Leaderboard

I run a spanish bridge forum, and believe me, the important thing is to have people who asks questions. When there are no questions the forum is dead.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq42hak4d6ck762&n=sthj752dak98cq983&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1sp1np]266|200[/hv] Several questions on this MATCHPOINTS hand: 1. Would you rebid a GF 3C with the South hand? 2. Assuming South does bid 3C, as North do you give any consideration to bidding 3D to angle for NT? If not with this hand, what changes would you make to consider it worth bidding 3D? (i.e. would one more spade spot and one fewer heart spot do it?) 3. If bidding goes 1S-1N; 3C-4C, what action do you take as South? 4. If you are playing in 5C, will matchpoint considerations that other tables may be in NT affect your play of the hand? Particularly, after first round of clubs goes 2/J/Q/A, how should you play the suit?

Bill Gregg (WGregg) and I (JmBrPotter) are play testing a new both minors forcing bidding system in the BBO main bridge club. Current test session timing is Thursday and Saturday evenings at 6:00PM EST. The system is ACBL General Convention Chart compliant and it has had one outing at the ACBL Myrtle Beach Regional this past December. The system's opening bid table follows: 1♣: 11+ HCP, Conventional, 1RF, Multi, Unlimited 1♦: 15+ HCP, Conventional, 1RF, Multi, Unlimited 1♥ & 1♠: Natural, 11-20 HCP, 4-card+ suit, Unbalanced, 1-suited or 2-suited 1NT: Natural, 10-13 HCP, Balanced, (Responses: 5-card Stayman, 4-suit transfers, Texas, Gerber) 2♣, 2♦, 2♥, & 2♠: Weak two opening bid (partnership defined responses & rebids) 2NT: 11-15 HCP, Minor suit 2-suited 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, & 3♠: Natural, preemptive, broken suit, side entry possible 3NT: Solid (AKQ5432 or better) 7-card suit, no side entry 4♣, 4♦, 4♥, 4♠, 5♣, 5♦, 5♥, & 5♠: Natural preempt per partnership 6♣, 6♦, 6♥, & 6♠: Natural, 12 winners, missing A, K, or Q of bid trump suit Three-suited hands: 11-14, 18-20, 24-26 HCP: Open 1♣ and rebid 1♠ over 1♦ waiting 15-17, 21-23, 27-34 HCP: Open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ over 1♥ waiting Balanced Hands Stronger than 13HCP open 1♣ or 1♦ and sort it out, later: 14-16, 22-23, 26-27, & 30+ HCP: Open 1♣ 17-19, 20-21, 24-25, & 28-29 HCP: Open 1♦ Responses to forcing 1♣ & 1♦ openings: Herbert (1♦ over 1♣ or 1♥ over 1♦): Waiting 1♦, 1♥ (over defensive Double or when not Herbert), & 1♠: 6-9 HCP, Balanced, 1NT Systems ON ... or ... 16+ HCP, Balanced 1NT: Natural, NF, 10-13 HCP, Balanced, 1NT Systems ON 2NT: Natural, NF (but should reach game or four of a minor), 14-15 HCP, Balanced, 2NT Systems ON 3NT: Natural, NF, 15-16 HCP, 4-3-3-3, 3NT Systems ON 2♣, 2♦, 2♥, & 2♠: Natural, NF, 3-8 HCP, 6-card suit 3♣, 3♦, 3♥, & 3♠: Natural, NF, 3-8 HCP, 7-card+ suit Pass after defensive double or overcall: Negative (0-9ish HCP) Waiting Double after adverse 1-level suit overcall: Take Out After adverse 1NT overcall: DONT over natural o/c Unusual vs. Unusual for 2-suited o/c After adverse overcall above 1NT: Lebenshol The current system book is available upon request via e-mail message to "ClioBridgeGuy >at< att >dot< net". You may also request having your e-mail address added to the list of folks who receive e-mail notices of system play test times (on BBO) and system book updates. :( Brian Potter (JmBrPotter)

The reason you are getting frustrated is that you are not being clear about the question first of all you just say 'what card do you play' now you say the problem is specifically how to give count now you say it's a question about what the best agreements are Now you say your agreement is attitude unless count is clearly useful, but you are also telling us that you must give count here and now you say that you want to discuss how to distinguish specifically between xx and xxxx as a general question, not what the right signal is on the hand you started with ....and to anyone who disagrees with your agreement (attitude unless count is clearly useful) you seem to be objecting that they aren't answering your question. So what are you asking: - How do top class players who play 'attitude unless count is clearly useful' manage in this sort of position? or - What do top class players do?

