Leaderboard

[hv=pc=n&n=saq62h2djt82caj94&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1d1hd4h]133|200[/hv] Scoring is by total points, but please explain if your decision would be different at IMPs / MP. If you feel it is relevant, a 1NT opening would be 12-14.

Sorry jilly, but I think this is an awful system, and no matter how you play 2NT, it will still be awful. Why do you play this? What are the design goals?

+1 for 2♣...everything else is optional :D...

A low one will work against Qxx-xx and Qxx-xxx too, because declarer will always put the queen up.

I don't think 3D promises 5-5. If you go for the very simple agreement that the cheapest response is used when you have nothing else better to say then 3D becomes the catch-all. We are far more likely to be interested in the 6th heart than he 5th diamond and it leaves the maximum space available for "pass-the-buck" bids before we drop into 3NT.

I actually prefer this double to be optional, that is willing to compete to 3H but happy to defend 2S if partner has something suitable. I think this is more frequent than a pure penalty double and safer should partner actually hold the 6 hearts and out minimum.

I want to play at least play 4♠, and unless he has a super-light opening or all his HCP are in ♥ slam has good chances. IMO you have 3 choices: 2NT or 3NT: showing 4card-support, GF, you are taking the lead, checking about strength and distribution (in some systems 2NT is 2NT-Jacoby, in other systems 3NT has this meaning) 4♥: splinter (your hand is strong enough for a splinter), you are describing your hand and p can judge if slam is possible I dont like 3♣. Though it shows a strong hand with ♣, IMO 3♣ declines support for ♠. How do you want to tell p that you have perfect support for ♠ and that you are short in ♥. Edit: Some systems require that this jump (1♠ - 3♣) shows not more than one looser in ♣, with KJ I have 1,5. My personal choice on this hand: 4♥. Everything told in one bid.

My partner doubled playing 10-12 NT in the auction 1N p 2H 2S once. He had KQJ98 of spades and an ace. A bit of a shot, but I am probably marked with some values as the first guy didn't X 1N and 2S is NF. I had a couple of tricks and we beat it 2. #notalamfordstory. Again, I don't see why a weak NT would be worried about bidding almost ever anyways, without 4 trumps it's unlikely his hand is good enough to compete to the 3 level, and if it was he could just bid... why would he need X to show a fit?

My goal is to have fun. Getting better is means to an end. I expect the intuition part of bidding will come after a lot of practice based on rules. Thanks everyone.

You should assume he has hearts unless they are maniacs.

As opposed to if I passed and they bid 2S showing heart supp and spades?

Most bridge books give advice on advancing an overcall, but they all give examples of no interference by responder. How are advances changed when there is interference by a responder. This is more likely the case. TKS

Mike Lawrence's Complete Book on Overcalls (the revised version) is a good place to start.

This is the worst 4th suit situation so auctions will always be murky here. It's very good to play some smart artificial calls on the previous round to alleviate the problems with this sequence. 3♦ shows 5-5, 3♥ shows 6 cards, 3♠ shows 3-card support and 3NT shows a good stop. opener has to make the least lie if none of these matter, but personally I prefer to show a 6 card major with a 5 card major only if said major is very good. sure playing opposite xx would be tough but that's life. Partner showed a 6th heart and I will play him for that, unless we have a special agreement re: precedence of distortions and 3♥ is the designated lie (something I wouldn't like to have). The problem with 3♠ has been already sketched by fluffy: we have bid already and asked for 3-card support already, to no avail. Rebidding spades here should show a much better suit. This is similar to what I mentioned above about hearts, bidding hearts and then rebidding them shouldn't just show a little waiting move, it should show genuine interest in playing in hearts opposite our most likely holding, a doubleton. 3♠ should also show interest in playing spades opposite partner's most likely holding, which by now is a singleton. I would never rebid 3♥ with something like Kx KJxxx Axxx Jx and I would be sick if my partner did that to me. That would be a 3♠ bid, or if spades are two small and good diamonds then perhaps 3♦. It's nice to know what partner's tendencies are here, but we've been told nothing about such preferences, so yes I would just go with the principle that if I rebid my suit I have interest in playing there opposite a pretty likely holding of partner's and not a fairytale. Finally, if you have a strong opinion about a particular hand, why post it online? I can think of two reasons, one is to educate the common folks on the Advanced/Expert section and one is to seek reassurance and companionship. I think the first one is kind of misguided and the second one is better served if you come out openly and just say it "my partner bid 3N here but I think 3♠ is better, what do you think? I hope you agree with me..." Not that many people post this way, just an idea. Sorry I don't want to be personal here just wondering in general.

If your goal is to be really good at this game, any formulaic approach to deciding what to bid will not work. Reading books by Klinger may not work too well anyway, but that is a separate issue.

An illegal bid?

