Leaderboard

I really don't like (to put it the polite way) replies which starts with or includes " FOR US" words. It doesnt' really mean anything to anybody unless our last name is something like Rodwell, Gittelman, Duboin or something. Then i would be more interested in knowing the methods which obviously have a role in the success. Perhaps it is time for us to create BBF standarts and reply accordingly unless OP gives us their specific agreements, at least in expert forum. This allows all of us to debate about the LOGIC part of the problems ( i don't know others but i find it more interesting and educational especially with some top players regularly writing in these forums) instead of how this particular hand or problem fits well to our private system or not. (which i find very boring by the way) Seriously, did you really think OP would have asked this question, or would think that it is a problem hand for NS that worths to post in forums, had he played 1♣ showing 5+ most of the time ? Or did you really think the replies which assumes 1♣ showing 5+ contribute anything if at all to this topic ? Cmon now .... :) Rant...Rant...Rant...Harr..harr..Harr ( just ignore my rant bro, it can be the specific day of the month for me :P )

i dont understand anything except pass. i don't have extra strength, shape, offense, or defense from what i've already shown. making another call is just making noise because you like the sound of your own voice.

Come on now, this is nonsensical. If South has AI that he was playing Precision, South also has AI that he holds J64 Q7 T87 AKQ65 and that he opened 1♣ and therefore when choosing a rebid he will notice that he has misbid his opening. So any UI that South has is already AI to South, and so South's second-round action is unconstrained. Put another way, in this scenario North's alert of 1♣ was not unexpected by South, so there is no UI at all!

You seem to be confusing "suggested" with "better". It may be that 1NT is slightly better than pass even given the UI, but without UI 1NT would be massively better than pass. The UI has turned pass from a non-runner into a serious contender, therefore pass was demonstrably suggested by the UI.

You guys would not raise to 2C? Wow, well done, 2D (or 3D!) is the perfect bid to get you to slam nice. It's fine to overbid by a queen or a king (or even more!) if you are cold for slam and off an ace, but in the real world you just get too high. You have a 7 count with 4 small clubs.

lol expert forum

[hv=pc=n&s=skq95hk7dkq62ckt5&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1np2cp2sp3hp]133|200[/hv] 3♥ shows unspecified shortness with more than game+ values, slammish if hands fit. 3♠ asks for shortness.

And if you learned bridge 35 years ago in China, when everybody played Precision, and every natural system was considered abnormal, you might have thought of "short club" as 16+? C'mon mate, you've been around these forums for long enough...

I was one of the 14, but I think I was clear that this was based on conditions (BBO pickup partner).

As has been pointed out before, GIB has no idea what a "normal play" is. It's basically looking at all the plays and picking the best one on the sample deal set (best DD play if basic bot, best single-dummy if advanced), the size of the set being constrained by thinking time and config parameters. If the sample deal set is too small (doesn't capture bad break or other special cases to cater to) or not representative (bidding DB flaw), it will draw the wrong conclusion about what is "best". If it doesn't matter, GIB has no idea that ruffing partner's winner is less or more normal than discarding. It thinks both plays are equivalent, so it just picks one at random. There are no rules that say this is "normal" or not, the only rule is maximize your score expectation given what you know, searching among the set of legal plays. Asking for GIB to make "normal plays" is basically asking for it to use human-rule type thinking, which GIB and other programs have shown to be inferior to the brute force search approach. It's simply too hard to write down rules of how to play, there are so many of them, often need to be broken, often need to be re-ordered as to what task to attack first. Think about how many things an advanced player looks at to decide when to start drawing trumps and how many of them to draw. Think how massively more involved that decision process is vs. that of a raw beginner who would often simply start drawing trump as soon as getting the lead and draw all of them. Multiply that by everything else you have to do on a bridge hand, and think about how you would write down a set of rules to follow so you could pull someone off the street who'd never played a hand of bridge in his life, give him that rule set, and then expect him to blindly follow that rule set and declare well. Instead of saying it would be nice if GIB makes "normal plays", simply clamor for increased thinking time especially on the basic bots. Maybe some intermediate cost option between basic & advanced. Or ask for bidding upgrade patches for the older standalone BBO client so that we can use the thinking time on our own PCs instead of relying on the server farm.

I don't know what QC stands for but it sounds important. I'll take it!

He plays 15-17, 5-card majors, 3-card minors, 1♣ with xx33. So does almost all of North America. And so does anyone who posts a problem in this forum without specifying a system (assuming the system is relevant).

You are very unfair, but I don't know if you are trying to insult Americans, Europeans, or you are just trying to blame me. In any case, there are a lot of Europeans that post here, including a couple of very good players. None of them seem to have any problems responding in context, and some also like to point out how they would deal with the problems with their own agreements. I don't see why you can't do the same. If you feel that weak notrumpers and fit-jumpers are being discriminated against, please take it elsewhere.

