Leaderboard

I have no idea what I'm meant to do on this but I do know that it's not a great hand for a negative double. Partner is going to pass this a lot of the time and we have no interest in defending 5♣x at unfavourable. Just because double of 5♣ is negative doesn't mean that partner will expect me to wait around until I'm 6-5 in the unbid suits to do so.

3♠ ( weak jump ) . If the Vul were reversed, I venture 4♠.

Personally, I still like to play support doubles here, big difference between a 5-3 fit and a 5-4.

♠AK ♥KQT54 ♦J7 ♣AKJ4 What do you open? :D

http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/files/2012/02/mike021212.jpg

4♠. That has several ways to win: it may be the right contract; they may defend it undoubled; they may bid 5♥.

I am sure this is not a good double. You can't just invent a meaning for a bid because it happens to match what you were dealt.

Odd that you limit your list to these countries. One might easily have included USA, Israel, India, which would have brought in three other religions without affecting the accuracy of your statement.

I had forgotten all about this thread. I did't remember any of the posts and had a good laugh reading it. Could you please necro this again in about 3 years?

Your 1♦ response should probably be your choice from these:- Negative: any <GF hand Positive: any GF hand Mixed: any double negative or GF hand Transfer: showing hearts After 1♣ - 1♦ you should move the 18-21 balanced with 5M hands down into the 1M bid giving you 1M = 15-21, if >17 then balanced 1N = 15-17 2♣ = 8 tricks in any suit (strong 2) or 22-23(24) balanced or 28+ balanced 2♦ = 18-19 balanced without a 5cM 2M = natural GF 2N = 20-21 balanced without a 5cM 3m = natural GF 3M = choice of GF with self-supporting suit or direct KCB 3N = (24)25-27 balanced You could also reverse the 2♣ and 2♦ bids of course, or you could keep 2♣ as you have it and move the strong 2 hands up to 2M and 3m. It would probably also be a good idea to compare how other 15+ club systems handle everything. A common treatment is for 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ to show 18+ and other simple rebids to be 15-17. Then 1♠ from Responder as a negative and 2♣ as Opener's third bid is like a normal 2♣ opening. Other possibilities exist too of course and one of them (Moscito) has already been mentioned. The system is ok but you are underutilising the cheapest bids. This is a common mistake when starting out on system design so do not worry overly about it. As you improve things the system will start to resemble more closely something already existing. I suspect that is one of the main reason for the cynicism, not so much that what you are working towards is unplayable so much that it is simpler just to play something that is already out there. Well, that and the number of genuinely poor systems that get posted anyway! As an exercise for you to understand the way bidding systems work I think you can get something out of your project. You are still very new and there is some benefit to thinking about how to arrange different hand types. I did alot of this kind of thing when I started out too, essentially reverse-engineering a version of reverse-Benji Acol from a combination of Culbertson and 5 card major strong NT Acol together with some additional ideas. Whether it made me a better player is questionable; if you are interested more in systems than anything else (as I am) then your card play development will naturally suffer. I would suggest that this is the part of your game you should work on as heavily as you can since my guess is that the bidding will come to you naturally over time when your mind is already attuned to that side of the game.

I see Justin is using his magic trix with the letters L and I again :D

tl;dr: The difference is that religions claim, at any given time, to possess the absolute, eternal truth. The fact that they have changed it, and will change it again, proves that they are lying. To put it another way: Philosophy is like looking blindfolded in a dark room for a black cat which isn't there. Theology is like looking blindfolded in a dark room for a black cat which isn't there and yelling "I've found it, I've found it!"

Love the title.

5S

People get way too optimistic about their chances to make game on hands like this. It is far from 100 % you can make a game. Yes, we probably have few losers, but we also have few winners. Partner might not have 4 hearts, in which case our hand is definitely not great for 3N. They might lead or shift to trumps, in which case cross ruffing in a 4-4 is not a huge trick producer. Passing can obviously work quite poorly, partner might have a spade void and was gonna double and bid hearts and we make 7H and beat 1S only a few, but those scenarios are less likely to me than partner just having some 1354 or whatever and we don't make much and we beat them pretty badly.

