Leaderboard

It's not common for moderators in any forum to lock threads because they don't like the replies or perhaps people arguing with them but it seems to happen here(although don't get me wrong the locking of the thread today was on balance a good move but second best to removing it. However Well, I may not be an expert and am happy to concede there will be others who know more than me but I have helped to run a (non bridge related) forum so have some limited idea. The terse posting indicating that the whole world is wrong except one or more moderators does not, IMO, represent good practice nor does locking the thread because one moderator is "not inclined to discuss it further" see below Always a good idea to suggest someone is being less than truthful with no evidence. I sent you a further report(just testing) about 6 hours ago. If you haven't got this then there maybe something wrong with the system(or perhaps my mendacity knows no bounds). Well as you don't want to discuss it any more............................... The (now) locked thread shows many things including the opinion of some but not all that the original posting of this topic and also the previous one in October was not a great idea. You disagree that this is so or at least there is a problem. Fair enough but I think the way you have gone about this has not done a lot to improve the standing of the moderation process of this board.

So long as declarer suggests (or concedes to dummy's suggestion) that somebody, defender, kibitzer or whatever, handles dummy's cards while dummy is away from the table for whatever reason I see no problem. I would certainly not penalize a defender for "violating" Law 7B3 by handling ("touching") dummy's cards under declarer's complete control. Incidentally, when as TD I have spare time and notice a dummy being (temporarily) away from a table, I frequently sits down and handles dummy for declarer without even saying a word. This is always appreciated.

I would not play 2♥ as FG here. The pass over 2♠ is not forcing. Double would show diamonds and clubs and not quite enough to bid unilaterally. 3♥ is not forcing, it shows extra heart length and probably a decent suit. If responder wants to force he can bid 3♠. My opinions, anyway.

Team match, you white, opps red 1. hand passes and you have to decide whether to open - and if so, how - the following bad hand: [hv=pc=n&n=s94h95da987543c32]133|100[/hv]

I voted 3D, because it applies maximum pressure to the opponents when it is their hand, while (somewhat) describing my hand to my partner if he has the big one. Obviously you are going for a number if you play 3Dx, but honestly, that is not a likely result. I suppose partner might take a 5D sac that goes for 800, but again at equal colors he doesn't rate to be saving too often unless you are on a huge fit. Most of the other results rate to be in your favor. If partner bids 3NT with Kx of Diamonds, you have a 50-50 shot (ditto for any doubleton if he can stop some suits). If he bids it with Kxx, you are in 3NT when you might otherwise not be. You have successfully warned him off of overbidding a big hand with no diamond fit. And of course your opponents will have a much harder time when it is their hand.

You probably weren't winning this board anyway given that your side is supposed to bear par, and you were presumably playing against seeded opponents. Also, note that if RHO had 1750 or 1660 with the same texture you can't make 6S. Therefore, even if you knew partner's hand over 6D, it isn't clear to bid.

Those of you that gave partner an opening hand, how many hcp are there in the deck? I guess partner could have Andys hand with two queens, but isn't that hand afraid that the extra ruff from the dbl just holding down the uptrick? If the double is indeed Lighner and we assume 7420 or 7402 with the SA isnt passing clear? They might make it, but we arent playing imps so frequency dominates. Btw i agree with passing 3s.

[hv=pc=n&w=sa72ht3dak54cq986&e=skqj95h7d97cakt73&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1sp2c2h3h4h4sppp]266|200[/hv] This slam was missed by everyone in a recent teams match. This was the auction at our table. Could we do any better, or did the interference use up too much space? We were playing acol, so 2♣ was not game forcing.

Please explain. We continue ♥, declarer wins K, plays a diamond, we either fly the ace or declarer finesses the 10, enters hand with club ruff to discard two hearts. (We can't actually get partner on the lead so he might even play spades at this point)

Too bad 2C is not GF, but your hand is still strong enough for a whereagles 4H!-splinter for Clubs.

I have seen this type of bidding from some se european players---the 3s bid is a strong hand vs preemtive something like 16 and at least 5 spades. KJTxx void Axxx AKxx or some such concoction the x of 4h merely says they think they will beat 4h. Bid 4s.

I'd guess LHO has a 3-card limit raise and partner has 7204 or 7240 (maybe a stiff heart and a 5-carder on the side, but that hand probably just bids 4♠ the first time). Facing those hands, we're off two hearts and either two diamonds, or two clubs and a club ruff. I would pass the double and lead the ♦A, taking 4Hx-1. I think a club lead is too risky, although if right it might lead to down two.

To defeat the contract. Some passive action seems to be called for, ♣4 is unlikely to give anything away, and may even find declarer with ♣xxx.

I don't understand why you think these guys are good. I would play 7NT, because the North hand can count to 13 (6♣+5♥+2 Aces). After 5♣ he can bid 5♠ asking for Kings (not interested in ♥Q otherwise bid 5♦) and opener can show his ♣K. And how the hell can South bid 3NT??? It doesn't get much better than that imo. 4♣ would make it very easy: no control ♠, control ♣, lets see what partner does. If he doesn't have a ♦ control he bids 4♦ last train, after which you can play an easy 4♥. Otherwise partner can blacky.

They seem to be very popular at the Charlotte Bridge Association, but I, for one, don't use them.