We play 5-card majors, strong notrump. Seriously, if it was anything else I would have told you. If we had played something relevant like a 2D opening showing 18-19 balanced, I would also have told you. If I have to specify that we do not play this 2D opening, these forums become very cumbersome. As at least 95% of posters here regard strong notrumps and 5-card majors as "standard", even though they might not play it themselves, it seems convenient to assume that that's the system unless specified otherwise. To clarify my position, I appreciate suggestions for methods, especially if they are relevant methods that we might want to adopt. But answering in a completely different system is not useful. Given that you didn't even state that you were answering in a weak notrump context, your comment just seemed absurd.

No, I think it's something that may happen when you follow a legal procedure, but it doesn't arise from that procedure. The procedure is for you to inspect the faces of the cards, not to note their order. It's comparable to the UI one would receive if, whilst a board was being placed on the table, a traveller fell out and landed face up. Putting the board on the table is proper procedure; any information accidentally received from seeing the traveller is UI; intentionally reading the traveller is cheating.

4♥. I don't like anything that gives away information en route, because this is the sort of hand where game makes on the wrong lead, or on a defence where LHO assumes I have short spades. Imagine dummy with ♦KQxxx and ♣xxx: I want LHO to switch to a club at trick two. I also don't want to put them off saving, which might be our best way to get a plus score.

I would probably pass. If I had better or longer clubs I would probably invite in clubs (presumably partner will accept whenever he has a fit in clubs). I have a nice takeout double if the opponents try to play in 2♦.

Does excluding claims bias the results? Maybe bad players never claim so it doesn't matter. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but when you have aces to win the last trick with or high trumps a claim is more likely to be made. FWIW I also thought it would be the ten of spades or something liek that.

If advancer rebids 2H, that is his weakest possible action. It does not even guarantee extra hearts. No matter what, responder's hand is limited to like 0-8ish. So everything is within that framework. I'd guess that 3H is at the top of that range, with a 5th heart. 2S would be like 5H4S. (With 44 majors in response to a takeout double, we bid spades first.)

I think you might be missing something. I imagine that partner has denied a spade control. If so, you can cue 4H and thus cue both majors, in a sense. Plus, partner can then cue the spade Queen if he has it, and you state control of all suits. That might help in your style?

Easy pass. When pd leaps to 4 sp there's no other choice than to trust him. I've got nothing extra to suggest another bid than pass. Pd leaps to 4s, if slam is available it gives me the chance to leap across the table.

You used not to be able to agree in the EBU that the 1♦ negative to an artificial club was NF. You can now.

Yes. However, the "methods of the partnership" are not authorized information to the opening bidder; so, IMHO, we cannot apply that definition to opener's rebid ---and thus cannot use that Section to rule in this case....the only alternative is to interpret the Section as "alleged methods of the partnership known at the time of the opening bid and before the UI."

Even assuming you wanted to, you couldn't use it when ♥s are trumps. 1nt-2♣-2♥-3♠-, now 3nt is the only asking bid available.

Surely it will be a middle spade. 7,8,9 of spades would be my guess. Feels like you are always winning the last trick with a middle trump, the small ones go ruffing and under the spade honours, the higher ones are used drawing trumps. Spades is the most common denomination for trumps.

I don't know. But, back at you (and Barry) What law says that we can consider whether there are logical alternatives from a Strong Club system when it is unauthorized information to opener that he was playing that system? To repeat, I don't know the exact legal basis for your stance ---nor for the stance of the others who disagree with you. But, common sense to me would be LA's from a natural opening system should be considered in this case.

If partner can't overcall or bid 3♥ to a pretty good hand despite the initial pass, and bid 4♥ missing 3 of top 4 honors, why should we be making a move? Let's give partner 9 Hearts, and we STILL might not be able to make it. I pass, it's not close.

I agree, this auction want to ask partner about secondary control of diamond in effect.if partner have secondary control,he can rebid 6H;if he have ♦A,he can rebid 6D.

Yes content is more accurate. And thanks!

I think it's worth trying opposite short clubs for sure. The 4441 examples are fine but other shapes are better like 4351 or even a club void and two aces. And can't partner even have like the heart queen on top of the 3 aces like Axxx AQxx Axxx x? He describes his hand and we sign off, why would he move? For all he knows our spades are bad and 5 isn't safe. Also note we could cuebid over 4♣ so we aren't forcing past 4 anyway, and if he has more than the worst part of his range he can move. It's not like partner isn't aware that 4441 is his worst shape. Opposite short diamonds I would sign off. We have a lot of wastage but it's worth noting how good it is that's our longest side suit. But to me there is too much chance of a slow club loser on top of the other chances we would be taking. Opposite short hearts we have less wastage but duplicated shortness. We might also have that potential club loser. I would just sign off there too. There is more to look at than whether 100% of our hand is outside the splinter suit (if it is we should probably just bid RKC almost all the time). We also look at our shape, whether we are min or max, and how useful our outside cards are. Opposite short clubs we have a wasted king but 13 points that all look like they are working really well.