Basic LTC means: - one trick for a working top honour (AKQ) - three tricks for a side void - two tricks for a side singleton - one trick for a side doubleton A worthless hand is 12 losers so you subtract the tricks from 12 to get the LTC. It is easier, though, to count tricks rather than losers. Say each player has 5 tricks (or 7 LTC if you like). This is 14 losers so you make 24-14=10 tricks. But 5+5=10 is simpler. For some reason, all textbooks go the de-tour via losers instead. The most obvious flaw with this is that a queen carries the same weight as an ace. Modified LTC is the same except that: - a working queen is half a trick - an ace is one and a half trick - a sec ace would be three and a half trick (two tricks for the singleton, one and a half for the ace. This is too much. Count only three tricks. - Some players count a quarter of a trick for working jacks and for queens in doubletons. Even after adjustments it is still flawed, in that: - the number of trumps are not included. - shortness is given the same weight regardless of whether it comes with the long or the short trumps. - shortness is overvalued. 4-2 in two side suits is of course better than 3-3 but it is not a king better, especially if you have only 8 trumps together. I think it is useful when deciding whether to bid game over partner's preempt. Agree that a 3M opening shows give or take 6 1/2 modified LTC (or some such). As responder you try to guess how many of those losers you can cover. It can also be useful when making general game tries after 1M-2M. Agree that 1M-2M 3M* shows give or take 5 modified LTC. If you use unmodified LTC it works reasonably in auctions where both partners use them since overvalued queens in one hand are often balanced by an undervalued queenless hand opposite. However, in auctions like 1NT-2cl 2M-4M? you obviously can't use unmodified LTC since opener has promised a certain number of HCPs, not unmodifed LTCs. Unmodified LTCs don't correlated strongly enough with HCPs to be useful in such auctions. Lawrence/Wirgren proposed short suit totals which is a similar philosofy excpet that they devalue duplicated shortness. A doubleton is not an asset if partner has shortness in the same suit. In contested auctions I don't use mLTC. Two reasons: - Often it is a LOTT decision so mLTC are irrelevant - You will have additional information from the auction such as risks of enemy ruffs, likely bad trump split, likely winning fineses, likely fitting honours. So it all gets too complicated for formalizing. I just try to figure out how many tricks we will lose. If I can;'t figure it out myself I try to show a feature so maybe partner will be able to figure it out.

I do not see game being good if partner has just 3 trumps unless you find a lot of help in your minors. Even facing a 3 card constructive raise the pump would easily spell defeat.

NT or spades hearts? I think hearts.

I know I'd double first time, but I'd have a big problem second round, havin bid 2♣ its so obvious to double again althouh the values are pehaps minimum or sub-minimum

Fixed to include the missing ace! [hv=pc=n&s=saqt4hakq653dj72c&n=sk73ht2dkqt6ckqj6]203|250|Love all, dealer North[/hv] Remember those adventure books where you'd get to pick a story by following the numbers? Here's one from tonight's club game... enjoy. 1) North: You have a choice of 1NT (12-14) or 1D intending to rebid 1NT (15-16). Do you upgrade? If yes, go to 1b. If not, go to 1a. 1a) South: Partner bids 1NT (12-14). Your call is? Go to 2a. 1b) South: Partner bids 1D. You respond 1H and partner rebids 1NT (15-16). Is 2S forcing? Your call is? If 3H, go to 2b. If 2 or 3S, go to 2c. 2a) North: Your partner bids 3H over your 1NT. You bid 3NT. Partner bids 4S. Go to 3a. 2b) North: Your partner bids 3H over your 1NT rebid. Forcing or not? Go to 3a. 2c) North: Your partner bids 2 or 3S over your 1NT. You've only played together once before and have virtually no agreements beyond the basics. You bid 3NT. Go to 4a. 3a) North: Your partner has just bid 4S after jumping in hearts. Your call is? Go to 4a. 4a) North: (possibly after some other bid) Partner bids 6H. This gets passed round to LHO who doubles and this is passed back to you. Your call is? If pass/XX, go to 5. If 6NT, go to 6. 5) LHO leads the ♦A. You make 12 tricks via a ruffing finesse in clubs. :) 6) LHO doubles and promptly leads the ♦A followed by the ♣A. Down one. :( At the table I was North and picked the upgrade. Partner picked 3S over 1NT and jumped to 6H. I ran to 6NT based on "surely partner has the aces, therefore LHO has a stack of hearts and an ace" (plus the possibility of 12 tricks without needing hearts eg QJx AKQxxx Ax Ax opposite). Bad decision as it turns out. Would be interesting to see how other people manage this hand though :) ahydra

How does one know 5C is exclusion for hearts there? Useful agreement if you have it though. Also playing fast arrival wouldn't 2NT be stronger than 3NT given that 2S is game forcing? I came up with some system where after opener's natural 3NT you can bid 4C to set opener's first suit as trumps, and 4D for responder's first suit. Something similar would allow 4C to set hearts as trumps before going for exclusion. I can't remember - perhaps partner didn't have the SQ - making it harder to get to the slam I guess, but then again the slam is no longer particularly good. ahydra

