played.

Here is another mathematical calculation, equation, formula. Its application becomes active, only when you are absolutely sure that the lead is the fourth down from the suit lead. Once you have ascertained this possibility, then you start counting. The principle behind the Rule of 11 is the same whether the contract is a suit contract or a No Trump contract.

This formula was devised by someone who was actually playing Whist at the time, Mr. Robert Frederick Foster in 1881, and also by Mr. E.M.F. Benecke of Oxford around the same time. Mr. Robert Frederick Foster established his reputation with his publication of the book Foster’s Complete Hoyle, published in the year 1897, and a copy of which was embedded into the time capsule at the 1939 New York World’s Fair.

Source – Page 168: Author Mr. E.V. Shepard, Scientific Auction Bridge: A Clear Exposition of the Game to Aid Both the Beginner and the Experienced Player, With explicit and Easy Rules for Bidding and Playing, 1913, Publisher: Harper, New York, New York, United States, and London, England, LC: 13006351

However, his Rule of Eleven was published in his writing of the Foster’s Whist Manual: A Complete System of Instruction in the Game, published presumably in the year 1885, published by Brentano, of New York, New York. The source of this information is from Bibliographies of Works on Playing Cards And Gaming by Norton T. Horr, 1905, published by Longmans, Green and Co., of London, England.

The Rule of Eleven states that the player subtracts the number of the first card lead from the number 11, and then the result is the number of cards higher contained in the hands of the partner of the leader and the declarer and the dummy. This information is useful not only to the declarer, but also to the partner of the leader, who can apply the same mathematical calculation. This principle applies only to the opening lead, not to any other leads when leading to the second trick or any trick thereafter.

This information can be useful in deciding to play which card, either from the hand of the partner of the leader, or the hand of the declarer or from dummy.

Example 1:

Declarer: South
Contract: 3 No Trump
Vulnerability: None
Lead: 6 of Diamonds

According to the Rule of Eleven, the partner of the leader subtracts 6 from 11 and the result is 5. There are 5 cards higher than the 6 of Diamonds in the hands of the dummy, declarer and the partner of the leader. Likewise, the declarer subtracts the number 6 from 11 and the result is 5 cards higher than the 6 of Diamonds in the hands of the dummy, of the declarer, and of the partner of the leader.

The partner of the leader looks at dummy and his hand, and counts 3 cards higher than the 6 of Diamonds. The partner of the leader has 1 card higher than the 6 of Diamonds. The partner of the leader is not happy about the lead.

Declarer looks at dummy and his hand, and counts 4 cards higher than the 6 of Diamonds. Declarer has 4 cards higher than the 6 of Diamonds. Declarer is happy about the lead.

Example 2:

Declarer: South
Contract: 3 No Trump
Vulnerability: None
Lead: 7 of Spades

Declarer sees the 7 of Spades, and assumes it is the fourth down from the longest and strongest suit. Declarer subtracts 7 from 11 and counts 4 higher cards than the 7 of Spades. Declarer counts only 1 card in his hand and dummy higher than the 7 of Spades. This spells trouble for the declarer.

The partner of the leader also assumes that the 7 of Spades is fourth down from the longest and strongest suit of his partner. East also arrives at 4 cards higher than the 7 of Spades. East can see all of these 4 cards: King of Spades in the dummy, Ace-10-9 in his own hand. If declarer calls for the King of Spades, East plays the Ace of Spades and returns a Spade. With this lead, East-West win 4 Spade tricks and the setting trick is the Ace of Clubs.

If declarer decides to play low on the first trick, East lets the 7 of Spades ride, because he knows that there is no higher Spade than the 7 of Spades in the hand of the declarer. West continues to play the 8 of Spades, and declarer plays low, as does East. There is no way that declarer will take one Spade trick. East-West set the contract by applying the Rule of Eleven.

The Rule of Eleven has a lot of merit and can be used effectively. Each partner must be attuned to recognize when it is appropriate to use it, or even to consider it. The Rule of Eleven has its most application against a No Trump contract since it is generally accepted practice that the leader plays the fourth card down from his longest and strongest suit. The Rule of Eleven can also be effectively employed against a suit contract.

Every now and then the bridge player is not quite certain whether to bid or even bid one level higher than the opponents. Every now and then the bridge player is not quite certain whether to sacrifice to obtain a better result than the previous table. Every now and then the bridge player is not certain sure whether to preempt, attempting a so-called advanced save.

The rule of two and three is sort of a guideline used in determining whether to make a preemptive bid, whether to overcall or overbid, whether to make that sacrifice, or simply pass.

Using the numbers a bridge player should be aware of the fact that he cannot afford to be set more than 500 points by favorable vulnerability. This number is rather the magic boundary. If the opponents have game and they are not vulnerable, then the result equals minus 400-420 points for you. If the opponents are vulnerable, then the amount would equal minus 600-620 points for you.

The rule of two and three is a method of determining the better score. As proposed by Mr. Ely Culbertson for preemptive openings and overcalls, the partnership should be within two tricks of their contract, if vulnerable and deciding to sacrifice for the sake of a better score. If the partnership, however, loses three tricks while not vulnerable, then the partnership can also achieve a better score.

Therefore, logic demands that:

1. If you are not vulnerable, doubled, down two, then the result is minus 300 points for you.
2. If you are vulnerable, doubled, down two, then the result is minus 500 points.
3. But, if you are not vulnerable, doubled, down three, then the result is minus 500 points for you.
4. If you are vulnerable, doubled, down three, then the result is minus 800 points.

Conclusion

Taking the risk of being down two tricks, doubled, vulnerable, or taking the risk of being down three tricks, doubled, not vulnerable, is not all that bad.

The guideline passes along the information that at a contract of 4 Hearts, the declarer should have 8 tricks if he is vulnerable, if this is clearly a preempt or sacrifice, and 7 tricks if he is not vulnerable. The position at the table should also be taken into consideration

With the rule of two and three there is very little mathematical calculation besides adding up quickly the different results very likely achieved according to vulnerability. The bridge player is looking to achieve the best score, but there should be reasoning and logic and information behind the preemptive bid, the sacrifice bid, the advanced save or overcall.

Please remember that the rule of two and three applies only to the almost certain assumption that the opponents can bid game, not slam. The action of sacrificing against almost certain slams takes on another form.

Lea Bidding System

The Lea System is based on the 1965 privately published book, authored by Mr. Robert H. Lea of St. Paul, Minnesota, United States, entitled Bridge is Easy With The Lea System, with a Foreword by Leonard Smith. The system is based on a strong, forcing 1 Club opening, which promises 12 plus high card points.

The picture below is of Mr. Robert H. Lea taken in the year 1965, and the cover of his publication Bridge Is Easy with the Lea System.

The opening bids are shown in the schematic below.

Bid Values Meaning
1 : 12+ high card points Shows various shapes.
1 : 15-16 high card points Shows a 6-card plus Diamond suit.
1 : 15-16 high card points Shows a 6-card plus Heart suit.
1 : 15-16 high card points Shows a 6-card plus Spade suit.
1 NT: 12-14 high card points Promises balanced shape.
2 : 6-11 high card points Shows a 6-card plus Club suit.
2 : 6-11 high card points Shows a 6-card plus Diamond suit.
2 : 6-11 high card points Shows a 6-card plus Heart suit.
2 : 6-11 high card points Shows a 6-card plus Spade suit.
2NT: 12-14 high card points Distribution: 5-4 or 5-5 in both Minor suits.

1 Club Opening Bids

Since the 1 Club opening may show various shapes, the opening of 1 Club may not include any holding, which may be opened with a weak No Trump range of 12-14 high card points. Since the Lea bidding system, in the hand evaluation, also includes distributional points as well as high card points, an opening of 1 Club may not be made with any holding valued at 15-16 points and a 6-card suit. These holdings are always reserved for one of a suit opening. If the holding does not fall within these two exceptions, then the opening should be 1 Club.

