Leaderboard

I don't know why you write. I usually write because I have something to ask or say that I want others to read. I think it is easier to get people to read your writing if what you write is actually readable. So I strive to spell correctly, though I am aware that I (like almost everybody else) will fail now and then. A spelling error or grammatical mistake might accidentally creep into the text, which is fine. But that is not what you are doing. You are not making an accidental spelling error. You are not even sloppy. You misspell words on purpose. That is fine when it is serves a function (like it did in your last post). But it is not fine if you do it out of laziness (like you did in the post before that). I think that is not very respectful to your readers. (And no, you don't need to be over 80 to feel that way.) Rik

I'm not sure 5 card overcalls at the 2 level are bad intrinsically, the problem is that you have the tri-defecta. A rubbish hand, a rubbish suit and rubbish breaks.

For every gadget that you include in your system agreements, there is a price to pay somewhere else. Puppet Stayman is no different. Convince me why YOU use it.

The last board in the Cayne-Amoils match reminded me of what we used to call the 'negative slam double'. As I recall double in these dive auctions shows 1 trick and pass shows 0 or 2? Then pard dives with 1, doubles with 0 and passes with 2? Is this right, it seems to work provided that you don't end up diving when you have three defensive tricks! Is it all worth it? What do other people do?

I disagree. Whether or not your statement about level of brain power is true or not, it is completely irrelevant to the OP question about actually learning the skills that you will be applying during this period of concentrated brain power. It is simply not true to say that a 15 year old and a 40 year old learn equally well. Our brains absorb knowledge much more easily and effectively when we are 15 than when we are 40.

Probably better to have stuck with your first example and left the second one out.

The number of cards is not essential. The number of likely tricks is essential. ♠A8 ♥3 ♦JT732 ♣KQJT8 This is anyone's 2♣ overcall. ♠AJ ♥QT ♦Q93 ♣KJ8532 This is probably NOT a 2♣ overcall. Even though it is 2 HCP stronger and has an extra club. If you'd like a further explanation of why, I'd be happy to provide it. The original hand in question is definitely not an overcall.

This is a horrible overcall which got what it deserved IMO. Agree with Aqua that bidding 2!c/1!D is likeable, but this is way too much of a stretch. I don't think it needs the "trifecta" to make it a bad call, it's just bad.

I would expect the doubler to hold a trap pass of ♠s , in a goodish hand , including "something" in ♥ ("something" means approximately Hxx or better).

Dbl...dbl and dbl. Any vul, scoring and any of the preempts http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

I was thinking "South."

[hv=pc=n&w=sj975hqdakqj8ckq6&e=sak82h875d73cjt95&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1d1hd2h3sppp]266|200[/hv]

Wow, that's a crazy ruling...

I ran 400 hands thru Dealmaster Pro opposite 15-17 HCP balanced hands. 3NT only made 10% so clearly is an odds against contract. Even if you can get diamonds going, the low point count adds up to too many losers and not enough winners. 4♦ made 64%. 5♦ made 33%. 4♣made 45%. 5♣ made 21%. The other question is whether you just sign off in 3♦ (or 3♣ if you can sign off in either), or invite to 5 of a minor. You can make 4+ of a minor about 80% so getting to the 4 level is not completely safe, but if you have a good fit (my seat of the pants estimate based on 3+ support with at least a top honor)in one or both of the minors then I estimate 5 of a minor will be about 50% based on a partial review of the results. If the NT opener only accepts with minimum wasted major suit honors, the game percentage will go up. The other observation I have is that the opponents will usually have a good major suit fit, and even game so you may not have an unobstructed auction. Before I ran the simulations, I thought I would probably just sign off in 3♦, but if you can show an invitational minor 2 suiter, than it seems like an invitational bid will have the best EV. If you can only invite in diamonds, it looks like you should probably just sign off in 3 diamonds since clubs are going to be the best contract a sizeable percentage of the time.

There seem to be 2 schools of thought on this, one where 1♠ promises 5 due to not X-ing, and one where it's just the bid you'd have made anyway. I don't know which, if either, is better...

I'd prefer to have some systemic agreement along these lines at the 5 level instead, when our side is def not FP, opps might be. Any suggestions?

I think you've misread my post (which is MY fault) I'm not suggesting a wk NT, just eliminating a strong one, so if 4243, he must be 14pts to bid 3S, anything else either opened 1nt or bids 2S. 5422 could be NT strength but didn't open 1NT, so maybe concentrated values not suited to NT or opener never opens 5422's with NT's.

You either misread the auction or misunderstood the 3♠ bid. It does not show a weak notrump.

I think 3♠ is enough with J-high of trumps. East should raise.

In my methods, I would bid 2NT transfer to ♦, and partner would bid 3♦ showing Hxx or better. I would probably leave this. If partner bid 3♣ denying Hxx in ♦, I would let partner play 3♣.

Regardless of how you play transfers the the only real point that I am trying to make is that this hand is at best a inv hand. As the last 2 who posted on this have stated your head is in the clouds if you realy expect to make a gm on these cards.

