gszes

I mentioned earlier the preemptive value of a 2s bid. This is a much stronger bidding deterrent when using a "standard" system where opener is limited only by their failure to open 2c. Keeping the opps silent (they are pesky critters) is the primary aim of most preemptive bidding. Passing 1s and waiting to back in if/when the opps balance fails on several counts. 1. P is even more likely to lead a spade under such conditions since backing in almost always at least means some spade values (not so with a direct raise). 2. Opps can/will almost always back into the bidding at the 2 level where it is much safer than the 3 level. 3. P will never ever ever believe your hand has 2+ potential tricks and many reasonable games will be missed. P overbid their hand when it was worth a 3d invite (I am sure some are thinking 2n but will not say it). Do not concern yourself with every comment made by every partner. We have all learned differently and come to make our own style (which will change over time trust me). You are off to a good start (though I would reconsider using that monkey analogy) keep on truckin:)

This is IMPS = BIG bonus for making game. If we can hit p with 4 spades it does not take much to make game there so lets start with stayman and see if there is a 44 major suit fit. So what do we do if p bids 2d or 2h? There are many approaches but there is one single reason to just blast 3n. 5d just seems too far away. There are only a tiny amount of hands p can have where 5d has reasonable play. 3N has a much greater potential to make and interestingly enough most hands that make 3n will not make 5d and vice versa:) IF you have a set of agreements that will allow you to search for 3n in comfort then go for it. There is another benefit to blasting 3n the opps will not know you have a long dia suit and may not make a dramatic lead giving your side time. If you search for 3n and end up there the defense is much more likely to be accurate.

We have already limited our hand with 1n and our distribution (we cannot suddenly have a heart suit) somewhat with 1N also and this hand has suddenly taken on the looks of a monster. P with 3 non spade aces and out might be enough for slam and they took a free 3c bid. If this hand has not become slam oriented I have wasted a good deal of time learning this fine sport. I will trot out the completely obvious 4h and if that does not get a rise out of partner we can always settle in 5c. HEHE I have just finished reading all of the other posts and it figures that the player with the umm highly optimistic 3c bid would hand out free advice:)))))))))))))))))))))))))

If I have a partner that respects the vulnerability they wont have less than KQJxxx or AQJxxx for the 2s bid I will bid 3s trying to make life just a little bit tougher for the opps. If they get to 3n I pass and hope to set them. If I have a partner that likes to play a less than strict version of 2s forgetaboutit and hope the opps get themselves in trouble:)

There is zero rational reason to assume p has or does not have any power on the side. There is zero rational way to tell if/where partner is short. That means we can only logically proceed from trick taking potential from a reasonable minimum 3s bid and proceed from there. If I have a sound bidding partner I will bid 3n which lho cannot set off the top so it will almost never be x. With a partner that likes to stray I would avoid 3n and most likely just pass. The downside of too much variability in preempts is a price that one must be willing to pay (when partner has a hand like this and passes from fear).

Diplomacy is NOT my strong suit (read my posts). There seems to be room here for negotiation however. Many potential mentors may have qualms about having potential clients know they give out free lessons (especially to complete strangers). They earn a significant living from the mastery and knowledge of this fine game of ours and do not wish to "delay" collecting fees from those that want to demand their early lessons be free of charge. This puts the anonymity factor in a different light since there can be a direct impact on the livelihood of the potential mentor. I agree with Maureen that the BIL should be able to check credentials (this would mean some sort of verifiable ID) BUT I also see no reason why a potential mentor cannot make their desire for anonymity completely obvious such that the BIL will not use their real name in any way shape or form. It should not be a matter of any great difficulty for a mentor and mentee to get along famously without either knowing anything much about the other since the goal is primarily teaching/learning bridge. It is super easy to get a free gmail account with a false name and address and phone number so anonymity should be quite simple if one wishes to accomplish it. If one has a voice so famous in the bridge world then maybe phone lessons are ill advised (I use Skype for all of my sessions it adds a special intonation to the infrequent use of ACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK most of my mentees have heard at one time or another (for a particularly egregious error). Even if your sessions are relegated to the keyboard I am sure any future mentee would be more than pleased to receive a great foundational start to this great game of ours rather than casting about aimlessly trying to pursue knowledge they do not even know how to look for.