Every time I promise I've added enough artificiality to my bidding, you come along with another really useful concept... Are there any key modifications needing to be made over 1H-1N-3C?

I don't understand pass. Forget about trying to picture partner's hand.....he has asked us a question. Do we have a maximum for our double, given that we passed originally? How can anyone see this as less than a maximum? We have 4....count them, 4 trump. We have 11 hcp...is there anyone who would have passed with say QJxx AJx xxx KJx? I don't see many such players on these forums. There are times when we should be trying to construct hands in order to make close decisions, but this isn't, imo, one of them....we are red at imps, partner wants to take a shot at game opposite a max, and we have a max. End of story. Will I be surprised to see game fail? No. So what?

I'd open that 2♣: as little as ♠ K x (x) in partner's hand makes game, and he'd pass 1♠ if that's all he has. Back to the original questions: 1. Yes. 2. Yes, 3♦. 3. Probably 5♣, but I won't be overjoyed. 4. Essentially, CSG's first line: finesse the ♣ 9 (restricted choice), ♥ to the A, ♠ A, trump a spade with the ♣ 8, finesse in clubs.

I like your improvements...( the 4 vs 5+ card ♣ support ) . If 3C* = "may be artificial", I too use 3D! as an "asking" relay ( only if interest in ♣ and no interest in the Major). 1M - 1NTF! 3C* - 3D! ?? ..3M! = long M suit; ♣ was artificial ..3oM = ♣ suit is real If Opener's ♣ suit is real, your 4C = 4 cards or 4D! and higher "shows" key cards w/ 5+ card ♣ support.

Given we know partner has an honour, is there any reason not to play the ♥Q at trick 1? Declarer has to win this and we can then give a signal encouraging hearts before partner gets back on lead. If partner happens to have the king we did not lose anything and can still run the suit.

I advise you to keep it simple and follow the standard priorities rule: att, count, SP If K asked for attitude, then 2nd card should be present count If K asked for count, then 2nd card should be SP

We get yet another SJS post ( see my first signature post below ) . I'd be in the ♣ slam too. Upon seeing dummy, I'm not sure if I can play it as well as Gibson. My auction would be a little different than Zel's ( I have Responder "show" rather than " be asked " w / ♣ support and no interest in ♠ : 1S - 1NTF! 3C - ?? ......... The following 4 bids show ♠ support or not ... and NO interest in ♣: ......... 3D ......... 3H ......... 3S ......... 3NT ......... 4S ......... The next 4 bids would "show" RKC for ♣ w/ 4+support : ......... 4C! = 0 ......... 4D! = 1 ......... 4H! = 2 - ♣ Q .........4NT! = 2 + ♣ Q 6C ( after 1 key card is "shown" )

One thing is a bit unclear to me: your partner is looking at three hearts. He sees two in dummy. You said he placed you with three cards. That leaves five for declarer. So why did declarer open 1♦?

I'm not suggesting you would do any such thing. What a fatuous comment.

Welcome to the forums. You should perhaps post this in the Find a Partner/Teacher! forum instead, ideally without the "women excluded" part which could be taken the (hopefully) wrong way.