The responses to a 1 Club opening will always show point count first. The length of the suit is irrelevant and these responses are absolutely artificial in nature. The first responses are shown below showing the point count range held by the responder.

Opener Responder Meaning
1 1 Shows 0-5 points.
1 Shows 6-8 points.
1 Shows 9-11 points.
1 NT Shows 12-14 points.
2 Shows 15-17 points.
2 Shows 18-20 points.

The partner of the opener is forced to bid, even with no points. The 1 Club opening is forcing for one round. Any first response of 1 No Trump or higher is game forcing.

1 1 NT Responder has game-forcing values; 12-14 points.
1 Opener shows a 4-card Spade suit.
2 Responder shows a 4-card Heart suit.
3 Opener shows a 4-card Diamond suit.
3 NT Responder realizes no fit and bids No Trump.

In the example above, the responder is unable to bid the Club suit, showing a stopper, since the level of the contract would exceed 3 No Trump.

1 1 Responder shows 9-11 points.
2 Opener shows a 4-card Spade suit.
3 Responder shows a 4-card Heart suit.
4 Opener shows a 4-card Club suit and a 5-card Spade suit.
4 Responder must temporize to show a 5-card Heart suit.
4 Responder bids game in Hearts.

The concept behind the bidding system, which Mr. Robert H. Lea devised, is that the responder, with the very first response, shows the range of values held. Once the total number of values held is known by one partner, then the level of the contract is somewhat established. All rebids show at least a 4-card suit, whereas a second rebid shows a second 4-card suit and a longer first bid suit.

The origin of this concept, almost universal in the game of bridge, seems to been lost in the annals of the history of the game. The concept of the reverse bid was not known before the year of 1934, but then a pioneer or pioneers of the game began to employ the bid to show not only strength but also distributional length. However, the rebid of the original opener was always in a higher-ranking suit.

First Publication

The concept was perhaps first described in the publication by the group of bridge players known as The Four Horsemen, namely David Burstine (photograph above), Howard Schenken, Michael T. Gottlieb, and Oswald Jacoby, titled The Four Aces System of Contract Bridge, with an introduction by Harold S. Vanderbilt.

The concept was originally referred to as a Skip Level Bid, which allowed the responder the choice also of making a preference bid if there were no game values possible owing to the distribution and the strength of the combined holdings.

Mr. Ely Culbertson, shortly after the publication by The Four Horsemen of their bidding system, included this concept in his own system and provided the designation of reverse. The explanation of Mr. Ely Culbertson was that the rebid of the original player was in reverse order in a higher-ranking suit and showed not only a certain pattern, but also a certain minimum strength.

This explanation seemed to fit well with his borrowing, in quotation marks, of the concept known as the Principle of Anticipation, which Mr. Ely Culbertson renamed the Principle of Preparedness, which allowed the opener to open a distribution of 4-5 in two suits by bidding the shorter higher-ranking suit first provided the shorter suit held sufficient winning tricks. However, his Principle of Preparedness shows only normal values for an opening bid, whereas the reverse bid shows additional values according to his definition.

The concept was not promoted for some unknown reason. The perhaps first publication, which increased its attention and popularity in the bridge community is attributed to Mr. Eugenio Chiaradia of Italy in the year 1963. Is was only seven years later in 1970 that the translation in English occurred with the assistance of Mr. Monroe Ingberman.

Definition of a Reverse Bid

A reverse bid is an unforced rebid at the level of two or more in a higher ranking suit than that suit bid originally. A reverse bid shows a 5-card suit in the first bid lower-ranking suit and at least a 4-card suit in the second high-ranking suit bid.
The high card point range is generally between 15/16 and 19 high card points.
Note: Some bridge partnerships distinguish between a reverse bid showing a point range between 15-17 points, and a jump reverse bid showing a point range between 18-19 points.
Note: The bridge player should be reminded that there are only six possible reverse bids, which are listed below.

• 1 club: There are only three possible suits, in which the bidder can reverse, which are Diamonds, Hearts, and Spades. If the responder bids the suit, in which partner plans to rebid, then the partner should first and foremost support the suit of partner.
• 1 diamond: There are only two possible suits, in which the bidder can reverse, which are Hearts, and Spades.
• 1 heart: There is only one possible suit, in which the bidder can reverse, which is Spades.
• 1 spade: A reverse bid is not possible.

Forcing For One Round

The reasoning behind the distribution is that the opener must have enough overall playing strength to commit his partner to the three level. For this reason, the reverse bid is not only forcing for one round on the responder, but it also promises a rebid unless the responder has shown weakness explicitly and naturally at his next turn.

The generally accepted definition of a No Trump distribution is:

1. No void.
2. No singleton.
3. No more than one doubleton.

What are your options if the strength of the holding is that of a No Trump opening, but your distribution is off? How does the bridge player communicate to partner the extent of his strength? With many hands the bridge player can employ the reverse bid to show both strength and distribution. The reverse bid is standard in the Standard America approach and also in the Two Over One System after a first response of 1 No Trump.

• Opener: The opener has No Trump strength. However, the opener does not have No Trump distribution. The opener has a 5-card suit lower than the 4-card suit. The opener decides to do a reverse bid.
• Responder: The responder holds a 4-card Major suit and bids up the line.
  Opener: The opener knows partner has 6 plus points. The responder has bid 1 Heart, showing a 4-card Heart suit. If the opener has support for the suit of the responder, then the first obligation is for the opener to show support. Since no fit is present, then the opener can show a minimum of points and a certain 4-5 distribution. The opener makes a reverse bid to communicate this information.
• Responder: Partner realizes the strength and distribution of opener.
• Partner sets the contract at: 3 No Trump.

A Reverse Bid is by no means Game Forcing

A reverse bid informs partner only about strength and distribution. As you can see, the possible reverse bids by the opener are as follows. The learning bridge player may be surprised to discover that there are only nine possible bidding sequences, in which a reverse bid can occur.

It must be noted that all reverse bids, either by the opener or by the responder (per partnership agreement), indeed show strong game possibilities, because the combined strength is at least 23 high card points. However, the reverse bid is not game-forcing. A reverse bid is a semi-limited bid and the partner can set the contract according to his own strength and distribution.

A Reverse Bid can be Performed also by the Responder

However, the disadvantage is that there must be a solid partnership understanding since a reverse bid by the responder can also be understood by many partnerships as Fourth Suit Forcing in certain bidding sequences. The values of the responder are agreed to signify the identical range of high card points, without distribution, as that of a reverse bid made by the opener.

As mentioned above, the reverse bid by the responder is, by its nature, ambiguously connected with another conventional bidding method, which should be reviewed once again. It is important that both partners come to a partnership agreement as to the meaning of their rebid of the responder.

Fourth Suit Forcing – A convention in which the bid of the only unbid suit by the responder is forcing for one round and promises a minimum of 10-11 high card points if made at the two level or higher.

It is therefore important to have a partnership agreement as to the meaning of the bid of the fourth suit, especially by the responder. Does the rebid of the responder signify a reverse bid or is the rebid of the responder a fourth suit forcing for one round? This question must be answered before deciding to play.

Club Systems

The bridge player sits down at the bridge table, the cards are dealt, the auction begins, and player to your immediate right opens with 1 Club. Bidding systems, over the years of the evolving game of bridge, have been devised to reach the best, the optimum contract by employing first this artificial bid. This opening bid is a forcing bid for the responder with the exception of immediate interference.

In order to find out what this bid means, you must take a look at the Convention Cards. There are many Club Systems available and the intention of this web page is to present as many as possible, which have been devised over the years. The bridge player should know what bidding system their opponents are employing and it would be worth the time and effort of the bridge player to learn of and about these bidding systems.