Without a doubt I would make a SSGT in ♥. The Club suit doesn't need much (any?) help from partner, and Diamonds aren't too much a worry. I prefer Help Suit tries compared to Long Suit tries, because part of the time they are the same thing, and part of the time when you or partner use a LSGT and it is turned down, you will make 4 because the wrong suit was asked about.

this reminds me of a director call I got last friday r/w in 1st chair the S player opens 2S with KJ7xxx K Jx Axxx West was fuming that the player had made an illegal bid which damaged them

2S. I would still bid 2S with AJ10xxx x xx Qxxx

It's entirely playable in a weak-NT system (because a 2NT rebid is game-forcing) to allow a 4cM in a forcing minor-suit raise. That you produce a six-year-old quotation from an un-named expert from an un-named place doesn't alter this.

Wow, where was the spade ace?! Partner must have had it. Let me fix that! The auction was 1D-1H 1NT-3S 3NT-6H p-(X)-p-(p) 6NT-(X)-all pass ahydra

I didn't feel strongly about the upgrade (I never really know when I'm meant to upgrade and when not..). The fact that your 1NT rebid is 15-16 rather than 15-17 makes upgrading more attractive imo. On the other hand, the fact that you have no clear agreements over a 1NT rebid (although I think 2S must be forcing) would make me more inclined to open 1NT and make the auction easier. If that happened your auction might start 1NT:2D*, 2H:4C* or something similar, but whatever it is you will struggle to get to slam off three aces now. You don't say exactly how South got to a 6H bid (you say he may bid something else first) but I think a straight 6H is incredibly optimistic and any sensible ask should keep you out of slam - the void does not improve your hand (which is now certainly not worth 15 points) and you are off three aces. I would not have considered pulling 6H - you have described your hand and partner has told you where he wants to play. Moving now feels like guesswork to me. You say that you thought trumps broke badly but partner can also realise that this is a possibility and pull if it is right - you don't know what his suit looks like.

I'm a little confused about the result in 6H. According to the 6N play, LHO has both minor aces, and so the ruffing finesse doesn't work, and even if it did, you're still a discard short. But anyway if 1NT-3H-3NT, if 4S is natural, then I bid a natural 4NT and bidding should either die there or perhaps pulled to 5H.

Could I cry too? :) Recently I notice on the wall on my boss’s room among funny cartoons 2 printed E-mails I (not native English speaker) sent when I just started to work there. The first E-mail contained worlds “erogenous script.” I wanted to print “erroneous” but Freud and spell check succumbed me. Second E-mail had some story behind. We had Excel spreadsheet updated daily. One day we decided to move all data into database. After migration was completed I sent E-mail what all information now in the database and I will not update this excel sheet anymore. Right after I sent the E-mail I got phone call from one of relatively top-manager, who said what he is completely sharing my opinion about excel but, because I am not-native speaker, he would like to let me know that some words should not be used in the business E-mails. Surprized by this call I checked my E-mail and found out that I made the most unfortunate spelling mistake in the word sheet. Funny thing the meaning of the E-mail stayed exactly the same.

You also may have a very different set of options available, ie. 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ to you vs. 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ to you. The second one chews up many of your options. In the first you just raise the overcall or do it by cuebidding ♣ or ♠ to show different hand types (limit or limit plus with either 3 or 4 trumps etc). It's a complicated business worthy of detailed partnership agreements that will pay dividends. Doesn't matter so much what they are as much as you have them.

Normal / undiscussed; 1♠ would have shown 5.

4S. I can't imagine bidding anything else. I expect to make.

What did the double of 1♥ mean in your style?

Just from interest. You double and pard says 3S, and now from you?

Ghostbusters! Wow, just read your post...nevermind...

How about as a mouse roll-over on the player's name or somewhere in their info there are some details of their star qualification achievement(s). Then the kibitzers can easily see who actually won something of note, but we don't need to take grandfathered stars off people. Another thing that might enhance things for kibitzers who don't know who's who is to include a link in each star's profile to their WBF playing record; although there is a problem with the WBF playing record being very eurocentric in that it includes lots and lots of EBL events but does not include any events from other zones (ACBL, APBF, BFAME, etc.). Linking to the WBF playing record would also have the nice advantage of providing a photo of the player in many cases.

Those stars are awarded for achievement, very much like the card ranks for playing in ACBL tournaments on BBO. They are earned by winning in events of national profile, and are recognition for being of expert level in your own country. They are not an objective indicator of skill, like OKbridge's Lehman ratings aspire to be. It's true that the stars distinguish some players on BBO from other players, but a rating system? That is an overbid, by a king and an ace.