Leaderboard

I play it as a general invite to 4♠. Doesn't say anything about hearts.

I do not subscribe to the theory that if we were bidding over a pass we should bid over a double (and bid the same thing). For instance, we would often respond on a subminimum hand to keep the auction open/perhaps steal from the opps, both of those are unneccessary reasons to bid now. This does not just include hands like QT9xx Jxxx x xxx which are subminimum responses that might have game in a major or at least a better spot than diamonds, to me it includes a hand like Qxxx Qxxx xx Qxx which is a normal response but a normal pass when they X imo. That said, this time we have a good hand and I see no reason not to bid 1S.

I think that 5C is a good bid. It's possible we miss a slam, but it is extremely hard to investigate slam with this hand. I don't think that there is any reasonable auction that makes me want to play 3NT, so that's not an issue either. On the other hand, it is quite likely that the opponents will be in the auction and either bid over 5C when it is right, or will be able to defend better after a competitive auction to 5C.

Actually they were not. If you change your password on half a dozen systems every week, you need to learn 6 passwords every week. After a few weeks you will start to mix them up or you will start to invent some systemic change. e.g. use the same password, with the number of the week in the end or you will violate rule 4 and write them down. So rules 1 and 2 force you to violate rules 3 and 4. Does changing the password help? No really. Assume it takes 7 days to try all possible passwords, and assume that you change the password at the end of day 1. If your password was hacked at day 1, the damage was already done. If it was not hacked, than changing the password has a 6 to 1 chance that the new password is still in the set that hast to be tested. So changing the password will not slow down that hack in 6/7 of the cases. Obviously changing the password will help more if it happens at the end of the 7 day period. If your password is created in a way that it takes much longer than 7 days to hack you will hardly ever benefit from the change. But ... if you change your system settings in a way that only on login try is allowed in 15 minutes, hacking an insecure 4 digit password will on average take 5000 times 15 minutes which is about 21 hours. Allowing one try every millisecond will allow the hack to be done in about 1.25 seconds. So if these guys where really aware of security, they would have allowed you to pick a long password that you can remember and implemented a slow login retry. This would allow you to follow rules 1,3 and 4. As to rule 4, if you write down your password and put the paper with the password into a locked drawer of your desk. It can usually only be accessed by someone who is allowed to enter your office. If your office is inside an access restricted area, the risk from writing down your passwords is very small. In fact if you are able to use a password that is longer and more complicated, by writing it down the fact that it is more difficult to hack can over compensate for the small risk of writing it down.

i hear it's this guy

Well the system does serve one purpose: the number of one-liners and flames has been reduced because some of those people who would otherwise post one-liners now can just up- or downvote. So the threads get less contaminated. And threads that show up in the "new content" are likely to have real new content. Before the voting system, many of the new posts were one-liners.

I think you should write it yourself.

I think partner should do more than just bid 1NT. 2♣ seems reasonably descriptive - a good hand, no club stop, not primary spades, and nothing extra to show in a red suit. But I'd have overcalled 1♠ and probably played it there.

+1, and a hell of a guy. Thanks for posting, Phil. [And Justin, while what you say is true, this is B/I, and there are definitely things that B/I can take away from the hand, such as: 1) Phil's card T1 should be count, as explained in the note. Maybe the count card didn't help Mark here, but on another hand it might be crucial. 2) Mark's unblock was extremely thoughtful. Preserving communication to partner is important (in particular, a mistake I see a lot is: "oh, mine's not high, so I'll pitch it.") 3) With the preempt on his left, declarer should take a better line in trumps. Moreover, he's going to lose at least one trump due to his anemic holding, and losing it earlier is often preferable to losing it -- and control -- later. 4) When drawing opps' trumps with a solid holding, cash them from the bottom up, so partner knows what's going on. [i didn't know this was standard, so thanks Justin]. 5) When declarer missteps and now is at risk of having trumps drawn, he should do what he can to attempt to retain control (in this case, not cashing his diamonds). Anyway, I think this is a nice hand. Nothing brilliant, but the defense just did the things it was supposed to, and you're generally rewarded for that in club games.]