I guess Helene's point is that people who play complex systems will fully disclose their system. The problem lies with experienced pairs who play a "poppa-momma system". The complex systems have been "designed". The system builders have made conscious choices how to assign concrete meanings to each call. Therefore, they are easy to explain, despite the fact that the system may be convoluted. Poppa-momma systems have "grown". All bids are -in principle- natural and therefore "just bridge". However, sometimes it is inevitable that you need to tell a lie in the auction. This is also "just bridge". However, experienced poppa-momma pairs know exactly what bids are reliable and what bids are doubtful for their partnership or for this particular poppa-momma system in general. That is no longer "just bridge" and needs to be disclosed. There are also other things that are part of the system that should be disclosed when asked. As a simple example, one can play 4 card majors where, when there are two four card suits, the priority would be say ♥-♣-♠-♦. If the auction starts 1♣-Pass-1♦-Pass; 1♥ then responder knows that opener has 5+ clubs (with 4♥-4♣ he would have opened 1♥). When responder is asked what opener has shown, he should tell that he knows about the fifth club. Many responders just shrug their shoulders and think that this is general bridge knowledge. It isn't. It is a consequence of the priority that they chose in opening two four card suits. And therefore it is bridge knowledge that is specific for this pair. Many "natural" players think that what they play is "general bridge knowledge" when in fact it isn't. Players of complex systems know that what they play is not general bridge knowledge. Rik

The relevant part of the EBU regulations reads "Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying '12 to 14'." There is nothing there to say you must use the Milton Work Count, or any point-count method. I've quite sure of my ground here: not only is the wording unambiguous, but I have also had this confirmed in correspondence with the L&EC.

2♥ should be enough (if partner raises, that's good, if not perhaps I don't want to be higher...), though I may try 2N if it shows two places to play.

Which reminds me of another pet peeve, Bullies.

♠ A K Q x x ♥ void ♦ void ♣A K Q x x x x x Saw this in a bridge benefit two days ago, LHO had this hand as dealer. Opened 1♠, partner said 2♦, RHO said 2♥, I said 3♦ with 5 card ♦ support and ♥A Q over RHO's expected K♥. LHO jumped to 6♣ pass to me and I smartly (or so I thought at the time) doubled. LHO made 6♣X+1,as they trumped a spade lose with the singleton J♣ in RHO's hand. My question is, how would you guys open this?

1♠ seems reasonable - if partner can support ♠, 7♠ looks a good bet, otherwise there's probably a ♠ loser that can't be dealt with by ruffing without risking an overruff, so 6♣ is probably the best spot. If partner converts to 6♠, it should probably have good chances too. 1♣ is another possible start, hoping to make a forcing ♠ bid next - if partner likes ♣, 7♣ looks good as there should be enough ♣ support to ruff a ♠ loser. One thing almost for certain, 1♠ or 1♣ isn't going be passed out. I'm not sure about 2♣ - with two voids even white v red I'd expect competition, so we're probably not going to get to show both suits and may be left with just bidding 6♣ anyway.

When I finished my last tour in the Navy, during which I spent three years on exchange with the Royal Navy, I returned to the US on a British Airways flight. Before the plane took off, the passenger in front of me (who turned out to be another American) put his seat all the way back, crushing my knees. When I asked him politely to put the seat back up, he turned to me and said indignantly "I have a right!" I replied quite calmly "I have a right too. And a left, and you're going to get them both if you don't put the seat up!" Which he did, and I had no trouble with him the rest of the flight. B-)

You all must fly different airlines than I. IMO, reclining the seats is totally standard, and it takes up essentially no useful room.

At another table the local bridge instructor opened 2♣ ended up in 6♣ but got a bottom as well because he wasn't doubled, because East/West (my teams positions) didn't get to show any points.

Team match. sitting in 4th seat with neither side vulnerable. You hold x 10x 108xxx AJ10xx. Auction went: 1♥-Dbl-1♠-? Dbl will be penalty showing !s. What is 1NT? How about 2NT? Is there any way to show both minors?

I dont remember my exact hand, I do remember I had 9 or 10 points, I put partner on 11 or so and rho at least 5 (where he only really had 1 point not counting his 6 card heart suit) We were vulnerable my opponents were not. We ended up getting a bottom, but other people had doubled and held them to 6 as declarer did not trump a losing spade before drawing trumps. My hand was something like this ♠10 x x x ♥ A Q x ♣ x ♦ Q x x x x My figuring was LHO would be void somewhere, but double void never crossed my mind. I counted on pulling either 2 hearts or 2 diamond tricks not 0 and 0 :P And I also knew my 4th spade might pick up a trick and in an auction where we showed points I figured it wasn't a bad double. Turns out if my partned led trump we hold them to 6 as my 4th spade becomes a winner.