An attempt has been made to include the bidding system based upon the written material available. If the original bidding system has become outdated for whatever reason, the attempt has been made to present only the opening bids and possible bidding features. These are designated as Opening Bids.

If the Club System is not listed here, you may wish to consult our Main Glossary

Aces Scientific System

After the advent of the computer age, the computer was used to formulate and/or calculate a detailed bidding system, especially for the Aces Team organized by Ira Corn. With the help of the computer, different hands were researched, studied, and calculated for the best bidding action. The result was the Aces Scientific System.

Alpha Opening Bids

These opening bids were devised and developed by Mr. Bertrnd Romanet of France around 1968.

Australian Standard Opening Bids

There are many versions of bidding systems in Australia, even Goren and Acol. The general consensus is that there is no one standard bidding system, but the general opening bids are presented.

Bangkok Club

As the name indicates, this Club System was devised in Thailand. Yes, there are bridge players in Thailand. Devised by Mr. Somboon Nandhabiwat this Club System was used with some success in several world championship tournaments.

Bernier Big Club Opening Bids

These opening bids were devised by Mr. Jerry Bernier and Mr. Mike Schmenk in the 1960s and is based on the Kaplan-sheinwold and Schenken Club.

Blue Club

The Blue Team developed a bidding system using a combination of the Neapolitan and Roman bidding systems. Combining the most favorable features of both bidding systems resulted in the formation of the Blue Club bidding system. The main proponents of this bidding system were Mr. Walter Avarelli, Mr. Benito Garozzo,Mr. Pietro Forquet, Mr. Massimo D’Alelio, and Mr. Giorgio Belladonna. They had great success at the bridge tournaments using the Blue Club System.

Blue Team Club Openings

Blue Team became the popular name for the Italian International Bridge Team, which had many international successes from 1956 to 1975. The captain and the members of the Blue Team devised a bidding system, which is still played today. The Blue Team Club was the result of the efforts of the Italian Bridge Federation, Mr. Carl Alberto Perroux, the team captain, and the team members, who dedicated themselves to the study of the game of bridge.

Blue Team Club System

The Blue Team Club System was mainly devised by Mr. Benito Garozzo. The Blue Team Club System is based on the principle that a 1 Club opening is forcing. The style of this system is called Canape, and this means that the opener can/should bid the short suits before he bids the long suits. Canape is a bidding method in which the opener bids his long suit on his rebid and was developed by Mr. Pierre Albarran from France.

Blue Team Club Responses

As the name implies, the opening will be 1 Club. The significance of this 1 Club opening is that it is defined as 1. forcing, and 2. shows 17 or more points using a 4-3-2-1 count. Sometimes it is also a distributional factor which may define a 1 Club opening with slightly less than 17 points, or a weaker 1 Club opening with exactly 17 points.

Blue Team Roman Responses to Blackwood

Even the Roman Blackwood Convention, a variation of the original Blackwood Convention, has a variation. This variation was devised by the Blue Team Club and was applied with some success. The 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.

Bowman-Hancock Opening Bids

These opening bids were devised and developed by Mr. John Hancock of Los Alamos, New Mexico, and additionally by Mr. Allen Bowman of Green Valley, Arizona.

Breakthrough Opening Bids

These opening bids were devised and developed by Mr. Robert Sundby of Wisconsin.

A helping hand:

In his team’s match against Hong Kong in the second round of the Rosenblum Cup Teams, Mr. Robert Sundby of Wisconsin realized an instant too late that he had missed a dramatic signal which would have helped partner Mr. Mike Linskens, also of Wisconsin, to make the switch to defeat Hong Kong’s vulnerable game.

Mr. Linskens led the King, taken by declarer’s Ace. Declarer then led a spade. Mr. Linskens took his Ace, cashed the Queen and led another Spade. Declarer discarded his lone Heart on the King, ruffed his remaining Clubs and claimed.

Mr. Sundby realized immediately after he followed low to the Spades that he should have played the Queen, establishing dummy’s Spades. Mr. Linskens then would have had no choice but to lead a Heart, defeating the contract.

The moral: lend partner a helping hand.

Bridge World Standard Opening Bids

This system was created by consensus of the readers of the Bridge World Magazine, with Edgar Kaplan as editor.

Bridge World Standard 2001 – Revised, Established Version

Bridge World Standard encapsultates common American expert practices, determined by polls, as a set of partnership agreements (and, where there is no consensus, non-agreements). It is used as a framework for problems in the Master Solvers’ Club, by impromptu partnerships, and as a basis for discussion by those who wish to formulate their own system.

Where the experts are in substantial agreement (with close cases decided, when possible, by the votes of Bridge World readers at large), those methods become part of the system. Where there are competing popular approaches, alternative methods, called leaves, are listed.

Bridge World Standard 2001 – Older, Projected Version

A consensus Bidding System developed in 1967 and periodically revised, previously in 1993, and then in 2001. It was based on the majority preferences of 125 leading experts and thousands of Bridge World readers. The methods used in the the system were determined by polls.

A clear expert preference determined the treatment, while close questions were decided by the vote of the readers. Because it is a consensus system, the Bridge World Standard is rarely used by regular partnerships. It is, however, valuable in forming casual partnerships. Compare the Bridge World Standard Opening Bids listed below.

CAB Bridge System

A British system built around an artificial Two-Club opening with Ace-Showing responses and Blackwood. CAB is an acronym for 2 Clubs, Ace responses, Blackwood, and although the system is no longer used, the system did have some popularity in England during the decade of the Fifties. The CAB system was the result of a mixture of popular conventions as the name strongly suggests, and the main promoter of this system was Leslie Dodds.

Cable Car Opening Bids

These opening bids were devised by Mr. Steve Altus of California.

Cambridge Standard Opening Bids

Although the origin has not been confirmed, it is rather safe to assume that this method was devised by bridge players at the Cambridge University in England.

Carrot Club Bidding System

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.

Clement-Oliver Opening Bids

These opening bids and the resulting bidding sequences, although unknown, originated with Mr. Bruce Clement and Mrs. Pam Oliver of Wellington, New Zealand.

Clone Opening Bids

This bidding system is a mixture between Carrot Club and the Tangerine Club.

Cloudberrry Club Opening Bids

These opening bids were devised and developed by Mr. Max Odlund from Sweden in the late 1970s.

Cobra

Computer Oriented Bridge Analysis is the result of feeding a computer certain elements of the evaluation and distributional factors of card combinations by Mr. E.T. Lindelof.

Cobra Opening Bids

As a base for the entered data into the software application, Mr. E.T. Lindelof used the following opening bids, similar to the Schenken Club opening bids.

Cranberry Club Opening Bids

These opening bids constitute a simplified version of the Tangerine Club system and was developed by Mr. Jan Eric Larsson of Sweden, who developed the Tangerine Club system.

Crazy Diamond Opening Bids

These opening bids are from a bidding system used in The Netherlands and was developed by Mr. and Mrs. Arie van Heusden, Mr. Jaap Kokkes, Mr. Kees Kaiser and co-bridge players and has been published in the book by Mr. G.J.R. Forch with the title Bieden voor Gevorderden.

Crowhurst Acol Opening Bids

These opening bids are generally employed in southern England and are part of the Acol bidding system and represent a modification.

Culbertson Opening Bids

Mr. Eli Culbertson devised a standard version of opening bids to support his methods.

Danish Standard Opening Bids

Mr. F. Dahl, in the early 1980s, described the system of Danish Standard opening bids.

Danish Trend Opening Bids

This version of opening bids is / was favored in The Netherlands.

DESY Polish Club Bidding System – (Inactive website)
This is a form of the Polish Club bidding system used in northern Germany. The designation comes from the fact that the players are employees of a company called High Energy Physics Laboratory located in Hamburg, Germany. Opening Bids

Deuces Scientific Opening Bids
These opening bids were devised and developed by Mr. Don Varvel and Mr. Eric Taylor of Austin, Texas.

