gszes

x xx KQ9xxx KJxx I would not overcall 2d x xx AJ9xxx Axxx I would overcall 2d the difference to me is the two quick tricks in case the bidding becomes confrontational. I would not chicken out if I held x xx Axxxxx AJ9x:) The aces make a monstrous difference when p has to make game decisions and the opps lacking those aces will find it more difficult to penalty x us.

If your system has a bid that allows for a "mild slam try" this hand is good enough to warrant its use. The different "standards" proposed all take up a rather large amount of space w/o exchanging virtually any useful information. Since responder may be interested in a grand this huge waste of space may make the grand slam search much more difficult. W/o a low level exploration mechanism I would subside in 4h. Slam exploration w/o shortness needs a lot of space. IMHO 1n 2c 2h 2s and 1n 2c 2s 3h (with the first forcing to at least 3h and the latter forcing to at least 3s) should show some form of 54 in the majors and invitational or greater. While the shape is unknown this shows opener where 9 of your cards are located and allows them to much more accurately make game or no game decisions. This is much like P_Marlowe but with game decision utility also. It is highly important to be able to show distribution so opener can tell how well their hand fits opposite yours for game or slam purposes. This mechanism also allows for slam exploration on hands where opener is interested in game since they can begin cue bidding immediately (it will be a rare hand that is not interested in game that is "slam worthy"). If opener is not interested in game and responder still wants to search for slam all they have to do is cuebid.

These are robots sigh and they know where everything is so they make life (along with some really sneaky humans) really tough when they can. A human (not knowing you have the dia K) would be hard pressed to toss the dia Q w/o QJTx for the computer its an everyday thing since they know you have K and our only decision is the club J so they try to mess with your head and mislead you. I would play rho for AJx of clubs since its a robot. A human I would play lho for the club J

120 views and NOT ONE REPLY???????????????? Come on speak up for your rights to trash others. This is the right place to do it because your harsh opinions have been SOLICITED. If my little diatribe has started a new and conceivably friendlier (even politically correct) environment YAY! Keep up the good work.

what is thrumpish???????????? I am sooooooooooooooooooooooo out of touch

North 100% South has made 2 tox showing a pretty strong hand and heart shortness. Our singleton means the opps are almost assuredly on a 10 and maybe even 12 card suit. this is not a good recipe for converting the second x to penalty. The fact that p has doubled twice also increases the odds that our side belongs in slam and while a hand filled with so many quacks cannot take us to 6 the very least we can do is get our side to 5m. It seems to me 4n is the best overall bid as there appears to be zero risk we will end up in less than a 44 fit. 5c is a fair candidate 4n=10 5c=8 p=2

remind p what a 4s jump looks like and maybe they will overcall better:))))))

Vulnerability plays a huge part in these kinds of decisions. We know from -600 that NS were vulnerable but what about EW?? There are quite a few hand types where W might be more than willing to bid 4h as a sacrifice and it would probably help eliminate many holdings if we know their vulnerability.. but I digress I think there is a more than slight advantage to playing the Q vs the T and it revolves around two totally different concepts. Someone is looking at the diamond ace. If it is lho then rho has no obvious quick reentry and they may be severly tempted to insert the J in order to maintain communications (especially true if they upgraded the dia king and saw dummy and went ooooops). Looking at the AK and the lead is would be totally obvious that winning the ace (card they are virtually certain to hold) and leading small is safe and quite possibly very gratifying. The other is if we are assuming lho has Jxxx there are many hands they might well have chosen to sac over 3n (having no reason to assume we do not double stop the suit. This further cuts down on the total number of hand types responder might have held and the number is much greater when they are not vulnerable.

1S for me but if you make the heart Q the club or spade Q with same distribution I become a 2c opener.

