mikestar13

This rant is rather upsetting in its unmerited use of the C-word.

I'm not sure about that. I play chess and I rather stink at it, though I've notched a lot of wins against players who stink even worse. I can tear a bad player of the "when in doubt, push a pawn" school limb from limb. I have invented chess variants, some of which are published, and I stink at playing them too, I am often literally beaten at my own game . But the game still fascinates me, though not to the profound level bridge does.

Does anybody try 1♦ with this hand?

I think Danny Kleinman's method is better than KR when they differ on flat hands. See http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/kleinman_points.html

Mikeh's exchange with Stephen Tu brought something to my mind. Let's contrast 1♠- Long Constrictive Auction-4NT-5♥-6♠ with 1♠- Long Constrictive Auction-4NT-5♥-7♠. Does anyone pause the "required" ten seconds in the latter auction? Does anyone expect someone else to? (Incurable Secretary Birds excepted.) The only pause rationally possible is contemplating an unlikely lead-directing double, and that applies equally to both cases. But the letter of the law requires a 10 second pause in the 7♠ case. My point is that context matters, and if some pauses are shorter in cases like this, does anyone care?

Question to thepossum: can any method of scoring distinguish between a result due to distraction as opposed to (lack of) knowledge of the game, systems and ability to play the cards? And if so, should it? IMHO, the ability to find the right bid or play in the face of distractions is a legitimate and important bridge skill. And while imps punished this one more brutally, it kinder and gentler to the missing the overtrick scenario. I can't escape wondering if you had been playing matchpoints and been distracted and gotten a bottom from blowing an overtrick, would we be seeing an article about the brutality of matchpoints? Bridge is a brutal game, no matter the scoring, different forms tend to be brutal in different ways, but even then, not always. It has happened that a match has been decided by 1 imp, then suddenly 4♥= vs. 4♥+1 looms large indeed in a imp game.

The point that this error costs more in imps than 4♥= when everyone else is 4♥+1, while if the game were matchpoints, both errors are a bottom board. If I understand OP correctly. That's the point of imps, isn't it?

From a technical perspective, South African Texas is more useful over a weak or mini no trump when being able to protect your own positional stoppers vs. partner's potential ones is more important and needing Gerber is even less likely. From a psychological perspective, SAT not only prevents 1NT-4♥(transfer)-P, but also 1NT-4♣(Gerber), which is usually a judgement error on the 4♣ bidder's part.

The 4M 5m double doesn't preclude collecting a number: partner may well have a defensive oriented hand with which he can make a successful penalty pass. Indeed this is reminiscent of Edgar Kaplan adopting negative doubles after a 1NT opening is overcalled--it not only helps your constructive bidding, it collects more penalties than a penatly double.

Pass, but it's close.

OP's math is wrong for the Chicago part score/game decision. Let's say for easy figuring, partials are scored duplicate style and not carried over. Let's further suppose that the decision is 3♠ vs. 4♠ and you will take 9 or 10 tricks, and won't be doubled. If you stop in three spades, you score +140 or +170 regardless of vulnerability. Now if you bid 4 ♠ and take ten tricks, you score +420/+620, but your gain is only 250/450 vs. the +170 you would have scored in 3♠. Likewise if you bid 4♠ and take only nine tricks, you score -50/-100, but you loss is 190/240 vs. the +140 you would have scored. So not vulnerable, you break even at 43.2%, vulnerable you break even at 34.8%. But you should be a bit more conservative especially vulnerable, to allow for the badly-splitting hand where you get doubled and go down, sometimes more than one. If part scores carry, be more conservative, as the equity value of the partial is not precisely known, but higher than +140.

Toward the end of a match, state of the match considerations also are involved. In teams, if you have a comfortable lead, tend to play safe, if badly behind go for it, if about even follow the odds.

Multiply the mp/imp expectation of +110 by the chance of a 3-3 split, multiply the expectation for -400 by the chance of a 4-2 or worse split, and add the numbers together. Now compare that to the expectation for -100. More likely right to play safe than on a finesse, but it still may be right to go for it, depending on the odds. If the odds make it too close to call on any decision, I aim to go plus rather than minus,to get the biggest plus if there are no minuses, and to get the smallest minus if there are no pluses. But the odds make the correct action clear most of the time.

With a seventh spade and shorter hearts, 4♠ is my choice, but if if opened 4♠ here, I'd catch ♠--- ♥Qxxxx ♦xxxx ♣xxxx sure as hell.

I do tend to adhere to the Rule of 15, but this hand doesn't qualify. I estimate the godawful nominal 11 point are worth about 9 plus 5 spades equals only 14. Give me a sixth spade, and I open, but even then I'm not happy about it.

Thanks, this is an excellent set of responses to Precision 1♣!

If partner agrees, I take a "semi-mainstream" approach: a limit raise is 4+ trumps or 3 trumps with a stiff. Other 3 limit card raises start with 1NT, whether forcing or semi-forcing.

e I would be licking my lips. I've run into enough"preempt on any crap" opponents that if I'm up against one of them, I'd be thinking +1100.

Exactly. My take is that North's hand is closer to a key-card ask than to 4♥.

If the desire is honestly to avoid delays caused by alerting, why not provide a system card which all pairs must play and specify the alert procedure not be used (if such a thing is legal in the EBU).

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2c3d3sp4cp4sp5cppp]133|100[/hv] 1NT = 12-15 balanced, may have five card major2♣ = Stayman3♠ = five spades4♣ = five+ clubs, <3 spades4♠ = good spades, in case partner wants to play a possible 5-2 fit.5♣ = to play, would gamble a pass at matchpoints.

[hv=pc=n&s=s83haq43d3caqt853&n=saqj64ht96dkt9ckj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2c2d2sp3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv] 1NT = 12-15 balanced, may have five-card major2♣ = Stayman2♠ = 4 or 5 spades, denies 4 hearts3♣ = 5+ clubs, game forcing.3NT = To play, diamonds stopped.

I couldn't agree more. The online laws are in serious need of revision. The standard for software must prohibit all mechanical errors. LOT's and revokes happen when the game is played with physical cards by fallible humans, but are they an essential characteristic of bridge like good/bad judgement in bidding, play, and defense? I say no.

2M bid gives better preemption on the weak hands.

Nice looking system, awm! For me I would go with the flag bids (♣=♥, ♦=♠). Allows better preepmtion when partner has a fit, as against not allowing a qbid in the multi case. I go with Benito Garazzo on this, he wouldn't play multi as he considered 2♠(weak)-3♠ to be the best bid in the game. The decision is close, it could pay to run some sims. Have you considered 2♥/2♠=3-8 2♣/2♦=9-13 or strong as an alternative?