Dutch Acol Opening Bids
The ACOL bidding system, developed and enhanced in England, has many followers in the bridge community and has gained world-wide acceptance. The guidelines of the ACOL bidding system are, however, not static and can be varied to fit the needs and requirements of individual partnership agreements.

This is not only the case in England, but also around the world. One version of the ACOL bidding system in Holland is called Dutch Acol, and deals mainly with the opening bid. Although this variant has many similarities with the general guidelines of the ACOL bidding system, some of the opening bids differ.

Dutch Standard Opening Bids
There are many different bidding systems employed in Holland and are considered standard.

Eastern Scientific
This bidding system, which employs a 1 Club opening to show various shapes and strengths, is similar to the concept known as Standard American and was devised and developed mainly by Mr. Robert Goldman and Mr. William Eisenberg.

Efos Bidding System
The Economical Forcing System was used in international championships by leading Swedish players such as Mr. Jan Wohlin, Mr. Nils Olaf Lilliehook, and Mr. Gunnar Anulf. The concept is reported to have originated with Mr. Eric Jannersten. The idea behind the concept is to give the opener the most opportunity to make the most accurate and descriptive rebid, in order to describe his holding. As a result, most of the responses are artificial in meaning.

Efos Opening Bids
The Economic Forcing System introduced new features, especially after a No Trump opening. One of these features is the “Repeated” or Extended Stayman convention. The bidding system is similar to a Relay System in that, after an opening by one partner, the next, cheapest suit bid is considered either natural or a generally forcing bid.

Finnish Standard
This document, as detailed by Mr. Jukka Korpela, presents a foundation for the Finnish Standard Bidding System for bridge. Officially the standard is defined for the bidding panel of the Finnish Bridge magazine, but it is often regarded as a more general standard.

Finnish Junior Standard Opening Bids
These opening bids were developed in the late 1980s and has gained some amount of popularity among bridge players.

Goren Opening Bids
In the original version, Mr. Charles Goren proposed that any raise to the three level are absolutely game forcing and that all two level openings should also be game forcing and contain at least a 5-card suit of that denomination.

Jacoby Modern Opening Bids
Mr. Oswald Jacoby devised these opening bids during his bridge career with certain established requirements for the bridge player, intended to become standard. However, the concept of opening a 4-card Major suit was eventually replaced with the concept of a 5-card Major suit.

Kaplan-Sheinwold System
A bidding system developed by Mr. Edgar Kaplan and Mr. Alfred Scheinwold based on five-card Majors and weak No Trump openings. The system has the purpose of precisely limiting the strength shown by all bids during the auction.

Kentucky Club Bidding System
The origin of this bidding system is unknown but the name can hold a clue.

Lea System
The Lea System is based on the 1965 privately published book, authored by Mr. Robert H. Lea of St. Paul, Minnesota, entitled Bridge is Easy With The Lea System. The system is based on a strong, forcing 1 Club opening, which promises 12 plus high card points.

Majeure Cinquieme Opening Bids
This is the name given by the bridge players in France to their bidding system, which is considered standard and which is translated as Five Card Majors. It is have been revised over time to some degree, but the general basics continue to be applicable.

MamiC Opening Bids
The concept of the MamiC Opening Bid system was devised by Mr. Richard Lighton of New Jersey around 1990. The concept is based on the Major-Minor-Canapé opening bidding system. This means that a 4-card Major suit is opened first before a 5-card Minor suit, and that a 4-card Minor suit is opened first before a 5-card Major suit.

Mock Swedish Opening Bids
This is a opening bidding system devised in 1993 by Mr. Richard Lighton of New Jersey, who was fascinated by the Muppet Show created by Mr. Jim Henson. Especially one character captured his imagination, and that was the Swedish Chef who spoke in babbled sounds and made absolutely no sense, but was comical and chaotic.

The concept of the Mock Swedish opening bidding system is that several opening bids can have two different and distinctive interpretations.

Monaco Bidding System
The Monaco system was the original Relay System. It was devised by Mr. Pierre Ghestem of France around 1954, and used with Mr. Rene Bacherich in several World Championship tournaments.

The main concept of the Relays some transfers is to bid in such a manner as to make the stronger hand become the declarer in the final contract.

New South Wales System
A variation of the Vienna System formerly used by Mr. Richard Cummings and Mr. Tim Seres and other Australians.

Tangerine Club Bidding System
The Tangerine Club is a Bridge bidding system based on a weak/strong 1 Club opening, followed by simple but efficient asking bids, light opening bids of one of a suit showing 10-14 points and at least 4 cards in the suit, a 1 No Trump opening of 12-14 HCPs and a balanced hand without five card majors, a natural 2 Clubs opening showing 10-14 points and at least 5 clubs, and weak two openings of 5-9 points and at least 5 cards in the suit.

Universal Club Opening Bids

The origin of these opening bids is unknown but is based on a system developed in the United States. The 1 Club opening bid has a definite limited range and shows a minimum of length in the Club suit. However, the 1 Club opening may show a stronger holding, which then has to be determined.

These opening bids also employ the use of a 5-card suit whenever a Major suit is opened and the No Trump range has been extended. Generally any opening on the two level promises distinct distributional holdings. The opening bids are shown in the schematic below.

Universal Club Two Clubs Opening

In the Universal Club bidding system, origin unknown, the opening bid of 2 Clubs has been assigned a specific meaning, which is that it shows a three-suited holding, generally a distribution of 4-4-1-4, with values between 12 and 17 high card points. A minimum and a maximum point count is known and also the short suit, which is Diamonds.

Universal Club Two Diamonds Opening

In the Universal Club bidding system, origin unknown, the opening of 2 Diamonds has been assigned a specific meaning. This opening bid promises a three-suited holding.

The required point count is between 16 and 21 high card points. This opening demands that the Diamond suit be one of the three suits as opposed to the 2 Clubs opening bid, which shows Diamond shortage.

Universal Club 2 Hearts and 2 Spades Opening

The Universal Club bidding system has relegated special, if not specific, the information in the opening bid of either 2 Hearts or 2 Spades. Either of these two openings promises at least a 5-card card, or longer, and a second, unspecified second suit, also a 5-card suit, or longer.

The point range is a minimum of 14 high card points and the upper range is unlimited. Therefore, these two opening bids are forcing for one round. They are not considered to be absolutely game-forcing in nature.

Mr. Eric Kokish of Montreal, Canada, devised the following method to illustrate how it is possible to show a strong, balanced holding without having to consume bidding spade on the three level. This method is employed by those partnerships, which have agreed that 2 Clubs is the only forcing opening bid, and that a 2 No Trump opening is a Gambling 2 No Trump opening or a Weak Minor Preempt.

Preferred Designation by Eric Kokish

Although the designation of Kokish Relays is accepted as the official designation of this concept, it seems that, unofficially, Mr. Eric Kokish would prefer to refer to the system by its original name of Birthright. This designation, however, seems to have no relationship or connection to the concept itself.

Birthright

With this understanding all holdings with a 20-24 plus point range, balanced or unbalanced distribution, must be opened with the strong, artificial 2 Clubs opening.

Note: Some partnerships have agreed to employ the Kokish Relays only with a point count generally between 25-26/27 points. This is the definition provided by the Bridge World magazine.

General Bidding Guidelines for Bidding Strong Holdings
When playing a 5-Card Major Suit bidding system the following guidelines constitute the general partnership agreement:

Opener Responder Meaning

• 2 NT Promises a balanced holding with 20-21 points.
• 2 Promises strong values either in No Trump distribution or other non-balanced distribution.
• 2 Normally either a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible. (Note: Personal method takes precedence.)
• 2 NT Promises a balanced holding with 22-24 points.
• 2 Promises strong values either in No Trump distribution or other non-balanced distribution.
• 2 Normally either a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible. (Note: Personal method takes precedence.)
• 3 NT Promises a balanced holding with 25-27 points.
• 2 Promises strong values either in No Trump distribution or other non-balanced distribution.
• 2 Normally either a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible. (Note: Personal method takes precedence.)
• 4 NT Promises a balanced holding with 28-30 points.

