Leaderboard

Hello I have been posting my queries at this forum and get excellent responses. And very prompt too. Great to learn and improve. I usually post a specific problem/hand with full details of my own as well as as pd's and opps' skill level, vul (Red/White), scoring (IMPs/MPs), Leads, etc. This helps the Experts here to respond to the query in specific terms. And I have found this Forum extremely useful. I would feel its very difficult for them to be able to generalise their comments/answers that fit every problem or specific situations that we Beg/Int often find ourselves in. Sometimes I feel my queries are so basic that it would seem silly to even post them here, but the responses are so detailed in every case, its really heartening. Just keep posting :) Regards Kamal

I think the main point that you're missing Al is that this is the Watercooler. It's called that for a reason. The watercooler is a place for light discussion. We come here for a brief respite from reading about compound squeezes and esoteric bidding systems to read about types of cheese and to possibly share a fart joke. If you'd like to discuss the effects of farting on global warming then I'm sure the audience would be more receptive.

Play ♣A immediately! If RHO ruffs low you over-ruff and get an additional ruff in dummy, If RHO does not ruff low you discard a ♠ from hand. Next play ♦AK If this passes off, ruff a ♣ and play ♦Q If LHO follows or ruffs high, discard the ♠8 Next cash your ♠A and play the rest as a cross ruff by ruffing ♠ first in dummy. If LHO ruffs the ♦Q low, over-ruff and ruff a third ♣ in hand and ruff your last ♦, high if RHO is out of ♦. Next cash the ♠A and play a fourth ♣ from dummy. Opponents will be helpless. They get either 3 trump tricks or if they can draw a round of trumps 2 trump tricks and a side suit trick. This line looses only against some fairly unlikely layouts: LHO needs to have a singleton or void in ♦ and either both small trumps or LHO has a singleton small trump and RHO the ♠K. But it wins against other trump distributions, including 4 trumps with East. It does not matter who has the ♠K for this line Unless LHO has ♥105 in trumps, LHO will not be able to ruff a early ♦ round and then draw 2 rounds of trumps. He can not have AKx in ♥ and open 3♣. Say LHO ruffs the second ♦ and cashes one high heart. His best play now is a ♠. You win with the ♠A and ruff a ♣ to discard the ♠8 on the ♦Q. Rainer Herrmann

I just read this entire thread. I can save any new readers some time, here it is in brief. - Climate change is not bad, in fact it's good. - No, it's bad. - No, it's pretty good. - Actually it's great!! - No, it's bad. Really, really bad. - Blah, blah, blah. - Al is a troll. - Blah, blah, blah. - Blah, blah, blah. Okay, I may not have read every post but I stand by my rendition.

The Nickell team which had been so dominant was slowly declining (likely due to tougher competition), and had a disastrous 2010...for the first time in their history winning no nationals, and not winning the trials or world championships (that said, they were 2nd in the Rosenblum). This year they haven't won anything, including not qualifying for the bermuda bowl for the first time in forever. I don't think it's about anything like Zia being a solo artist, it is simply that they haven't had good results and that always causes changes to be made, this is true of all teams in all sports. It was natural that it would be Levin and Weinstein as the replacements since they're so hot and probably in their prime right now. It was natural that the change would be made to the Hamman-Zia partnership since Meckwell are in or near their prime still, and one of the best pairs in the world (and just won the Europeans).

I have just returned from Poland (european open championships) where I bought a book on Polish Club WJ05 A modern version of the Polish Club - written by Krzysztof Jassem translated into English bu Daniel J Neill After reading it a couple of times I concluded that there was no mention of how to open 4414 hands - particularly in the range 12-17 HCP A 1D opener shows 4+ diamonds 1Ma shows 5 cards in the major 1C is either a weak no trump or 18+ or a 15-17 hand with 5 clubs Have I missed something ? What do WJ05 players open with 4414 hands in the range 12-17? thank you in advance for your replies regards Brian Keable alias "the biker"

[hv=pc=n&n=s4ha9752dk8642cak&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1spp]133|200[/hv] What's your plan? And what do you do?

[hv=pc=n&s=s4h93dkj8653caqt2&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sp]133|200[/hv] What is your plan with this hand? We DO play 3♦ shows the invitational hand with good 6 card suit .. but I'm not sure this is the right hand for it. Ragged diamonds and most of your values in clubs. Partner rates to have a fistful of major suit cards. Are you bidding 3♦ anyway? However if you respond 1NT, what are you bidding over 2♣? What about 2♠?