Bridge is a game of probability and the amount of times I have seen my opps bid and raise my strong 2 suit (and we are talking a HUGE number of years) has been well ZERO. Even worse, it seems obvious that we would score better in 3hx than we will playing 4h so maybe it is in our best interests to not play that 4h is natural. With spades and another suit it will almost always be best to start with 3s so if we are going to take up an entire bidding level to get our point across it should be for an action that is pretty darn precise. I would vote for 4144 (23+)4045 4054 5044 (all 21+). This analysis takes into consideration that the original pass by responder showed some values (2 Q +) and that if we had passed 3h it is construed as take out in case responder had a penalty pass of 2h. Agree with wank that if somehow we really had hearts it is far better to x then bid 4h when they run.

I certainly understand not wanting to pass a 65 hand with the boss suit. It would seem the most logical alternatives are 1s or 2s. The downside of 3s is that it is unilateral and most likely abolishes any chance of playing clubs. Preempting in such a cruddy suit invites disaster since p is most likely unable to bid further unless they have a fit and even then when p is looking at the AK of spades what else will they think you are short of besides trump suit quality. I prefer 2s with this mostly defenseless hand since at least that leaves partner with room to explore and we may yet get a chance to show our clubs if p has enough to invite. 2s = 8 1s = 5. 3s = 3. It may seem that south deserves a fair amount of the blame for this poor result but that is not really the case on this particular hand. the 3s hit p with a very appropriate hand and sometimes luck is a major factor in a given hand that cannot be ignored. I may not care for the 3s opener but in this case it should have been a winner. 20% fault to south since they may scare a timid north out of bidding game if N happens to be looking at the spade AK and wondering just how weak this 3s bid is. Agree with artk78 that pass seems too conservative. If your p actually has a reasonable 3s call you have to bid 4s and until proven otherwise you have no strong reason to assume p does not have a 3s bid QJTxxxx QJx x xx where they rightfully expect to take 6 tricks at favorable opposite a collection of balanced junk (is hoping for the heart T really too much to ask?). I give 80% of the blame to North for not trusting partner to have other values to compensate for their obviously not overly strong spade suit.

The answer will be dependent on other agreements: If you are using support x your failure to use it over 2h gives you an easy 2s bid now. IMPs or MP. If you were NOT using support x it is much more entertaining. MP The 1 board disaster limit allows for much greater creativity so pass 3s 3n 4d all have some appeal. P will realize there is a strong chance you are minimum for your previous pass so their x will most likely not be on minimal values. This brings pass into the picture since we are not favorites to make 3n (our next best option). For the risk averse it is probably better in the long run to just bid 4d. IMPS much more dangerous situation so pass seems too risky. Similar to MP but 3N now takes a bit more of a back seat to 4d since 4d is far less likely to start us on the road to disaster. Once opps start x 3n it might be all too easy to x 4d. If we bid 4d immediately there is far less of a chance the opps will x since (at least in theory) we could be quite distributional for a 4d bid not a balanced ughhhhhh. 4d also increases our sides chances of generating a large plus score if p has some extra values and we can play 5m (which p will hate trying if we bid 3n.

p with a strong hand spades and diamonds could have much more easily begun with x vs 3d (since they can convert your 3c bid to 3d). Their bidding 3d means they are making more of a competitive bid rather than one based on power. That information alone should be enough for you to pull the x. On top of that how can your partner possibly imagine your 4d bid was based on a monstrously huge trump fit and zero power? Sure its possible but how likely is it (not very). Partner's x offers an opinion based on the bidding. There is no reason to assume p has made the correct decision when your hand is so much more distributional and powerless than your p might expect for a 4d bid. Bid 5d mainly because you have strong reason to believe 4h will make and if p subsequently doubles 5h they have been forewarned and any x they offer is no longer your fault (ie do not again pull if p x 5h). Another consideration--if p really has the quick tricks available to set 4h do you not think 5d will have an excellent chance to make?--just a thought. Good auction until the pass of 4h x keep up the good work.