These four bidding sequences illustrate the simplicity of showing balanced holdings with values between 20 high card points and 30 high card points.

Kokish Relay Guidelines

Opener Responder Meaning

• 2 An opening bid showing strong values.
• 2 Normally either a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible.
• 2 This is the Kokish Relay, a puppet for responder to bid an automatic 2 Spades in order that the opener clarify his holding.
• 2 The puppet bid.
• 2 NT Opener promises 25 plus points and a balanced distribution.
• 3 Opener promises a two-suited holding with Hearts and Clubs.
• 3 Opener promises a two-suited holding with Hearts and Diamonds.
• 3 Opener promises a one-suited holding with Hearts.

Opener Responder Meaning

• 2 An opening bid showing strong values.
• 2 Normally either a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible.
• 2 This is the Kokish Relay, a puppet for responder to bid an automatic 2 No Trump in order that the opener clarify his holding.
• 2 NT The puppet bid.
• 3 Opener promises a two-suited holding with Spades and Clubs.
• 3 Opener promises a two-suited holding with Spades and Diamonds.
• 3 Opener promises a two-suited holding with Spades and Hearts. (Note: the general agreement is that the Spade suit is either equal to or longer than the Heart suit in length. Trick-taking ability is not part of the equation.)
• 3 Opener promises a one-suited holding with Spades.

Note: The nature of a strong holding can be defined differently. With the concept of Kokish Relay bids the evaluation can be based solely on high card points, which is practically the only evaluation method for defining a balanced holding. However, in the case that the opener holds a single-suited or even a two-suited holding, then the evaluation can be made on high card points, but may also, in addition, be based on the number of losing tricks.

Kokish Relay Bidding Examples for Balanced Holdings

It is generally an accepted and almost universal agreement to show such a strong holding with strong values with an strong, artificial 2 Clubs opening.

In the case that Kokish Relay bids are employed as per partnership agreement the concept demands a certain bidding sequence first before the actual auction of communicating information begins. As soon as the information has been communicated by the opener about a holding with substantial values, then these steps must first be performed and then the true information can then be exchanged.

The actual Kokish Relay bid is first executed, followed by the corresponding puppet bid by the responder, i.e. either 2 to 2, or 2 to 2 NT, which is then followed either with a bid of No Trump or a suit by the opener, which is actually the first exchange of genuine information. Until these bids have been made the responder remains completely unaware as to the nature of partner’s holding, as to whether the holding is balanced, or single-suited, or even two-suited.

Since the bidding sequence based on Kokish Relays resulting in the communicated information that the holding of the 2 Clubs bidder is balanced, then the partnership must place emphasis on the continuations. The following example illustrates possible continuations.

• 2 An opening bid showing strong values.
• 2 Normally a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible.
• 2 This is the Kokish Relay, a puppet for responder to bid an automatic 2 Spades in order that the opener can clarify his holding.
• 2 The puppet bid.
• 3 NT North shows a balanced distribution of 25-27 points, a holding too strong for a normal 2 – 3NT rebid. This rebid is not part of the original version of the Kokish Relays, but could be used as an extension of this concept by partnership agreement if an opening bid of 3 No Trump would indicate a possible Gambling 3 No Trump.

The responder, South, has the information that partner holds 25 points to 27 points and balanced distribution. However, in this and other examples the responder may attempt a slam try. The responder holds values for a small slam and could easily set the contract at 6 No Trump. The responder can also envision a grand slam in Spades if the cards are in the correct location.

Note: In attempting to ask for the number of Aces or Keycards a bid by the responder of 4 No Trump cannot be understood as quantitative, as this would be illogical. Also, any form of the Gerber convention would be entirely unambiguous. Therefore, any continuations are based on the holding of the responder since the responder becomes the captain once partner has defined the holding.

Note: When the opener shows a strong, balanced holding of 3 No Trump, then it becomes strongly recommended as to whether a bid by the responder of 4 Clubs is Stayman, Gerber, or even a cuebid of first-round control. An agreement must also be reached as to the meaning of the responder’s bids of 4 Diamonds and/or 4 Hearts, which could be Jacoby Transfer bids to Hearts and Spades respectively.

Kokish Relay Bidding Example for Unbalanced Holdings

When the communicated information by the opener is that the holding is unbalanced, then the responder obtains the information that the holding is either single-suited or two-suited.

• 2 An opening bid showing strong values.
• 2 Normally a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible.
• 2 This is the Kokish Relay, a puppet for responder to bid an automatic 2 Spades in order that the opener can clarify his holding.
• 2 The puppet bid.
• 3 Opener promises a two-suited holding with Spades and Clubs.

Note: The responder, South, following the prescribed bidding sequence in order for partner to clarify the holding, realizes that a slam in Spades is possible. The main reason is that the responder realizes that the partnership has a fit in two suits, namely Spades and Clubs.

Note: Once partner communicates the descriptive information about the holding via Kokish Relays, then the responder assumes captaincy and leads partner to the final contract.

Continuations are per partnership agreement. For example, the responder, in the above example, can first establish the trump suit, Spades, by bidding 3 Spades, which is not an invitational bid. The responder can also initiate an Ace or Keycard conventional method immediately following the 3 Clubs rebid by partner.

Note: With a combined count of 32 high card points the partnership can select among three possible grand slams in the above example: 7 Clubs, or 7 Spades, or 7 No Trump.

Non-Acceptance of the Kokish Relay Bid

However infrequently it may occur the responder may hold a 7-card plus suit, but with very few values. In such a case, the responder has the option of breaking the Kokish Relay and independently bid that suit as shown in the following example. Please note that other agreements reduce the length of the suit to a minimum of 6 cards instead of the recommended 7 cards in length in order to be considered as an independent suit.

• 2 An opening bid showing strong values.
• 2 Normally a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible.
• 2 This is the Kokish Relay, a puppet for responder to bid an automatic 2 Spades in order that the opener can clarify his holding.
• 3 A transfer bid to Diamonds. (Note: the relay is not accepted.)
• 3 A transfer bid to Hearts. (Note: the relay is not accepted.)
• 3 A transfer bid to Spades. (Note: the relay is not accepted.)
• 3 Optional as a transfer to Clubs.

Note: The opener, North, plans to show a strong balanced holding with a range between 23 and 24 points. With the responder breaking the relay the responder prevents the opener from communicating this information.

Note: The responder has not accepted the Kokish Relay bid. The bid outside the relay remains a transfer bid, and in this example a bid of 3 Clubs transfers partner to Diamonds.

Note: A possible variation for a partnership agreement is that the suit bid by the responder, which is outside the relay can be understood as to play in that suit if partner has support. With the above example North has adequate support and the partnership will find the small slam in Diamonds holding combined only 27 points.

Once the responder bids outside the relay, then the opener has the option to either accept or deny. If the holding is balanced, then the opener should support. However, if the holding of the opener is not balanced, but rather a one-suited holding or a two-suited holding, then the opener should communicate this information at the lowest level. By not supporting the independent suit of the responder the opener shows shortness in that suit.

The following example illustrates the denial of support.

• 2 An opening bid showing strong values.
• 2 Normally a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible.
• 2 This is the Kokish Relay, a puppet for responder to bid an automatic 2 Spades in order that the opener can clarify his holding.
• 3 A transfer bid to Diamonds. (Note: the relay is not accepted.)
• 4 North would deny support for Diamonds by bidding 4 Clubs, as planned, to show a two-suited holding in Spades and Clubs. Since the 3 bid by the responder is a transfer bid, then North can unambiguously bid 4 to show the two-suited holding plus shortness in Diamonds.

