Leaderboard

You are supposed to follow all of 32519's postings avidly so you always know exactly what he is talking about without needing any boring explanatory text.

QTx T8xxxx KJx x Matchpoints, r/r, partner deals: 1D 1H (3C) passed back to you. What now? Also, we were playing weak jump shifts. Should I have considered trying that instead?

EBU Despite long discussions partner continues to use T/O doubles to show a "opening hand" and may be flat, as well as having classic shape. I know this could be ok in pass out seat but he also does it in direct seat. It's got to the point where I think I should be alerting. However I am worried that ops will see this as a penalty and are equally likely to misread pertner's bid. Leaving it until the end of the auction to clarify may also mislead ops. Any thoughts on the best approach other than bashing partner over the head with a bidding box or getting a new partner? As always, thanks in advance, Simon

I would think a Robot that plays SAYC per the ACBL Booklet My link would be a popular feature for BBO. The current GIBs bid and play pretty badly, as evidenced by the fact they are relatively easy to beat. I realize that their win/loss performance is a factor of the humans at other tables playing with them, but my partner and I consistently beat them to the tune of over .6 IMP per board. I would venture a guess, not having any statistics available other than numerous observations, that the vast majority of BBO players are playing SAYC. I would also venture a guess that most of them are not playing the complete system (i.e. such conventions a J2NT and splinters are seldom evident on players profiles or in play.) One of the most useful purposes for renting GIBs is to practice bidding and play. Would it not be more desirable to have SAYC robots that beginning and intermediate players could practice with and learn from. Would it not be more of a measure of progress to play against opps playing the same system you play? Further I would suspect that a number of players not currently using GIBs would rent a SAYC Robot for practice and learning thereby generating more income for BBO. Wayne

Hopefully this so-called "logic" will be eliminated in the next Lawbook.

Andrew, since there are only 8 of these left in stock, order quickly for Richard: http://www.amazon.com/Snickers-Original-Chocolate-Candy-Bar-48ct/dp/B000JZ9TEE

No. What the opponents need, and are entitled, to know is whether it's possible, and if so on what hands. They are unlikely to care whether the opening side's methods cater for it - mainly they need to know when they are defending or declaring. In one partnership we used to play that all 4441 shapes in range would open 1NT, but our methods didn't cater for the possibility at all. In the same partnership we do now cater for this possibility in some sequences. The set of hands on which we open 1NT hasn't changed, so why should there be any change to the way we disclose them?

Read before you say something please. 1-I never said we should play a club to J. I think it is better than playing to K though.(and i will explain why at the end of this reply) She said "if we play club to J and this holds we still go down because etc etc..." I just said if J holds she can play the hand as the way she suggested (discarding remaining club on diamonds instead of trying to come to hand and playing another club) So when you play a club to K or J and if that holds, one of them is not any better than the other. And where did you come up with this funny idea that when we play club to J and if that holds AQ must be onside ? A offside may duck this as well, taking the ace can be a mistake in a lot of hands that defense may have hard time to figure. Depending on how the cards dealt it may as well be a mistake on this hand to take offside ace on first round when J is played. 2-Again, read what she wrote, she is not talking about playing 4 rounds of diamonds, she is talking about playing 3 rounds of diamonds and making 3 discards ! ;) She is talking about taking the ♥A, winning the ♣ K in dummy and playing 3 rounds of ♦ and ruffing a club. What you saying is totally different, which requires playing 4th ♦ and discarding another ♥, which in this case defense will get to hold the hand before you do anything else. But i don't think thats what Frances says because she also said "ruff something with 8 of trumps" So she is talking about "ruff a ♦ or ♣ with trump 8" Thus she did not mean to play 4th ♦ and play loser on loser. By the way i think her line is pretty good, i like it overall, not as much as i like playing to J though. I was just asking questions about some details she said. What you do not understand is, playing to J is also legit. When you catch Qx(x) onside and if they take the offside A on first round they can not knock your both minor entries to dummy at the same time, you are pretty much home unless they duck the Ace,( or bad breaks) which then turns into same situation as she suggested. If they duck the ♣J you then discard club on diamonds. Also playing A onside and Q offside requires LHO to duck his Ace, popping up the Ace and playing 2nd ♣ or even a ♦ will basically lock you to dummy. You may still survive of course but you need more friendly splits than the line where ♣Q was on and A offside. In fact you are pretty much down when both spades and clubs are 3-2 if they pop up the ace and play a minor. Assume LHO held Jxx KQxxx xxx Ax (not sure if this is possible from the bidding) So i think playing to J is better because it needs less to succeed when our long suits behave and it doesn't require opponents to make the wrong decision. But i am not very strong on this.

I would like to thank everyone who helped you so much trouble halloldu.font's missing file problem.

PASS. No second choice.