It completely depends on how the bet was worded. "Playing money bridge what contract would you like to declare, vulnerable, after LHO opens 2♥ and RHO bid 4♥?" Whether you choose 6♠ or 7♠, that's the correct answer. What contract would you like to declare. It didn't ask which contract had a higher expected value.

ditto to Aquaman.... Classic exposing of the psyche: 1H - X - 1S - ?? .................... X = 4 cards ♠ ....................2S = 5+ cards ♠

For Csaba's benefit that would be "onspeelbare klaveren". Onbespeelbare klaveren would sooner mean the opposite, that it is impossible to play against this system.

1H X 1S ? Here DBL is responsive DBL shows minors,not for penalty.

I would bid 2D and follow with 3C if I can. 1NT and 2NT would be natural for me.

No, I wish people would enter plain text. Handviewer locks up iPad and iPhone (and probably other underpowered mobile devices) awfully. Plus there are the underlying, unaddressed issues that 5+ round auctions lack a scrollbar or other visual cue, and that indicating lists of items should be done with T for ten and a fixed width font. Hence my sig.

1. 1♠ 2. 4♠ 3. Pass

I can see double would have worked really well, but East shouldn't bid 3NT over 2D. That's the bid of someone cross that partner hasn't reopened with a double. 2NT is enough.

Why would north jump to 6♠ with a minimum takeout double and a worthless ♥K?

I vote with aquahombre but if we cant force the x I would be happy with 6s by south

W ... N ... E ... S (2H) - X - (4H) - 5H! ( p ) - 6S - all pass

Lol. The highest stakes games were for several years online. The live pros who played in it, including the TV celebrities that the average pros knew got completely owned as per online tracking sites of the highest stakes games over sample sizes that would take a lifetime to play in real life (literally), with the exception of Ivey who is just the nuts and is the biggest winner online also. Conversely, the online players who were smart enough to get themselves into TV cash games consistently destroyed the former TV celebs at NLHE, some of them becoming very famous in their own rite (durrrr for example). It was funny to watch Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson and Chris Ferguson against guys like Tom Dwan and Scott Seiver. The top online tournament specialists became some of the biggest winners in live tournaments, guys like elky and jason mercier and annette. Not that that really matters, online results are far more relevant since they have such a massively larger sample of hands/tournaments. The truth is, the best online players became far better than the best live players after the poker boom at no limit hold em, limit hold em, and PLO, both tournaments and cash games. Poker theory was really in its infancy, nobody knew anything, and those who knew something kept their secrets to themselves. Even if you spent a lifetime playing poker like Doyle Brunson, you could not see as many hands as top volume online players played in a few years, and you certainly would not play against competition as tough (in the absolute sense), or have anyone else to talk to. The game evolved tremendously because you now had a ton of smart people analyzing poker seriously and playing millions of hands. It would be like bridge before there was much theory, and all of the sudden you had a ridiculous amount of people play a million bridge hands. The game would evolve enormously. As a result, the best online players had the strongest fundamentals, had faced the best competition, and had the most experience. They salivated at the thought of playing someone like Hellmuth or Brunson heads up, literally if one of those guys would show up online at a 200/400 NL game, there would be a waitlist of 20 online pros long just to take a shot even if they normally wouldn't play that high. Guys like Ivey who were just great poker talents played online and evolved with the games. It is a huge joke that someone could win a lot of money online, and then go play in one tournament, and "get their ass handed to them." Do you realize how silly that is? In one tournament, the best player int he world is less than 50 % to make the money. They are very unlikely to win. Poker has a lot of variance, there is a lot of luck in the short term. That is why the online tournament grinders play 30 tournaments a day, every day. It would be like saying someone played one hand of blackjack while the count was good but lost so they got owned. But it is not a coincidence that far more players have successfully transitioned from online to live than from live to online, despite there being much more money in it online at that point in time (for cash game players). As someone who played online a lot and now plays only live, I can tell you that live is really a joke compared to online. The general rule is that the skill level in stakes is about a 10:1 ratio for live to online, so 5/10 NL is like .5/.1 online. Yes, the live players will be better with the live tell stuff, but this is not really as much of factor in poker as people think unless you are completely inept. Poker is a game of strategy, betting patterns, etc. If you "get a read" on someone, it is usually on an imbalance in their betting patterns in certain situations that you can exploit, not that they twitch when they're bluffing lol.

