daveharty

Playing 2/1, on this auction: 1S-(pass)-1NT-(2S) are responder's options analogous to those over a direct seat Michaels bid, or are they altered by the initial failure to raise spades? I'm specifically wondering about this situation: 1S-(pass)-1NT-(2S) dbl-(2NT)-3S Responder intended the "free" 3S as showing a 3-card limit raise but opener thought it was merely competitive (maybe 7-9 points with Hx or something similar). Is it standard to use 3H as the limit raise here?

[hv=pc=n&s=skt9642hkq9542d9c]133|100[/hv] Matchpoints, nobody vulnerable. RHO deals and passes. This hand came up last week in the local club game and my LHO, who held this hand, seemed completely flummoxed. I told her I would create a poll, so here you go.

Board 12 is either unlucky, or your partner's fault for not balancing aggressively, I guess. I can't see doubling 1NT with this hand unless the opps are playing a weak NT. I am curious how they made 3 though!

As others have suggested, these hands have very little to do with conventions and everything to do with hand evaluation. Regarding your professed difficulties dealing with strong hands, it might help to keep a couple of the traditional "HCP targets" in mind: 25-26 for game, 33 for slam, etc. On hand #1, for example, your partner's 1NT response covered a variety of hands in the 6-10 point range (even more, if you play 2/1 rather than Standard American). Game was therefore a lively possibility when added to your nice 18-count, but since partner has already "said his piece", you can expect that he will often pass or give a simple preference if you make a rebid that doesn't show extra values. Your hand is actually quite heavy for a 3S rebid (which could be made on a hand with a queen or even a king less, if everything else was right) but is at least a decent description of your hand type (extra length in spades, extra values). Think of it this way: you're having a conversation with your partner, trying to decide what the best strain and level is; each round of bidding allows you to refine what's been said before, until someone knows enough to place the contract (or pass if you are already there). You've already said "I have at least 12-13 points and at least 5 spades"; your partner has already said "I have 6-10 points and (probably) fewer than 3 spades". So if you simply rebid 2S, you are giving one further piece of information ("I actually have at least SIX spades") but aren't telling partner the important news that you have a much better-than-minimum opening bid. You would rebid 2S, for example, with a hand like AKJxxx xx xx KJx. Hand #2 is tough, I understand both 3H and double. I would probably double with the intention of bidding 3H if partner responded 3C. 2NT is probably not right whether or not you were on the same page as partner about the meaning of the bid, since you could easily go down in 2NT or 3NT when you are cold for game (or even slam!) in hearts or diamonds. Imagine partner with a hand as weak as, say, x Qx Qxxxxx xxxx, when 6D is practically cold. So even if your partnership agreement is that 2NT is a strong balanced hand in this situation, you probably shouldn't do it with spades wide open and such prime holdings elsewhere. Occasionally overcalling a four card suit might be your best option, but a hand such as #3 is probably not that time. Save it for a hand when you have a REALLY good four card suit, and also when the hand is less flexible. For a hand like this one, assuming you want to directly enter the bidding (a close decision in my book), use a takeout double. This is one "convention" that it really is imperative to use and understand, since it comes up so frequently and in so many situations. Basically, someone (or possibly several people concurrently) many years ago realized that a double could more profitably be used to get into the auction, rather than suggest ending it. A takeout double simply says "Partner, I have some values and wish to compete for the contract, but I need your help to determine what the best level/strain is." A lot of good stuff has been written on these forums about responding to takeout doubles, etc. But as a rule of thumb for a simple, direct-seat double, it should show approximately an opening bid in strength, and at least three cards in the unbid suits. Regarding your question about partner's 2H bid, I am with S2000magic--for me, a new suit bid in response to an overcall is non-forcing but constructive.

I agree that this is a totally normal hand to open 1H, and would expect the North player at the other table to do so. For that reason, passing is perfect if you are trying to manufacture a swing: it's not so outrageous as to be a wild misrepresentation of your hand and will almost certainly lead to a different auction than at the other table. I don't have a great deal of experience playing BAM but it seems like a reasonable gamble if you feel like you're an underdog against a given team.