Partner missed the setting defense, is it reasonable to see from her hand? [hv=pc=n&n=sq62ht98dt974ck74&e=sjt93hqj63dakq5ct&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1dp1hp2hp3cp4hppp]266|200[/hv] 4♦ was lead to the queen. 3 rounds of trump(qjk) were pulled ending in declarer's hand(south followed twice and pitched 6♣ on 3rd). 8♠ was lead to south's king. South returned the 3♣ taken by declarer's ace. 4♠ taken my north's queen, this brings up this position. [hv=pc=n&n=s6hdt97ck7&e=sjth6dak5c]266|200[/hv] How do you proceed and why. P.S. I didn't point it out, I am just think it is an interesting beginner/intermediate defensive problem and am curious how much harder it is to see from the opposite hand. Edit: fixed mistakes in hand

Partner doubled because 2 passed hands reached game and trump are breaking badly.Tricks in ♦ are not running anywhere, but ♠ may go on ♦. So ♠ for me. Yu http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

This brings up a good point. The K♦ does not have to be to declarer's left...

The one thing religious people always screw up is the concept of the burden of proof. They state a proposition for which there is no objective evidence, and then boast that they are right because they can't be proven wrong. There is no other area of human activity or thought in which absurd 'reasoning' is met with anything other than ridicule....yet the believers, who would often scorn similar statements in other areas of human endeavour, see nothing wrong with the argument. When someone asserts a proposition that is contrary to the rules by which the observable universe operates, then the usual requirement is to expect compelling evidence. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. It would be funny were it not for the privileged position that religion holds in our society and the utter waste of so much effort and human ability sucked so futilely into sycophantic worship of an entity that, of it existed, is apparently genocidal, homicidal, racist, sexist, and (by any current psychiatric criteria) a sadist. This description could be applied to virtually any god today...other than the FSM, an entity for which there is exactly as much evidence as for any competitor; whose non-existance cannot be proved; and who mercifully refuses to torture us or to condemn vast numbers of decent law-abiding people to an eternity of torment merely for refusing to cower before him. The best part of the church of the FSM is that one can worship him while (and by) enjoying a delicious Italian meal, with some red wine that no-one claims is actually his blood....of course, the tomato sauce is another story!

Just needs South to have ♦K for their opening bid (or not lead them) and ♠ not 3-0 offside. Not frigid, but pretty chilly :ph34r:

No, nothing as light as this. It will be very difficult for your partner to field such a wide range if the opponents compete. For example, (1♦)-X-(3♦). What should partner do with a 12-count and a 4-card major? Or worse, a 12-count and a nice 5-card club suit?

15+ (maybe a good 14) balanced or semi balanced. More seriously it's takeout, but I wouldn't be optimistic that partner has 4 cards in both majors. I'd expect a pickup partner to be light opening strength ish atleast, and with my regular partners we'll make a takeout bid with an 8 count.

takeout double. The more offshape the double, the more points you need. On 4441, sometimes I double on a 9 count. If I have 5-4 majors, I tend to bid 2m Michael cue bid.

Lots of great advice on the importance of signalling, to bad it was just a random online pickup partnership like most of my games. Hard to develop a good understanding of defensive carding when you only play with people who are mostly oblivious to it(or assume you are). I was the partner and I tried to give correct signals(std) and attitude signals often work, though not in this case. Count was given at the table, but I felt that would make solving the problem to easy. I really wanted to focus on the idea that it was a race between setting up spades for declarer and clubs for the defenders and that having 1 ruff available is exactly the same as having 1 additional stopper, no more no less. I was the partner and did have the qj :) Ah well, I knew I had to lead a club, I figured there was 0 chance of it successfully running to the 10 and lead low. I gave it little thought at the time, I would have buried it had I the 9 but I didn't see much future in doing that when I didn't have the 9. Giving it more thought I can see it can't hurt.