This suggests that you are playing weak players who have adopted big club methods because they think it solves problems they couldn't handle in standard methods.....and they are right.....big club avoids many 'standard' problems, but only by creating new ones....interference over 1♣ being a big one. As you play better opps, your 'getting into their auctions whenever we could', using basically natural methods, will rapidly become counterproductive. I know that when I played in a serious, altho not particularly successful partnership, using a big club method, our biggest numbers in sectionals and regionals were against pairs who thought that they should 'get into' our auctions. 1100 or 1400 against 630 wasn't uncommon :D. While Hog's experience tells him something different, my view is that ambiguous methods are best....not because of responder's problem over the overcall, but because of opener's problem over the advance. When partner has overcalled, say, 2♥ showing either both minors with great shape or a weak jump overcall in spades, and responder doubles, showing some positive hand or some 5-8 or whatever they play, and I have shape, some spades, and a minor...I can jump. So with 3=4=1=5, I can, if the vulnerability and my values suggest, jump to 4♠.....this is pass or correct. Now opener, whose hand is virtually unlimited and not at all described, beyond having 16+ hcp, has to make a decision....and his methods have to cater to his opps belonging in spades...and should he be defending or bidding....or to the possiblity that HIS side belongs in spades! So is double takeout or penalty? Is pass forcing and if so, what do various bids mean? How does he show a 2♣ opener rather than a 1N opener? And so on. Now, when you play against the Meckwells or the Berkowitz-Cohen players, they will handle this issue reasonably well, but my take is that well over 90% of the big clubbers will struggle if your auctions are ambiguous and apply maximal pressure.

As a user of the Windows client, albeit under Linux, I certainly hope that day is a long way away. I've tried the web client and I detest the interface. As a (retired) database programmer myself, I would be surprised to learn that something like that had been hard-coded in such a way that increasing it would require significant amounts of work. Yes, there are limits that you can't get round, e.g. the self-contained database code with which I was most familiar limited you to 1,000,000 records per table and a record size of 32,000 bytes, but I've never heard of a toolbox that would be responsible for a limit of 16 plays.

I played against this pair once and it was fun. I recall three or four hands, all of which belonged to them. One was a beautifully bid 7NT, starting with 1♦ (15+) - 2NT (also 15) - 4♣ (Gerber) - whatever - 7NT. Another was a disastrously bid 6NT after one partner tried to relay 5♠ to 5NT but was taken to 6♣ instead IIRC. Strangely, with 10-11 HCP I didn't double and let them go down 2 undoubled. There was also a hand opened 1NT where 5-card Stayman turned up negative, missing a 4-4 major fit. I asked about this and was told they don't play 4-card Stayman. It was a great learning experience for me playing against Will and Brian.

Exactly. The sequences beginning "1♣-1♦; 1♥" and "1♦-1♥; 1♠" show unbalanced one-suited or two-suited hands with 5+ cards in the rebid major, eight or more offensive winners, 3.5DQT or more, and 17HCP or more. Subsequent development may follow Precision, Acol, Standard American or 2/1 lines according to partnership preference. Any internally consistent response and rebid structure (e. g., Bergen Raises) for one of a major openings will work with an adjustment that totally busted responding hands must bid something (e.g., 1NT forcing) over the one of a major rebid. The auction is unconditionally forcing to two of the rebid major. :blink: Brian