31% to South for the 2D overcall. 23% to North for the 5S bid (mitigated somewhat by the fact that North surely thought there was more extreme distribution at the table with everyone else showing values). 42% to East for the suicidal 5H bid--justice is never served. 16% to Obama, because isn't everything his fault? And 8% to Nicholas Cage, who hasn't made a decent movie in, like, forever. West is blame-free.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to answer the survey. About 75 individuals did so (I haven't figured it out exactly because not everyone did all four sections). Results were as follows (scale of 1-5): B1 (Preferred System Complexity): mean score 3.69 B2 (Bidding Aggression): 3.53 I1 (Postmortem Complexity): 3.57 I2 (Bookishness): 3.24 D1 (Carding Complexity): 3.42 D2 (Opening Lead Aggression): 2.98 S1 (Pace): 3.59 S2 (Overall Competitiveness): 3.59 The "typical" survey responder (using the mode of each trait) has a Bridge Personality of: 44 44 33 44. This would correspond to someone who: --likes a bidding system that is fairly complex --is relatively aggressive in the auction --likes to engage in a somewhat detailed postmortem --often reads bridge books and/or has a fairly extensive collection --enjoys straightforward carding agreements --is middle-of-the-road on opening lead --is a relatively fast player --is competitive but not cutthroat I was somewhat surprised by the results for I2; I'm not sure why, but I expected forum users to read more bridge books than is apparently the case (the mean was barely above average). I was also interested to note that there were no "1" or "5" responses on D2 (Opening Lead Aggression); maybe this isn't such a great question if everyone is clumped in the middle.

I agree almost completely with this (not sure about "many" top level players not reading/studying but I'm sure there are some). The point is not to find someone who closely resembles yourself; it is rather to find someone whose tendencies align with your expectations for a partner. If that is someone who matches yourself, fine, but that certainly won't be true for everyone. I agree that strong and enduring partnerships can be formed between people who would have very different BPs, but I think the key is that each partner would know how the other differs from themselves in consistent and identifiable ways. I can enjoy playing with someone who is a less aggressive bidder than myself, as long as I know it and can allow for it. Also, I would argue that each of us might have different "deal-breakers" as far as partnerships are concerned. I am definitely not suggesting that people with divergent BPs shouldn't partner each other; I am simply suggesting that having a shorthand method of viewing information about a potential partner's tendencies and philosophy might provide a useful tool in narrowing the field, according to whatever criteria each person sets for them self.

Yeah, I agree that it is tough. I would just ask that you try to take a holistic view of your bidding tendencies and come up with an "average" for the various scenarios that you will face at the table.

I would suggest paying more attention to the "reading" part of the description than to the "owning books" part, if they are in conflict. The only reason I included both was in case you are like me, and go through periods where you read a lot of bridge literature, and then go through extended periods where you read almost none. In such a case I thought the number of books owned might provide a decent metric.

Maybe a good way to approach it would be to ask, "How would I answer if I was playing with a clone of myself as a partner?" Also, I realize that some of the descriptions of the numbers won't line up exactly with people's personal experiences; in such a case I hope that they would pay more attention to the number than to my description of it, and mentally place themselves somewhere on a 1-5 axis that they define internally. After voting seems to have slowed or stopped, I will tabulate the results and come up with an "average BP" for those who answered the poll. Maybe I'll post a list of individual BPs too, if people are interested.

That's true, but that's also kind of the point, at least in my mind; if it is to be a reasonably useful tool in determining partnership compatibility, then I think subjective concerns are paramount. I agree completely about pace, that can be hugely important. I was thinking that anyone who is two or more numbers removed on the "Pace" scale might throw up a warning flag, at least for me.

Give them to me.

This is the fourth and final part of the poll. Part 1 of the poll is here. Part 2 of the poll is here. Part 3 of the poll is here. Thanks in advance to everyone who completes the poll, I hope it provided some food for thought. To derive your "Bridge Personality Number", simply put the numbers which correspond to your poll answers in four pairs, in the order given (Bidding, Information, Defense, miScellaneous). Someone who was "middle of the road" on all questions would be a 33 33 33 33. Someone who preferred a highly complex system both for bidding and for carding, but was relatively conservative in the auction and on opening lead, reads a lot of bridge books, loves a detailed postmortem, doesn't care too much whether they win or lose, and was an extremely slow player, might be a 52 54 52 12. My dream scenario would be for a large number of players to use this (or a similar) tool and see whether it actually helps in determining whether a potential partner is compatible or not. For example, I am a 44 43 33 44; if I saw on someone's profile that they were a 44 33 33 14, I might be a little leery, because even though many of their traits are in close alignment with my own, I might decide it would be maddening to play with such a slow player. Or if someone who was a 23 42 22 44 saw my profile, they might decide that even though I am probably somewhat more aggressive than they are and enjoy a more complex bidding system than they do, he or she might want to try playing with me because our pace, level of competitiveness, and taste for the postmortem are similar.

This is the third part of the poll, covering the "Defense" trait pair. Part 1 of the poll is here. Part 2 of the poll is here. Part 4 of the poll is here.