Don't be too harsh on your "expert" partner. They probably made a reasonable 4s bid that went down due to an unfortunate duplication of values in diamonds. They were in ill humor probably for some other reason(s) and failed to appreciate that in bridge both good and bad things happen quite frequently. 2s Clear cut not so much because your hand is worth so much but because it is worth so little defensively while still retaining a good deal of potential. That 2s bid makes it much tougher for the opps to locate a (probable) dia fit. Light opening bidders should especially appreciate the preemptive value of 2s. If p were to bid 3h HSGT over 2s would anyone hesitate to bid 4h? That being the case a 2s bid seems prudent not just from a preemptive stand point but for retaining the ability to bid game under certain conditions that's pretty good for a mere simple raise--lots of potential reward for not much risk.

I will show up around 145 if you need a fill in just let me know---

I will say that actions by both E and W were reasonable within their system and no fault should be assessed. The E hand is pretty good but the ability to show a short club allows them to miss inferior games (especially at MP) and there seems to be no way for this partnership to tell the difference btn 3 and 4 card spade support which makes quite a difference. I would not bid game with the E hand (sorry RHM) I would defer to the science (note that if the west hand has only 3 spades and 3 hearts (vs 2) 4s is not a very good contract). Game of % some days you will bid a grand with ten trumps missing the trump Q and go down (that's life) sometimes the overbidders get lucky that's life:) I would not be so harsh about the west hand since the 4th spade greatly increases the odds of making game and, with p short in clubs, the short heart is virtually certain to be worth at least 1 ruff (if not 2) but even that depends on how little opener needs to make a SSGT opposite your drury.

SIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHWhen I first answered this OP I read the description of the bidding (there was none) and in conjunction with MIKEH description of the various contingencies I based by decision to play for the drop based on LHO opening a preemptive heart bid of unknown value 2h was the most logical guess given the ability of south to show a strong hand with clubs. I then answered the remainder of the questions about my post based on the original assumptions. After reading several other posts which seemed to draw unwarranted information (zelandahk) I went back and looked at the OP and lo and behold a TON of new information was available. Given that rho was a passed hand and things like game and slam were of minimal to non existent consideration (a situation that was completely within the realm of probability if w were the opening bidder as I guessed and wrote about consistently if erroneously) I Completely AGREE WITH all that chose to take the losing finesse.

When was the last time you preferred to open a weak 2 with say Jxxxxx xxx xxxx void ? would you make the same case for Jxxxxx xxx xxx K. IMHO one is much more likely to open a weak 2s with the latter. The former contains a couple of surprises that is beyond anything partner might suspect in a bidding situation. The realm of probability becomes so wide (and that is just a weak 2) that essentially even opening a weak 2 becomes a game of chance much more than a technique for expressing a hand. When we extend that our to the 3 level Jxxxxxx xx xxx K vs Jxxxxxx xxx xxx void the range of hands now includes anything from AQJxxxx xx xx xx to xxxxxxx x(xx xx)xxx void with no room left to explore how is it even close to reasonable for your partner to ever make anything but a WAG no matter what kind of bidding there is. This same principle does not hold as much sway when one opens at the 4 level because a wide variety of holding becomes reasonably probable there and at least the partnership is in game. I do not pretend to say one method is superior to the other. My contention is that hughmongous ranges take away from one of the greatest aspects of this fine game and that is the use of brain power. If every bid is a crap shoot we might as well take up backgammon or just retire to a casino rather than waste time pushing cards around the room. So this becomes more a decision based on what you think your opps are normally going to do rather than strictly a case of open spaces. If you are playing against me play for the drop:)

That's a LOT of work well done.