I've never used Bergen raises, but enjoy playing fit jumps, particularly in competition. If you're looking for a disruptive effect, just raise the suit directly, and save your conventions for good raises. Just my 2p ahydra

Aqua - here's the way I look at it and how we do things in my partnerships. I would also assume this with an expert partner that is up to speed on 21st century methods. Opener's hand is broken into four separate categories. 1. A total POS. Bad controls, and I might have been passing a SF forcing 1N response if I were balanced. This hand does not cue bid over 3♥. It does not make a NS try. It signs off. This says to partner, "I have a minimum and lousy controls. If you move past game, do so at your own risk". 2. A useful minimum. This is what NS was invented for. Opposite the right 17, or the right 5 or 6 loser hand, this hand type has potential. I'd say the hand tends to have a high loser count, but good controls, but this needn't be the case. Something like Ax KTxxx xx AJxx is right, even though it clearly does not have 'extras'. 3. Extra values. This is normally defined as an A or a K more than #2, but this isn't a hard and fast rule. The OP hand squarely fits within this definition. If one makes a serious try, it does not automatically force to slam. With the OP hand, I would feel very unlucky if slam was not at least fair if we had sufficient controls in the off suits and enough keys. I do agree that 6 ace is useful in this sequence. 4. The nuts. This hand will cue bid, and may be close to a slam force. It may take control, or it may hope partner does. In either case, it is extension of three. By the way, I'm guessing you would not make a NS try with Ax KTxxx xx AJxx, if you would with the OP hand. I would kindly suggest that you've simply incorporated NS as a "hand that doesn't want to force to slam, but a hand that wants to show extras". Many bridge players in So Cal still play that a cue bid in a GF auction 'shows extras', and you are now casting these hands into NS auctions. But this is not how it is played in the mainstream. A NS hand just shows a minimum, and "I don't hate my hand". What the heck does this mean? Did we imply we were balanced at some stage?

Comment 1: Count me in with the 2♦ crowd Comment 2: The primary problem with 2NT is that Spades and Clubs could both be viable strains. You'll never be able to convince your partner that you hold a two suited hand if you start by showing a balanced hand. The big problem with the 2NT bid is that the following auction is VERY likely 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2♠ 2N At this point in time, a 3♣ response would likely a second negative...

I don't understand your partner's argument either. I'm not sure about the general style in different parts of the world (I'm aware that Americans tend to have far sounder pre empts than we do over here in the UK) but certainly for most players I know a weak two does not promise much in the way of defensive values - indeed, defensive holdings would strongly discourage me from opening a weak two. If my partner doubled a contract because I'd opened a weak two and hence must have some defensive trick(s) I'd kick him under the table! I am keen to open a weak two on this hand because of the vulnerability and the fact that I have a seventh diamond, which makes up a bit for not having the suit quality I'd normally look for to bid like this. I won't open at the three level because I am in second and opening this will make it very difficult for partner to judge when it is right to bid 3NT over my second seat pre empts (or to take any other action for that matter).

Oops, sorry, my mistake: EW vulnerable, NS white. I don't know how to edit properly the diagram :(

Opening post says fav vul. Full hand post shows unfav. Quite a difference I'd say...

Thx all for your replies! Here is the whole hand [hv=pc=n&s=sqj76hk762dqca864&w=sk832haj43dt2cq97&n=s94h95da987543c32&e=sat5hqt8dkj6ckjt5&d=n&v=w&b=12&a=p2d2np3dp3nppp]399|300|3NT + 2 for -9,33 IMPs[/hv] We played against the GIBs and all GIBs on N opened 3♦ which was passed for -3, or S bid 3NT for -3/-4/-5 which was a better result than that at our table since N/S played undoubled. Postmortem: normally I would pass with such a hand but since we were practising I opened 2D to see where it would end. My partner was "not amused" about my 2♦ opening and argued that he would like to be able to double opponent's contract and therefore my opening is too weak for a w2, I must open 3♦. I don't understand his argument because here I have an A, imo more likely a trick than KDBxxx which for him qualifies for a w2 opening. So perhaps the -9 IMPs are probably a result of playing against the GIBs who naturally all chose the 3♦ bid and the preempt worked well. The humans sit most of the time on south and rarely 2 humans play against the robots.

3♦ is also tactical, but if it were a description, I think it would be more fitting than 2♦. Also, I don't want to start with e.g. 2♦-(x)-p-(2♠) then think "I wish I'd started with 3♦." And pre-empting partner is not a big concern here as I have no interest in playing anywhere other than ♦, so I may as well stake that claim now. Partner should be prepared for a barrage-type bid at these colours, even from 2nd seat. As to having an ace, well it is in my suit :rolleyes:

Seems closest to a 2♦ call. Less explaining to do if it works out badly. Never pass, since I would have little chance to show this later.

5 playing tricks is about right for a 3 level pre-empt at these colours, tho a stretch in 2nd seat the 987 bolster the suit a bit. I have values in ♦ and nowhere else. I don't even have a 3-card side suit.

Pass every time. In second seat, pre-empts should be reasonably constructive as one of the oppo has passed. This suit quality gets nowhere near what partners would expect. Overall high card count doesn't affect this.

I was one of the many. I don't feel very very strongly, but I think it's better they all go, because (i) posting 3 times in different threads was very irritating so (IMO) should be punished and (ii) it was only an advertisement. If it had some useful bridge content (e.g. an extract from the book) together with the ad I would fell less inclined to delete them all, but it didn't.

I am curious whether double as penalty is alertable in your jurisdiction. If it's not, then I don't think that S has any case, because by passing an unalerted and unasked double, he could be passing a penalty double.