[hv=pc=n&n=shak9dkq7654caj53&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d4spp]133|200[/hv] 1) is double from North for take out, or penalties? 2) what do you choose to bid when 4S is returned to you?

so, let's see. you start off by telling us that we are not helpful. then you present a ridiculous problem without a clear question about the hand, and finish with a very generally stated question: People then tell you that the problem is not the play, but the poor bidding and that is the aspect that needs to be improved on this particular hand. After this you snap back at everyone? Gee. Why would anyone want to actually help you with you being an aggressive ingrate? Incidentally, I just checked your self-stated level on BBO, and you claim to be advanced there, so I really don't know what your agenda making this post was. Anyone who thinks they are advanced really should be able to see what the issue with this hand is. To answer your general question: we do not like to focus on such contracts because bridge with random clueless partners on BBO is not the way to try to improve or enjoy your game. The best advice anyone can give in that situation is to tell you to find a proper partner and stop moaning about hopeless contracts when you choose to play with clueless and lazy people.

When I did that, all I learnt was that I wasn't as good as I thought I was, and that bridge is better if you're allowed to play negative doubles.

Partner obviously holds wasted values in spades, so 4♥ is enough. Hard to believe he also has clubs that can hold the suit to one loser. And if he does have that much he'll probably bid again. And yes, with game cold in your hand this a clear 2♣ opener.

I prefer to play double as values and 4NT for take-out over 4S but I recognise that this is a minority position. As Free suggests the correct call will depend on agreements.

I recall the ideal arrowswtich arrangements are something like once for up to 8 tables, twice for 9-12. Whatever. Next week I'm running a social 12-table competition between 2 clubs. They expect to play pairs from the other club so Club A will take NS & Club B EW. I think they'll play 11 x 2. Does it make sense to have more arrowswitched rounds?

When 12-14 I think it is clear to open 1♣. When 15-16 you won't have a rebid over partner's 1NT response so maybe better to open 1NT. When 17 I would open 1♣. You can raise to game if p responds 1NT. If you open 1NT you could easily have missed a major suit game if it is passed out.

Partner opens 1♣ I bid 1♠ Partner bids 3♣ How many points does this show? I say 15-17 Partner thinks 18-19 Opinions please Thank You

Depends. If your objective is to compare performance of pairs regardless of which club the belong to then you should stick to the normal guidelines. If your objective is to make internal comparison for each of the two clubs separately then you should not arrow switch. If your objective is to compare the two clubs then you could make two mitchells of equal size, one with club A players NS and the other with club A players EW, and then for each board convert the difference between the average total points in the two mitchells to IMPs. You can do this twice with the club A players from mitchell 1 swapping with the club A players from mitchell 2 after the coffee break so everyone gets to play everyone from the other club. If you chose the latter solution then there is no arrow switch.

Transfer preempts are a stupid idea but work, because people have no agreements how to deal with bad conventions. It is usually quite safe to enter the bidding with a direct DBL of the bid suit and this should therefor be the most frequent way to compete. Double of the minor suit bid by the preemptor should not be used to show the suit, which is a waste of this useful bid. It should either show a minimum takeout double short in preemptor's suit or an optional double, more or less a balanced opening hand (3NT is in the picture) with support for the unshown major(s). This is more important than showing a minor suit below preemptor's suit. Only if the preemptor shows a ♠ preempt with 3♥ should DBL show a real ♥ suit. Cuebidding preemptor's real suit should show a distributional strong takeout or a very strong hand. Passing then doubling preemptor's real suit should also be optional, but the minimum strength is higher, more penalty oriented with less support for the majors. A typical hand would be a balanced strong hand with no stopper in preemptor's suit. Do not DBL with a hand where you have stack in preemptor's suit when 3NT is not in the picture. Doubling first and then doubling again shows a strong balanced hand with support for the unshown major(s). Partner can choose to defend. This West hand would not be strong enough to DBL twice. Over transfer preempts a 3NT overcall should be stronger, because a delayed double can show a minimum balanced 3NT overcall over standard preempts. So West with support for the majors has in my opinion a clearcut DBL of 3♣. Even though West has only a doubleton in ♣, this is quite a safe way to enter the auction. East should respond with a ♦ cuebid to end in the better major suit game. That's why transfer preempts are a stupid idea. They are also more dangerous. I would have much more sympathy for West's inaction if South would have shown a ♦ preempt by bidding 3♦! Rainer Herrmann

Here is what I think: I think dummy ought to be executed. First daylight, riffles, bang. :angry: I don't think there could be redress though. The causal relation to the concrete defensive error is too weak. Unless there is more to it than what is described in OP. On the other hand I think penalty points are justified. Unfortunately directors tend not to realize this.

I think everyone would like to be excused.

Long before that, Abraham and Sarah were married, but I think Adam and Eve were just shackin'.