Observation

Note: There are several agreements as to the possible range of No Trump holdings and the partnership should make adjustments to compensate. When the holding is unbalanced, then the point count becomes less important, whereas the number of losing tricks or winning tricks becomes more relevant in the evaluation.

Alternate Agreements

Other partnerships have agreed upon the following auction, which is then game forcing:

• 2 2 Normally a waiting bid or a negative bid. Other responses, per partnership agreement, are not possible.
• 3 No Kokish Relay is required to show an independent suit holding in Hearts to show a game forcing action. The partner must continue to game, and with additional values will initiate a slam try.

If the opener bids anything other than 2 No Trump, then these rebids are natural and generally indicate Hearts. Some partnerships agree upon the Heart suit as being a requirement.

This approach is advantageous when holding strong, balanced hands, which are too strong in values for an immediate, non-forcing 2 No Trump rebid. This is because the conventional approaches listed below can be employed with ease on the three level. The auction has not been raised dramatically and the bidding space is still available.

After this Kokish Relay, the responder can, by partnership agreement, employ the Stayman, the Jacoby Transfer, Texas Transfer, the Gerber, or the Roman Key Card conventions.

Alternative Method by Danny Kleinman

As with many other conventional methods, different variations have arisen. Included is a different approach suggested by Mr. Danny Kleinman.

1. After a 2 rebid by the opener, the responder bids 3 and 3 naturally to indicate the corresponding long Minor suit and moderate values. It is possible that the responder then becomes the declarer.

2. After a 2 rebid by the opener, the responder bids 2 No Trump when holding a 6-card plus Spade suit, which the opener with the stronger holding will declare when holding Spade support. And, using the same approach, after a 2 rebid by the opener, the responder bids 3 promising a 6-card plus Spade suit and at least a 3-card Heart suit. With any support the opener, holding the stronger values, becomes the declarer in either Major suit.

Cappelletti Convention

This conventional method carries the designation of the surname of Mr. Michael Cappelletti, born in the year 1942, of Alexandria, Virginia, United States, who developed this conventional method as a defense method against an opening of No Trump by the opposing side. There is the matter that other bridge authors and experts have devised the same conventional method and is also known under their surnames. The concept is also referred to as Hamilton, bearing the name of Mr. Fred Hamilton of California, United States.

Added to this confusion is also the designation Pottage for the same concept, ascribed to Mr. John F. Pottage of London, England, under which designation the conventional method is known. The origin of this concept is also claimed by Mr. Gerald W. Helms of Charlotte, North Carolina, United States, but is not designated as such.

Note: An interview of Mr. Michael Cappelletti was published in the Daily Bulletin, Tuesday, March 13, 2007, Volume 50, Number 5, of the 50th Spring North American Bridge Championships held in St. Louis, Missouri United States. The essence of the interview are his personal views on the concept behind this conventional method. An excerpt of this interview in a .pdf file format and is only preserved and archived on this site for future reference.

Therefore, when a bridge player refers to Cappelletti, Hamilton, or Pottage, then the bridge player refers to the identical defense method employed against an opening of No Trump by the opponents.

The concept is employed as a defense method following an opening of No Trump by the opponents in either the direct seat or in the balancing seat. The overcall promises either a one-suited holding or a two-suited holding with values not exceeding 15 points. Importance must be given to the state of vulnerability and the location of the values, which should be in the suit or suits promised or indicated.

Although it is a matter of partnership agreement, the one-suited holding should contain at least a 6-card plus suit, and for a two-suited holding the distribution should be at least 5-5. Some advocates have reduced the distribution to 5-4 if the values are located only in the two suits such as: KQJ10 and AQ1087. Some very aggressive players will even decide to overcall with a 4-4 distribution, but only in the Major suits. This is purely a matter of partnership understanding.

After a No Trump opening, the bids of the overcaller (also referred to as the intervenor – partner is called the advancer) are as follows:

Opponent Intervenor Meaning

• The range of the No Trump should be announced.
• Shows any one-suited holding.
• Shows Hearts and Spades, both Major suits.
• Shows Hearts and an unspecified Minor suit.
• Shows Spades and an unspecified Minor suit.
• NT Shows both Minor suits.

Double If the intervenor has not previously passed, then any double is for penalty. Partner must pass.
Each overcall generally promises fewer than 15 high card points. All overcalls at the three level are natural.

Advancer and Continuances

The advancer has several options, not forgetting that the 1 No Trump bidder generally sits to his left with a defined strength and distribution.

Responses after Intervenor has overcalled with 2 showing a one-suited holding:

Pass: with at least 6-card support in Clubs.

Relay bid, allowing his partner to pass or bid his suit. If the suit is Diamonds, then the intervenor passes. However, if the intervenor holds a 6-card Club suit and a 4-card Diamond suit, then the intervenor rebids 2 No Trump.

• This bid shows a 5-card Heart suit and also weak values.
• This bid shows a 5-card Spade suit and also weak values.
• Promises 11 plus High Card Points and support for all four suits. Partner is invited to bid game with a maximum.

Responses after Intervenor has overcalled with 2 showing both Major suits:

• Pass: with at least 6-card support in Diamonds.
• Cheapest Relay bid, choice of suit, unconstructive. Shows preference.
• Choice of suit, unconstructive. Shows preference.
• Shows length in both Minor suits and is an asking bid for the better Minor suit of the intervenor.
• This bid shows a 6-card length in Clubs
• Invitational, promising 4 or more Trump. This jump may also be regarded as preemptive in nature. Partnership agreement.
• Invitational, promising 4 or more Trump. This jump may also be regarded as preemptive in nature. Partnership agreement.

Responses after Intervenor has overcalled with 2 or 2 showing the bid Major suit and an unspecified Minor suit:

• Pass: Shows a fit for the known Major suit and between 0-7 points.
• Single Raise: Shows a fit for the known Major suit and about 8-9 points.
• This is a relay bid by the advancer asking the intervenor to bid his unspecified Minor suit.

However, if the advancer raises the Major suit of the intervenor on the second round of bidding, then the advancer shows a good fit for the known Major suit and around 10-12 points. This is then invitational.

Responses after Intervenor has overcalled with 2 No Trump showing both Minor suits:

• Shows a weak holding. This is a preference for Clubs and also a sign off. No game interest.
• Shows a weak holding. This is a preference for Diamonds and also a sign off. No game interest.
• Advancer promises a one-suited holding in Hearts (generally a 6-card plus suit) and shortness in both Minor suits.
• Advancer promises a one-suited holding in Spades (generally a 6-card plus suit) and shortness in both Minor suits.
• A jump in Clubs promises a distributional holding, good support, and invites game if the intervenor has maximum values.
• A jump in Diamonds promises a distributional holding, good support, and invites game if the intervenor has maximum values.

If the intervenor has previously passed, then a double by the intervenor cannot be for penalty. In this case the double promises either a one-suited holding in Clubs or a two-suited holding in the red suits, Diamonds and Hearts. The advancer relays with a bid a 2 Clubs, which the intervenor passes if Clubs is the suit.

1. If the intervenor has a two-suited holding in Diamonds and Hearts, then the intervenor bids 2 Diamonds after the 2 Clubs relay. The 2 Diamonds rebid promises good support in both red suits. The advancer must then determine whether the contract should be in Diamonds or Hearts. With better Diamonds the advancer should pass since game in a Minor suit is not an option opposite a 1 No Trump opening by the opponents. With better Hearts the advancer will correct to Hearts and the intervenor will most likely pass since the intervenor has previously passed.
3. If the intervenor rebids 2 Hearts after the 2 Clubs relay, then the intervenor promises Hearts and Clubs as a two-suited holding, whereby the Heart suit is generally the stronger, normally longer suit. The advancer either passes or corrects to Clubs since the Minor suit is always the Club suit. See .pdf file as prepared by ACBL.
4. If the intervenor rebids 2 Spades after the 2 Clubs relay, then the intervenor promises Spades and Clubs as a two-suited holding, whereby the Spade suit is generally the stronger, normally longer suit. The advancer either passes or corrects to Clubs since the Minor suit is always the Club suit. See .pdf file as prepared by ACBL.