I'm not upgrading with the two doubletons being AK and Jx. If they were they other way round there'd be a good argument for opening 2NT, to preempt against a ♠ overcall. As it is, 1♥ followed by 3♣ seems to fit this hand well, for me it only promises 5-4 and GF.

I'd try 21-22 bal or semi balanced at MP (2NT normally, 2D with one pard) without thinking hard, but this is less clear at IMPs (the club slam is worth more and impossible to find playing puppet methinks). I guess I'd still open 21-22 bal or semi bal though. I guess this is something to discuss with partner!

Declarer is cold if he just ruffs 2 clubs before pulling all the trump, but he didn't do that, not my problem. My problem is punishing him for it. And to answer my original question, apparently not very reasonable to have expected partner to see this.

Why must declarer have a stiff diamond for their to be a legit chance? There is a line of defense that will set it from where we are now that declarer can not stop even with perfect play from here on out.

Anyone else think in their less sane moments that this deserves a nomination for post of the year????

I think I lead a ♣. (Would be nice to know what discards you play.) A ♦ is clearly futile, and a ♠ only gains us one more trick. I'm playing partner for the ♣Q and ♠A.

Well, semi-balanced with some bad honors and a weak doubleton. I can't imagine opening 2♣ with this hand in spite of the 3.5-4 losers and 5 QT's. For me the litmus test is that I won't vomit if 1♥ is passed out. The long suit isn't great, there are too many points wasted in short suits, and I don't fancy bidding NT right away. Plus I feel this hand is easier to bid opening with 1♥, forcing over any response; opening 2♣ will make it difficult to get across my semi-balanced hand or my 2 suits when NT might be the right spot. Remove the K♠ and add the Q♣ and I would open 2♣, intending to show a powerful 2-suiter that can make game opposite many nothing hands, like ♠xxx ♥Jx ♦xxxx ♣xxxx.

5♠ asking partner to bid slam if they can prevent 2 quick losers in ♦ (opps suit). (Edit: deleted non-applicable extra sentence.)

2 diamonds (Michaels)

I think passing is a logical alternative, and acting rather than passing has been suggested by South's actions.

X by me means " Pd i will be VERY pissed if you pull this "

I would prefer to play the Romanian 2NT in mikeh's auction: hearts and a minor. As gwnn might say, I like hearts better than clubs. I would agree that any two suits is the "standard" meaning.

Here is some official information you might find helpful:- I rate myself as intermediate because, until recently, I never entered any tournaments at all, so how can I possibly say I was consistently successful in them? It does not matter how I regard myself in comparison with other players on BBO. It is unfortunate that players are either ignorant of these guidelines or choose to ignore them and use their own assessments anyway. Do not expect anyone to applaud you for using your own personal assessment when BBO guidelines explicitly say not to, regardless of how much thought you put into the decision.

Here is another hand, very similar, where I got to the par result on 20 HCP after a WJO. The difference is, when I bid 6♠, I thought the overcall had been 1♥, not 2♥, and my partner, I thought, was showing a WJS in competition. I figured, weak + long = good. Whoops. (This was under my previous login.) http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-10501166-1324103168 The hand and bidding: [hv=pc=n&w=sak43haj7da9762c3&e=sjt87652hqd8cj872&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1d2h2s3h6sdppp]266|200[/hv] Trumps split 1-1 so 12 tricks is unstoppable. Note how helpful 3♥ was to me, and how harmful it was to N. Not sure how this translates to a bidding sequence over a t/o DBL by partner, but it's an example where opener has controls in every suit and wants much more desperately to know how many trumps you have, rather than how many HCP you have.

Ah I take it back ;-)

You mean the 6♠ slam that fails on a diamond lead?

Ummm... what slam??

Good Luck!. Tate's idea for presentation is nifty-- a CSS Zen Garden Bridge-blog capable of further embellishment. Clear and simple English -- better than many bridge-teachers.. Advice at an appropriate level. Unless you're Justin Lall it's hard to win the credentials game. Damned if you admit some, damned if you don't..