The recommended method is to ask what he meant by the insufficient bid. Despite what you say, we have a Law many of us think dreadful but whether we do or not we have to apply it. If the WBFLC has decided that an insufficient bid has a meaning we have to live with that. So we have to find out the meaning and use it as part of our ruling. You don't like it? Neither do I, but liking the Laws is not relevant to applying them correctly.

I discussed the hand with a few players, who thought it was quite plausible that West would pass if told 3♣ was Ghestem. I asked NS what sort of playing strength they could have for Ghestem bids, and North said that although he played "weak or strong" in other partnerships, he wasn't sure he had a firm agreement in this one. I didn't think he would pass over 3♥, the players' favoured call was double, after which they thought that South would bid 4♣, and this would be passed out. I tried prompting them to bid 5♣, or for EW to double 4♣ (not obvious, in my view, but worth considering), but they all thought it unlikely. Therefore I adjusted the score to 4♣(N)-5. I will doubtless be criticised (and quite right, too) for failing to give a weighted score: West might have bid 4♥ either immediately or over 4♣, someone might have doubled 4♣, or bid to 5♣ and been doubled, and made a different number of tricks. Another source of confusion would be North's double to South. You can all pontificate as much as you like about what it ought to mean, but I am pretty sure these players would have no idea (as I don't) what a double by a pre-emptor opposite a passed partner should mean.

This is not a case of guessing what the problems are. IE's breakage of standards is well documented and objectively verifiable.

Good luck for you all!

Sorry if this subject has been hashed out before, no doubt it has. I was stumped what to do here. I'm primarily curious what 'standard expert' is but if you have a specific nonstandard agreement (maybe double or 3N,) do share. All red, IMPs ♠T62 ♥J6 ♦KJT4 ♣AQ93 P - P - 1♠ - 3♥ ? Edit: Hmmm, unanimous conservatism so far. If you're a 3♠ bidder are you also a 3♠ bidder with JT6 62 in the majors?

Yes, I meant that the 4135 hand is a 4♠ bid, regardless of what you call it. With four-card support and a singleton heart, I'd nearly always bid game. In deciding whether to bid 3♠ or 4♠, you have to take into account what the opponents might do or what they might make. If you bid 3♠ on a 3244 11-count and the next hand bids 4♥, you can double and expect them to go down. If you bid 3♠ on a 4135 shape and the next hand bids 4♥, you're going to bid 4♠ anyway. There's a good chance that this will happen, so it's better to bid 4♠ immediately and make life harder for the opponents.

Another rough hand. With your hand you are stuck over 3♦, but I think a temporizing 3♥ call would be better than 4♣. You still have interest in 3N, and don't want to bypass it if you can avoid it. The cuebid in an auction like this is the only non-committal call below 3N, and is generally used as a catchall for a lot of hands lacking a stopper but still interested in 3N if partner has one. I guess this could be considered a Western cue situation. 4♣ here should be 5-5 usually, and with your partner's hand I probably would have raised to 5♣, which ironically has chances, but is significantly inferior to 5♦. Even 5♦ is on the diamond finesse on best defense, or if it's offside with bad defense still on setting up enough spade pitches in time. I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but I might wind up in 3N on this hand if I was feeling a little like Brad Moss... Otherwise over 3♥, West would bid 4♦, and that'd probably end the auction.

I could X but then somebody will probably call the director. :)

Since partner doesn't bypass 4+S, I have 2S now as a GF usually with Hearts needing honor(s), letting 3H be good suit.

Maybe I am alone but I rather dislike the restriction in the search engine that requires each searched word to contain at least 4 (is it 4?) characters. Not to be able to include (say) 1N or 1NT as a word in the search field I find irritating. No doubt there are good reasons for it, but I remember a time when you could do this, so what has changed? Of course I agree that to have ONLY 1N or 1NT as the search criterea would be absurd. But to deny it altogether as one of several?

Actually they were not. Conscious, yes... smart, no.

Rejoice. Shubi lives: http://www.bridgebas...opic/46417-tst/ I confidently expect the quality of posts to rise imminently. (I have low aspirations. My goal is to reach "Excellent")

Err... nearly everyone?