When the new forums were created, there was a suggestion made that there should be three, not two, level-based sections that corresponded with pairs of the six self-rating levels in BBO: Beginner/Novice, Intermediate/Advanced, and Expert/World Class. I think we should consider this to be a repeat of that request, so that there would be more real beginner-level questions and answers. In another thread, there was a discussion as to whether GIB plays better than "the average BBOer". Most frequent Forum posters don't play with "the average BBOer"; they're high-level tournament players who would probably be surprised to hear that probably 10% (yes, that's a guesstimate) of players in the Free Express Fun games, for example, think that OP's partner made a perfectly reasonable double and would do it themselves. It would be nice for there to be a really beginner section.

I like this a lot. My favourite partner and I play these same 4-level bids over 1NT openers, but have never considered whether to play them over 1NT overcalls (at lower levels we play natural takeouts).

I think it should be. I have seen declarers (including some very good players, who should know better) sit there for several minutes, obviously waiting for a tell from one of the defenders. Remember the Coca-Cola coup? I really think that in sensitive situations declarer should decide what he is going to do before playing a card. I sit there wondering if it will be better if I have a sip of my drink or if I don't, better if I fold my cards and put them on the table or keep them fanned and look at them... the behaviour may not be prolonging the play of the hand as a whole, but it certainly "disconcerts" me, and is definitely unethical and probably illegal. It's a difficult one to ask for a ruling about, though.

Over 1♥, modern players double for takeout, rather than penalties, so partner should have passed.After partner doubled, your choice of call is more controversial. Some would agree with your invitational jump to 2♠. I would prefer a similar jump to 3♦. Pessimists might bid 2♦. Optimists would cue-bid the opponent's suit 2♥, virtually forcing to game. This is where advice from the likes of JLOGIC is especially valuable.The play in 2♠ is challenging. After your successful finesse of ♥Q, ruffing a diamond might work but but my inclination would be to lead trumps immediately; and after that lead them whenever the lead is in your hand. After the first round, you would remove two enemy trumps for each one of yours -- usually a good strategy.

IMO, it can be an exposure of psyche in some situations. If some players frequently psyche a major suit at 3rd seat when white, there gotta be a way to play that suit.

Defence is good and the suits aren't, so I would double.

6NT is a good contract. I don't see the point of introducing a 3-card suit at the four level with a bid that might be misunderstood on the off chance that you're cold for 7... but you can play as you please.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Is this Desperate Housewifes ?

Assuming you would open: ♠xx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣AQJxxx (rule of 20) and presumably rebid 2♣ then an extra King somewhere should make it worth a 3♣ bid. And if you hold... ♠x ♥Kxx ♦Axx ♣AKQJxx then the auction would probably go 1♣-P-1♠-P-3NT I've never played reserve to diamonds as a special uber-strong club suit so I can't speak for that.

Put me in the doubling camp. As mentioned, if partner passes, you're in good shape. 2♥ is too much of an underbid. Partner's likely to bid either 1NT or 2♣ and over that you can bid 2♥. The problem with 2♠ is that your handle is in the middle. With Michaels should you either be very weak or game forcing. Your hand has 5 losers and you won't know if you've found a fit when partner responds so you won't know if you should bid on or just pass.

It's illegal here in Ontario Canada as well. Funny story (at least I think it's borderline hilarious) - back when I was in university some friends and I had been out at a local watering hole. I was rather quite drunk and whilst walking home I decided that my friends shouldn't be walking, they should be taking a cab. Much to my delight a few moments later a "cab" went driving by. Two minorly unfortunate things were: a) I hailed the cab with the hand that was holding the bottle of beer that I'd smuggled out of the bar and b) what the drunken idiot thought was a cab was actually a police car. It wasn't even an unmarked car, it was a fully identified, lights on the top police car. Anyway, the fine at the time for drinking in public was $63.75 which was a small price to pay for such a fond memory of getting a ticket on the lovely main street in Waterloo, Ontario.

This is absolutely crazy, west has an obvious bid over 4H, and it is not a save, it is to make. I mean east had an absolute yarb for this auction with the wasted SK and we're still on a hook, and they often make also... The nebulous diamond didn't matter after east Xed 2H. Imagine if east had his bid and had a heart void or a good/useful hand. West can make slam opposite very little. Double game swings galore. Etc etc. But yeah, change your system so that west can bid with that hand.

Looks like a double. This hand defends quite well facing long spades and potential H ruffs. Over partner's 2C, I'd pass. Over 2D or 2H, I may raise. Of course, I may miss some 5-3 H fit, which isn't a big deal comparing with the possible gain of 1S x I think. Of course, 2H is a second choice. It may be bad when partner holds little values and no H fit. However, if partner can bid more over 2H, it is actually not bad. 2S may get us to the right suit, but wrong levels.

