Leaderboard

Your general point is good, but I think it's an overbid calling these bids "psyches". A psyche is a GROSS deviation from agreements, while the examples of poor 3♠ bids have just been small deviations in suit quality.

[hv=pc=n&w=sahj432dkt5ckqt53&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2sd4sppp]133|200[/hv]

I'd bid 3♥. At the time that you thought that, you expected that you would be able to show six hearts, whilst dividing your hands into at least three strength ranges. Now not all of those options are available to you. Even if you have the rest of the auction to yourselves, you will still only be able to describe two strength ranges - game-forcing and not game-forcing. If you start with double and LHO bids 4♠, you will no longer be able to show six hearts. Hence you may be facing the choice between showing (1) game-forcing with 5+ hearts, and (2) constructive+ with 4+ hearts. If all the hands that were originally not worth a game-force go into the second group, it makes that category very ill-defined. To reduce that problem, it's better to game force on some hands that aren't quite worth it. Because it's better to play transfers, and easier to devise generic methods

The problem here seems to be that your partner exposed all 13 cards of his hand as declarer, making the defence double dummy. If partner had not exposed his hand, it might have been harder for the defender with the doubleton diamond to envisage the diamond ruff. If I were you, I'd advise my partner to hold his cards up in future. Marginal bidding decisions should be of lesser concern.

My alleged thought process: When pard opened 1D, my responding hand would be comfortable up to the 3-level inviting hearts. The only negative feature at that time was the singleton in pard's opening. After RHO bid 2S, there doesn't seem to be anything about my initial evaluation which would cause an upgrade. The 3 small spades could be good or could be bad; the opps don't have to have a spade fit. 3H is forcing beyond 3H, whether forcing beyond 4m or not, and I don't want to do that. A negative double here, would express the desire to be at least at the 3-level, so I make a negative double. Will follow up with 3H if available, or a second double if 2S is raised and it comes back around.

Until I read the Hog's post I'm just going with 3S.

I'd show an invitational raise. It's hard to vote when we don't know what your methods are.

This is a fit jump if you are a passed hand because nothing else makes sense. Fit jumps are a good description of your hand when you get them. I use this bid as natural and forcing, because I play 2♦ as non forcing. But as a passed hand it is fit jump. Raises to the 4 level are fit jumps, with more shape.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=English+teacher seems to be in the same error. I know it's not the Alpha and Omega of dictionaries but at least it serves to show that I am not alone.

Just another night on BBO, but what say you? Pick-up partner, we W v R: (1♠) X (2♣) ? ♠K93 ♥KJ9653 ♦2 ♣T83 This isn't a "look at how bad people are" question, I only want to know if my reading and actions were reasonable, so please look at it in a way that you would expect and not looking for a catch. Thanks in advance Simon

Hi Guys, Playing a fairly constructive vul 3♠ opening, should you, or are you allowed to remove partner's 3NT with certain ♠ holdings?

I think that if there are disagreements that are not cleared in the laws between behaviours that there should be a clarification or new law that sets it - which is, of course, why this is here. I think, Cascade, that if you pulled that "I'm just leading in natural tempo, you have to play to mine" when it goes play, play, play, pitch - and I suddenly realize I have to find a couple more pitches than I was planning on - and then you're claiming that I'm hitching to the next trick when I'm not done with the last - that when the TD arrives, things are going to be mildly unpleasant. Play at whatever speed you want - so will I. If that means I have to think to the last trick until I'm ready; well, that's my tempo. Yes, there are other places to think - but there are times when one needs to think and one doesn't have control of the trick or any other place to do it - and players should be able to control that tempo should they need it. The fact that the way they normally do it doesn't explicitly by law cause it to happen means that, again, the law needs to be clarified one way or the other. I think that what Vampyr is saying is so common behaviour, throughout the world, that the fact that it's not specifically cited in the Laws as correct behaviour would be surprising to most, and anyone that tried to argue that it is *not* correct behaviour, or more than that, not legal, would be looked at askew, at least. The same goes for the "okay, you've seen it, I'm putting it away again." You don't get to determine for how long I need to see it to work out what's going on. Some people can only think visually, and without it face up, until it's in their own mental map, no processing can take place. So I think you'll get the "No, I said I'd like to see the trick" response from me and others until you leave it available for me to see until *I* don't need it any more.