Actually they were not. They were very conscious of security, but not actually secure. Those signs evidently eased the concerns of some managers.

"If we had our way, there wouldn't be any users!" -- US Navy LT, assigned to NSA, at a conference on computer security.

Reminds me of a time I did some contracting for a company in Atlanta and needed a half dozen passwords to get at the various systems involved. Huge red-on-white signs hung in every room: 1. Use a different password for each system! 2. Change your passwords every week or lose your privileges! 3. Never use the same password twice! 4. Never write down your passwords! They were very security conscious. <_<

Many.

I don't "get" the multiple downvoting of this thread: http://www.bridgebas...rious-students/ Rain has already posted that commercial advertisements are allowed. I have absolutely no knowledge of the tutor concerned. It may be that those who are voting him down do have inside knowledge. Purely on the strength of the content of the post, however, it would not occur to me to vote it down. I might decide not to take up his offer, but hey, it's an open market. It is not as if he has concealed either his credentials or his charging structure. I might be persuaded that downvoting is not so great an idea, if this is how it will turn out. [EDIT 2011-06-17 00:04 BST (=GMT+1)] At the time of posting, the linked thread had a vote count of -3 for the OP and -2 for the first response

Because while it's obvious what the law is intended to say, it actually says something different. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. A player who would have been better off with a ruling which follows the letter of the law has legitimate grounds for complaint against a ruling which doesn't. IOW, what dburn's signature says :)

OK, I can accept that, and therefore it needs the Law to read: Until he has played a card to that trick, declarer may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. Until a defender's partner has played a card to that trick, a defender may also change an unintended designation. And while the law as interpreted may work fine, that does not mean improving it is not worthwhile. Which presumably is the purpose of this section of the forum?

The problem with Ghestem is that pairs are permitted to keep it on their convention card even when both halves of a partnership have never remembered they were playing it on the same hand. Even if there were a mechanism for reporting it, most players would feel slightly churlish calling the director to do so in the middle of writing down the +800 that is the routime result of opponents' Ghestem. But one time in maybe 10, the Ghestem players will manage to land on their feet (generally when there was a misbid and not a misexplanation). The opponents are never able to untangle the auction and get a bad result, and can get no recourse even though it is highly quetionable whether the opponents can be said to have been playing Ghestem.

Hi, my name is OneDown and some of you may know me from my Fireside sessions on The BIL while others know me from way back, when I was teaching and running a school on Okbridge. I have been teaching for over 30 years and playing for almost 50 years. I am looking for 2 or 3 serious students, Novice to Intermediate and even Advanced, even Pairs, who really want to build a solid foundation and improve their bridge. I will teach SAYC, 2/1 and my system called SANE. But most important I am going to teach you foundation, regardless of system. Are you looking to learn and play bridge as a long term committment? Has your play hit a wall, and you don't know where to turn"? Do you understand a system does not make a player? Are you prepared to learn and study bridge for 4-6 hours a week? Has your partnership not gone in the direction you hoped? Would you like to learn in a Group format with friends? Whether you are from North or South America, Europe or Asia I can work our a schedule of lessons and learning to fit your time frame. My rates are extremely reasonable at $25 an hour and I can work out affordable packages for you. Your lessons will include: Online mentoring and play After session email review Skype discussion and review Tournament and Team Play I also love to teach groups. These are fun to do with your friends to learn and have some social interaction and fun at the same time. Group rates run at $15 a person and it is all interactive play and learning. For you advanced players, I also have a 3 part Lebensohl Course I sell for $39.95, done in Word 2007 and full of graphics and detailed learning on the full spectrum of Lebensohl, a MUST for the serious player. If you are interested in any of the above, please respond to this post and I will be in contact with you for an interview on skype or email. BBO references available upon request! regards; OneDown Richard Ternouth

I have known Onedown for 18 months.He is a multi-faceted and highly talented person having many other gifts apart from being an excellent teacher.Having a teaching experience of 30 years,he is the best thing to have happened to my bridge.He belongs to that school which emphasizes on "being sound" - be it bidding,defense or dummy play.Under his able guidance my game has drastically improved in all aspects.His teaching is insightful - he is able to gauge where exactly the student stands very quickly.One of his best qualities is his patience,he is willing to present a concept in different ways till it drives home.You will learn that a system doesn't make a player and whats important is to grasp the underlying principles.You will realize the importance of partnership understanding and trust - to avoid playing HERO bridge i.e. masterminding..His Lebensohl course is really detailed and a must in every modern bridge player's arsenal. I highly endorse the quality of his lessons and his professionalism.