West has a 5 loser hand, that's too much to invite. West's choices for a rebid should have been between 3 ♥, 4 ♥, or 4 ♠. Of those, I like the 4 ♥ splinter the best. It's the most descriptive and possibly opens the way to slam if the opponent's have very aggressive with their overcall and raise.

there are two other things, that make such conventions difficult to play: a) you give up a lightner double, because the double by the non-leader can be assigned to x y or z tricks b) you can't always say, when its "cheap" to go one level higher. say your partner is passed and you decide to disturb opps strong club with 3dia on kqjxx 5th and a side queen, they double and partner raises this dias. they come to the point where they bid 6 clubs, that is finally making on guessing that queen for 1370 (or -100 if they misguess). due to your silly agreement you and your partner bid 6dia for 1400 :) on the other hand if you want to prevent it, you may count that queen as a trick, let them maybe even play 6clubs doubled and help them to make? had this convention on my card and it was one of the first i striked out

I asume nothing. For every hand that you show me that makes game with these cards I can give you 3 hands that do not

So far you all are incorect. IF PRT HAS THE A-Q OF BOTH SPDS AND ♥ AND THE ACE OR KING OF ♦ WHICH IS 16/15 POINTS YOU RATE TO MAKE NEITHER 5 OF EITHER MINOR NOR 3NT. IF YOU ARE PLAYING 4 WAY TRNS THEN YOUR RESPONSE OF 3C OVER 1NT IS A PREEMPTIVE 5/5 MINORS AND THE 3D BID OVER 1NT IS ONLY INV. NEW SUITE OVER A TRNS IS FRC TO GM. CORRECT BID WITH THESE HANDS IS 3 ♦ INV

You are considering a w/r sacrifice (dive) in 7♣ over the opponent's 6♠. In order to avoid the ghost who walks (phantom) it might be useful to sort out combined defensive tricks. The idea, which I have not heard referred to in many years was that the player in the direct seat after the offending 6S would double to show exactly 1 defensive trick and pass with 0 or 2 defensive tricks. Now, partner knows what to do after a double, and after a pass s/he doubles with NO defensive trick, passes with 2 and takes the dive with 1.

West's hand is huge after the double and teh wimpy bid of 3S does it 0 justice. The ♦ suit is 4 gaurenteed tricks, most likely 5, it's worth so much more than 10 points. Singleton in their fit is great, 4 smallish trumps is even better as those ♥ ruffs don't waste any trump strength. i wouldn't be bidding 4S with west but a bid to show a great hand and a singleton ♥ (3h for eg) would be good, if partner just bid 3S or passed a 4H bid I'd still bid 4S. West from East's POV is probably Ballanced - either 4243 or 4252 and not strong enough to open 1NT. Having heard 3♠ East's flat ballanced hand of 8 points with xxx in ♥ opposite a non singleton (poor), xx opposite pards 3 or 4 card suit (not so great) and JTxx opposite 2 or 3 clubs (ok but not great) I'd probably pass too.

Time out for a minute. It's probably a bit of a trap to worry about exact truth here. Maybe it happened exactly as said, or maybe several kids said they didn't have a pot and no one else contradicted them, and the teacher was imprecise in telling the story. It happens. The guy is telling a story about what the teacher told him about what the students told her. No one is under oath. I wouldn't want my life to depend on it being exactly the verbatim truth. But end of time out. I think many teachers would tell you that kids come in having too little sleep, too much trouble at home, and not much in the way of a good breakfast. And then they don't learn and don't behave. What the hell would we expect? Whatever the exact accuracy of the story may be, the problem is no doubt real. Not so easy to solve.

From the OP it was not clear to me how old these Art students were. Art class was mandatory in elementary school at one time, and we had an "Art Teacher". If the Art students referred to here are elementary age kids, I can sort of believe it. I learned how to cook, primitively but adequately, when quite young. Some kids still do, but I think often either the mother (or in some families the father) cooks or else indeed the kids just stuff something in the microwave. Or the family goes to McDonald's. They may well have several pots, pans, etc but the kids are oblivious. This is definitely not confined to the poor. I have little doubt that the biggest changes in our social structure involve kids. Some good changes, some not so good, but very different from the way I remember my childhood. By the way, I was convinced that I would not graduate from elementary school because I was a truly lousy artist. After my mother died and I went through her stuff I found some old drawings of mine from first grade or so. Quite good, better really than my eighth grade work. I cannot explain this fact.

I do not have any problem with awarding MPs for bridge games including robots. I do have a problem for awarding MPs for games where the human player is guaranteed to receive the most hcp, or indeed any other such condition which violates the rules of bridge such as removing vulnerability or whatever. The rotation is part of the randomness of the hand; removing it reduces the number of possible hands enormously. As a mathematician I feel I am smart enough to understand this. Suggesting that someone else is not smart simply because they disagree with you is the height of rudeness imho, even more so when it comes from the boss.

Over a 1NT opener you can have the best of both worlds. It's quite common these days to play 2♣ as Stayman and 3♣ as Puppet. Whatever you were using the 3♣ response for before probably hasn't come up in three years but hands where Puppet is useful come up on a somewhat frequent basis. Shapes like 33(1)(6) or 33(2)(5) where your singleton or doubleton are weak and you've got 10 or 12 points would probably play better in the major if the NT opener happens to have a 5 carder. Even on hands where you're (4)(3) in the majors I find it useful to check when you've got a weak doubleton in a minor.

How do you treat your 5332 hand in the 1NT range (15-17 HCP)?