For a typical hand like 7-3-2-1, 7-2-2-2, 7-3-3-0, I think one should usually pass 3NT. However, for a very distributional hand like QJTxxxx x QJTxx -, I don't really think pass is correct over 3NT (here I would bid 4D). Of course many may not open 3S with this hand, which I think is a major mistake.

Partner is showing something like ♠AKJxx, ♥xx, ♦-, ♣AKJxxx. Pass and call the director re the two club kings.

Isn't opening 4 with a lot of defense worse than opening 3 with a lot of defense?

Well, maybe. One person's opinion does not mean that the EBU will immediately believe it has got it wrong. If you ask "Is it raining?" then I consider that Full Disclosure is covered by the answer "Yes" even if a more correct answer might be "Yes, here, but not in Peru". In general if a person seeks a certain amount of information then Full Disclosure means you give him that information fully, but it does not necessarily mean you should give other information unasked.

Since the comment used the word 'if' and since it was a direct consequence of the posts I think it would be acceptable from anyone else. Therefore it is just as acceptable from Ed who follows the same rules. If someone slows play down in an unacceptable fashion for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent then the TD has the power to deal with it. That has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by not showing his card when asked for a reasonable time: no, he isn't. Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't. The reasons given for these actions are fairly fatuous which is what seems to be winding several other people up. Just to summarise: bad behaviour is controlled by the Laws. Bad behaviour just because a player feels someone else is behaving badly is illegal and unnecessary. Leading to the next trick when the present is not quitted is bad behaviour.

I also think that pass is clear. Might partner have jumped to 3NT with a nice 14?

I would not consider bidding. It's not obvious to me exactly what p needs because I'd be likely to splinter or bid 3H on most hands instead of bid 5S to avoid any ambiguity but whatever it is p is after I don't have it.

typically 5s here asks for heart control to bid 6 so PASS p might have something like AKJx xx void AJTxxxx

That's a good point. Converting a 3-level preempt to 3NT is much more beneficial when it's 3♣ or 3♦, as 5 of the minor might not have any play.

Let's don't create upgrades because they would make the current problem non-existent. Saying 13 is 15 does not make it true.

Perhaps I am missing something, but did the OP not ask for those exceptions? Something about "particular spade holdings" to remove 3NT. If the consensus here is "removing partner's 3NT is your second bad bid of the auction" and then you say "but of course this spade holding would remove", then surely we have advanced the discussion somewhat...?

Partner could also have 9 spades. This is how I would bid with QJT9xxxxx x x xx. What else could I do? The difference here than 1H p 4H p p 4S is that partner cannot preempt over a preempt, so a lot of hands that would be opened 4S but are very weak will pass first.

♠A, I just hope it doesn't give up a trump trick. I have to admit that at the table I would probably lead the ♣K without even thinking about it but after thinking I will try to 1) get off a future endplay and 2) possibly stop a ruff. Of course the dummy might show with ♦AQJx(x) in which case I may regret my choice.

Seems to be a choice between 3H and 4H. I think 3H is probably best with a pick-up, they might be doubling on power.

With no support for partner and 10+ points, it's fairly common to play that the only response to RHO's double is to redouble. You may blast game with a ridiculous one-suited hand or something, but with most strong hands lacking support for partner you start with a redouble to tell partner that our side has most of the points. This means any new suit bid must guarantee fewer than 10 HCP and so can be treated as non-forcing. Not saying this is the perfect way to bid, but it's pretty common and is a decent start for new partnerships and B/I players in general.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry continues his Jerry-Springer-guest diatribes as ABC news reports: Let's see. End Social Security. Eliminate taxes. Rescind healthcare changes. And send the troops to Mexico. Yep, that ought to do it.