I have part of this program for eons (give or take an eon or so) and will freely admit I sometimes have a lot more FUN showing new players HOW to begin bidding and watching them progress than I do playing. This is a great game and giving new players a start of the basics is a good way to "give back". Maureen has been doing a great job coordinating the program so those that can I urge you to join in and volunteer to teach for maybe 2 hours a week. Note that the 3 posts by HALLWAY have around 300 looks so there is a LOT of interest out there.

xxx Txxxxx(xx) xx(x K) is still a heck of a lot more likely to open 2h 3h 4h than xxx xxxxxx(xx) xx void Once it looks like the heart QJ are at best split there are no more HCP for lho to hold aside from the club K. Vacant spaces is fine but hcp requirements are usually better. I echo MIKEH /rant about entirely too much information is missing.

1. What else can p bid with xxx AKQ x AKQxxxx ? 3n 2. P knows you have a strong hand yet decided to bid 3n humor them and agree with their decision even though there is no chance they can tell how to bid their hand better than you can:) 3. pass over 2h (hoping against hope we could defend 2h (why would we want to do that with the long hearts behind ours?) has left us in a very bad position. We should have bid 3d over 2h because if we bid 3d now it sounds like a simple preference and does not come close to the value this hand has for partner. The best we can do now is bury the dia suit (ughhhhh) and bid 3s. P will know its a doubleton (we did not bid 2s earlier) and they will guess we have some dia strength (though not length). This or pass and hope our failure to bid 3d over 2h did not make us miss game. 4.4c over 4d 5d over 4h I will have to guess 6c since my 4 c bid could easily have been KQxxxx or Kxxxxxx over 4s I pass over 4n I bid 5h 2 w/o.

I am still wracking what's left of my brain wondering why lho with a completely safe trump lead ever consider leading a side suit. It boggles the mind on so many levels. There is no strong reason to assume, from the bidding, where south's honors are (aside from the spade Q) and any side suit lead (even a singleton club) is at best a huge gamble that it will not solve declarers 13th trick for them. A trump lead at worst will keep the dummy from ruffing a suit twice and any lead is hugely unlikely to be a "killer" vs a grand. If I had a singleton club the last thing I would want to do is wake up declarer to that possibility by leading one.arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Is the lead of a singleton so strong on our psyche that we cannot avoid it even when logic dictates it is unreasonable to choose it? It just seems too coincidental that a club was chosen by the opening leader with a perfectly safe (and possibly killer) spade lead. I would probably fall back on pulling trump and trying to ruff out the dia Q falling back on the compound squeeze it that does not work. This may seem odd but if the dia finesse was always due to work (by ruffing hearts vs dia) then the dia Q being with lho will guarantee a compound squeeze will work whenever it is possible. When this fails since lho led proudly from the club Q knowing there was a fair chance such a lead would put me through such mental anguish, even if I guessed what to do, they would most likely go on to win the match since I would have mentally exhausted myself in the process. I am going to sleep now good night:)

problem 7 with about 40 5d bids and 3 passes is probably one of the biggest mistakes :) since bbo forums have been getting killed regularly by JEC in many situations just like this---------------------------(oh I was part of the 40)

1.pass 2.pass 3.4s 4.x 5.x 6.x 7.5d 8.x 9.4s 10.4s 11.x 12.4s 13.4s 14.4s 15.4s 16.p 17.4s 18.x 19.pass 20.4s 21.pass 22.x 23.pass

I'll be there sat (maybe an hour early hoping to get in some practice---but why am I ALWAYS HUNGRY after reading the forum:))))))))))))))))))))

on the bottom edge p might hold xx Qxx x Qxxxxxx (if you would raise hearts with that you are far braver than I). On the top side P might have xxx void xxxx AQxxxx it would seem the contract should lie somewhere btn 4c and 6c making 5c the likeliest biggest reward with the best overall chance of success (I know I know we cant bid 4c anymore but those hands still should count in the probabilities). The strongest case for bidding 6c is that it just might coerce an opp to bid 6s if 6c is not x. I do not like those odds and much prefer the use of 4n as last train or in the absence of that agreement just bid 5c.