dustinst22

I think he's talking about series. Difference of course is that in those sports you're always aware of the score so the entire strategy is based on making state of game decisions.

Terrible idea imo. Total points should produce the better team in the long run. Consider scenarios where one team destroys the other one in segments, then loses by a slim margin in others. I think watching a team swing a bit to come back from a deficit adds rather than detracts from the game. Situational state of the match decisions makes the game more complex I think.

Really, no one showing the diamond suit after no heart fit? In MP, i get it, but shouldnt we show this suit in teams? Seems like we can make a slam on some layouts, and avoid a bad 3N on others.

Agree, reason I ask is whether or not this is how the bidding should have began with AK7th

in this sequence, isnt 3H setting trumps and asking for a cue bid? So I think responder shld cue spades. Opener can then bid 3NT to probe for help in a minor if needed. However, what would this sequence show (playing Kokish): 2C - 2D ; 3H In any case, I think this question has more to do with hand evaluation than anything, and it seems responder didn't evaluate his hand very well if he bid 4H on both of these.

3NT for me

How are you calculating the EV for being in 3? i.e. Being in 3 across any 15-17 hand? If this is the case, obv the EV won't be great because you'll be missing many games. I think to calculate the EV for invite you have to set the parameters to being in 3 across a minimum hand that opener won't accept with. Also, as Justin pointed out, opener will accept on many different types of hands (17 always, 16 sometimes, prime 15's occasionally). So plugging in a point value is not going to be very useful.

Is Double Dummy analysis really the best way to determine if we belong in game?

This is a given....but I'm talking about bidding reckless games that aren't even close to that just because of vulnerability. Game -1, means 140 vs -100....so 6 imp swing

Or your invitational range just gets lowered..... The whole "just bid game and hope because we're red" isnt really a good approach. Avoiding bad games is important imo, especially in long matches. These are the type of IMPS that go unnoticed, but are important. 6 imp swings add up.

i love aggression, but this seems a bit much for me. Invite seems to be aggressive enough. i think u should have an agreement with partner in these situations, is the inviter going to be aggressive in these situations, or the acceptor? Want to avoid both being aggro.

What is standard practice with this shape (1516, 0526), to always open the longer minor or take into consideration the problem of what to do after a 1♠ response and thus open 1♥? This brings up the point of, how good does our hand need to be for a "distributional" strength reverse (i.e. only 12 HCP, but 4 losers like x KQJxx x KQJxxx) Hand that came up yesterday: Q KQJxx T KQJxxx

With a 2452 hand and good values (slam invitational), whats the best way to handle the auction after a 1D opener from partner (assuming inverted minors deny 4c major). i.e. 1D - 1H ; 2C - ? 2S seems like a very poor choice as we really preempt the auction, esp if partner now bids 3H or something. Does 3D now show this type of hand?

This is really a great post. This really rings true also in the game of Spades where I obv have vastly more experience and am now trying to go through that same process in Bridge. To extend this further, there are some people who are theory specialists (and write books, or teach), but when it comes down to the nitty gritty details of actual practical play, they cannot compete at the top level simply due to lack of experience/grinding out a ton of hands. The skills of counting/risk judgment/tactical decisions/reading your opponent, etc come through playing a lot, not having theoretical knowledge. I also think most top players are beyond insanely competitive, something that is pretty much requisite at that level and all the theory in the world cannot compensate for.

Haha, I have a similar story to this. Bidding goes 1H - 2S all pass. 2S shows up with a monster. Both novices. 1H bidder explains to his partner that he should use the STOP card for that hand, and to bid 2S directly with a weak hand.

In before splinter

What's your upper limit for an overcall, Phil?

Haha awesome. I'm confused, it seems pretty clear/obvious that North is to blame. Is there really even a question about it? I thought these "assign the blame" questions were supposed to at least be some shade of gray. Or maybe it was just posted to show his partner how silly his bidding was/

If you were preparing for an event with say 60 board matches, what slam agreements would you consider to be mandatory (in order of priority)?

Or J3rd? Trick 2? You're not going to at least pitch a heart first?

My gut instinct is to win AH and run 4 rounds of clubs pitching a heart and 2 diamonds, but first I'd be curious what cards are played on the first 2 rounds of clubs.

What would the democratic approach be, to have partner kick you under the table which signal should be given?

After your suggestion of implementing this, I'm actually pretty surprised how much it's changed things.

For me it's not being able to quickly get over a disaster/bad result and move on. I get tilted too much and then I make very bad judgment calls. Thus my bad sets are usually started by a disaster and then snowball. Having a policy of no discussion/commenting of hands during a set has helped get rid of some of this. The opps love it when you get upset over a disaster, so I try my hardest to not give them that edge/satisfaction, but it's incredibly difficult. In my opinion playing well is hugely psychological.

Interesting. Sounds promising.