You are a minimum for doubling and bidding, you've shown the sixth spade, you're 6322, and partner invited -- I see no reason to bid on. I pass. What was partner's hand? Were the ♣QJ onside with a club lead?

Extras without four hearts. Something like a 4324 16-count. 3♥ shows four hearts.

You're missing out defenders, who were presumably meant to be included (although in practice I've not seen this law used by them).

J108xx AKx AKx Qx Auction you open 1S p p 2C all pass Your lead?

I would bid 3S. With JTx xx I would bid 4S. 3S is usually bid on a constructive raise to bad limit raise (less than a constructive raise passes). 4H is as gwnn described.

Even thinking of classing 4♥ as a SEWoG is a serious error. After the WJO, partner is under pressure, and as little as Kxxx K10xx xxx xx gives good play for game. I would also ask West why he would have bid differently, but he will no doubt give me a withering look. And as for Oof Arted's idea that North-South can reach 5D after South thinks North has a WJO, I would ask why it would go any differently to (Pass) X (Pass) 4C by South? North should be delighted to play there, opposite a putative x xxxx x Q9xxxxx. And what was the ruling on this one?

GIB - or Deep Finesse, or any other Double Dummy software - is merely an aid. Rulings are given on the TD's view of how the play would or might go, not how a double dummy play will go.

From Chapter One of the Laws: If dummy is declarer's partner, then declarer is dummy's partner.

Perhaps N/S should follow the Laws of bridge and then their opponents will not get rescued by adjustments.

No doubt East did not ask North what 2♣ meant because: [a] North did not alert 2♣; and it was obvious (to East and North at any rate) what 2♣ meant - it showed clubs. South's second-round double was takeout of hearts, so club bids by North and South should be as natural as they would be if the auction had started 1♥ - double - pass - 2♣ (as indeed it had started for practical purposes). East in all innocence cue-bid 3♣, and then the tray went over to the dark side of the screen. There, a profoundly confused South and an even more profoundly confused West contrived to confuse one another even more profoundly by saying and doing some nonsensical things. By his own admission, West was about to pass out 3♣ when it occurred to him to ask South what 2♣ meant. It was perhaps fortunate for West that he did so, for upon hearing South say that 2♣ was a cue bid (despite not having alerted it), West felt on firmer ground in leaving East in 3♣. That South gave West MI because of some discussion involving the meaning of 3♣ is neither here nor there; the fact is that South did misinform West as to the meaning of 2♣, and West was damaged thereby (had South correctly explained 2♣ as natural, West would not have passed out 3♣). One could of course take the view that West's pass of 3♣ was a serious error unrelated to the infraction, but I would not be so inclined; West's pass of 3♣ was certainly a serious error, but West's confusion in passing was directly related to South's infraction in misexplaining 2♣. That West committed an infraction of his own in misexplaining 3♣ is true but irrelevant; it was South's duty correctly to explain 2♣ in the context of his partnership methods, not in the context of some alternate universe that was at least partly of his own making. In short (and, be it said, not for the first time) I find myself in complete agreement with my learned brother bluejak, whose analysis of the position appears to me flawless. I have not troubled to assess in detail his weightings of the various possible outcomes had West bid 3♥; I am sure that they are at least reasonable and very probably better than that.

There was MI by South: there was damage: so an adjustment is suitable. Using Law 12C1D is lazy and unnecessary. West would bid 3♥ over a cue-bid - probably - East might easily bid 4♥. Nine or ten tricks seems the outcome dependent on whether East tries to ruff a spade or discard a diamond. So a weighting between 3♥ and 4♥, nine or ten tricks seems routine.