The opps appear to have a game and if p is near minimum they may easily have a slam. At IMPS I would just bash 5h and I see little to no reason to change that view at MP. My hand is indeed boring and almost bereft of offense. If we can bring in 5h 1spade ruff 1c we are -800 so all the weak 2 bidder has to produce is 1 extra something over there to make 5h MP safe. That's not too much to ask is it? I sure hope my nvul p has 6 hearts:)

vulnerable with a bunch of quacks and the possibility of the opps getting a poor trump split--seems like an ideal time to bury my head in the sand and quietly pass.

2h This hand looks very slam worthy but we should at least try to make an effort to see how opener feels about slam. 2H will get the ball rolling nicely and allow p to better appreciate things like the heart A/Q when we later support spades and if p is raising hearts just how happy will we be?:) Try to avoid using bids like splinter when the answer will not really help you. IF opener holds say KQxxx Qx AKx xxx are they going to make a positive or negative replay to 4d? Most will reply negative and this is a superb hand opposite ours for slam but opener hates the heart Q and the extra wasted values of the dia K (where opposite our hand they are both wonderful cards). A sequence of 1s 2h 2s (I know many hate this but the singleton heart makes me hate 2n even more) 3s 4s (not only minimum but maybe subminimum after the bidding). Pass trusting partner

Boring balanced minimum hand with some extra potential due to 5 card club suit. Seems like 1n is a nice resting spot. How long/strong can those dia be on your right with 2 passes? Pass Bidding 2c now can easily lead to a poor spot if p is short in clubs the suit is not that great. remind me if I ever play against you to throw in random 2-3 second delays so I can drive you crazy second guessing yourself:))))))))))))))))))

6NT

Since this is MP 3n is likely to score better than any other contract other than a making 6 or 7 level. Those hands will be tough to bid with our hand having so many controls. At IMPS I would have much more slam interest in mind and try 4d. I dislike the idea of x first since the subsequent bidding will tell us little to nothing useful about partners hand and with partner having little to no room for controls slam will be tough to reach. At least over 4d if p bids 4h or 4s we know they have a pretty long suit (surely they will avoid 4M on xxxxxx) with some stuff. This information alone might allow us to reach 6M rather than relying solely on diamonds.

Double finesse, simple squeeze, reverse, 4th suit forcing to game, double squeeze rectifying the count for squeeze, compound squeeze, making plays in the proper order. A short list of topics that most beginners and many intermediates would be hard pressed to make an intelligent decision about WHERE to post for more information. Is a guard squeeze in the realm of the advanced or expert? I seriously doubt anyone is posting on the forums in order to tick off the players they are asking for advice. If a post is obviously not expert it is most likely because the poster is unaware of just where to post their question. We are a group of players that do not mind spending some spare time giving back to a game we have played and enjoyed (in my case for a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time). Everyone has to start somewhere and it is not easy to recall just how little we individually knew about this fine game when we first started. IMHO the forum would be a much more user friendly place if we would just ignore the posts that do not interest us and inform others of our opinion (hopefully with reasoning) only on those topics we find interesting (even if not challenging). There is no way to offer opinion about almost any subject without risking offending someone else with a different opinion, that's life. What makes good partnerships is two players that closely agree with what the other is choosing to do. NOTE that this does not necessarily mean winning an event but enjoying the experience. I have commented on some of the tiniest of differences I have with other posters that has caused me to choose a different course of action (things like switching the position of a Q for example). This does not mean I think their opinion is horrid but I may feel they did not give sufficient weight to what I thought was an important point. There is also the possibility (umm probability) they felt I was picking nits and ignored my opinion. So be it I did what I could and it is up to each reader to glean as much information as they can from our disparate group of posters and hopefully learn. My strongest objections to various choices are usually ratings below 3 on a 1-10 scale and an occasional "dereliction of duty" accusation. Too strong?? possibly, but there needs to be some way of adding emphasis to what appears to be a choice of series of choices that appear to be headed in the wrong direction. I for one have no intention of starting each post with something like "Please forgive this humble servant in advance for any phrase of utterance that somehow manages to offend. It is merely my lack of personal knowledge of how best to convey the information I wish to convey not a lack of good intentions" bah takes longer to apologize then tell people what I think. If you have an idea on how to handle specific situations do not hijack the current problem start your own and offer up your solution so it can be handled there. Always try to answer each question within the context in which it was offered without denigrating the "conditions" too much (you can always abstain). OK that's my opinion on this subject so everyone come at me with all the vitriol at your command because I can take it (unlike many newer players who may be scared away for these forums (or far worse bridge itself) when treated poorly).