2♥ and 3♥ both seem quite reasonable, I think the 6th♥ tips the scales in favor of 3. However, the 2♣ (presumably nf) indicates the ops are likely on a misfit and the blacks lie poorly for our side.

I discounted ♠K but still got agggressive.

That suggestion has great appeal to the free lunch crowd: It's just one more way to get others to pick up the tab for them.

Having steeper income tax rates as we move up the income ladder is one of the few things that I find unambiguously clear. Both in absolute terms and in percentage terms it makes sense for me to pay a higher rate than someone who is struggling to get by, and it makes sense for someone who is very well off, much more so than I am, to pay at a higher rate than I do. I just don't understand the counter arguments. Both life and this country have been good to me, the country needs help, some are in a better position to help than are others. So we should get in and help. There was a letter to the editor this morning from some really smart feller suggesting that those of us who feel this way should just donate money to the government. Very clever. Not. I am happily prepared to do my part. In collaboration with others.

I think its a perfect example how modern "Conservatives" are actually radicals in the Jacobean sense. Burke must be spinning in his grave. Cain's plan calls for 1. Complete elimination of the capital gains tax 2. Complete elimination of the estate tax 3. A completely flat tax on income I am ALL for significant tax code simplification. I'd be happy to see a complete elimination of income tax deductions. (If the government wants to subsidize things - say home ownership, eductation, what have you - its a lot more efficient to do so via direct payment rather than manipulating the tax code). However, there is no reason why this goal can't be achieved in conjunction with a graduated income tax.

This is why I generally try to agree on sound preempts vulnerable, where sound means 2 of the top 3 honors. If partner has honor doubleton, he can count on 7 tricks in the suit, and can then place the contract pretty accurately based on his holdings elsewhere. If you've opened on QJxxxxx, partner COULD have AKx when he bids 3NT, but I wouldn't count on it. It's much more likely that he's expecting you to have most of the control in your suit, and he has the other suits protected. Although if you're non-vulnerable, partner should be aware that your suit could be this bad, so you should probably still trust him.

If u play fairly constructive pre-empts and thats u agreement AND u have opened accordingly, i dont see why u shld. U made u bid and prd made his/hers, why shld u start to second guess u own prds bidding. I cant see nothing good to come from such actions. If u shld have done that on a that particular deal, dont worry about it; in a long run passing must be right.

Kx is excellent to bid 3NT on. Kx Axx Axx xxxxx is an obvious 3NT bid over a vulnerable 3S.

Certainly, but it takes some exotic hand you've pre-empted with. Typical might be QJ 8th which might not play too well in 3NT opposite partner's Kx. Also if you might open with some wild two-suiters, it's reasonable to pull and show your other suit. One consideration is of course whether it's IMPs or MPs. Partner might be holding some rock and bidding 3NT cause it will certainly have same tricks as 4S, it's not usually a big loss, but loss anyways.

In general, when you preempt or open NT, partner becomes the captain. You've described your hand pretty narrowly.

Not sure I agree with South's bidding, but that's not the point of the post. So on to the play problem: I don't see how West has an opening bid without the DK, so I will assume they are playing Roman leads (or he's being tricky) and he has KJT(xx). It seems right to attack their communication suit (diamonds), but first what is their distribution? The club discard makes it likely that East has five of them, so I will play West for 5341 shape and play as follows: Unblock ♦A, lead a club to the ten or ace (see below) and exit the ♦9. West must win this and either give me my heart finesse or exit the last diamond. The latter leads to East leading clubs to my king and getting thrown back in with a club to lead hearts for me, defense getting two diamonds and two clubs. The kicker with this line is that West can cash the ♠A before exiting in diamonds, which gives the defense 1♠ and 2♦ without giving me nine tricks, so I must limit them to one club trick. That means I must guess whether West started with an honor and sky ace on the first round, or whether it's a spot card, which requires a finesse of the ten. AJ9xx Qxx KJTx x is an opening bid in my book, but not everybody's, so I'd have to decide based on opponent and/or table feel.

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 :)