I seem to recall partner not overcalling 2♥. I think I'm good!

Sure everybody talks about K&R value of these kinds of hands. But that's all very nice when you're a commentator on VuGraph. In reality very few players including those same commentators do anything different than count 16 HCP and open 1nt.

Different stuff for the 4x1s. If you're 5-4-3-1, 1N-2C//2S-3H//4S-5C//? That's like a 15ish playing strength hand, and I'm telling P that I have 5-level safety opposite a non-fit SNT.

Well, that is a problem, but maybe the more fundamental issue is opening that hand 1SNT to start the ball rolling. What is that, 13.5? Just saying.

5♥ = I have two diamond losers what about you?

What additional luck are you talking about ? Yes ♦ need to break 3-2 if we're missing the Jack. You need two ♣ ruffs in dummy. You will be chalking up a lot of 480's and 680's if you keep waiting for better odds. BTW, notice that neither hand can make a move if you sign-off. Also in terms of source of tricks 4144 are the worst. No reason why partner can not have Axxx Axx Axxxx x, again a hand that is pretty hard to make a move opposite a sign-off. Of course the pat answer is "partner is not barred from making a move" just because you sign-off. My problem is that my partners do have hands like KQxx QJx Qx KQJx for a sign-off.

In SAYC, 1♥-3♥ is a limit raise with 3+ card support. There aren't any "invitational hands with fit" that start with a 2/1 bid. The sequence 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥ shows normally 2-card support with 10-11. You want to stop low on these hands, and 2♥ will often be a better partial than 2NT (especially from responder's side when he is weak in the fourth suit, spades). It would be silly to bid 3♥ and force yourself to play at the three-level in a seven card fit after all. Of course, you need a way to show a game force with three-card support (1♥-2NT jacoby shows four). This hand starts with a 2/1 and bids 3♥ next. While certainly there is some advantage in keeping the auction as low as possible on a fitting game force, SAYC prioritizes stopping low and in a good spot on invitational hands over starting your slam auctions at the two-level. Note that the hands that bid 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥ are quite difficult to bid in (for example) 2/1 where you start with 1NT; your sequence will be 1♥-1NT-2♦, at which point you are forced to bid 2NT (since 2♥ is a weaker hand). At this point both partners have shown less about their shape (responder didn't show clubs, opener didn't really show diamonds since 1NT was forcing, responder didn't show his heart doubleton and never guaranteed/denied control of spades), and you are about to play an inferior partial if opener passes. It's really quite a big difference!

Seems to me that agua's comments violate the principle that shapely hands should describe themselves to balanced ones; seems to me that Phil's example hand is a prime cantidate for asking for a description, hoping to find a C stiff. In the structure I like to use, these Baze bids describe 4M-5m-3-1s. I have other stuff for 4x1s and I use agua's delayed support seq for 6m-4M-2-1s. Now I'm adopting gszes' point that 3N is relatively poor M, so 4M is relatively good M, both with spread-out values (I'm usually asking about the stiff with any Jxx and with Qxx maximums; I'm assuming P is on an excellent 12ish+; if I hold weak opposite the short, and a fitting honor in the m, let's go). I'm a happy guy.

I do not know all the particulars of yur system for ex: just what would 4h mean vs 3h. What p does not do is just as important as what p does. I am assuming p is close to slam but maybe needs a perfecto to continue. Nothing wrong with trying espcially if it is safe and below game level (like this is). Now here is the reason i sign off. If p is strong they can always continue but if they need us to have our stuff outside their (void) then we are defective. Yes we have some controls and a probable ruffing value in hearts but this is a fairly normal hand with no suit where p with a void (much less a singleton) will be happy with our hand. I saw a suggestion of 3n and felt it would be better saved for hands with poor trumps and all outside suits double stopped Jxxx KQT KQT KQT. Never ask questions when there is no answer you want to hear. bidding 3s here gives p the impression you would welcome slam somewhere and that may slant their bidding if they are strong. Just sign off and be happy.

3N: spread-out (and by the slimmest of inferences, prime?) values, nt suitable. How you like me now?

Yes, if your partner thinks that's a slam try opposite a 15-17 NT, you should be signing off.