3NT The 2K and the T's not enough but the 5 card suit gives the hand extra possibilities:)

There are several factors involved with deciding to pass here. 1. I seriously doubt we would let the opps settle in 7c and we would take a 7s sac so deciding to sac here you might as well add another 300 to the expected penalty. 2. Why did partner merely bid 4s instead of something more dramatic? Is it possible they know something about their hand we do not know? 3. Assuming we successfully manage to play 6sx how many tricks do we expect to take I see 5 spades and and and sheesh 2 more at most maybe. Going for 1100 vs 1370(90) is hardly a recipe for avoiding losing big bucks (saving 1 imp?) Even if we can score 9 tricks (we save only 5 imps) (see below) 4. What if ummm the opps have erred either due to belonging in 7n or 6 of anything else but clubs? Partner may have made a perfect 4s bid and taking a phantom sac is a really really REALLY good way of losing big bucks. Taking a closer look at reason 3 is chilling---Let us assume (for no good reason) that the opps have bid perfectly and the only thing that might set them is poor club distribution. Looking at our hand what are the odds of this happening? In order for our sac to work in the long run we calculate we are saving around 1-5 imps every time we sac (chump change-modest change) but when the sac is phantom we are tossing back around 15 imps. Even under these perfect conditions we need to be right around 97% of the time to break even in the long run (or maybe 75% if we are lucky). When we are right we get a (puny or small) gain but when we are wrong we suffer a much more psychologically damaging huge negative and that is on top of the fact we are assuming partner is doing the wrong thing.

We have some highly talented programmers here but I have a question == what kind of calculations and why would you use to solve this problem ---- at the table ? If you can do these types of calculations in your head that is great or else it seems to more of a case of trivial pursuit rather than any sort of useful technique.. I realize there is genius out there but our game is supposed to be mental not based on the ability to use a calculator or type programs faster than anyone else. Localizing the problem down to determining if the club finesse or depending on 33 spades or the Q falling doubleton is mental try doing the rest that way its sort of fun though frustrating at times.

:)))) after this bidding I would sincerely expect my p to rise from the table leave for the bar and never return if I could not find x with kx(x) on this bidding. I will gladly help declarer a bit with their play on hands where they should have no chance whatsoever and will keep yet another of my limited supply of cherished partners:)

My hand is min and I could certainly have more for my 3n bid but my hand quality opposite a dia spa 2 suited is actually pretty darn good. 1. we have a dia fit 2. Kx of spades with the K being a superb card and 3. the doubleton a far greater asset then a singleton or a void 4. dia K is a great card for slam 5. Heart ace is a great card for slam the above 5 could almost all have been missing when p bid 4d. 5 positive factors is monstrously huge and a failure to at least make 1 move toward slam seems to make one guilty of dereliction of duty. One almost wonders if a 6d might actually be better than 4h but the expected poor break in spades and possibly in diamonds makes a 4h cue seem sufficient. I would probably consider bidding 6d if p were to suddenly try and sign off in 5d and I would raise a 4s bid by partner to 5s. One need to appreciate that this hand is about as close t a miracle hand as one can get with a minimum opening bid changing the heart Q to the spade Q would definitely have been enough for me to jump to 6d over 4d.

correct on this layout but it does help illustrate the concept:)))))