I often feel, perhaps wrongly, that many players and directors arbitrarily define "in tempo" as "2-3 seconds" or something close to that. If it usually takes you 4-5 seconds to decide what to do, then "in tempo" for you is 4-5 seconds. There's also the question, whatever the normal tempo is, how much variation is permitted. ± one second? Two? I think you don't get into "not in tempo" much before ± 3-4 seconds, but I suppose that's also subject to debate, and may depend on the particular circumstances. Of course, there's also the question of how accurate players' time sense is. To which my usual answer is "not very". B-)

I had feeling that cue bid in protect seat is GF, or certainly pretty close to it. Not sure this hand qualifies?

It's illegal in most of the United States.

Double. Pass isn't forcing here (for me anyway), and partner could have shown a good game raise via a different route, so slam looks remote.

The problem is that the OP wants to play 2/1 GF, so he would need to include lots of stronger hands in responder's 1NT. I don't think that weak NT and 2/1 GF can work, really. Weak NT and 5-card majors is by far my favourite system. I can also try to explain if you tell what your problems are. I just play strong NT in 3rd, at teams, with some partners. This should be enough -- to be honest, I have just started doing this, and didn't really have any problems before. You would be amazed at how often 4th hand rescues you.

I think that GIB has played too much bridge and burned itself out. It could probably use a one- or two-week vacation.

15-18 typical. Some fourteens. One should have a way to bid a 3cc hand that is "too strong" for 3c. Popular around here is either 1c-1Y-3N or 1c-1Y-2N=GF with several options.

For simple hand generation you can write your own. If you need speed, for rare hand-types, most of us are going to be better off with one of the published ones. And if you want an interface with a double-dummy solver, you better be really good with piping your output to gib, or use one of the published ones. I've been happily using the thomas andrews deal software for some time. Bookmarking a TCL manpage, for syntax on loops and simple math, is a help, in addition to the documentation for the builtin commands. The learning curve was steep but short.

In the Netherlands you have "Partnership contracts" and you have "registered partnership", both of which are light-weight marriage-like contracts. But you also have marriage, which is a concept that has been around for thousands of years and exists in all cultures. Which is in itself a big advantage. Foreign authorities know what it means. I think these alien concepts of "registered partnership" create some confusion. Foreign authorities, and even some locals maybe, could be confused about what it means. Are my "partner"'s children also my children, for example.

I have some trouble here understanding these 4m as fragment bids. What do you bid with 64 majors? I would take the 4m as shortness (doesn't matter which way they are) but I would take it as slam invite in the longer major. But maybe it could work to assume that the shortness can be bid with a hand like this and other minor can still be a playable strain, ie. 3NT - 4♦ - 4♠ - 5♣ - 6♣ - 6♥ - 7♣ might be a possible sequence. I don't know, do you handle your 64s other way?

Some people might think 4♣ is ace asking. I like Hanoi's auction. I tried to uprave it but it said I've reached my maximum quota of positive votes for today... but I haven't made any yet. The only way I see of to arrive in 7♣ would be: 1NT-2C 2D-3S (or 3H Smolen) 3NT-5NT 6C-7C Of course 5NT might land you in 7NT which isn't a terrible contract, although 7♣ is better. You probably take 5♠, 5♣, 2♥ and 1♦ assuming the J♠ falls or they go 3-3. Or you might do well with the opening lead... maybe 9♦ (top of nothing) to the queen and you have 12 tricks off the top. You could easily play AK♥, run the clubs, and cash the A♦ for an automatic squeeze in the major suits and you don't lose the possibility of 3-3♠ or the J falling.

I agree with Helene. It's the state's job to provide infrastructure. This is not only the visible infrastructure (roads, etc.) but also legal infrastructure. I think it is entirely appropriate for the state to provide "default contracts" for situations that arise frequently. A legal marriage is one of those situations. And the mere fact that the state provides one or more default contracts doesnot pass a moral judgement. It is only supposed to make sure that these default contracts "fit" the rest of the legal infrastructure properly. Any two (or more) parties are free to enter their own contract, but it doesn't come with a guarantee from the government. If there ever is a high demand for contracts between 7 people, a cat, an iguana and an apple tree, it is the state's job to provide fitting contracts. At this point there is a significant demand for contracts between two people of the same sex. It is the state's job to provide the default contracts that fit the existing legal infrastructure. If the state doesn#t do this job, it is not serving its citizens the way it should. Rik

For the B-I forum, the auction by Hanoi5 is the one I would expect (or at least hope, since with the 10s in the long suits that hand is worth 19 in my estimation). In order to find the club grand slam, you need a few partnership agreements, as kenrexford showed.

I would balance 3♣. I don't play good-bad (and don't want to), but I do have a firm agreement with partner that all responder's balances in new suits are nonforcing. Even reverses or at the three-level.

1N-2♣ 2♦-3♥ 3N-6N After such start it is hard to find the club grand-slam.

Since this thread seems to be a good place for academic bragging, I'd like to note that I got a PhD position in the Netherlands and I'll start in September :)