On all of the poll questions, the first answer corresponds to "1", the last to "5".

This is the second part of the poll, covering the "Information" trait pair. The first question, regarding "post-mortemitis", refers to post-mortems AFTER a session is over; I think we are all in agreement that discussion of hands at the table is something else, and usually undesirable. For the second question, the numerical references I provided are completely arbitrary, so if you think I am way off-base, feel free to say so. Parts 3 and 4 will follow later this evening. EDIT: I've finished inputting the poll. Part 1 is here. Part 3 of the poll is here. Part 4 of the poll is here.

Last year, I wrote a post proposing a descriptor which I called “bridge personality”; basically, a string of numbers which would describe a bridge player's self-rating along various axes, with the goal of providing a rough snapshot of that player's bridge “philosophy” (it did NOT include a self-assessment of skill level). My theory was that it could be used to provide clues about compatibility with potential partners, by allowing one player to see at a glance whether another player's bridge tendencies were in close alignment with his or her own. I always intended to revisit this, because the idea got a lot of very interesting feedback. (The original thread is here.) Many of the suggestions for improving the original scheme fell into two main areas: using a five-point scale rather than the original ten-point scale I had proposed, as the ten-point scale was a little too nuanced on some of the axes; and grouping the resulting numbers in a way that was easier to parse quickly. There were also numerous suggestions for additional axes, and suggestions that a poll be created, since the Forums had recently changed formats and allowed for more complex polling. With all that in mind, I have revised the original scheme and created a poll. I have increased the number of axes measured from six to eight, while reducing the scale from ten points to five on each. I have grouped the eight resulting numbers into four pairs, which can be remembered using the acronym BIDS (Bidding, Information, Defense, miScellaneous). These are explained as follows: Bidding. This pair of numbers describes a player's preference for system complexity, and level of bidding aggression. Information. This pair of numbers describes a player's beliefs or behavior with regard to two common methods of information transfer: the post-mortem, and books about bridge. Defense. This pair of numbers, using the same template as that for Bidding, describes first a player's preference for defensive system (carding) complexity, and next the player's level of defensive (opening lead) aggression. miScellaneous. This pair of numbers describes two behavioral axes that don't fit elsewhere, but are perhaps as important as any for determining partnership compatibility, if not more so: overall competitiveness, and pace of play. The resulting string takes the form: BB II DD SS. My own “Revised Bridge Personality” is: 44 43 33 44. Since there is a three-question limitation for polls, I have broken the poll into four parts, corresponding to the four trait pairs outlined above. Part 2 of the poll is here. Part 3 of the poll is here. Part 4 of the poll is here.

It's nice that you and your partner were on the same page, but if I pulled my partner's penalty double of 1NT--at these colors no less--holding a solid six card suit, I don't think he would be calling the bid "beautiful." Admittedly the opps aren't likely to play in 1NTXX (although stranger things have happened), but partner might have them nailed in whatever black suit they run to. Seems like there is always time to bid your nonvulnerable game/slam after deciding a vulnerable penalty isn't sufficient. If you have the agreement that partner's bid shows precisely this kind of hand, okay, but it seems like you are going to be missing some juicy numbers.

Assuming LHO didn't open the bidding and you are looking at 27 HCP between you and the dummy...what they said. But as the "correct play" often depends on a variety of factors other than a priori odds, an auction would be helpful, even if it's just 1NT-3NT.

South. 4H is...um...bad.

Yep, this looks like an auto 2S to me. Sometimes you are allowed to have a maximum, and second seat vulnerable seems like the right time.

Agree with the start of your auction, but I don't think I'd want to be in grand even if I could bid looking at both hands.

On 2., I thought it was pretty clear to pass, even though my spidey-sense should have been tingling to the tune of "this lady ALWAYS has her bid." Unfortunately, we were screwed from the moment partner decided to double, since the hand was: [hv=pc=n&s=shat8752djcaqj643&w=sakq87h3daq75ct52&n=sjt962hq6dt632ck8&e=s543hkj94dk984c97&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1sp2s3hdppp]399|300[/hv] If you'd told me before dummy came down that I was going to take THREE trump tricks, I would have been licking my chops, but that's what happened: declarer ruffed the spade lead, cashed the heart ace, and played on clubs, conceding three trumps and a diamond. On 1., I'm not sure what I was thinking...I passed and fully earned our -670. Partner had AJ87/AQ83/3/AQJ6.

[hv=pc=n&w=s8432h84dqt32caj3&e=sajthaq2daj65ck42&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1d1hd2h3nppp]266|200[/hv] Matchpoints. LHO leads the ♥6 to the 4 and jack. What's the best line?