The principle of fast arrival dictates we bid 3h here and not go through some other slower way of arriving there. It really is important to be able to distinguish btn minimum opening hands with and w/o 4 card heart support. There is little danger of being x here since overcalls have even wider ranges than opening bids and the neg x hand is still unlimited. My preferred use is 2n to show a invitational hand with 4 hearts and x to show extra values without 4 hearts. While this gives up a natural 2n call that seems to be a rather small price to pay for major suit accuracy and a penalty x of 2s in front of the overcaller is usually a poor idea anyway. There is little doubt that we will get too high sometimes but since down 2 undoubled is mostly going to be better than letting the opps play 2S. Please note this is when NOT VULNERABLE. The question of playing this same system VULNERABLE becomes a tad more speculative. The odds of X are still small for the reasons listed above. At IMPS where the risk of down 2 vs the opps making 2s is rather small it makes sense to use the above system since the reward can be quite dramatic if p has long hearts. At MP the risk of down 2 for a really bad score is still something to be considered when competing with completely minimal hands. Your partnerships must decide if the risk of down two (taking a probably poor result and making it worse) is worth the extra potential reward of not only bidding occasional heart games but pushing the opps to the 3 level and therefore defending 1 level higher than most tables. Most will agree (see wank) that using the aggressive approach is still best but there will be some that do not want opener to make any other bids with minimum hands..... Life is like that:)

2/1 is named that way since the idea behind it is for responder to have a game forcing hand when they bid 2/1. This allows the partnership the luxury of exploring at a much lower level since they do not have to worry about jumping about to show power. A quick glance at this responder's hand shows it is well short of a game forcing bid and the partnership must decide how to handle hands like this. Using a semi forcing 1n has the grave disadvantage of never being able to show this hand at all and the other general option of 3h (weak jump shift) is normally reserved for a much better heart suit (AQTxxx or more length). Playing a forcing 1n has the disadvantage of not being able to play in 1n but has a vastly greater chance of allowing responder to show their hearts at the 2 level. Something to think about when deciding btn semi-forcing and forcing 1n (over 1M). Many would say the entire purpose of bidding is something like "the safe search for a 8 card or greater major suit - followed by nt then the minors"....using that definition alone would seem to show the importance of beginning to show your heart length (over 1m) before worrying about overall hand power. The main problem with bypassing majors (especially long ones like this) and bidding 1n to show power is that it can become quite possible to be playing in a totally hopeless 1n (even making 1 or 2) while completely missing out on the 9 or even 10 trick major suit contract that might otherwise have been bid. A good example hand might be the following: opener has A32 K953 432 KQJ2 opposite 94 Q87642 6 AT83 (look familiar?) If the bidding goes 1c p 1n p opener with their minimum balanced hand has nowhere to go and passes and the partnership settles for 5 or maybe even 6 tricks in 1n If the bidding goes 1c p 1h p 2h p responder can reevaluate their hand based on the known trump fit (and at least 9 and probably 10 card trump suit). They can count short suit points for diamonds and spades and their mere 6 hcp suddenly looks worth more like 11 so they deem the hand to be invitational rather than weak. Responder then continues with 3c (HSGT -- invitational or greater) and opener with solid clubs (virtually assuring no club losers along with a side ace and good trump honor decide to bid game despite 3433 distribution. This pair arrives in a perfectly fitting 4h contract that will score 1s 5h 4c far more often than it will go set and a large game bonus is achieved for either a vastly superior MP score or a possible game swing at IMPS. The scary part is that even if 4h goes down 1 it is probably going to score just as well or better than the 1n contract from the previous auction even though they are playing at the 4 level vs the 1 level. Now let's add to the thinking playing a 15-17 1NT when opener opens 1m their "normal" hand is 12 14 balanced or semi balanced (the kind of hand that will almost always pass a 1n bid by responder). IF your partnership happened to be playing a 12-14 1n opener would you actually consider passing that bid or would you go to great pains to make certain the contract was in hearts and not nt??? Even if your side did not arrive in game 2h making 4 (or 3) will always score better than playing in 1N and while the gain is probably small at IMPS it will almost always be solidly better at MP.