Note: Regarding the inclusion of the pre-condition that a rebid by the intervenor of either Major suit shows that suit and only the Club suit as the second suit is from the original version as set forth by Mr. Michael Cappelletti. However, this pre-condition has been revised over time, even by the developer himself, and the consensus is that the rebid of the intervenor of a Major suit shows that suit and either of the Minor suits.

Note: The general consensus is also that the advancer, once the intervenor has defined the two-suited holding, passes with values ranging from zero to about 6/7 high card points. If the established fit is a Minor suit, then the advancer will not seek game or even raise partner opposite a No Trump opening by the opponents. However, if the partnership has established a Major suit fit, then the advancer may raise generally with a good 8 to 11 points. These conditions are, as always, a matter of partnership agreement.

Note: Both the intervenor and the advancer must agree as to the length and strength of the one-suited holding and/or the two-suited holding generally in relation to the state of vulnerability. The decision to compete in this manner should depend on the responder of the No Trump bidder remaining silent, and be based on a relatively sound valuation method and/or trick-taking ability of the holding(s).

In the case that the auction proceeds as follows: 1 No Trump – 2 Clubs – Double, a Redouble shows 7 or more high card points and support in all suits, and invites his partner to compete on the three level.

As already mentioned, the Cappelletti conventional method can be used as either a direct overcall or in the pass-out seat. The conventional method can also be used after the opponents have opened a 2 No Trump or even a 3 No Trump. The conventional method can also be used over a Gambling 2 No Trump or a Gambling 3 No Trump. The conventional method can also be used if your partner has opened the auction and an opponent overcalls with 1 No Trump.

As with all conventional methods there are some flaws to the concept. For example if the intervenor doubles and the advancer holds a long suit, he may not preempt to show this suit. The advancer is first obligated to bid 2 Clubs and later indicate the long suit and shortage in all other suits.

When this auction happens, the intervenor must base his rebids logically upon the insistence of the advancer for this one long suit. Since the advancer is not bidding according to the guidelines set forth in the established responses, then the intervenor must infer that advancer has a preemptive-style suit, which he has been unable to bid.

Mr. Jerry Helms arrived at a solution to solve this problem in the bidding sequences with the decision to reverse the meaning of an immediate bid of a Major suit and the meaning of the artificial 2 Clubs, as shown below:

• An artificial bid showing a two-suiter and one unspecified Minor suit. The advancer bids 2 asking for the Major suit. If the advancer does not have support for the suit of the intervenor but good support for either Minor suit, the advancer rebids 2 No Trump.
• This bid is natural and shows at least a 6-card plus Heart suit.
• This bid is natural and shows at least a 6-card plus Spade suit.

The Rule of 18 is a rule employed by the World Bridge Federation to define the boundary between light opening bids and Highly Unusual Methods, known as HUM, in which bad hands are regularly opened. There is a mathematical calculation involved.

Parameters of the Rule

1. Only if the number of high card points added to the total of the two longest suits totals 18, then the bid is accepted by the World Bridge Federation.

2. In the bridge community of England, the Rule of 19 is the appropriate guideline for determining whether to open the auction.
The player who decides to open a hand containing only 10 high card points bases this decision to open on the length of his suit-distribution of the holding. For example, if the player’s distribution is 3-2-4-4 and the player counts 10 high card points, then these 10 points are added to the 4-4 distribution (the two longest suits), and the total number equals 18, then an opening bid becomes acceptable at any bridge tournament conducted by the World Bridge Federation.

Note: Some sponsoring organizations may include the provision that the holding, which meets the above criteria, must also include two quick tricks, or two playing tricks.

If the distribution of the player is 5-5-2-1 and the player has only 8 high card points, then the player calculates 10 points for the two longest suits (5+5), adds the 8 high card points for a total count, which equals 18. The player is allowed by the World Bridge Federation to open the bidding with a holding of only eight high card points.

Note: if the distribution 5-5-2-1, which equals 10 points for the two longest suits, and the holding contains only 7 high card points, then the result equals 17 points. The player would be disallowed from opening the bidding when playing in tournaments sponsored by the World Bridge Federation.

As stated above, the Rule of 18 has been established to define the boundary between light opening bids and Highly Unusual Methods.

The Flannery Two Diamond convention was devised by Mr. William L. Flannery, (aka Bill), born 1932 and died 2000, of Sacramento, California, United States. Mr. William Flannery kept running into a problem with a certain distributional holding and limited values. With a balanced hand and a No Trump range of 16-18 points, Mr. William Flannery would bid No Trump.

With an unbalanced hand and a No Trump range of 16-18 points, a 5-card suit lower-ranking than a 4-card suit, Mr. William Flannery would apply the Reverse bid convention. However, Mr. William Flannery had a problem with a distribution of a 5-card Heart suit and a 4-card Spade suit, and limited values between 11-15 high card points. So, Mr. William Flannery devised the Flannery Two Diamond bid to cover such distribution and values. Using this convention, one partner can open the auction and describe his hand quickly and accurately.

Mr. William Flannery believed that the frequency of a distributional pattern of 4-5 was greater than the freqency of a weak two bid in Diamonds. The following holding shows the text book pattern for a Flannery Two Diamonds opening bid.

Note: Some partnerships have varied the point range requirement from 11 to 16 high card points. However, an additional requirement is that the holding contain at least 2.5 defensive tricks.

The above distribution can be quickly described to the partner with the Flannery Two Diamond bid. The point range, although large in comparison, and the distribution of nine of the thirteen cards become two known features of the holding.

The Flannery Two Diamond bid can be made in any seat or position at the table, as long as no player has made a bid in the auction. This is the entire concept behind the Flannery Two Diamond bid.

As with all holdings, the value of the hand becomes an important factor after a suit has been established. A hand with only 9 high card points may become worth 13 support points, a void for example, once a suit has been established. This element must be considered carefully by the partner when responding. The responder may already be a passed hand, but his values may have increased dramatically after discovering the holdings of his partner who has just bid a Flannery Two Diamond.

When playing Flannery Two Diamonds, it is important for the partnership to remember that the above holding may not be opened with 2 Diamonds. Although the holding contains 15 high card points, which is the maximum range for a 2 Diamond Flannery opening, the holding does not contain a 4-card Spade suit. By opening this holding with 1 Heart, the opener denies holding a 4-card Spade suit.

Continuances by Responder

• Pass: Responder may pass the Flannery Two Diamond bid if Responder has less than 10 points and a 6-card Diamond suit.
• 2 hearts: This is a sign-off indicating less than 10 support points, but with more support in Hearts.
• 2 spades: This is a sign-off indicating less than 10 support points, but with more support in Spades.

2 NT: See below.

• 3 clubs: If the responder bids a Minor in Clubs showing at least a 6-card Club suit and 11-13 points, then his partner should bid 3 No Trump with a fit of Ax or Kx or Qxx in Clubs. This response is invitational.
• 3 diamonds: If the responder bids a Minor in Diamonds showing at least a 6-card Diamond suit and 11-13 points, then his partner should bid 3 No Trump with a fit of Ax or Kx or Qxx in Diamonds. This response is invitational.
• 3 hearts: This is an invitational jump bid, and partner may pass or bid game with maximum values.
• 3 spades: This is an invitational jump bid, and partner may pass or bid game with maximum values.
• 4 clubs: This is a transfer bid to 4 Hearts and game.
• 4 diamonds: This is a transfer bid to 4 Spades and game.