This treatment is the fairly familiar Baze Adjunct. With a balanced hand you can bid 4♦, 4♣ for RKC Gerber. Some people reverse the meaning of the above bids.

I would x though I give serious consideration to 3H. The problem with x is if partner bids 3H over the double this contract is wrong sided. However i think this is a glass half emty approach. Did i read correctly that one poster passed?

Voted for pass. Couldn't resist.

3NT ...................................... :rolleyes: I think you may have stumbled upon one of my old partners.

I can't remember the last time I thought lamford had got a legal question so completely wrong. Usually when he reaches an apparently perverse conclusion there at least seems to be some logic behind it, but that is not the case to my mind here. I think the root of the issue lies in the second sentence I have quoted above - I don't think there is any convincing evidence that the answer to the question posed in the first sentence was "precision", and indeed I think there is convincing evidence from the bid chosen that the answer was something else. The fact that the answer to the same question on previous boards would indeed have been "precision" does not alter that conclusion in my mind. Having got that far, I think it is inconceivable that pass would be a LA in whatever system was in south's mind at the time. It also looks like a bid that has been suggested by the UI, so, far from imposing such a bid on south, I would expect to rule against him if he made such a bid. In this case it appears that the opponents might not have been damaged had south chosen to pass, but I think a PP might well still have been in order if pass had been chosen. Edit: I see the abominable cyberman has made the same point while I was typing. In the meantime, let's sympathise with poor south. OK, he made a pretty silly error by forgetting what he was playing, but he now finds himself in the unfortunate position where someone is telling him that the only bid he can legally make is pass, and others are telling him that if he passes he risks a penalty for illegally using UI....

Agreed, what I said was meant as the same sort of thing, but in the context of "I thought I was playing a natural NF club" presumably with somebody else unless I play 2 systems with this partner. This is silly. You clearly forgot for whatever reason you were playing 1♣ as 16+ when you opened 1♣ or you psyched it, and in the first case cannot be reminded to the fact that you showed 16+ by the alert. What you are saying is that you remembered you showed 16+ before the alert, which I believe TDs are instructed to ignore. Similar situation: You have a SJO in clubs with ♠Kxx and make your strong jump over 1♥, unfortunately partner alerts it (correctly) as a bad hand with diamonds and spades, and bids 3♠. By the logic you've used for this, you know you play this 2 suited so don't have to go slamming in spades. GL in getting away with that one.

Law 16B1 uses the clause "as for example". I must disagree that the inference from an expected alert is necessarily authorized: Such inference is a confirmation that your partner has understood your call the way you intended it (or hoped for). This confirmation is certainly not derived from legal calls and play of the current board and therefore does not satisfy the primary condition in Law 16A1 as to what constitutes authorized information. This may be clearer when you remember that information about the existence of alerts is never passed to the other side of the screen when playing with screens.

Unfortunately you have made the common confusion between the colloquial interpretation of the words "intended" and "unintended" and the legal definition of "unintended designation". It is just like the situation where you quite clearly "intend" to show 2 Aces in response to Blackwood, but by miscalculation you bid 5D instead of 5H. That was not a mispull, it was a miscalculation. It was precisely the bid you intended to make at the time you made it. The fact taht it didn't achieve your deeper intention of communicating "2 Aces" was due to miscalculation, not unintended designation. I hope it is clear to you that the law does not let you change it when you realise you have miscalculated, because this is just the same situation here. There is no doubt that when declarer uttered the word "two", that is the word he intended to utter. Thus, legally, it was not an unintended designation. Indeed it was precisely the designation he intended to make. What went wrong was his calculation of what that (incomplete) designation would achieve. The fact that it did not achieve that outcome was because he made a miscalculation about what (incomplete) designation would achieve that outcome, based upon his faulty observation of which spots were on table. Such miscalculations may not be repaired under the unintended designation law. Further, his designation was incomplete. But it was entirely his intention to make such an incomplete designation and live with the consequences of it. So he cannot cancel the designation it on the grounds he hadn't completed it yet, and start again, as he had never intended to say any more, it was completed as far as he was concerned. If he had not thought to calculate what incomplete designations might achieve the outcome he hoped for, and made that incomplete designation, he would not have been at risk of miscalculating. And if on another occasion he says "low trump", and dummy picks up the 2 from where it was mis-sorted above the 7, and declarer says "actually I wanted the one at the bottom, the 7, obviously I didn't want to under-ruff", I won't let him get away with that change either.

I don't see any difference between: (1) Pausing in the hope that the pause will provoke a "tell", and. (2) Pausing in the hope that a "tell" will occur, which would not have occurred without the pause. No it doesn't. It says that if an opponent varies his tempo you may draw inferences from it. It doesn't say that you may vary your own tempo and then draw inferences from the opponents' reactions.