I would have passed 4♥ Thinking that pd always has 3 card ♥ is naive imo. There are quite a number of hands that would bid 4♥ with only 2. And even if he has 3 card ♥ support we will need to be lucky to make slam. x xxx xx KQJxxxx is what you will get at best for example, assume they led ♠ and you took with ace, what will you do ? Ruff a spade, ♣ A to hand and ruff another ♠, discard a ♦ on 2nd club, assume you survived so far now what ? If you ruff a ♦ after AK you have a problem with coming to hand even when trumps break 3-2. If u ruff high to come to hand and play hight trump to knock down the Ace, LHO may take and play a spade or diamond to promote his A8x or A9x or w/e. As i said there are also hands that pd may raise with only 2 ♥, in fact the way some people play 4♥ it denies a 3 card fit, with 3 card fit they bid their shortness (3♠ or 4♦ i.e ) And there are bad trump breaks too which may ruin the day even if pd has ♦Q. I admit that a ♦ Q will make a lot of change in outcome, but i personally have no way to learn if pd has it or not, do you ?

My declarer play is generally rubbish, so could you please explain why is this the correct play?

You. LAW 49 - ... when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); LAW 50D.1. (a) A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played.

After getting a ruling that the AQ are PCs I play the K and require the Q played under it.

Me, I'll win the K.

I think it is a very good idea when it is systemic, as with Fantoni-Nunes who open all 4441 distributions in range with 1NT. However I feel that most people are announcing that they may occasionally have a singleton just to cover the one time a year that it happens. That is, it is not systemic to open 1NT with 4441 hands, but if their singleton is an honour, the wind is in the right direction and it is not a Tuesday then they may open 1NT. To me this is just 'bridge' and should not warrant the announcement and it is misleading.

No. If ♥ were trump, yes.

Thanks, I was thinking your sample was 2392.3 hands.

Sounds like a terrible idea. It really would be easy to see the shape of the hands of the players who re-order their suits the way they like, to say nothing of the scope for deliberate cheating. And it wouldn't take the same amount of time, since some of the time spent sorting is also used in assessing the value of the hand. The current regulation is fine, as long as it's followed.

You'll never get club players to alert these doubles. They can't alert based on ideas they don't understand.

It was not alertable until the most recent update of the orange book (beginning of this month) in which the 'potentially unexpected' clause was added for doubles and redoubles. I believe this qualifies as 'potentially unexpected' and is hence now alertable

I know one person who makes t/o doubles on any opening hand of any shape whatsoever (can include 5-cards in the other major for example) so overcalls are always less than an opening bid. She describes it clearly on her convention card but assures me she has been told by an EBU director that it is not alertable. She is an experienced tournement player who has a very high ranking. Has she been misinformed?

Is this online or face to face? If face to face, surely you ruff a heart, lead the J♣, and see if west twitches. If online, I'd play for west to hold the Q, but I don't think the play to this point has helped me much.

I think that it's alertable under 'potentially unexpected' (which is new: "Doubles are also alertable if they convey a potentially unexpected meaning in addition to take-out or penalties as defined above." OB5E2). I argued for that inclusion specifically because I didn't like the 'if you think it's takeout then it's takeout' definition which (as here) can easily mislead.

Thanks everyone. Perhaps I should have been clearer, systemically we play T/O doubles which I always assume ops will take as 1444or possible 2344, hence my concern. Simon

This is similar to a hand here from Monday night. South opens 1S on AQJ42 JT QJT QJ7 West doubles. North raises to 2S and West doubles again. West held K975 AQ5 97 AKT6 2S could make but South misplayed, partly misreading West's bidding. North-South not very happy.

I would have thought it so common amongst weaker players that it could not be considered unexpected.

Thanks. I'll alert from now on.

Both. It drives me mad but I'm more concerned about ops.

Oppo should be aware that more than one meaning is alertable. According to the Orange Book, "5G4: The following doubles must be alerted: ... © Any 'competitive', 'co-operative' or 'optional' double." It seems to me that if the doubler could have a flat hand with 4 cards in opener's suit, this is sufficiently optional or card-showing that it should be alerted. It sounds like your partner's doubles mean "I have an opening hand with no suit I'm willing to overcall", and is unexpected enough to be alertable.

If the only difference between a 5533 system and a 5542 system is the choice of opening bid on a 4432 shape, then they are basically the same system. Either way, partner will assume 1D = 4 cards, 1C = 3 cards, and occasionally he will be disappointed. Of the two, I recommend 5533, simply because sometimes opposition will be allowed to play unusual defences to a 2+card 1C opening.

I think Vampyr makes a very good point about Lebensohl 2 NT still being on and offering advancer many options to show hands with all levels of values. 4 ♥ must show a hand with a few values and lots of ♥. But the hand does illustrate that it's sometimes just as important to consider what partner didn't bid as much as what was bid.

Nobody seems to have read this important historical note. It's not clear to me how Oswald Jacoby came in to the story, but it sounds like Jacoby 2NT should probably be called Jdeegan 2NT. Let's all agree to use this new name, I don't want to see any more threads titled "It's time to Dump Jacoby".