Imo opinion you are a nice guy and have some skills about this game. You just had a rough start here in these forums as you already admitted it due to obvious reasons. Han did not try to belittle you imo and as far as i know him, not that he is my everyday beer buddy but thats his style, he doesnt attack people personally (although it may be recieved this way by some people), he has his own way of disagreeing with actions, opinions, choices etc and his way has been critisized by people who are a little too sensitive imo..One thing i can assure you is, he will be the first one to defend you, your idea or choice if he believes you are right, regardless of how many people are disagreeing or ganging up on you. Overall i like the way you are trying to recover from the first rough impression that you created yourself and i can easily see you being nominated as best newcomer of the year in Dave's collumn next year if you survive these first days. Sometimes being humble helps, for example i have more BBO masterpoints than Fred Gittelman and he started playing these tourneys way before me, but i never mentioned this at forums, never mentioned that i am way better than him, in order to not hurt his feelings :P

Here's an excerpt from today's blog post: ... WHAT YOU SEE WHEN DEFENDING Because you cannot see all the assets of your side, it is very easy to go astray, and it requires much more work just to get up to the level of "reasonable play" as a defender. (And even then, you will embarrass yourself or partner occasionally. There isn't much you can do about that. The goal on defense is not to be perfect, but to make fewer mistakes than the next guy.) In order to combat the low-quality information you have as a defender, here is my short list of MUSTS if you want to be any good at it: DEFENDER MUSTS You must make every inference possible from the auction phase. Every bid gives you a range of HCP (high card points) and the declarer's distribution. Dummy's bids may help too, which will be important on opening lead. After that, you can SEE dummy, which can also help you with the rest of your task. You must make every effort to count declarer's shape. Sometimes the auction will narrow this down significantly; other times you'll be in the dark until the very end. Still, it pays to gain as much partial information as possible. For example, if the declarer opened 1♥, rebid 2♠ over the dummy's 2♣ response, then later rebid ♥, he almost certainly has 6 or more hearts and 4 or more spades. This leaves at most 3 cards in the minor suits (♣ and ♦) and you must defend accordingly. Do not expect a lead from ♦J1098 to set up any tricks for your side unless partner has an honor or two there. You must interpret partner's defensive signals appropriately. Partner will tend to give you count signals more than attitude signals, but you must understand your partnership signal agreements and stick to them and take information from them. If your partner does not signal consistently, get a new partner. You cannot be a successful player at this game without defensive signalling. Remember, you will defend about twice as often as you declare. You must make an effort to place the missing high cards as precisely as possible and as quickly as possible. Between the bidding and the play, you should make an attempt to place the missing high cards (especially Aces and Kings) as accurately as possible. The opening lead should help with this. For example, if you were LHO in the above hand, leading the ♥Q before dummy comes down, and you saw dummy win this with the ♥K, you can place declarer with the ♥A. The bidding (not given) should also help you place the high honors in spades and clubs. You know most of the important cards and their location by the end of trick 1. You must try to estimate the number of tricks the declarer has. In the above example, perhaps you can place declarer with exactly 5 spades (based on the bidding and other factors). If you are holding the ♠A and nothing of value in clubs, then you know declarer almost certainly has at least the following: 4 spade tricks, 2 hearts, 1 diamond, and whatever tricks he has in clubs. That is 7 plus whatever club tricks. If declarer has ♣AKx (x is "small card") then he has 3 tricks in clubs on top. If his clubs are as weak as ♣AJx then he has 2 top tricks in clubs and can ruff the x in dummy for his 10th trick. Thus declarer's contract is probably solid in most cases, and your job is to limit his overtricks. Remember: the primary goals of defender's play are to ascertain, as quickly as possible, (1) the location of key high cards and (2) the shape of the closed hand (declarer's hand). From this you can arrive fairly quickly at his estimated trick count. Sometimes you will not know everything until the very end. Sometimes you can figure it out almost exactly at trick 1. It just depends. ...

sorry about this necro but this thread is just so awesome

Agree Ken, 3D is automatic but not sure what partner is thinking, faking a spade suit on Axx. Weird.