Note: Some partnerships have agreed to employ the 4 as Gerber. This is a matter of partnership agreement.

Continuances Following 2 No Trump Response

If the responder bids 2 No Trump, a totally artificial bid, then the responder wishes more information about the Minor suit holdings. To describe his Minor suit holdings, the Flannery Two Diamond bidder can describe his Minor suit holding in the following fashion.

• 3 hearts: Shows 11-13 points and two cards in each Minor suit.
• 3 spades: Shows 14-15 points and two cards in each Minor suit.
• 3 NT: Shows 14-15 points and values mainly in the Minor suits consisting of 2 cards each.
• 3 clubs: Shows a 3-card Club holding and therefore a 4-5-1-3 distribution.
• 3 diamonds: Shows a 3-card Diamond holding and therefore a 4-5-3-1 distribution.
• 4 clubs: A jump bid to show a 4-card Club holding and therefore a 4-5-0-4 distribution.
• 4 diamonds: A jump bid to show a 4-card Diamond holding and therefore a 4-5-4-0 distribution

In general, the Flannery Two Diamond bid is considered an essential convention for all bridge players, The distribution and strength is described accurately and quickly. By means of the responses, the opener can further describe his Minor suit holding. However, the bridge player must be aware that in selecting to add the Flannery Two Diamond convention to his list means that the Weak Two Diamond bid must be dropped. Both conventions can not be applied at the same time and mean something different.

Defense Method

There is also a defense method to the Flannery Two Diamond convention, and this is always a matter of the partnership agreement. Many bridge players play the standard defense, which is as follows:

Overcall Meaning

• 2 hearts: Indicates a 3-suited Takeout, with shortness in Hearts.
• Double: Indicates the equivalent of a strong 1 No Trump opening, 15 plus points.
• 2 NT: Indicates the Unusual No Trump convention signifying both Minor suits.

Suit Overcall: All other suit overcalls are natural.

Overcall Alternative Meaning

• Double: Indicates a balanced in the 13-16 point range
• 2 NT: Indicates a stronger balanced hand.

As with all defense methods and treatments, they must be first approved by the partners and should become part of the partnership agreement. As the reviewer can see, there are different approaches when defending. These should be discussed beforehand and, if selected, applied if the opponents are using the Flannery Two Diamond convention. It must also be noted that this concept has been varied and modified by several partnership agreements, which are not presented here.

CULBERTSON-LENZ – BRIDGE MATCH

The Bridge Battle of the Century as it was called when it took place between December 1931 and January 1932, was a genuine milestone in the history of the development and promotion of bridge as it is known today. Combining as it did every feature designed to capture and hold the interest of the then bridge-mad multitudes, and starring the greatest celebrities then prominent in bridge, it was predestined to be an exciting and long-remembered event. These were the years when bridge was making its impact felt keenly in the United States for the first lime.

During the previous decade, many new styles of bidding and play had come to the forefront, and most prominent among these was the CULBERTSON SYSTEM. Conceived and popularized by a man who was a born molder of opinions and customs, and who was a superbly able practical psychologist as well, the Culbertson System took the nation by storm, and was indeed original in concept and, as practiced by its leading exponents, a successful and highly practical method of bidding in bridge. Naturally its success caused many rivalries and feuds among those players who were at the very top rungs of the bridge ability ladder. This resulted in a strange war, a Systemic War in which 12 leading authorities. including Sidney Lenz, Milton Work, Wilbur C. Whitehead and Edward V Shepad, got together and organized a corporation, Bridge Headquarters, all forces joined to combat Culbertson’s domination of Contract Bridge.

The principal leader of the various groups in opposition to the Culbertson methods was Lenz, a veteran of Auction Bridge. In his camp were other great luminaries of the game who also felt that their methods were superior to the Culbertson System. The name by which the Lenz forces’ system was called was the Official System. A book on this system, which acknowledged its debt to Culbertson in that much of it was derived from his concepts, was later to be written by Work. Thc actual match was the result of a challenge made earlier in 1931 by Culbertson to the Lenz faction. There were many complications to be ironed out before agreement as to conditions could actually be achieved, but essentially the match was finally played on a pair-against-pair basis, with Culbertson wagering $5,000 against Lenz’s $1,000 on the outcome, with the money going to charity no matter who won. Culbertson promoted the match as the struggle of a young loving married couple against the forces of adversity with 12 jealous authorities, the establishment, combined against them. Of course it was also billed as a grudge fight and a battle of systems. As a result the match was a topic of conversation at every bridge table and at many dinner tables long before it began. In all, 150 rubbers were played, and during 88 of them Culbertson played with his wife, Josephine. His partners for the balance of the encounter were Theodore A. Lightner, Waldemar Von Zedtwitz, Howard Schenken, and Michael Gottlieb.

Lenz played the first 103 rubbers with Oswald Jacoby, who then resigned because of a difference of opinion on the play of a defensive situation. Lenz’s partner for the remainder of the session was Commander Winfield Liggett Jr. Alfred Gruenther, then a lieutenant instructor at West Point, was chief referee of the match.

The Culbertson team won by 8,980 points. Careful and accurate records of cards held for each deal were kept, and at the conclusion it was determined that each side had held fairly much the same number of high cards as the other. The first half of the match was held at New York’s Chatham Hotel, and the second part at the newly opened Waldorf-Astoria. The conditions of play and of protocol in general were governed by an agreement to which both Culbertson and Lenz were signatory, and the bridge laws under which the match was conducted were those published by the Whist Club of New York.

Bridge Match                        Culbertson                      Lenz

Points Won                            122,925                          113,945

Rubbers Won                           77                                   73

Number of two-game rubbers    37                                   32

Size of average rubber won        934                                866

Largest rubber won                    2,590                            2,825

Games                                        195                               186

Small Slams bid and made           9                                   8

Small Slams defeated                    9                                  5
(not including sacrifices)

Grand Slams defeated                  0                                  1

Opening Suit bids of one            366                              289

Opening 1 No Trump bids          43                               45

Opening forcing bids                      5                               5

Small Slams made but not bid        20                            19
(many owing to lucky breaks)

Games made but not bid                15                              13
(many owing to lucky breaks)

Successful Contracts                     273                             273

Defeated Contracts                       142                             162

Number of exact game Contract      48                            49
voluntarily bid and defeated

Number of Penalties of 600 plus       7                            14

Points lost in Penalties of 600 plus    5,900                    11,500

Aces                                                   1,745                     1,771

Kings                                                  1,775                     1,771

Honor Tricks                                     3,649                     3,648

Points (4-3-2-1)                                  18,091                    17,898

Value of average rubber:                     899
Hands dealt:                                       879
Hands passed out:                              25

Coverage by the press of the nation was stupendous. Stories about the match were on the front pages of newspapers all over America. Regular correspondents were dispatched to the scenes of play, and some of the great newspaper personalities of the time wrote articles for their papers and for syndicates. The Associated Press laid heavy cables right into the Culbertson apartment at the Chatham Hotel, assigned reporters to the match and gave play-by-play coverage while Western Union and Postal Telegraph established branches in a spare room.

A continuous line of the rich and famous moved into the drawing room and out of it, viewing the action through cracks in a large leather screen, and trying to catch a glimpse of the players’ faces or the flash of a card being played. Culbertson called it the greatest peep show in history. A 438-page book, Famous Hands of The Culbertson-Lenz Match, was published in three sections with bidding and play analyzed by Culbertson and his partners, Jacoby, and Lt. Gruenther. Complete statistics were collated, and records of every phase of the match carefully kept. However, the single most significant feature of the entire proceedings was the enormous impetus it gave bridge when the game’s popularity was already great.