Which law says so? What we (as directors and committee members) must do is to rule in accordance with the laws and regulations in force.

Discriminating against systems that you don't like isn't one of the design goals of the Laws

Winner! Seriously, I have often been lucky enough to often be in a situation where I was playing some regional KO against a reasonable but not great flight A teams. I would say every single time the biggest factor in beating them was that they were just outgunned in cardplay. Bidding at imps is pretty easy, you try and bid close games and not do anything stupid. If there were a close slam hand or a freak hand, I would not be happy, since if it was just partscores and games we would probably always beat those teams, slams to me just made the match more random. The fact is, if your team is significantly stronger in cardplay, you will be a big favorite in every match, and if you are significantly weaker, you will be a big dog. It doesn't matter whether you open aggressively or not, or preempt aggressively or not, or bid 40 % games or not, none of those things offer much edge. Maybe you are gaining .05 imps a board with a certain bid. On the other hand if you read the cards well and guess a queen better than your opponent, you might be gaining 3 imps in equity on it. It is not even close how much more important card play is. The only really big edge to be had in bidding at imps is slam bidding, but that doesn't come up that often and presumably your opps won't be completely hopeless at it even if they're inferior, so it's just not a big enough edge. If you are ever lucky enough to play a top 8 seed in the spingold, I think it will be painfully obvious to you that the reason you lose is because your opponents are not making mistakes in the cardplay, and it's winning them a lot of game (and maybe partscore) swings. That is the bread and butter of knockout matches. I find it laughable that anyone thinks they will come away from that experience thinking "Wow, I just got outbid!" or "80 % of the imps I lost were in the bidding :(" And that is imps, MPs is even more about taking tricks. There are 2 reasons people like to think bidding is 80 % of the game. 1) As has been said here, maybe when the blue team played the aces, or the diamond team plays the fleisher team, 80 % of the swings were bidding because their card play was near perfect. I can accept that, but that is only because they are at the very highest level and they all play the hands very well. This does not apply to you if you are not on one of the top 10 teams in the country. 2) Cardplay is harder to improve in, and it is more boring and concrete. Bidding on the other hand you can change your system all the time, make a few things more optimal, and really feel like you are making big improvements to your game. It is also more fun. It is just people lying to themselves. It is the same reason that almost all threads are about bidding and not play, no one can be proven wrong in a bidding thread, and people can debate it endlessly. On a cardplay thread we just get rainer posting the solution and everyone nodding...not that conducive to discussion, or being able to hold a view and keep thinking that you're right! It is the same reason that bridge teachers even at the lowest level teach bidding classes rather than play classes, and *cringe* teach conventions. People want to come away from a lesson feeling like they learned something, like they made some tangible gain. Going home and saying "look, I know kickback, it's going to save me so much room!" is a lot more rewarding than saying "well we went over some hands and I counted winners and losers and figured out what to do with my losers, blah, basically the same stuff I already knew..." As roger said, there is no shortage of people who WANT to believe that bidding is 80 % of the game, unfortunately it is more like 10 %.

Sorry but you've got this totally wrong. The question is whether "defend undoubled" is a possible outcome, i.e. whether you are setting up a forcing pass. If you open a weak hand at the 3-level you are definitely willing to let your opponents play an undoubled contract.

If you were inspired to anticipate pards 4 diamond bid MIGHT be natural. you could bid 4 spades and if it is a cue for hearts say sorry, I thought my QJ was the K, either worth it or I'm dyslexic. If a casual partnership, pard should cut you some slack either way. If a regular partnership, 1 lil ole disaster solves the proiblem forever more if you can discuss it calmly. Well worth the price, including if you can't have a calm post mortem, find a new partner. Likely the case as the 2 heart suggested re-bid is from a different planet as is the 5 heart raise! Change your name to Fourdown?

I hope the OP can edit his hand to show 13 cards. Anyhow, OP's pd should be wary of raising to 5 with a void.

The problem was in no agreement as to what 4♦ means, obviously. Arguing about the merits of 2♥ or 3♥ is silliness, missing the point.